Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
  • Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

IP word vandalism

A bizarre one - random IPs (which I suggest are linked due to their similarities, such as majority being in Brazil and use of wording e.g. 'old age' etc.) making only one edit of vandalism, changing words and infobox parameters (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) - any idea what is going on?! GiantSnowman 12:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Paki ain't a bad word 46.56.250.117 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact that a new IP shows up to make this comment suggests a single user hopping IPs. Might need to see if a rangeblock will do more good than harm. —C.Fred (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

What are they even talking about? I notice most of the IPs in the OP are flagged as open proxies. I haven't really looked further. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they're running random words through a translator, leading to either awkward English in the pose or broken parameters in infoboxes. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Buddy, I got more IP blocks than an advanced Lego set.

Deal with it 46.56.250.117 (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Please deal with the sock threat.14.162.206.244 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

edgelord behavior. "i am a badass hacker" type edginess grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is a 'bad word' see Paki (slur). Is this just going to be ignored? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"Paki" is a filthy word in England, in pretty much the same way as the N-word is every English-speaking country. Narky Blert (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Truly vile, I'm not sure that's understood outside the UK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I've just reverted a bunch of these, looks like someone using a thesaurus without a brain attached, it did strike me as possibly an AI bot of some kind. DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I have checked for edits flagged as 'very likely bad' and 'likely bad' in recent changes and there are hundreds of similar edits in this time period. Same pattern. Mellk (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I clocked two incidents of this today. It's replacing with synonyms... but not necessarily synonyms for the usage at hand. The first replaced the infobox parameter "parent" with "raise", which would make sense if we were talking about a verb (parenting a child), but not the noun (and certainly not as a parameter name.) The second replaced "state" with "express", which is fine if you're stating a preference but not if you're California, as was the case. So I'm not sure this takes AI level of smarts (as weak as that may be.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Just reverted a bunch of these from around 6 hours ago, filtering for "likely have problems" IP edits. Can corroborate that it seems to be replacing random words with synonyms inappropriate to the context + breaking infoboxes. Weird Abasteraster (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to favor certain word substitutions, i.e. years -> old age. Also noticing a pattern of it sometimes inserting words, like "language" after "German" or "English", where it's unnecessary or doesn't make sense. Abasteraster (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Besides breaking infoboxes, they are also breaking wiki markup and introducing lint errors, for example changing </small> to </weeny>. I cleared several dozen of them earlier today. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The edits seem to span from about 10:20 to 11:00 GMT. Is there a way to nuke these edits? Mellk (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I reverted every edit flagged as 'very likely bad' and 'likely bad' that wasn't already reverted (there were several hundred). I suspect a number of their edits slipped through. Mellk (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the same person but there is an IP hopper engaging in the same kind of vandalism at Slavs. Mellk (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Now Great Turkish War. Mellk (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Now Nikolai Zaremba and Eaglehawk Football Club a few minutes ago Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 17:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it is clear now this is the same person. Mellk (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Here we go again. Now recent changes is flooded with their edits starting at 17:54 GMT. Mellk (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wack-a-mole, but I just protected the last two articles. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It's now random articles. It's non-stop. tony 18:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@C.Fred those edits seem to be triggering filter 1367, which also contains false positives. Looking at the AbuseLog seems to help catch most of it. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they're back on my watchlist, see e.g. this. GiantSnowman 18:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

They are making dozens of edits every minute. If this continues every day then we are in trouble. Mellk (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I requested enabling CAPTCHA to the edit filter at WP:EFN so it hopefully slows down the disruption. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I've never seen this technology before, hopping IPs and making edits that quickly?! GiantSnowman 18:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Some of the edits did not trigger any edit filter but that seems like a good idea. Mellk (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to 1367 (hist · log), I originally had it set to captcha but there are simply too many false positives. The point of 1367 is simply to gather data on different proxy types using the IPReputation variables which we can then use to make more specialized actions. That is the reason 1367 is currently log-only, as opposed to a captcha/warning/disallowing action. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, at the moment 1367 is the most efficient means we have of dealing with most of the edits by this bot, so maybe it needs to be temporarily repurposed until a better method is put into place. Acroterion (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Back at it again. Lynch44 18:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this is getting a bit ridiculous. Obviously this is some form of a macro/bot hoping between different addresses rapidly and making edits, sometimes without the edit filter picking them up as problematic. This is starting look less like a single actor doing a bit of trolling and more like a coordinated cyberattack of sorts in a less threatening-looking package. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP hopper

I checked my watchlist and noticed vandalism from various IP addresses around the same time. This looks to be the same person since some changes they made are similar e.g. changing "Moscow" to "Russian capital" here and here. Here are also other examples.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

These edits were made within minutes of each other and they edited under a different IP each time (all of which have only one edit). These IP addresses geolocate to places all over the world and do not come up as a proxy via Proxy Checker but I suspect some kind of IP hopping is going on here. They may have vandalized other articles but I am not sure how to find the rest of the damage. Mellk (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mellk:, this is the same as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP word vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. Mellk (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal changing 'small' tags

There is an IP-hopping vandal changing 'small' tags today. I have fixed about ten of them in articles. Here is a link to a few reverts. I am not sure how to report an IP hopper, since AIV takes only single addresses in its template. The editor is changing words into synonyms. See the page history at Glyphicnemis, Ceratostigma, Listed buildings in Wombourne, Kessleria, and Entandrophragma utile. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like WP:ANI#IP word vandalism to me. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

IP-hopping thesaurus vandals

I've been seeing a rash of random IP editors each making one or two no-edit-summary edits with small size changes that replace words in articles, often by synonyms, sometimes by total vandalism. Examples: [8] [9] [10]. Anyone have any ideas how to prevent these, other than being vigilant on our watchlists? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't there a planned transition from IP users to a new form of "temporary accounts" aimed to occur back in May? I have been away for a while so I didn't keep track of whether it was implemented or not. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to capture some common replacements I'm seeing in this disruption, which may be can use as search terms when cleaning up:

- village -> greenwich

- village -> hamlet

- former -> onetime

- Career -> vocation

- (Any full month name to the short variety (e.g., October -> Oct)

- located -> situated

- neighborhood -> vicinity

- community -> local

- named -> titled

Table syntax tags

- style -> cut, tailor, stylus, trend, mode

- center -> centrist, shopping mall

- scope -> orbit, telescope

- align -> aline, line up, coordinate

- right -> honorable, proper, right-minded Mad Jim Bey talk 19:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The temporary accounts transition has rolled out on many other wikis, but hasn't reached enwiki yet I believe. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking at non-reverted "likely bad" edits in the RecentChanges feed is also helpful. It is not my usual beat, and I see that multiple gnomes are quite active there. It makes a person question whether we have enough filters in place on IP edits. Yuck. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, my bigger concern is that I'm seeing these unregistered single-word swaps in the 'May have issues' filter (and some of the higher ones). Mad Jim Bey talk 20:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I just found three edits like this one, adding commas to numbers and messing with colons in DEFAULTSORT and categories. These are also single edits by different IPs. They may be related to this word replacement activity. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I think they are. Removing commas, adding commas seemingly randomly, adding duplicate commas. tony 16:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

They're also changing 'career' to 'vocation' pretty consistently too. VergilSparkles (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal changing numbers

FYI, now appears to be changing numbers randomly. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. I know this seems common but these are first-use IPs and I'm seeing the same pattern as the word-switching. Note that some edits they're also changing numbers in CSS, page numbers, etc. in the same edit. They're coming in faster than I can revert. --tony 21:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yup, looks like they are trying new ways to evade detection. Mellk (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

ST47ProxyBot may have had flaws[19] but the WMF need to step up with a solution for this kind of problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The WMF may need to implement a bot/system that would check IPs for potential proxies the moment they visit Wikipedia/another project. This is becoming insane-insane. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 13:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

2409:40C2:2005:C1D9:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also? Robby.is.on (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

They're now re-using IP addresses during the same attacks. [20] [21] [22] are the first three IP's I've seen. tony 13:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Which suggests that if you see an attack, you should definitely do a contributions check for previous attacks missed... and it may be worth going through your recent reverts to see if any of those accounts have surfaced again. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they are doing a lot of one word changes instead now. Mellk (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I know we have a much more sophisticated filter running but I've just enabled Special:AbuseFilter/1374 as an emergency response for this. Sam Walton (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It appears to have started again but with IPv6 addresses now. If any administrator is bored and looking for a list of blockable addresses, any revert at my contributions from this point forward today which doesn't have an associated talk-page warning immediately following it might be worth looking at. tony 15:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

These are not triggering any edit filters. Mellk (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Most of the edits are not getting flagged as 'very likely bad' or 'likely bad'. There are a lot flagged as 'maybe bad' instead. Mellk (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Also getting these too. Pretty much all of my recent reverts are of that kind. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

My bad, the ones I've seen are of the thesaurus kind, I mixed up the two sections. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, the vandalism I was referring to was the word-swapping kind, even though I put it in this section. tony 16:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

[23] more grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Re-enabled 1374, which I had turned off once the previous bout had ended. Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-exhaustive list of ranges. Looks like most edits have not yet been reverted from the most recent batch. These things seeem to happen in spurts of 15 minutes or so:

• 2601:2008:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:2009:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E300:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:200F:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2001:5A8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E303:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E302:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:200D:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:CB04:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

tony 15:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Some of these are webhost IP addresses (LIGHTNING-HOSTING-SOLUTIONS) and should be blocked for longer. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

They're back at it, this time on IPv4 again. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

More number vandalism.[24][25] Mellk (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This is becoming exceptionally problematic. Can we just block all numeric changes from IP addresses? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

That’s what I thought about, but I think it would be too collateral for the rest of legitimate anons. What about requiring CAPTCHA for all non-confirmed users as a temporary measure? I know some other wikis use this feature, like the Chinese Wikipedia. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This vandal seems unaffected by the CAPTCHAs. Filter 1375 is slowing them down but they're still going. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Also it's not just number vandalism - I'm still getting word vandalism on my watchlist. GiantSnowman 19:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

How about blocking all edits when user_type == "ip" & page_namespace == 0 & length(summary) == 0 & edit_delta < 100? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Heinz or Bush's? ;) tony 19:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it'll buy us some time. I also suspect this abuser isn't very new here. I have created a ticket (T399996) to allow the AbuseFilter to see if an edit originated from the MediaWiki API (which is what this abuser and a few more are using), but I ran into some issues when trying to implement it myself. If anyone here is familiar with the MW code base, I'd gladly appreciate some help. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I am sure they will keep tweaking the script in order to bypass these kinds of restriction. Mellk (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Another large wave now. Mellk (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Admins are aware of this but I wonder should the WMF be made aware of it, since the nature of the attack leads me to believe more than one device is involved, considering some of these edits are within mere seconds of one another when I was patrolling yesterday. It's possible they are multiple virtual machines, but I don't see there edits being marked as being mobile ones. Fantastic Mr. Fox 21:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The WMF is aware. Giraffer (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, in my earlier comment I meant to require CAPTCHA for all edits made by all non-AC users as a temporary measure, not just edits caught by filter. I don't know how quickly such could be implemented, but I think it just might solve our current problem. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Myrealnamm: It's possible to enable EmergencyCaptcha, and it's possible to disable IP editing entirely if an emergency occurred, but I certainly wouldn't be eager to flip the switch on such a filter, nor is this disruption probably at the level of that. Additionally, EmergencyCaptcha is a severe restriction to legitimate editors with visual impairments, and would be a drastic measure to take, even for a short period. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not an IP anymore, nor am I an EFM, but I am guessing that this filter must catch a lot of FPs based off how quickly it was deactivated after the first attack. This has been going on for two days now, with no signs of stopping. Is keeping this filter on long-term even feasible? Lynch44 16:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

So...are we blocking these when they turn up on RC patrol? I understand that there are edit filter or other measures being looked at, but for now? And if so, how long a block? Joyous! Noise! 18:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like they're back. I've noticed they've been at it for the past few hours, but only at a relatively slow pace. At the moment they seem to be focused on number vandalism again. Mellk (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

We might need to add blanking to the list of behaviors from these IPs. Lynch44 20:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Name and shame?

Is it worth adding this to WP:LTA for easier reference in case it happens again (as opposed to digging through the archives here)? If so, what should we call them - the 'Thesaurus IP'? GiantSnowman 16:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a good fit for an LTA entry. The people who "need to know" patterns and behaviors are the edit filter managers, and they have their own spaces to work in. Documenting details in a public place like an LTA entry is just going to allow them to alter their behavior, which is the opposite of what we want. As far as names, they don't need a name. tony 18:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Note also that new LTA pages are, I believe, discouraged from being created per WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. GiantSnowman 20:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of stuff is done on the general premise of WP:DENY or WP:BEANS, even when it seems extremely counterproductive and wastes gigantic amounts of volunteer time. I wonder if we even have any solid evidence that this encourages LTAs so much as to offset the gains in efficiency. jp×g🗯️ 04:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Have they disappeared for now? I have not seen anything since 31 July. If they re-appear, do we need to open another report here? Mellk (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Another potential single-edit IP number changing vandal: [26]

This edit changed the ranking parameters to have Ireland's CPI be 90 (instead of 77). The change did not have any visible effect. I'm mentioning it here for suspicion. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Strange distributed disruptive editing

A large number of IP editors are replacing words throughout articles with synonyms—here’s a few: [27], [28], [29], [30] and many many more. They’re easily found on the recent changes page with the problem filter active. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this is the same IPs as in the above 'IP word vandalism' section 37.186.45.131 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed it appears so—thanks, I missed that. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Moguy

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

Your Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Moguy, who has managed to accumulate 4500 or so edits to Wikipedia over 8 years with next-to-no interaction with other contributors (38 talk space edits, and very few edit summaries), appears to have difficulty understanding the concept of a collaborative project. Having had an edit the new Your Party (UK) article [31] reverted for perfectly legitimate reasons (i.e. "talked to the article", and referring to local elections that have already occurred in the future tense), then went on to attempt to edit-war similar content into the article, despite being reverted by multiple contributors, in the process adding inappropriate "Don't revert this edit" edit summaries and similar. It took a warning by User:Czello about edit warring to finally stop the edit-warring, though with a thoroughly hostile response "I wasn't aware of the three-revert rule. However, the people who opposed my contributions didn't act with good faith at all. They deleted all of my contributions for BS reasons instead of trying to find a middle ground. I won't repeat my mistakes, but I will stand back with my claims unless I find a good reason." [32]

Having failed to edit-war, the hostility than shifted to the article talk page, [33] featuring such highlinghts as "bad-faith actors", "whataboutism" (the relevance of which eludes me), "you appeal to authority and behave in a bigoted way", and after I made it clear I wasn't prepared to engage with such relentless belligerence, a final "Hahahahaha, you guys can't provide ANY argument for your case, yet you try to cyberbully me and still claim the moral high ground. You are pathetic." [34]

Now, I'm not going to attempt to claim the 'moral high ground' regarding civility in general (that would be pushing my luck), but I'd have to suggest that at minimum, one might expect that an experienced contributor would make a token effort not to treat a simple content dispute as an excuse for relentless hostility. Though whether someone who has engaged with other contributors so little really counts as 'experienced' is questionable. Regardless, I'd have to suggest that Moguy needs to be told in no uncertain terms that such behaviour is unacceptable, that taking things to the article talk page should be the first response to a content dispute, and that such disputes are not settled through invective and a complete refusal to take note of what others are saying. And since I have my doubts that mere instruction will get the point across, I would also suggest that maybe Moguy needs to be blocked from editing for a few days, to give them time to familiarise themselves with how this collaborative project is supposed to work (i.e. by reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, along with relevant policy in general concerning article talk page usage and regarding the legitimate use to which a source can be put, and why one cannot cite sources describing past events to justify one's own speculations about the future, which seems to be behind some of this problematic attitude) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

A mid to stern warning is probably all that's due here, in particular on civility but also WP:ONUS given their apparent misunderstanding of how inclusion of material works. Much of what they've said in the article talk page is certainly unacceptable behaviour but I can understand why the edit summaries first from DeFacto[35][36] and then yourself[37] when making your reverts could've struck a raw nerve given they appear to focus more on the poor grammar rather than the material nature of the edits, and therefore look like you were only reverting because you thought their English was poor.

Think this is one of those situations where the initial revert and poor summary as to why it was reverted is what caused this to snowball here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with DeFacto's first edit summary. It isn't reasonable to expect a complete breakdown of everything problematic with an edit when reverting, and attempting to provide one is liable to result in the sort of edit-summary argumentation responses we see. Content disputes are supposed to be resolved on article talk pages, not in edit summaries, and I'd have hoped that anyone with the editing history that Moguy has would know that. And know that "Don't revert this edit" is never an appropriate edit summary for anything. Moguy was clearly set on imposing their confusing content from the start, and I very much doubt that any particular edit summary would have made much difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

You're right in that the edit summaries are limited and shouldn't contain a complete breakdown, but that's why I think the focus on language skills rather than the actual source itself being inappropriate is possibly what led to the inappropriate behaviour here that was otherwise unavoidable.

Compare what DeFacto said (doesn't make much sense: "talked to the article"? Which "upcoming local elections"?) to a later reversion by Bondegezou (Given none of that then happened, I don't how this is particularly useful)[38]. As someone just reading the history page, DeFacto's summary reads like they haven't actually looked into the material changes of the edit but just reverted for poor English, which I think has an outsized role to play here as to why it spun out of control so badly.

Moguy was clearly set on imposing their confusing content from the start, and I very much doubt that any particular edit summary would have made much difference

Honestly I'm not comfortable making that assumption in this case. The comments you've highlighted on the talk page suggest to me it was more that they viewed themselves as being unfairly targeted for their grammar (probably because DeFacto and yourself kept highlighting that in edit summaries as the primary reason for reverting) and therefore were upset as a result. To me this paragraph in one of their replies reveals as much[39]

One of the reasons my contributions were reverted was the failure to give the name of the aide. Even though the article DID NOT DISCLOSE the name of the aide, the person who reverted my contribution demanded the name of the aide. Is this the experience that you talk about? Or did Wikipedia add arbitrariness as one of its pillars? How should I assume good faith when other users don't even bother to read the article? I am open to a discussion and cooperation, but you guys are not. Give up your strange ideas.

So yes, while uncivil, I don't believe this was an attempt at imposing content but a rather easily avoidable heated argument if the material content itself had been focused on and not some poor grammar that, if it had been the main issue, could've been easily fixed without reversion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It strikes me that you are reading this with hindsight. Not an option for those actually involved, where issues concerning the content - specifically, the way Moguy seems to be suggesting that the Spectator article (which pre-dates the article subject considerably) can be used as a source for statements about the newly-forming party's future electoral strategy - only really became apparent later, when Moguy was finally persuaded to use the talk page (not that that went well). Up to that point, all we had to go on was confusing wording, and an insistence that their edit had to stand. Yes, different reasons were given for reverting by different people, but that was because there were multiple issues with the edit, and no explanation forthcoming from Moguy as to why they were so insistent on including what, even at their last edit, amounted to a vague claim in an old source concerning something that never actually occurred. The unnamed 'aide' was discussing a hypothetical strategy for the May local elections, in which the aide's organisation appears to have taken no part. And note that the edit didn't explain what the strategy was. It isn't at all reasonable to expect contributors to explain in depth everything wrong with an edit. Not when it makes little sense, appears to be off-topic (clearly an organisation formed in July can't have participated in May elections), and really didn't tell readers anything much anyway. WP:ONUS exists for a reason. So do article talk pages. Edit summaries are not supposed to substitute for talk-page discussion. If Moguy failed to understand why multiple contributors were reverting, the solution should have been obvious - take it to the talk page. Instead, all we got was edit-warring and hostility. I can't see how differently-worded edit summaries for the reverts (or at least, ones that didn't involve mind-reading) would have avoided that. By all appearances, Moguy was primed for hostility from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

People pointing out grammatical issues doesn't excuse the belligerence that Moguy has shown. They've entered into the realms of outright personal attacks with their last comment, and that's on top of casting WP:ASPERSIONS (calling others bigoted) and a general lack of good faith. — Czello ^(music) 06:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't excuse it, no. But the overall context to me is one of this user getting upset because others had been commenting on their English (rather than the material nature of the information added) and that having tainted the entire issue. If they had initially been told that the source was out of date and therefore didn't materially add anything to the article I believe there's a strong likelihood this would've been avoided.

Instead both DeFacto and Andy failed to comment on the material changes (in DeFacto's case their words suggesting they hadn't even looked into them) and instead got stuck on Moguy's use of English, which in their uncivil comments is easily identifiable as the source of their frustration/anger (i.e. the comments about bigotry and bad-faith).

It's why I don't think more than a stern warning is warranted here, because there's no established history of Moguy engaging in this sort of behaviour and because of how easily avoidable this incident could've been if two far more experienced editors (who both have long established history of aggravating easily resolvable disagreements) had better conveyed themselves to begin with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Evidently I'm being held responsible for my lack of mind-reading powers. At least, it looks that way, since until Moguy went to the talk page, it wasn't in any way evident why they were insisting on including this content at all. If they'd done that at the start, I could have explained why policy precluded the source being used that way. Since they didn't, I was working on what I saw. Which was confusing content about hypothetical past events being shoehorned in for no obvious reason. I reverted, explaining why based on what I saw. I cannot be expected to be responsible for not knowing why Moguy was trying to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm just going to reply once here rather than two chains.

I would suggest you re-read your longer comment above and note that in it you've raised several, far stronger and more importantly material reasons to remove their contributions compared to the initial comments about English language ability. These material reasons should've been raised far earlier, and any comment about their English language left at the wayside. The fact is their English isn't even that confusing and was readily fixable if that had been the issue that was so pressing it merited the main focus in edit summaries.

As to following ONUS and taking issues to talk pages, yes you say these are "obvious", but these things are only "obvious" when you've been made aware of them and there was nothing to stop you or others from alerting them to this. Not only would this has given them a fair chance to make their case before it spiralled, but also would've made your case here stronger because then there's evidence they were aware of the rules and had then broken them. In fact the moment you make them aware to take it to the talk page[40] they do so[41], which if anything is evidence that in fact they weren't aware of said rules, and their edit summaries show a clear intent to justify their edits in response to comments made by those reverting them.

To me it reads of good-faith, unintentional rule-breaking rather than belligerent edit-warring.

I cannot be expected to be responsible for not knowing why Moguy was trying to include it.

But neither can they be responsible for knowing there were material reasons to revert their contributions if the only thing you and someone else is commenting on is their English. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, since I didn't know why they were insistent on including the content, I was in no position to explain to them why this was inappropriate. And if you don't consider "Don't revert this edit" as belligerent I'd like to know why. Moguy was already being hostile before I got involved at all. Somehow though, this hostility is my fault? Clearly not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

They mentioned "don't revert this edit" after DeFacto had reverted them while making comments about their English rather than the actual material nature of the edits, and having clearly attempted to resolve the issues raised in the reversion. Again, I don't see that as edit-warring belligerence but good-faith attempts to contribute by someone who from all demonstrated evidence wasn't aware of rules on reversion.

And no, I never said it was all "your fault", but if you want to take my rather nuanced comments as to how your edit summaries likely didn't help matters as such then that's your decision and probably if anything emphasises just why I believe this avoidable situation occurred. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that nobody else participating in this thread seems to agree with you, I see no particular reason to discuss this further: We have a well-documented instance of an experienced contributor (4,500+ edits) attempting to assert control over article content, while handing out abuse to those who disagree. That, in my opinion, is what we should be discussing here. An actual behavioural issue. Without further rambling discourse on the optimal use of edit summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The only people who have participated are yourself, an involved editor who you specifically notified of this, and myself. Hardly an instance of "well everyone agrees with me" but ok.

I have no problem with ending things here. Quite frankly all I believe this discussion has done is less reveal any chronic or repeated behavioural problems on the part of Moguy, given this is the only demonstrated instance of misbehaviour and I believe has clear contextual reasons for why it happened and could've been avoided, but has highlighted that far more experienced editors could be mindful of how edit summaries needlessly raising English language ability could needlessly enflame issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

For personal reasons, I will give my full answer sometime tomorrow. Until then, I want to thank Rambling Rambler for supporting me. I agree with his arguments. Also, you can use he/him pronouns while talking about me. If you have any questions about the incident, I can also answer them when I write my full response too. Moguy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It's over 48H since the above was posted, and it looks like we aren't going to see any response. At this point a block seems unlikely, but it seems to me that it would be advisable for someone to make it absolutely clear to Moguy that his behaviour was unacceptable, and that the appropriate way to deal with a revert (and in particular multiple reverts by different contributors) you don't understand is to discuss it, rather than assuming it is 'bad faith' or worse. And that more broadly speaking, communicating with other contributors is a necessary part of participation in the project - which incidentally would include the use of edit summaries as a matter of course. As I noted in the first post, Moguy rarely gives edit summaries, contrary to established practice. I'd post the above advice myself on his talk page, but it might be more effective coming from someone less involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. It was a busy week. Here is a short version of my points. I follow Wikipedia's rules. After AndyTheGrump warned me about Edit War, I gave up editing the Your Party page. Then I came to the talk page and wrote my arguments. Nonetheless, AndyTheGrump didn't give any answer then or now. Somehow, I became the one who doesn't understand Wikipedia's collaborative nature. Yes, I saw people who opposed my edits in other pages. However, no one has entered an edit war against me until last week. Unlike AndyTheGrump, other people who opposed me understood the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. They didn't revert my contributions; instead, they changed some parts of my contribution and left other parts of it. This is the reason why I assumed AndyTheGrump was a bad-faith actor, and none of the actions that you've made changed my mind. Yes, I rarely give summaries because I made more overall changes, which are hard to summarise. But alright, I will give more summaries in the future. Moguy (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

User:AnLacPubs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AnLacPubs (talk · contribs) was active in 2020 and 2021 on various Buddhism articles, where it added Further Reading and External Links to translations by Peter Lunde Johnson, published by An Lac Publications (or Anlac Publications), and linked to a Wordpress URL. From the website of An Lac Publications, it looks like it's Johnson's vanity publisher for his self-published translations.

In the past week or so, several of IP editors have been adding more translations by Johnson published by An Lac Publications to Buddhism articles. I and other editors have gone through to revert the edits. If it can be narrowed down to a blockable IPv6 range, that might help too.

Those IPs include:

• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:283b:2525:387f:4edd (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:5c0a:2db4:ca25:b0cb (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:6cc6:5ac7:33d5:e128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:6d91:95ad:4e25:fdb5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:70ab:337d:6c71:9094 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:747c:e245:b750:d701 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:a1e2:5f8c:e4e0:3f78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:e0bc:7b21:4bd:c08a (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:4040:b07d:ce00:f8a4:5e7e:bcad:264d (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Apocheir (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

2600:4040:b07d:ce00:f8a4:5e7e:bcad:264d/64 catches all your IPs and a few more. When it comes to IPv6 addresses, it's generally safe to assume that the /64 range is controlled by the same person. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Like ChildrenWillListen said, this is just a /64 block, which you can essentially treat as one IP address when talking about logged-out Wikipedia editors. Here's another link to all the contributions under that range: Special:Contributions/2600:4040:b07d:ce00::/64 SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked /64 range for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

User:AnLacPubs isn't blocked so this is not a block-evading editor. May I ask why we are blocking this IP range? I understand that they have a conflict-of-interest but it seems like we jumped really fast from posting this notice on ANI to enforcing a range block so I unarchived this complaint to ask about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

They say they're a sock of AnLacPubs here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have unblocked the range. PhilKnight (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Who can speak to me in layman's terms so I know what can do moving forward to restore my external links? Thanks! Peter Johnson 2600:4040:B07D:CE00:5049:DB1:D6C6:A3A (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

ChildrenWillListen, they didn't say they were a sock. They state they used to use that account but have abandoned it and are now editing logged out. It's not ideal but it's not blockworthy. 2600:4040:B07D:CE00:5049:DB1:D6C6:A3A, please be aware that you have a conflict-of-interest and should not be citing your own work, it's seen as promotional. It's hard to communicate with you when you are editing anonymously but I'll post some information about COIs on your current User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the user's talk page is an easier place (this thread URL will disappear and their IP will change quickly). jp×g🗯️ 11:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

One more today: 2600:4040:B07D:CE00:D5A9:70AF:D612:9988 (talk · contribs) Apocheir (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This is already covered under the /64 range; like ChildrenWillListen and I said above, you can generally assume that one /64 is controlled by the same person. Instead of tracking a bunch of individual IPv6 addresses, just keep track of the /64 (Special:Contributions/2600:4040:B07D:CE00::/64). If you need more information, search for "IPv6 subnetting" to find relevant articles. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, but the range isn't blocked any longer. I'm pointing out that this editing pattern is persisting after Liz gave him a COI warning. Apocheir (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I've given {{uw-spam1}} on User talk:2600:4040:B07D:CE00:D5A9:70AF:D612:9988 and {{uw-spam2}} on User talk:2600:4040:B07D:CE00:2DEE:BEB4:4FA5:B79A. I'd also argue that WP:SPA applies. Apocheir (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've reboocked. They are not responding to warnings, cajoling or anything else. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:OCDD 31 July 2025

User:OCDD has received many warnings for many different reasons. Recently moved a page and provided no evidence it was the WP:PRIMARYNAME, have persistently failed to comply with copyright policy, and have created a bunch of redirects that are being disruptive (Basically ones that get deleted speedily or via discussion shortly after). After reverting TBD medals on Cricketers which violated WP:CRYSTAL, they immediately reverted and kept edit warring. Very important to bring up that they have also persistently uploaded non free files (Which violate United States copyright law which applies to all Wikipedia editors regardless of location) and refused to comply with Wikipedia Policies like they believe they are immune from these policies. They also have a history of removal of content (Like shortening from X National Team to simply National Team. X represents whatever national team it is), and recently removed at fair amount of content on Anahat Singh without a providing valid reason for removal. You can look at their page talk history. A lot is from me, but a lot is also from other editors regarding many non free files. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Servite et contribuere. Please provide diffs that demonstrate the problems that you say exist. Don't expect other editors to go looking for evidence to support your claims. This is part of your job, opening this complaint, and laying out a compelling case that is understandable to other editors if you want action to be taken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz Oh. Thanks for that notice! Here are some: [42] (Basically the ones that I reverted). I should provide more. Sorry! Understood! Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize to me, I hope you understand that posting insufficient information means that it is unlikely that other editors will respond. If a lack of response doesn't bother you, then it doesn't make any difference. But if you want action to be taken, you should make it easy for other editors to follow your line of argument. So, this really falls on you and how urgent you think this isssue is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz The current talk page has a lot of notifications of copyright. To prior revisions, there are so many issues. Here are just some of them: [43], [44],[45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] (I went to the version before archive because I accidentally gave a notice to the wrong user), [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. I went to a lot of effort to provide all this evidence. It doesn't have to be a block now, but whatever the next block is, I think it should be indefinite. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I can tell this took a substantial amount of time and effort on your part. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that this user has been creepily stalking me for weeks. Reverting EVERY edit I make even about topics they know nothing about. They deleted pages claiming they were season 2 pages when they were about a reboot show and not about the second season of a show. They list redirects for deletion without checking and use false reasons for it. It's like a routine: open up my edits and go about reverting them using random excuses and keep reverting them. The obsession is sickly. They revert page moves without checking that they were correct. The sources are all over the page but they don't do the job of checking them but of course the wrong revert has to be made because this is specifically targeted behavior. OCDD (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

They listed a redirect for deletion claiming it was not at the source page even though it was. This was nothing new. They have done such mistakes many times in the past. Reverted things without checking, making false assumptions and making mistakes because they simply wanted to revert EVERYTHING instead of checking. And then they removed my comment from the archive. This is blatant envy and targeting. OCDD (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

OCDD But I corrected my mistake on that redirect. And the mistakes you think I have made have only been from your experiences. If you look at my history, you will see I have a long history of discussion which you seem to have a problem with. I have told you if you don't want me looking at your contributions, you should probably change the way you edit and stop edit warring. Looking back, I have not reverted every single one of your edits. Most I have not reverted recently. You need to stop your unexplained removal. Unfortunately, I think it is too late. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Marc87

• Marc87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user appears to have a history of unsourced and unexplained changes. They appear to have an interest in ice hockey. They have made multiple changes to a number of ice hockey player bios, related to birth dates, death dates, birth places, and hand they shoot with, notably to subjects born in the early 1900s. Many of the articles they edit lack depth and sources.

• Moved Jack Riley (ice hockey, born 1910) without explanation or a corresponding source
• Changed shot hand at Billy Coutu
• Changed shot hand at Art Alexandre
• Unsourced birth date change at Art Gauthier
• Unsourced death date change at Sprague Cleghorn
• Unsourced birth date change at Howard McNamara
• Unsourced birth date change at Tommy Smith (ice hockey)

They have made a similar move at Jack Riley (ice hockey, born 1910) before back in 2013 [66]. They have also made unsourced changes to the article's birth place as recent as 2022 [67].

They don't appear to engage much with their talk page despite multiple notices. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Marc87 has in the past cite "SIHR" [68], which I gather to be sihrhockey.org. User:Djsasso noted in 2017 that "SIHR is user contributed" [69]. User:Djsasso subsequently removed info attributed to SIHR at Jack Riley (ice hockey, born 1910) [70]. The SIHR website appears to be mostly behind a membership and login, so it's not easily accessible and is therefore not a source that is readily verifiable. It may also be unacceptable per WP:USERGENERATED. Perhaps User:Marc87 uses sihrhockey.org, is affiliated with the website, or makes contributions at the website. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Although SIHR website is user contributed, only handful of members have authorization to make edits. Assuming they have reliable disclosed sources and connections to SIHR executives. Marc87 (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that is not good enough and does not satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing standards or verifiability requirements. It's basically its own ice hockey wiki. It should not be used as a source of information here. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. If my edits are not satisfied, I would allow Wikipedia to redirect on whatever it sees fit. No problem. Marc87 (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I would encourage you to focus on independent reliable sources. The ice hockey subject on Wikipedia appears to be a poorly moderated project. There appears to be a lot of player bios that do not meet WP:GNG, primarily relying on primary sources or UGC sources. Not every ice hockey player born in the late 1800s or early 1900s is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Just because SIHR or justsportsstats.com (or even nhl.com) has a record of the player, doesn't mean the player meets the notability guidelines to have a Wikipedia entry. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, even the NHL's direct predecessor, NHA, don't have reliable sources. It can only be found from SIHR. Marc87 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Unless you can find them through libraries, archives, baptismal records, etc. Marc87 (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

This has to be WP:NOTHERE, but note that his contributions may contain correct information as supported by the sources. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The user's rationale for making unsourced infobox changes is that "the infobox image of the subject shows them with the stick in their left hand" [71] [72]. Hardly a reliable source and definitely WP:OR which goes against the existing external links. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

On the article Leonard Grosvenor, he reverted your revision, stating that the profile image of Leonard Grosvenor shows he was left handed. I reverted this because this should be supported by the sources, not the profile image. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, Marc87, has been editing for 17 years now so they are an experienced editor but they haven't responded to a User talk page message in 2 years. They seemed to have withdrawn from communicating with other editors around 2016-17. I have invited them to join this discussion but I'm not optimistic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that this is their last substantive edit to their talk page. Their last substantive edit in the Talk namespace was more than 1,000 edits to that namespace ago. They also continued editing for hours after this thread was opened without responding. I am indefinitely partially blocking Marc87 from articlespace until they respond here regarding the valid concerns about their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

My edits were based from the SIHR and it requires a membership to see its source. However, the players' information (eg. images and texts) don't have their respective URL addresses, but user-friendly tabs. So, that's why I didn't include sources in wikipedia, it would redirect to unrelated tabs. Marc87 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

You haven't addressed why you are changing article information based on photographs of players holding a stick in one hand vs. another. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's common sense and the letters of the hockey jersey were not mirrored. Marc87 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That is probably original research, unless you cite a reliable source preferably not user generated 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B097:1276:3E2D:6D68 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not a common sense if you're not following the attention of the sources. Your edits should not be user-generated and definitely contains original research. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• For the record, being behind a membership and login does not make a source unacceptable. Being UGC, of course, does though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It's rather concerning, that appears to have taken a mainspace block, to get Marc87 to communicate. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, better that than none at all. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Don't try to impress me. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

A lot of Pblocked from article users due to ANI will literally not make any response to that ANI 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B097:1276:3E2D:6D68 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. We have to do the WP:COMMUNICATE pblock regrettably often. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

User:HiddenInformation: UPE, article hijacking

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

User:HiddenInformation appears to be an undisclosed paid editor for the news website GrowJust. The totality of their edits is adding content about the company and CEO. They also added information and created an article (now tagged for speedy deletion)about non-notable "Jeevsea Premium Water"[73], which GrowJust published a promotional article for. It is clear that GrowJust is not a legitimate, honest publication but an advertising firm.

They have also hijacked an article of the same name slowly [74], avoiding detection. This eliminated all assumption of good faith from me. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I was close to an INDEF, but I've p-blocked from content creation to encourage communication in the hope of progress. No issue with someone adjusting the block Star Mississippi 14:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

GrowJust is being refspammed and its founder article-spammed by several different editors. I've rooted out what I can see easily. It involves xwiki (HiddenInformation is indef'ed on commons for spam and has over 100 deleted edits on wikidata). User:Akiinaam and User:NiashiSharma are also involved (but long dormant--note, NiashiSharma added here later). There are so many small bits that I can't see myself to trace further...not sure it's worth an SPI or just periodically keeping tabs on additions of links to that family of sites. DMacks (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Would it be possible to blacklist the GrowJust domain? Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Keizers and Saks Fifth Avenue store locations

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

This is the first time I've ever started a discussion here, so please bear with me here. I'm bringing this issue to ANI at the suggestion of User:Nathannah, who brought it to my attention. User:Keizers has over the past several years engaged in disruptive editing regarding the inclusion of a list of Saks Fifth Avenue locations within the encyclopedia. Starting in 2020, Keizers added a list of locations to the main Saks Fifth Avenue article in [[75]]. The list was removed by User:Galatz noting WP:NOTDIR in [[76]], but was reverted by Keizers in [[77]]. Galatz again removed the offending content in [[78]], but once again Keizers reverted the deletion of the content in [[79]].

In 2021, User:JayJay removed the list of stores in [[80]] citing WP:NOTDIR. This time, Keizers chose to create the article List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations without linking to the parent Saks Fifth Avenue to avoid detection from those patrolling Saks Fifth Avenue. This article was subsequently deleted without opposition at AfD in[[81]]. Instead of respecting consensus, Keizers once again created a list of Saks Fifth Avenue stores, this time under the alternative title List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations, and again failing to link it to the parent article to try and avoid detection. I've brought the current list to AfD at [[82]], but considering the numerous times this user has continued to ignore WP:NOTDIR in an effort to include this information I think a wider discussion is warranted regarding their behavior. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Just fixed some internal links here. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the page under G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. No comment currently as to whether additional actions are indicated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I've salted List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations, Timeline of Saks Fifth Avenue branches, and List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations. I really would like to hear from Keizers why (a) they believe this is important enough to need to be recreated multiple times (b) after having been deleted at AfD before (c) and in such a way as to look very much as if they were attempting to evade detection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Keizers has been editing here for 18 years and has over 26,000 edits so the extended confirmed protection on these pages won't faze them. That's why it's important to engage and talk to them so they understand that the recreation of this article shouldn't be occurring. I'll invite them to come and talk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't realise the default salting was ECR now - been awhile since I did that. Will up to full sysop protect, thanks Liz for catching that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Liz I accidentally replied to the notice on my talk page and not here. My answer was:

Thanks for reaching out. There are a lot of editors out there on the lookout for these lists and automatically conclude they’re directory like. I should have gone to discussion when they deleted them, yes I am guilty. I’ve been stubborn in the past, you can check my whole Israel/Palestine history, and I’ve repented and furthermore am

not active now as I have to work so much on my small business.

Now, why does the list belong in Wikipedia?

1) The list contains a lot of more detailed information about various key locations which is encyclopedic, albeit highly specialized, but not out of place.

2) the chronological information of store openings supports the detailed history in the main article, highly relevant to follow the history of the geographical presence early on, and later the expansion to major cities nationwide, which is relatively rare for department stores.

Don’t take the following as arrogance but as a simple fact.. I’m drowning in work right now and don’t have the time or mental and emotional energy to defend the article’s presence in Wikipedia.

It is such a shame that things that appear to be only directories are sort of hunted down and it’s very hard to defend them. But you know what, pick your battles, right?

thanks again for inquiring, all the best and thanks for your work and time!

Oh and the detailed information on certain location like architect expansion and remodel is arguably encyclopedic, but obviously in a micro level. These are sometimes listed as historic buildings at a local level, and things like their expansion reflect the growth of the community and of the company. Even milestones in the history of US department store retailing. Architecture and square footage ídem. This is not unusual information in Wikipedia; it’s commonly found in articles about individual buildings or companies with one major location be it a store or HQ.

I trust you'll make the right decisions. I have absolutely no intention of being an active editor in the next six months minimum, but if you think I haven't learned and recognized that I should have gone to discussion, it's perfectly fine to suspend my edit privileges, preferably for a certain topic range. Thank you! Keizers (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It may be worth noting here that I have sent Category:Lists of department store branches by company, which was created by Keizers, to CfD. Despite the category's name, most of the articles in that category are actual articles on department stores with lists of locations, with Keizers being the main contributor for at least a good chunk of those lists (many, but not all, of the articles, were created by him as well). While many of those articles are for defunct chains (which may or may not be a gray area with regard to NOTPRICE issues, but I may be way off base there), Beymen, El Palacio de Hierro, and Suburbia (department store) are not. (For what it's worth, the one currently-extant category entry that actually is a list article after List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations was G4'd, List of Printemps store locations, was not only created by someone else but has never even been edited by Keizers.) I note this for completeness; while not as seemingly persistent as with Saks Fifth Avenue, he has not limited his inclusion of store lists to Saks Fifth Avenue. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

User 2803:6000:E001:797:7412:A87D:5E56:D39C

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP addresses in San Jose, Costa Rica area have been genre warring on Appetite for Destruction, Interstate Love Song and I'm So into You. Me, @Binksternet and @ResolutionsPerMinute are some of the users cleaning up their mess, but they keep reverting. CleoCat16 (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Long-term abuse, block evasion by Special:Contributions/186.5.165.158. The range Special:Contributions/2803:6000:E001:B89:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked twice. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should block the /40 despite a very small amount of collateral damage to good-faith users. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Reblocked the range, three months this time.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gvihar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user registered their account only on 17 May, but is nevertheless hassling other users with messages about policies and guidelines that they are clearly not familiar with, or have just made up. See for example User_talk:Victoriaelizabeth9275, where they have been telling a new editor nonsense like "Please avoid making repeated edits. The article has been edited in a way that creates confusion—sometimes content is added, then removed—it’s hard to follow". This is very likely to be making new users abandon their efforts to contribute to Wikipedia.

The user is apparently being paid for some of their edits, and was already blocked for failing to disclose that. I suspect that their vexatious postings about policies when they are so inexperienced are a crude attempt to distract from their paid editing.

There appear to be numerous other problems with this user, from pretending to be an administrator (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gvihar&diff=prev&oldid=1290829957), to using LLMs to add hallucinations to articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gvihar&diff=prev&oldid=1303899622). But on the point here, I suggest that the user needs to be told to stop posting any messages about policies and guidelines, until their account is much older and they've demonstrated that they themselves understand the policies and guidelines. 2A00:23C8:D318:1801:5975:A75A:730E:4D79 (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gvihar, please immediately stop warning other editors and explain yourself here. -- asilvering (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concerns. I would like to clarify that I am here in good faith to contribute constructively and to understand Wikipedia's policies. I understand that my previous messages may have caused confusion, and I acknowledge that I still have much to learn. I will refrain from posting further policy-related messages and instead focus on improving my understanding and editing practices by reading guidelines and observing experienced editors.

I also want to make it clear that I am not claiming to be an administrator, and if any of my edits gave that impression, I sincerely apologize. If any specific edits were inappropriate or misleading, I am open to correction and will fully cooperate. I respectfully ask for the opportunity to improve and contribute productively.

The suggestions I gave to new users were not meant to stop or discourage them, but rather to address confusion caused by repeated edits and reversions on the same post. My intention was to help, not to interfere. However, if my approach was not appropriate, I will be more mindful in the future and focus solely on improving my own editing conduct. Gvihar📝 23:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gvihar, you've already been warned about using LLMs on Wikipedia. Please don't do it anymore. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance I will definitely keep this in mind. Gvihar📝 23:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gvihar, I'm struggling to find any problems with the edits made by Victoriaelizabeth9275 on Wormsloe Historic Site. You told them repeatedly editing the article again and again goes against Wikipedia's policies -- which policies are you referring to, and which diffs go against them? From what I can see, they were making good, referenced contributions to a rarely-edited article, so I find your comments on their talk page baffling. Is there more context here? --tony 01:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Gvihar is also making edits removing large amounts of content without leaving any edit summary explaining their reason for doing so or what was the problem with the previous edits. Seems like they are enjoying acting like WikiPolice but not explaining their own behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I reverted that chunk unless a third party-editor says otherwise. Borgenland (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Look at all of the warning messages they have received at User talk:Gvihar/Archive 1! How can they still be editing and they listed themselves on their website as a "Top-rated Wikipedia content creator"! See this advertising page and compare that with their level of competence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm also confused with the entire articles they've just copy-pasted onto their Talk page here and here?

There's a lot here that makes one question WP:CIR. Nil🥝^Talk 05:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. If there was any misunderstanding or incorrect information, I have removed it. Thank you again. Gvihar📝 07:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@TonySt Thank you for the information. That’s why I discussed it earlier and apologized. Please do let me know if there are any other issues. Gvihar📝 07:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I posted some messages on you User talk page 3 hours ago and they are already shuffled them off to your archive page. Please change your bot to allow messages to exist for a few days or weeks before they are wiped from your talk page. It makes it impossible to have a discussion when messages are already archived. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I will make the changes today itself... including the bot settings. Gvihar📝 08:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Six empty talkpage archives - Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7 - all created on 26 Jul 2025? And manually, not archive-bot created - I'd like to see an explanation for them. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

When I joined, I wasn’t aware of the archive bot… I had set it up based on what I saw elsewhere. Now I’m looking into the correct code to fix it for the future.If you can guide me or help in any way, I would appreciate your support. Gvihar📝 09:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I had written the wrong code on the talk page… I apologize for that. I have now corrected it please have a look and guide me if needed. I will be careful in the future. Gvihar📝 09:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Looking at their very first few edits, I can't really understand how they were allowed to disrupt unimpeded for nearly three months. By the look of it, unfortunately, they will be creating another sockpuppet account soon. 2A00:23C8:D318:1801:42FE:9BD8:4E24:8D42 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

They are back at 2409:40C2:2008:EABF:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), unless this is a Joe job. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the IP but I do not have time now to see whether speedy deletion is warranted. Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Amaury

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Amaury reverted my edit on the Bunk'd article. All I did was add some periods to the spaces where there are none. Legobro99 (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Legobro99, and you thought this was a matter important enough to bring a complaint to ANI for the community to evaluate? Have you tried talking with the editor? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Legobro99, you also have yet to notify Amaury that you opened this complaint which is a mandatory step. It would also help if you provided a diff of the edit which you are concerned about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bunk%27d&diff=prev&oldid=1303949785 Legobro99 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is the revert of the edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mickeyibarra COI editing and reference removal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mickeyibarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing the Mickey Ibarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page, removing the previous version of the page and replacing it with their own version. This version they have added doesn't have inline citations, and suffers from COI issues. They have continued to add this version of the article, despite being reverted many times by other editors and having been warned. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User PahlaviFan is engaging in disruptive behavior on the Poland page. Recently, there was a RfC and a discussion on the Talk:Poland page regarding the formation date in the information box, and a general consensus was reached by 4 editors. However now, user PahlaviFan repeatedly started to insert a new formation date in the information box, engaging in an edit war and removing 2 reliable reference sources, which do not align with his view. Also, user PahlaviFan is misrepresenting another source, which he claims back's up his formation date, however upon review the source says nothing of the sort. Please warn user PahlaviFan of possible consequences of his disruptive actions. Also, the user's behavior of removing reliable sources and then misrepresenting what another source says could potentially fit the definition of vandalism, which could warrant a more immediate action. PJK 1993 (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, PJK 1993, please provide diffs of some of these edits so that other editors can see what evidence you are presenting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Liz, as requested please see the below diffs:

Link: [83]

Link: [84]

Also, what's more problematic here is that this user is ignoring the consensus that was reached for the 966 date, and now is pushing what could possibly (maybe) be described as a myth or a hoax; this coupled with the removal of reliable reference sources that back the formation date of 966, could potentially meet the definition of vandalism. There are just no sources which say c. 960 or c. 900. --PJK 1993 (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus there, and you're in fact deleting referenced, consensus-established parts. The Britannica highlights statehood (territorial unit) preceding the baptism. PahlaviFan (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTVAND. Any edit done in good faith is not vandalism, no matter if you don't like it or even if it's outright wrong, and accusations of vandalism applied to edits that are not vandalism can be seen as a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello The Bushranger, please note that user PahlaviFan is clearly misrepresenting a source because nowhere does it say "c. 900" or "c. 960" and nowhere in there does it say that these are the generally accepted dates for the formation of the country; this is the text user PahlaviFan is citing: The dukes (dux) were originally the commanders of an armed retinue (drużyna) with which they broke the authority of the chieftains of the clans, thus transforming the original tribal organisation into a territorial unit.[85]. So, calling out someone for a blatant misrepresentation of a source or removing additional reliable reference sources, which do not back up their view should not be seen as personal attack. This is really academically dishonest. --PJK 1993 (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

calling out someone, if true? No. Calling it vandalism? Yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That's why I said "possibly" vandalism (its a borderline situation). Unfortunately, Polish history is subject to some unfounded myths like the Great Lechia legend. 966 is the generally agreed upon date, because Poland's written history starts there, and this is when the early Polish state was recognized by other European polities. Unsourced myths, theories, and speculations about an earlier formation date are just that and they have no place in the information box.--PJK 1993 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz and The Bushranger, could I ask for user PahlaviFan to be blocked, at this time they reverted the text for the 3rd time here [86]. They are engaged in a prolonged edit war and still did not provide a reference source for their claim. --PJK 1993 (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

(declined with a warning to the reporter at ANEW.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

PJK 1993, I haven't assessed the merits of your argument but I just wanted to let you know that PahlaviFan has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The Original Poster has also started an RFC concerning the starting establishment date in the infobox, and an RFC is the right way to resolve this article content dispute. The RFC has had minimal participation, and should be neutrally publicized. Is there a reason why administrative action is needed while the RFC is still in progress, such as interference with the RFC? If not, should this be closed with instructions to take part in the RFC and to await its closing? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

PJK 1993 decided to evaluate the consensus of their RfC themselves by continuing to revert, which is absurdly bold and generally unadvisable. As PahlaviFan turns out to be a sockpuppet, we can close this here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for assistance regarding a situation with User:Go D. Usopp

I'm having a problem with editor Go D. Usopp. In the past both reported to ANI by different situations, that were resolved.

My recent problem is with his latest message on the talk page topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sokoban#Reverse_mode,_question_for_newcomers_in_the_subject

It feels disruptive, and maybe a little bit uncivil.

His message ignored the question that I asked in the topic. Instead of it, it recommend the lecture of a police in impractical way: "for every edit you've made".

Maybe is poorly choose wording, but is not good, looks like an exaggeration.

This kind of message really not help to improve an article or build an encyclopedia. It distracts the topic discussed in the talk page.

I want to have the topic of talk page back on track. I'm hoping an admin could remove or collapse these comments so the discussion can refocus on improving the article.

Also, some feedback regarding this in the spirit that I can continue working in improve the article (notice is the last section that I'm working in that article, that now is class B).

The specific message is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sokoban&oldid=1304100536

Notice the big issue is that request to someone a thing that is impossible to accomplish when did more than once, is an abussive behavior. This is only a first case.

I only want to continue working peacefully and contributing, but is not good have to deal with these kind of messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carloseow (talk • contribs) 07:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Remember WP:AGF. I was not discouraging you from using LLM assistance in this specific case in bad faith, just reminding you to observe the specific guideline I mentioned previously (which is simply to disclose all LLM use in edit summaries). Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

> just reminding you to observe the specific guideline

why did you consider it necessary? Carloseow (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Go D. Usopp Regarding your reminder of WP:AGF, I commented 'Maybe is poorly choose wording' it reveals good faith. My complaint is not about your intent, but about the result of the message: disruptive and uncollaborative, which moved the discussion away from improving the article. Carloseow (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit of a frivolous complaint, considering 1. It’s just one message not even a WP:PA 2. You seem the one exaggerating here a bit and thirdly LLMs can hallucinate and using it to proofread could lead to additional information you didn't add but the LLM subtly included 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B097:1276:3E2D:6D68 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

ANI is for urgent problems, policy-violating behavior. I don't think this complaint belongs as ANI because it seems like the OP just doesn't like the "tone" of the message and there is nothing here that is contradiction to actual guidelines. Please only bring "chronic, intractable behavior issues" to ANI. Otherwise, try actually engaging with the other editor (i.e. talking to them). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the feedback. While tone plays a role, the main concern is the specific phrase: "read WP:LLM for every edit you've made with help from LLMs".

This reads as a retroactive directive and can be interpreted as either "review all your past edits" or "re-read the policy as many times as LLMs were used", which is exaggerated and, in that sense, disrespectful.

Rewording or removing that part would help. As written, it’s jarring, which is why I described it as "a little bit uncivil".

Because the article's talk page was used to give unsolicited overly personal advice (regarding "every edit you've made"), which would have been more appropriate on my user talk page, and really not answered the original question, it disrupted the discussion.

I hope the talk page topic stays focused on feedback about the text, not on broader discussions about LLM usage.

Thanks for comments. Carloseow (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, but I don't share it. I do not believe my complaint is frivolous. As for LLMs, I use them only to proofread my own text, and I am always careful to review and correct the results before posting. Write to my user page if you want to talk more about it. Carloseow (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It is absolutely frivolous, especially when you claimed that the other user did not answer your question, but you both saw his response of On your question, we do not add fan-made content without sufficient significant coverage from third-party sources outside the community, even if the community seems to be really active but you also responded to it.

And discussing relevant policy with an editor is not even remotely "personal." This should be withdrawn. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to clarify the record.

There were two specific questions asked in the talk page topic, which was titled "Reverse mode, question for newcomers in the subject". The questions were:

"Is this text understandable for a reader unfamiliar with Sokoban, or does it leave significant unanswered questions?"

"I have a draft revision (created from scratch by me and polished with LLM and reviewed by me) and would like to ask for feedback from new readers — is it more understandable than the current version?"

The other editor's reply, "we do not add fan-made content without sufficient significant coverage", did not address these questions. While it's a good reminder that content requires a source, this was off-topic and did not provide the requested feedback.

Regarding the comment that discussing a relevant policy is not personal, I agree. However, in this specific case, the off-topic reminder was not constructive. The phrase "read WP:LLM for every edit you've made" was an impractical and overly broad directive. It was this jarring, unnecessary expression that I considered personal, as it was not related to the context of the discussion. Carloseow (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That I considered personal That you, considered personal. It wasn't. The other editor's reply did, indeed, address the issue questioned about. I'd suggest you drop the stick and move on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thanks. I still don't believe my question about what text was easy to understand was addressed, but I have presented my case. Thank you to all who have commented and shared their perspectives. Carloseow (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Please may I ask if the off claim read WP:LLM for every edit you've made with help from LLMs falls into WP:INDCRIT in the sense of Avoid [...] making indirect criticism when you are writing in edit comments and talk pages. Write clearly, plainly, and concisely, and do so in a way that allows other editors to easily respond to you. (Edited), in my original message I mistakenly quoted from the proposal version: Out of respect for other editors, criticism of another's edit, [...] ought to be made clearly, directly, and explicitly in a manner that may be easily understood and replied to, but the current says mostly the same.

It comes across as implying a repeated failure to follow guidelines, without clear evidence, and is phrased in a way that is difficult to understand or respond to.

Could it be possible to remove that reply and my subsequent comments to it from the talk page so the discussion can be reworded or restarted more constructively? Since the topic title says "a question for newcomers," I think it would be better to avoid such messages on the talk page. Carloseow (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I got an ANI notification about this because I declined a related CSD. I'm too on vacation to dig into this, if anyone needs to undo an action of mine at any point feel free to do so without consulting me. Rusalkii (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Editorrking suspected LLM-generated articles

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

Hi, I recently declined Draft:Shashi Kiran Shetty submitted by User:Editorrking on the basis that it contained a substantial amount of LLM-generated text with unsourced and promotional claims. Other articles created by the user including Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company, Karnataka Lokayukta, and Gruha Jyoti show similar patterns, promotional language, subjective phrasing, and content presented without citations to reliable sources.

Below are some examples from their edits

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company

The article contains massive amount of unsourced, subjective and promotional lines,

1] ''Academic analysis indicates that the creation of multiple distribution companies like GESCOM was intended to introduce competition and improve service delivery in different geographical regions"

2] "Recognizing the company as a key stakeholder in the country's power distribution landscape"

3] "Represented a shift from the centralized utility model that had dominated Karnataka's power sector since independence"

4] "Reflecting the company's emphasis on accessible leadership and customer service accountability"

Karnataka Lokayukta

1] "Recognized for his expertise in constitutional law and administrative jurisprudence"

2] "Known for his judicial acumen and commitment to upholding constitutional principles"

3] "Marked the restoration of Karnataka's apex anti-corruption institution after months of vacancy"

4] "His office has become a focal point for environmental grievances..."

5] "Pioneered direct intervention in environmental governance issues..."

And the third one I am listing is Gruha Jyoti

1] "Comprehensive welfare measure designed to address electricity affordability concerns"

2] "Part of a broader social welfare package aimed at reducing household expenditure on essential services"

3] "State-wide publicity campaigns to ensure awareness among eligible beneficiaries"

4] "Rollout was completed systematically, with priority given to districts with higher concentrations of Below Poverty Line households"

Again the same pattern of their edits can be seen over here

They lack inline citations, contain promotional and subjective lines that violate core content policies such as WP:POV, WP:V, and WP:OR

I request admins to kindly check their editing history and take appropriate action regarding the use of LLM-generated content. Thanks! Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 12:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Given that they have received multiple talk page warnings for LLM use that they have not responded to, I've gone ahead and imposed a partial block from article space pending adequate acknowledgment of the concerns. Editorrking, you are expected to address other editors' concerns of LLM use here (and please note that the editing community has very little patience for editors who use LLMs to respond to questions from other editors). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that this user's articles were declined more than five times already, but some of their articles created were accepted for following the Wikipedia's guidelines in making articles. In this draft, these paragraphs need clarification, which may sound confusing to the readers. This draft may be too technical. These paragraphs requires an AI detector to check if the paragraphs were 100% AI-generated or not. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Editorrking is currently partially blocked indefinitely by admin Rosguill from article namespace for disruptive editing and disruptive use of LLMs in making articles, likely failed to communicate. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick note, AI detectors such as GPTZero are notoriously unreliable and shouldn't be used as the only means for determining if something is AI gen or not. CoconutOctopus talk 13:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hallucinated citations are a definite AI hallmark though (see my comment below). Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Probably WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia properly, failed to communicate again. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment Most (although not all) of the citations in Gruha Jyoti are hallucinated so I've moved it to draft. Also,I'd just point out that Karnataka Lokayukta has existed since 2014 and Editorking has only made one minor edit to it, so you might want to remove that. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite, should do the same thing for Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company and Karnataka Lokayukta (move to draft)? There are lots of AI-generated slop, unsourced sentences and promotional tone here in these two needs to improve. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 14:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Did you not read what I just said? Karnataka Lokayukta has existed for 11 years and Editorrking's only edit was a minor copyedit. Meanwhile, Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company does not appear to have the hallucinated citations. If someone else wants to send it to AfD, feel free. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

A weird sort of tangent here, but user User:Dolphish who was involved in several of these articles seems to be acting very oddly for a supposed "new" user on Wikipedia. I really don't want to cast aspersions or anything but his editing behavior has been... odd. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems questionable?? User:Dolphish moved Draft:Gruha Jyoti to mainspace even though it was moved before for not being good. Should someone check this?? Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 15:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill, @CoconutOctopus, @Allan Nonymous, I took a look at their talk page, and they seem to be following the same draft patterns as User:Editorrking. They've also been using promotional and subjective content in their drafts, and now they're moving those same drafts to mainspace without any real rewrites or changes!! Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 15:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no wrong intention. I thought these articles were correct so I moved them, but if you think all this is wrong then I will not move them in future. Thank you Dolphish (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Dolphish, could you clarify how you came across these articles or why you were promoting them for mainspace? It's hard to understand how you came to the conclusion that these articles were correct (as you put it) when virtually all of their references are broken, other hallmarks of LLM use are present, and a clearly explained move to draft is visible in the pages' edit histories from shortly before your decision to move them to mainspace again. Beyond that, it's pretty clear from your editing history that this is not your first account. Could you please disclose any other accounts or IP addresses that you have edited with in the past? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I found these articles WP:INNEW, Where they were in draft form, i moved them to mainspace but I didn't look at the sources before moving. Dolphish (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I searched on Google where to see newly created articles related to India, then Google brought me here. Dolphish (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense as far as finding these articles goes; I expect that you realize now that checking sources is one of the most important things that a draft needs before it is published. You haven't addressed the concern regarding prior accounts or IP addresses, however. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I used to read a lot of information on Wikipedia, whenever I searched about anything on Google, Google would take me to Wikipedia, I have edited many articles before but they are all old things, yes I have edited Wikipedia many times and maybe I had created 1 or 2 IDs long ago. Dolphish (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Harassment by User:PradaSaetiew

I am writing to report persistent harassment from User:PradaSaetiew. This user has been engaging in disruptive behavior towards me, including:

Edit warring/Reverts

• [Diff link 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Restaurant_War_Thailand&action=history ]
• [Diff link 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porapat_Srikajorndecha&action=history]
• [Diff link 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanpiya_Oamsinnoppakul&action=history]
• [Diff link 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pariit_Thimthong&action=history]

I request administrator review and intervention to stop this disruptive pattern of editing.

Thank you. Tomarzig (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tomarzig you need to notify them on their talk page that there is an ANI discussion about them. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

PradaSaetiew deleted his talk page including the welcome wiki message. Is there any other way you can suggest? Personally, I think that even if you go to the talk page, nothing will change. Tomarzig (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have notified them now. Tomarzig, the series of edits here in PradaSaetiew's talk page history is problematic; please have a look at WP:UP#CMT and don't restore messages against the will of users who have removed them from their own talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Removing a user talk page message is considered an acknowledgement of receipt so there’s nothing you need to worry here. Northern Moonlight 15:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello PradaSaetiew, you seem to have followed Tomarzig around to revert their edits; is this correct and why? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's just separating out an automatic undo edit summary from their actual commentary. Responding to a comment that was deleted instead of stricken. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t want to followed to undo his edits, I just edit on pages that I’m interested in, and some page that I see some details without source, every edits i give a reason, so it’s him that try to followed to undo my edits on English page The Face Thailand season 6 because he’s angry me that edited on this page he was built and then followed me to undo my other edits on The Face Thailand, and then followed to undo my other edits on Thai articles for The Face Thailand and The Face Thailand season 6, Then he didn’t stop and try to harassment me on my own talk page by undo messages that i was deleted, you can check. PradaSaetiew (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Tomarzig, regarding the first diff ([87]), if someone removes content as "unsourced", the burden is on you to provide a citation that directly supports the material, and such removals are not "spam", which has an entirely different meaning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tomarzig it’s not harassment, every edit i give the reason, so you try to spam the colors on The Face Thailand, The Face Thailand season 6 and other seasons both in Thai and English pages many times. And you followed to undo my edits many times on both Thai and English pages too.

And on 01:20, 27 July 2025 in your edit on The Face Thailand contributions page you was said really bad words to me in Thai “สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง” it was full of Profanities and really Harassment and Bullying me and Against Wikipedia Rules, but just no one on English pages understand it because you wrote Profanities words in Thai on English pages. English Admins can ask Thai Admins what it’s means.

And you try to harassment me 3 times on my personal talk page by try to undo some of massage that I was deleted long time ago, and act like try to asked me as why I deleted it. So it’s my personal talk page and i can delete it if i want, it’s not your page or I didn’t delete messages on your talk page. I don’t have to tell you the reason or explain it to you before i delete if i want to delete any messages on my talk page, and you can’t undo messages on my own talk page by your behavior. Anyway Thai admin ever told that in personal talk page the owner can delete it if they want.

• for The Restaurant War Thailand I deleted the end date of the season because it’s Unsourced and it’s future situation not finish now yet, so if it’s finished can add the date soon with source.

• for Porapat Srikajorndecha, Wanpiya Oamsinnoppakul and Pariit Thimthong I rewrite it as “Television series” to “Television” because it’s Thai Drama on TV. not series, and i saw every Thai Actor or Actress’s English pages we use “Television” not “Television series”, so this editor trying to edit and change it to “Television series“ for some of Thai actor/actress pages. we can check other famous Thai Actor/Actress in English pages, on their pages we use “Television” for their “Drama on TV”. because it’s “Drama on TV.” not “Series on TV.”

• And for Wanpiya Oamsinnoppakul I deleted her high detail because it’s Unsourced about her high too, I still believe that good articles on Wikipedia should have reference and sources.

I know that you’re angry me that i was edited on The Face Thailand season 6 you was build, because i’m a fan of this TV. show, so it’s true that you build some of English pages but every editors on Wikipedia can edit the page that your build by yourself, not only you who can edit it and English pages that your build is not your personal page.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• For anyone interested, Diff/1302696870: the edit summary "สแปมพ่อมึงสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึงเป็นไรห่าอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง", according to Google Translate and QuillBot Translate, roughly translates to "Spam your father! You use the same tone for everything. What the hell is wrong with you? Are you just self-centered?" — DVRTed (Talk) 16:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@DVRTed Hi, I think this translation is not 100% correct, because this translated it’s so polite. Maybe should ask Thai Admin who’re good in English because it’s Profanities and really Harassment and Bullying word in Thai and it’s Thai Slang, so Google translate can’t correct it. Something like พ่อมึxงสิ and มึxงเป็นไรห่x. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tomarzig Can you translate the words ”พ่อมึxงสิ” and ”มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร” in English for English Admins? Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@PradaSaetiew I'm not an admin, but here it is: พ่อมึxงสิ means "Your father!" while มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร' means "What's wrong with you?" in English. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Reviewing the diffs and the context surrounding them, it seems like there's been some back-and-forth testiness and lack of assuming good faith. As far as I can see, the improper accusations of "spam" began with PradaSaetiew (Special:Diff/1302498373, although they've also made similar edit summaries in response to other editors in the past, e.g. Special:Diff/1300110885, so it's not strictly limited to this personalized dispute). Beyond the sub-par edit summaries, however, I'm not sure I see anything that adds up to harassment or hounding: the main crux of the dispute here seems to be a content dispute across multiple closely related articles that both editors seem to have good-faith interest in. I can't read Thai, but based on context I can certainly understand that the Thai comments were some form of personal attack, which in this context means that Tomarzig cedes the moral high ground that they otherwise may have held here. I'm not seeing a cause for immediate sanctions against either editor provided that both sides stop misusing accusations of spam and other personal attacks, and would recommend that they take steps to resolve the content disputes (largely over color-scheme and heading wording as far as I can see) either among themselves or with recourse to a WP:DR process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fabvill Hi, the correct meaning of this sentence it’s not same that you’re translated. I was said already that Google Translate or an online translate can’t correct for Thai Profanity and Insult slang words.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@PradaSaetiew, DVRTed was right. The correct translation for the words พ่อมึxงสิ and มึxงเป็นไรห่x according to Google Translate, Quillbot, and other translators are Your father! and What's wrong with you?. As a result, these two are generally not considered as Thai profanity and Thai insult slang words. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill He started to followed me to undo my edits after i was edited on page The Face Thailand season 6 that he built it, he was so angry that i edited on English pages that he built. And then he always followed to undo my edits on The Face Thailand and The Face Thailand season 6 both in Thai and English Wikipedia, and then he try to undo old messages on my personal talk page that i was deleted it long time ago, 3 times.

For The Face Thailand season 6, 5 and 4 page’s TV. Infobox I was deleted the color to original Infobox’s color because every season of The Face Thailand we use original Infobox’s color, didn’t decorated the Infobox with other color for the articles.

And for Praveenar Singh I deleted the result to TBA because the 2025 competition it’s not finished yet, just started yesterday, but her fan edited the result for her as the winner. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tomarzig Can you translate the words ”พ่อมึxงสิ” and ”มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร” in English for English Admins please? And all Thai sentence that you said to me please, Because you’re Thai and I see you’re fluent in English, but I’m just not good in English, so I can’t explain for the real correct meaning from Thai to English.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

To English Admins, I would like to explain about real correct meaning of this Thai sentence "สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง" with sources from Thai’s English teachers channels, that’s it doesn’t means “Your Father, Your Dad” and not “What wrong with you”. Because I’m just not good in English. But I can’t reply my explanation here because after I publish my reply with sources and real meaning in English here the system said that I can’t publish them.

Maybe because my reply it’s full of English Profanity, Insult and Hate speech words from the meaning, and I added some of Link from the sources that Thai English teachers who’re teaching and explain this Thai sentence, Profanity and Insult words to English from their Fackbook, Instagram, Tiktok and YouTube channels. How I can explain with Links from the Sources here. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As a non-admin, สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง means Spam, you're all using the same color scheme. What's wrong with you? You're just being selfish. in English according to Google Translate. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: If you don't know the real meaning of these Thai words/sentences, just use Google Translate and Quillbot instead. This will help understand the speaker to avoid prior confusion. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fabvill All your translated are wrong meaning, you translated Profanity, Insults and Hate speech sentence to polite sentence. I ever explained to you and other editors already that Google Translate or Quillbot can’t translate Thai Profanity and Insult Slang words correctly, why you don’t understand.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that this is an important tangent. I've already acknowledged that Tomarzig's comments in Thai amount to a personal attack. In English we have a very similar construction, Your mom. And I can easily imagine that what's been translated as What's wrong with you was probably more like What the fuck is wrong with you. To be honest, as a community we care less about profanity than we care about general civility, and the comment is already uncivil even if we don't consider it to include profanity. I already pointed out in my comment above that both of you need to disengage from the accusations of spam, other insults, and reverts, and proceed to resolve the content disputes through discussion on a talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

ZChemIR25 and Iranian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ZChemIR25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iranian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone look into the antics of ZChemIR25 and see if they can get a better understanding of what is going on, because it's all mighty strange - something nefarious seems to be going on.

The user is a WP:SPA interested only in creating the Iranian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering article, and who has a paid editing disclosure on their talk page to that effect - which is all above board. However, when they created the above page it was draftified and then rejected at least four times until it got to the point where it was "rejected and cannot be resubmitted", and throughout this time they repeatedly removed the AfC comments and even moved it back into article space themselves with the comment Move to mainspace: Accepted by AfC reviewer - a blatant falsehood.

Thereafter, an admin decided to give the page another chance, removed all the AfC comments and resubmitted it, and it was accepted but with the instruction that further changes should be made via edit requests, which was ignored. When pressed on the matter they posted a suggested update as required but then brazenly replied to the request themself, saying they had reviewed it and it was a good proposal. This, I thought, was one of the lamest attempts I had seen to pull the wool over our eyes so I asked what they were playing at, got a response assuring me they were not a sockpuppet, then got another response saying almost the same thing, which was quickly removed. Although I had no previous concern there were multiple users of this account, this episode rather makes me feel there are - why mention multiple users? And the two responses appear to be the result of two users in edit conflict, hastily corrected.

Furthermore, pretty much everything they write is AI-generated - at least, it is according to gptzero. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to involved page reviewers and admins: @Randykitty:, @45dogs:, @GraziePrego:, @Asilvering:, @MCE89:. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I give up. I'll block. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aqsalsaputra

Aqsalsaputra (talk · contribs) - this user has a LONG history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, one previous block in 2023, and a user page littered with warnings. They have never responded and continue to make unsourced changes. I think we need a longer block. GiantSnowman 17:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk page edits: none. Supporting a (possibly provisionally indefinite) block for failure to communicate and the above reason. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Still doing it! GiantSnowman 17:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

An editor since 2020 who has never edited a page in Talk or User talk. That's not good at all. Pblocked indef from articlespace due to consistent unreferenced additions to BLPs and failure to WP:COMMUNICATE. Once they start communicating and agree to change the problematic editing behavior, anyone can unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 20:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure if this counts as a legal threat per se, or the threat of a threat. A pre-threat. Possibly a block evade of TruthSeekerEditMaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Celjski Grad (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. The IP has been blocked (by someone else) today for a week for disruptive editing. I don't think the "threat" requires further action than that at this stage, but I've watchlisted the page for when the block is over. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm looking forward to courts passing judgment on Herodotus and Pliny the Elder. EEng 21:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editor genre warring

• 2800:860:701E:8033:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2803:6000:E001:797:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

More IP addresses are genre warring at I'm So into You, Interstate Love Song, and a number of other articles. The previous thread here suggests that this is a LTA. I requested protection of the two articles I mentioned at WP:RFPP, but it seems like the disruption is due to the same editor as before, just with different IPs. How wide of a rangeblock is needed to stop the disruption without causing collateral damage? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The two pages are now protected. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Andriyrussu and systemic disruptive editing

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

The user has a long block log which includes an indefinite block. I do not remember all the details, but I am sure one of the reasons was that they were removing Russian names from the articles on Russian-speaking or formerly Russian-speaking localities in Ukraine. This is one of the warnings I gave to them before their indefinite block, which they reacted on defensively, and at the end of the day it contributed to the block. Recently, they resumed the disruption [88] and went on a mass-removal spray. I gave them a warning, they reacted defensively, I explained, they did not react on my explanation but stopped removals [89]. Today, they resumed the removals (from the very same articles as they did before, [90]). Courtesy ping @Mellk:. On the same day, they disruptively edited the articles on football players (see e.g. this nice edit summary), demonstrating they do not really care about WP:V. as a result, they were warned by @Anwegmann:. Courtesy ping @GiantSnowman:. My conclusion is that they user is net negative in at least two subject areas, and restoring the block would probably be the best solution. Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that the Russian names of Ukrainian localities is a CT topic (Eastern Europe) and also a WP:RUSUKR topic, but the football players, as far as I see, is not. Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a long history of disruption, and edits like this are really concerning. Given the history and their attitude, I suggest an indef. GiantSnowman 20:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Given in their unblock request they promised not to repeat those mistakes, it is clear they did not follow through with this. Mellk (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have interacted with the user in question in the past and can provide some background. He tends to be brash and not particularly polite, he has a nationalistic bent (I believe one of the blocks or warnings he got in the past was for having a "list of traitors to Ukraine" made up of sportsmen born in the territory of modern Ukraine but who had represented Russia – from what I can see he still keeps the list, but under a different name) and a tendency to get into edit wars. He also resorted to socking after being blocked for calling a Moldovan editor retarded, IIRC, during one such edit war.

I know this is not a promising resume for an editor. However, if I you'll allow me to play devil's advocate, I will dispute his characterisation of the user as a net negative in Eastern European sports, particularly football. He is knowledgeable in the area (he is in fact correct about Yurii Tlumak's team), perhaps too knowledgeable – he has created articles about obscure players from the Ukrainian lower leagues that likely are not deserving of encyclopaedic coverage, but he borderline single-handedly keeps a lot of articles about Ukrainian and Ukraine-based footballers up-to-date. This certainly does not excuse being a dick to fellow editors, but I think that this very niche topic area would suffer a big loss if the user were to be blocked. Given his repeat offender status I would not oppose such an action if there is general support for it, but I would like to recommend instead a TBan from towns and cities (an area that I believe needs less combativity, given that we have more than enough with IPs and throwaway SPAs) and some sort of 1RR restriction overall. I would be happy to try to talk to Andriyrussu in that case, to try and let him know what is expected of him. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

May be this could work. Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Based on what I have seen surrounding this editor's original ban, he was already under an effective 1RR restriction—if not de jure then certainly de facto. So I'm not sure how placing him under a more "official" one now would help change his actions if it clearly hasn't already. I understand your point about his work ethic related to Ukrainian footballers. The problem is not his knowledge or his dedication. It's that he rarely sources his changes. Indeed, with the Yurii Tlumak example, the concern isn't with the possibility of him being wrong. It's with the fact that he didn't provide a source for the edit and then reverted my correction of that fact asserting that if I want to find a source, I have to find it myself. That kind of attitude, which was part of his initial ban, has shown through many times—as the discussion above has noted. It's frustrating that someone who has done so much for a specific corner of Wikipedia has repeatedly shown themselves to be prone to edit-warring, personal attacks, aggression, not citing sources, and other fundamentally problematic practices universally discouraged across Wikipedia. As much as I want to buy into your argument here, I just don't see how any of this is ever going to change. It hasn't now for years, even after a previous indef ban. He hasn't changed his ways or his approach to editing, which he promised to do when he was unbanned. I don't see how leniency here will do anything but prolong a years-long problem. Sorry for the wall of words, by the way. There's a lot to unpack with this. Anwegmann (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That kind of attitude, which was part of his initial ban, has shown through many times—as the discussion above has noted. It's frustrating that someone who has done so much for a specific corner of Wikipedia has repeatedly shown themselves to be prone to edit-warring, personal attacks, aggression, not citing sources, and other fundamentally problematic practices universally discouraged across Wikipedia. This! It's a real pity. @Andriyrussu: Do you think you can change? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand your frustration and, again, being right does not justify him being an ass to fellow users. I repeat that I would not be opposed to stronger sanctions if there is generalised support for it, but I would still prefer it if something could be worked out. At any rate, I have reverted one of his, so to speak, controversial edits and left a summary inviting him to come here. Hopefully he will understand that his behaviour is well below par and we can see if we can work something out from there. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this will depend on whether they decide to respond here or not. Mellk (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry for what I did, but considering my contributions (for free by the way) to Wikipedia, you shouldn't focus on just this occasion. I hope you praise the contributors, who sacrifice their free time for Wikipedia, in the same you persecute them for any minor mistake. Andriyrussu (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

"I only put dog poop in one brownie. You should be thanking me for all the rest of the brownies I made for you" is how this comes across. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don’t tell me that’s actually a commonly-used English phrase. Seriously though, a wrongdoing can automatically overwrite some of the good things you’ve done; contributors with over 1 million edits have been blocked before. ^EF⁵ 01:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There is exactly zero contrition in this "apology," which shows that there is no hope for a change in behavior and makes rather clear that the promises this editor made in his unblock request were not honest either. Anwegmann (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not, at least I don't think so, but it's paraphrasing something my mom often said, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Your mum put dog poop on brownies? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the language of the settlement name, I don't see the creator putting any source to the Russian name of it when he created the page, so he also edit-warred with me. Without providing any Wikipedia policy he is following, he is following his logic that if Russian is the second most spoken language in Ukraine, all settlements pages should have the Russian name version of it. Is there any consensus on this?

Regarding the lack of source when i updated the player's match stats, why should i put source to every match he plays? The stats are already available in the UAF external link, so it has source always. If a player plays 1000 matches during their career, should the page have 1000 sources?

I respect the role admins play in protecting Wikipedia, and I'm proud of the many positive contributions I've made to the project over time. Everyone makes mistakes - that's how people learn and improve. Comparing one honest mistake to "putting dog poop in a brownie" is unfair and disproportionate, especially given my consistent track record. If mistakes were grounds for bans, many long-term editors would be gone by now. I'm here to build, not break, and I'm committed to following Wikipedia's rules moving forward. I ask for fair treatment that acknowledges both my contributions and my willingness to correct errors - not a permanent ban that discards all of that. Wikipedia thrives on collaboration and second chances. Let's keep it that way. Andriyrussu (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry but this response puts me back to my opinion that the user is not capable of editing constructively and needs an indef block or a community ban. Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You edit-warred with me, so I don't think you can make a decision here. Your opinion is biased. Andriyrussu (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The decision will be taken by an uninvolved administrator, we are all giving our opinions. Mine can be found above. Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 modifying ISBN formats again, despite years of requests not to do so

Srich32977 is modifying ISBN formats again, despite years of requests not to do so. The editor was asked to stop yet again, responded with the same "consistency" justification, and then immediately went to another article to make the objectionable changes. The editor has been asked to desist from undesirable ISBN editing behavior in:

• December 2016
• March 2019
• January 2020
• November 2020
• November 2022
• June 2023
• November 2024

Those were just the ones that I could find. I expect that there are more. I hate going to ANI for resolution, but this editor keeps returning to the same objectionable behavior, despite warnings, blocks, and requests. I apologize to the administrators who will have to deal with this, but I don't know where else to turn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's compare:

A WP article has some references posted. Some of them are styled as ISBN 9780691122946, some have ISBN 978-0691122946, and some have ISBN 978-0-691-12294-6. Also, the article has these ISBNs: ISBN 0-691-12294-6 and ISBN 0691122946. (For sake of argument please assume these go to different sources. My example is about the mix of styles.) Please note that all of these ISBNs connect to WP:Book Sources and Book Sources then allows us to check different data bases for the books. More importantly, Book Sources says "Spaces and hyphens in the ISBN do not matter." So I ask you, if we are posting these 5 different layouts in our article are we being consistent with our copyediting? I don't think so. H:ISBN tells us what the ISBNs do (and that they don't need hyphens). Also it says we can put in spaces -- which could expand my example considerably. What have I been doing? I see articles that have a mix of ISBN layout styles. It is easier to remove unnecessary hyphens rather than guess or calculate what the "standard" format should be. So removal is the preferred COA. As for the list of dates posted, two were related to "fat-finger" typos, and one or two others were simply discussion -- not admonishments. In all I'd have to say Jonesey is the only editor who is content with in-consistent ISBN layouts. – S. Rich (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

When you have been asked multiple times, over a period of years, by multiple editors (not just Jonesey), to stop doing this (see especially this one), and you continue to do it, that's disruptive editing at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

ANI is about behavioral problems. The issue here is you are going ahead with mass edits despite having received 8+ warnings on your talk page. See #4 and #5. Northern Moonlight 02:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Srich32977: I highly recommend you to pause your ISBN editing now while this thread is ongoing. You made 15 more ISBN edits after the ANI started. Northern Moonlight 04:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, it doesn’t seem you care about what other editors think at all. Northern Moonlight 06:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. I considered using stronger language in my earlier post here, typing out "do you need a final warning or will you stop on your own?", but decided not to in hope that this might be taken on board without it. Apparently I should have posted it, given that while they have started posting on talk pages seeking consensus for ISBN changes, even as they do this they've also continued plowing right on ahead making these edits (seven times, by my count) despite the multiple concerns and the ANI. Accordingly, I've pblocked Srich32977 from articlespace until they acutally engage here and heed the community's concerns. Anyone can lift the block once they do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock request. It didn't address the concerns. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree with other editors, please stop when you are asked to. This appears to be a behavioral pattern of yours, ignoring other editor's concerns raised on your talk page, and just continuing on full steam ahead, knowing that objections have been raised in relation to your edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

if we are posting these 5 different layouts in our article are we being consistent with our copyediting? The answer to your question is “no, but who cares?” As your previous sentence notes, it doesn’t matter. You’re annoying people about an utterly unimportant formalism; go find something for which this kind of gnoming *makes a difference* and no one will mind. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I recommend that Jonesey95 and Rich have a look at Template:Format ISBN and see if they can reach a mutual agreement to use it. Preferably that discussion should occur on an article or either user's talk page rather than here. 208.105.244.131 (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a potentially useful template, but it's not just ISBNs for this editor. They make other changes, some of which are helpful and some of which are detrimental. Have a look back through their User talk archives and you will see dozens of posts from editors objecting to all sorts of changes, mostly to citation formatting. The editor usually claims "consistency" as a justification for all of their edits, even ones that have objectionable changes in them. The editor sometimes agrees to change their behavior, but they consistently backslide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Many wikignomes find it absurd that their edits could be seen as disruptive. After all, they're only making small edits that fix Wikipedia! However, a small subset of wikignomes are not fixing things that are broken. They are instead imposing order on a disordered world, which brings them peace. People who want to impose order on the world don't care whether the world wants or appreciates this – they're doing it for themselves, not for you. This is why there are several wikignome sock puppeteers that I've had to range block. If they could stop, they would have. Since they can't, they just keep creating more and more accounts to disrupt Wikipedia in the name of consistency, enraging other editors who want them to stop doing this. @Srich32977: I hope that you'll go down a different road. Next time someone asks you stop fixing things that aren't broken, stop doing it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There is an inherent contradiction here. In my case I see inconsistency in a citation and I seek to "fix" the citation. Ah, but, if a citation was "not broken" to begin with, does it remain "not broken" after the fix? – S. Rich (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

What’s the contradiction? If I make 200 edits to a page to add and remove spaces, leaving it ultimately the same, nothing is broken as a result but the behavior is obviously disruptive! 173.79.19.248 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, your comment is not quite on-point. There is concern (much talk page discussion) about hyphens in ISBNs, and hyphens always render to the reader. I contend that giving the reader a mix of hyphenated ISBN-styles is not helpful. That is, if the reader sees hyphenated, partially-hyphenated, and non-hyphenated ISBNs, they are seeing inconsistent information. (E.g., information in inconsistent styles.) The ISBNs might all work (link to Book Sources), but do we have an established style? – S. Rich (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

One of us certainly is having trouble staying on-point, but it’s not me. There is no contradiction in NRP’s post, and turning things from one non-broken state to another non-broken state can be disruptive, and instead of plugging your ears up with unimportant questions like “do we have an established style?” you should consider the key introspective question “why haven’t I stopped doing this even though it bothers many other people?” 173.79.19.248 (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if you're actually entirely right. What matters is that concerns have been raised about your edits by multiple editors over a period of nearly ten years, and yet you have continued to make them while brushing off those concerns for one reason or another. That is, at best, a case of IDHT - including right here, in this post above. Your response isn't "sorry, I won't do this", but is instead "but actually (Wikilawyering)". I'm going to be blunt here - your 'fixes' are not desired by the community, in large part because of your attitude torwards them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Everyone is right that this is not about content, but since people are in fact weighing in on the content: I support S. Rich's edits that change articles from having an inconsistent ISBN style to having a consistent one. I wish we had a more gnome-friendly or gnome-neutral culture here. In the meantime, S. Rich, I think the move here is to say "I'll stop making ISBN-related edits. I won't start until there's clear consensus that these edits are supported." I would appreciate a ping to any such discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, the edits themselves aren't a problem, per se. I'm pretty sure I've made similar edits myself in the past on occasion. The problem is the response to community concerns about them, because WP:BRIE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Now I'm even more confused! You say "the edits themselves aren't a problem ... ." But it seems that my interaction with a small number of editors is getting me into hot water. And to reach the boiling point we have the list of 8 notifications over 8 years. (Egad! The fact that I'm asking for an un-block might be construed as a negative interaction!) Well, I've figured out how to find the "thank you" notes that editors have sent me. Since June 3, 2013, they total 1,337. See [91] for the end of the list. Now I can't parse what thanks are related to what articles or what specific edits edits, but I do think the number of thanks offsets the complaints that Jonesey95 has posted. Please consider and then unblock me. I've got more gnomish tasks to work on. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to stop making ISBN-related edits, since multiple editors have asked you not to. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think his answer is no. Northern Moonlight 15:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Reading the link Bushranger posted would alleviate that confusion.

Being right isn't enough MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You say "the edits themselves aren't a problem ... ." But it seems that my interaction with a small number of editors is getting me into hot water. There is no contradiction between these two things: a behavior can be harmless until the moment when it annoys other people, at which point the failure to stop becomes problematic. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:SongRuyi and WP:HARASSMENT of User:SunloungerFrog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• SongRuyi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

TL;DR: Over the past few hours, editor SongRuyi has declared that their role on Wikipedia is going to be, in their own words: I will no longer contribute to Wikipedia, but instead, I will focus on identifying and pointing out mistakes made by editors like SunloungerFrog, as part of my duty to improve the platform.[92] When I told them to please, no,[93] they told me to Please open an ANI case because they could not accept my comments.

Longer version: A few days ago, an editor nominated the article Princess Changde for deletion; SongRuyi !voted keep and began to greatly expand the article[94]. (They are now responsible for nearish half the text[95]). User:SunloungerFrog, unconvinced, !voted delete[96] and describes what they think to be several issues with the added text. A long back and forth ensues at the Afd and the article talk page over original research, source-text integrity, and notability. SongRuyi makes a variety of very personal remarks, either insulting the other editors, implying they are biased against Chinese people[97], implying they other editors are socks[98] or implying that because they aren't Chinese, they should stay out of the article:

• If you believe you have more knowledge than a native Chinese, then sure—go ahead[99]
• add Chinese text for enlight no brain[100]

SunLoungerFrog warns them for that last one[101], to which SongRuyi maintains that it wasn't a personal attack, as it was only a metaphor used to describe people who don't make an effort to think or study seriously, especially in a school or academic context. [102]. They also doubled-down, asking if SunloungerFrog felt insecure, continuing in kind and finishing off with the comment You’re not the center of the universe, and not every sentence is about you. Grow up. [103] This continues until August 4th, when SunloungerFrog tags an article SongRuyi linked in the Afd with some maintenance tags. [104]. SongRuyi seems this as harassment, and accuses Frog of targeting them[105]. After Sunlounger denies this, SongRuyi doubles-down on the personal attacks, sayings I’m highly educated and busy with real-life responsibilities, unlike you[106] and vows to no longer contribute to Wikipedia, but instead, I will focus on identifying and pointing out mistakes made by editors like SunloungerFrog. They then notability and cn tag several Frog-created articles [107][108][109], and nominated one for deletion. They explicitly state in an edit summary that This is not about revenge [110]. I reverted one of these tags as the article was on my watchlist and I disagreed with it,[111] noticed what they were doing, and went to warn them about harassment [112] because that's not on. They responded[113] by asking me to take them to ANI, then, as I was writing this up, saying they would take me to AN/I. So that's where we are now. From my POV, this is pretty clear-cut WP:HOUNDING of SunloungerFrog by SongYuqi, and it and the personal attacks just seem to be getting worse. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 08:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

According to my record... I don't believe I did anything seriously wrong. :) I thought the Princess Changde AFD was one of my very first AFD discussions. Before that, I never tried to get involved in arguments , I simply focused on creating and improving articles.

But after I entered the realm of AFD discussions, the situation became worse. I’ve been trying to learn the rules, but instead of being guided, I feel like I’m mostly receiving warnings..without clear explanations of what exactly I did wrong. It feels like some editors are making the situation worse for me instead of helping.

I also didn't realize that using strong words could be considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. If what I said was indeed "indirect" personal attack, then I accept responsibility. If necessary, I am willing to accept a 6-month block or ban from Wikipedia. I will return after that with a cooler head and a better understanding.

For now, I feel too exhausted by the arguments and need to step away. I hope people understand that I came here with good intentions. Cheers SongRuyi (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Before taking any action, I asked at the AFD discussion whether my approach was appropriate, saying:

If he claims this is part of his editor duties, then I should be allowed to take the same editorial interest in his contributions.

After I defended the article at AFD, SunLoungerFrog changed his color. Looking at his recent contributions, he added multiple tags on the Liu Sai article even though it was saved from DRV by me and expanded with citations from that discussion. Despite the subject meeting WP:NPOL criteria and several editors agreeing the article was notable and could be recreated, Frog tagged it for notability issues without reviewing the prior DRV discussion. This seemed like an act of revenge, even though I did not create the article.

User @User:GreenLipstickLesbian focused on blaming me, accusing me of taking revenge on Frog because he voted to delete Princess Changde, wrongly assuming I created that article. In fact, I was only an AfD voter and not the creator. After I explained this, GreenLipstickLesbian apologized for the assumption and instead raised another editor’s case for ANI due to perceived disrespect from me.

I admit I have made mistakes, but that does not mean they were always right or unbiased. Before punishing me, I would like to request that the administrator consider both sides and take into account my calm demeanor before I became involved in my first AFD discussion. Yes, I may have been indirectly rude to other editors, and I now understand that strong words can be considered harassment. I admit ...in this case that I was wrong about 80% of the time, but SunLoungerFrog was also wrong 20%, having been biased and overweight on the new editor. SongRuyi (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that you needed to have rules spelled out for you to realize that calling someone "no brain," telling someone they don't make an effort to think, and so on? That's certainly something. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @GreenLipstickLesbian for compiling all the diffs and making this report. It is a pity that we are here, because I do think that @SongRuyi really wants to add to the encyclopedia contructively, and in areas (Chinese history, mythology and religion) that are arguably under-represented at the moment.

Based on what I saw of their behaviour at Princess Changde I had some concerns about how they sourced articles in terms of verifiability, and so looked at a couple of other items they worked on: Comprehensive Collection of Deities from the Three Religions and Liu Sai. I am not going to go through a laundry list of justifications for the handful of edits I made to those pages right now, apart from to say that I don't think they were unwarranted; of course I'm happy to expand on specific edits, if others would like me to. I regret that SongRuyi does not seem to want to engage me in a constructive discussion on those articles' talk pages; they generally do seem to have a pugnacious attitude to responding to other editors that borders on incivility.

Regarding the hounding, well, I am an old fart with a thickish skin, so I am not myself especially bothered by SongRuyi's actions today, though I can see that other editors might well feel harassed were it to happen to them, and of course SongRuyi shouldn't have behaved as they did. Dealing with the silly tagging of articles I've been involved with is a bit tiresome, but relatively quick to fix, and there might be some time wasted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabbi Kosmidis, though to be fair I was conscious when I created that particular item that meeting WP:NACTOR was maybe borderline, so it's probably not dreadful that there is a community discussion about it.

The one thing I do feel quite strongly about is this edit, which is discussed further (by me and another editor) at Talk:Princess Changde § Religious endowments - failed verification?. I didn't want to cast aspersions first off, but given SongRuyi's refusal to discuss the matter, I will set my concerns out here. The quote given in the source text citation could not be found having checked two separate online versions of the source material. My strong suspicion - in the absence of any explanation, and of course I would love to be wrong - is that the quoted material and the content based on it is entirely fabricated, possibly using a large language model. To my mind, that is pernicious and WP:SNEAKY, as it's probably fair to say that there are not many editors with the literary Chinese skills (and I will admit that mine are not well-oiled) to be able to verify the claims. Making up sources and content is not on, doubly so when an article is at AfD, where it might mislead other editors as to the subject's notability. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@SunloungerFrog ..your accusations against me are unfounded. I was only trying to explain the source by including both the original quote and an English translation. There was no hoax or misinformation involved. If you are not satisfied with my translation, you are free to use machine translation or consult other Chinese-speaking editors.

While I took the time to explain things in detail, you ignored my efforts and kept raising new issues, seemingly just to keep me busy. Regarding the Talk:Princess Changde#Religious endowments - failed verification? discussion: the original version of the text was added by me and was properly sourced. In the second version, I included an offline citation with a quote, which may have caused some confusion. I later revised it using content I found through a Google Books snippet.

Today, when I turned on my PC, I was planning to clarify everything, — but you had already reverted it to the first version, which looks fine. So I decided not to explain further. SongRuyi (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I am not being clear. Neither of the online sources for History of Ming 《明史》, Volume 190, Biographies, Section 78 here and here appear to contain the text you quote in your citation: "天順元年，駙馬都尉薛桓及常德長公主，以所賜第宅為寺，請額。英宗復辟，感后與主翊衛功，特賜名弘善，寵賚優渥。". That is what @Toadspike (sorry for dragging you into this) and I are questioning. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

GreenLipstickLesbian, SongRyui said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabbi Kosmidis What’s going on with you? Do you think you're some kind of VIP on Wikipedia? said to DaniloDaysOfOurLives as their vote to keep, it seems WP:UNCIVIL and WP: HARASSMENT and DaniloDaysOfOurLives have a {{user mental health}} notice on their userpage so I am a little bit concerned so I intervened on SongRyui behavior.

Note to administrator: I already added a warning to their talk page. Although, it should be sanctioned on being uncivil and attacking editors. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I was really shocked to learn that telling an editor “What’s going on with you? Do you think you're some kind of VIP on Wikipedia?” is considered harassment on English Wikipedia. Really? I’ve never used highly insulting language like “--- of b” or “m--- f---,” or any vulgar or profane words.

I understand that calling someone a “dog” is extremely rude and would clearly be considered harassment, and I would accept responsibility for that (but i never called). But I truly don’t understand why a light, slightly sarcastic comment is treated the same way.

Before I got involved in AfD discussions, my experience on Wikipedia was peaceful; no arguments, no problems. Now, I honestly regret participating in the Princess Changde AFD. If I had the power to go back in time, I would not have voted at all.

I’m also not surprised that there are so few Chinese editors active here. English Wikipedia feels very different from Chinese Wikipedia. Even asking someone, “Are you a VIP?” is treated like a serious offense. I’ve learned that on English Wikipedia, you’re expected to remain extremely patient and tolerate every kind of comment from others. If you respond honestly or with a hint of frustration, you're suddenly the “bad guy in white sheep".

We Chinese, I was simply being direct and honest. Even if I was a bit frustrated, I responded with only mild irritation ... but that, too, is labeled as harassment here. SongRuyi (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, it was a bit rude and pointy, but I've (and we all have) seen worse from even admins. I've also seen worse get handwaved. I think a simple apology and moving on is the best course of action.King Lobclaw (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@King Lobclaw, thank you for your message..! I honestly didn’t know that some of the things I said could be considered harassment. In my opinion, i agree calling someone “no brain” is indirectly hurtful, but for other words I used, I didn’t realize they could also be seen as rude or pointy. Even though I was hot-tempered at times, I tried to stay calm and used indirect language instead of aggressive words.

Now that you’ve helped me understand, I choose to sincerely apologize to everyone involved. You've enlightened me, and I’ve realized I was unaware of Wikipedia’s civility standards. I promise that from now on, I will no longer comment on general discussions of others or AfDs except for those directly related to articles I created.

"I also want to apologize to the experienced editors and users affected by my actions."

I'm still learning as a new editor. I humbly ask for forgiveness for my first time mistakes, but I am also willing to accept a block as editors or admins want to give (one, three months or 6 months) as a way to cool down, and I need some time come back as a smarter and more responsible contributor in the future.

Please accept both my apology and my promise to improve. Thank you. SongRuyi (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, here we are. This began with WP:Articles for deletion/Princess Changde, a discussion I started. At that discussion, SongRuyi has cast a series of aspersions:

• Accused three editors of voting without doing due diligence: why do you guys give delete votes without doing any research? [114], near-instant "delete" votes without much investigation or meaningful consideration [115]
• Seems to accuse me(?) of socking or preparing to sock, without evidence. I honestly suspect something — I can almost smell the socks. [116] When asked to file an SPI, they did not.
• Seems to accuse SunloungerFrog of hounding [117] after SunloungerFrog questioned an unverifiable citation, received no response, and (rightfully) decided to look into their other work. This is not hounding: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. Here, SunloungerFrog is investigating violations of our policies on Verifiability and No original research.

SongRuyi has also canvassed by pinging several editors they believed to be sympathetic to their views on notability in an ongoing AfD. [118]

And made several condescending or strange remarks about other users' knowledge of notability, Chinese history, and other topics:

• @Toadspike you need to learn the outcomes of AfD discussions about ancient princesses [119]
• ??? That is the ancient Chinese political system, not a Communist system. How much more do you need?. [120]
• Says that they don't care about SunloungerFrog's opinion: Well, that is your opinion, and I don't care whether you buy it or not. I only value comments from much experienced editors on royalty or the Chinese monarchy system, such as... before canvassing several other users. [121]
• Soon after that, calls other editors "no brain" in an edit summary [122] and then says As a native, I only want to help those who are unfamiliar with the ancient Chinese political system. If you believe you have more knowledge than a native Chinese, then sure—go ahead. But I’m not buying it. [123]

Several editors, including myself, have had to repeatedly warn them against original research [124], [125]. That they explicitly refused to answer questions about an unverifiable source does not fill me with confidence that they respect our content policies. Finally, their behavior at the AfD verges on bludgeoning (though, to be fair, there were many questions for them to answer), and it looks like they are doing the same here. Toadspike [Talk] 13:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I really regret that it had to come to this for an editor who cited my favorite TV show in an AfD. Toadspike [Talk] 13:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike It feels like too much. What happened was a normal discussion and disagreement, like many editors have. It’s surprising how easily minor editors like me are treated as if deserve a "death sentence."

I never canvassed anyone to vote "keep" or "delete" ... their votes were their own decisions, and I never asked anyone to support me or vote 'keep'. I mentioned "smelling socks" because several users were using the same green-line quotes, and I assumed maybe some of you were friends on Facebook or Instagram. But I never accused anyone directly, because I had no evidence.

I was really shocked to see all my words you gathered to paint me as a bad editor. That’s not how I see myself. I’ve already issued an apology and asked the administrators to block my account. I can’t do more than that.

Thank you for spending your time collecting my mistakes. I appreciate the effort. SongRuyi (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I never accused anyone directly You mean, besides here? you are a Facebook friend of above editors and they asked you to blame me? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan it is a comment before my apology. after i accept you guys put me on death row; I withdraw afD and choose apology as suggested. Why are you putting it here? SongRuyi (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan, please continue to add more fire to my case as your culture does. I already apologized and am not trying to avoid my punishment; that is an act of my responsibility. If you are not happy with my apology, I can't do more than that. I just logged out of my Wikipedia account and just said goodbye. SongRuyi (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

as your culture does

Bold of you to do personal attacks in a thread about you doing personal attacks. Northern Moonlight 20:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Finally, my first AfD ended in my dead, and many editors said my behavior was inappropriate. No one supported me, which I now take as a sign that I was at fault. I only expressed what I believed....I wasn’t trying to be confrontational with English-speaking editors, but I’ve noticed that some are very sensitive to wording, which I didn’t expect.

I believe this might be due to cultural differences, and honestly, I’m shocked 100%. Even a simple comment like “Toadspike, you need to learn the outcomes of AfD discussions about ancient princesses” was seen as rude and labeled as canvassing. I don’t know how to understand that.

In any case, I accept it. I think it’s best if I don’t come back to editing. I would like to request that my account be blocked permanently, as I may have caused harm or made personal attacks. I will not create any new accounts. I’m retiring, as I can no longer cope with rules that I find difficult to understand. SongRuyi (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have had a decent apology from SongRuyi, who intends to take a break from editing enwiki for a while. I'm happy for a line to be drawn under this sorry business if others are. Thank you again GreenLipstickLesbian for initiating this discussion, without which SongRuyi would probably not have realised how unsuitable their behaviour was. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Chittaranjan Murmu Indian Rugby

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It would appear that User:Chittaranjan Murmu Indian Rugby has violated the terms of their unblock by creating an autobiography after committing to not doing so. It also appears to be AI generated with fake sources so I've CSD'd it under G15. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 10:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

See Special:PermanentLink/1304328227#Unblock_request Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 10:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have reblocked indefinitely. That was disappointing. Apologies for the waste of community time Star Mississippi 12:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Willform ignoring all feedback

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

Willform has a mixed record; good and bad edits. If you flip through their contribution history, probably like a third of their edits have been undone in recent history. I've yet to see them use sources in their edits. I found this apparent joke edit to be concerning.

My main problem is that they never respond to feedback. If you scroll through their talk page, they've been receiving warning after warning over the last 5 years and have engaged with none of it. They haven't really seem to have learned from any of it either; still make problematic edits despite having been on the site for much longer than me.

I think they have potential to be a helpful editor if they just listened to feedback. At present they're clearly willfully ignoring it; I would not buy any excuses that they haven't seen it; it's been 5 years and they're not a new editor.

Proposal: block from mainspace until they show willingness to engage with feedback. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Cs01kh: topic ban needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As it seems impossible to get User:Cs01kh to understand what was wrong with edits like this one and this one and others. People have tried explaining this on Talk:Islamic views on Jesus's death#The claim that Jesus went India and on their user talk page, but to no avail. A topic ban from religion would give them the chance to edit other articles and get to know the ropes on enwiki without editing this topic where they have rather strong views. Fram (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I.e. you want to ban people who know & write the truth about islam from correcting the islamic wiki-pages so that you & others can discretely vandalise the information about islam in your own way! Cs01kh (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have not rejected the first edit attempt as a mistake, but you are using past incorrect edits by me to defend yourself against my recent acceptable edits. Cs01kh (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This really seems like WP:RGW in action. I'd suggest that CS01hk should either step away from this dispute or they should be invited to step away. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to step away, when i havent been proven wrong in my recent statements, (only in how i started). Cs01kh (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to step away does not fill me with confidence that a topic ban would be worth the community's time. tony 18:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

you are trying to block me from all islam wiki pages, not just "Jesus in islam", because you know I have more accurate knowledge in islam than you Cs01kh (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

No, they want to block you because you're trying to push a POV and refusing to concede to other editors. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

no, I was trying to push a npov (stating the truth that the AlHamduLillah are a minor group in the population of Islam (around 1%) - As this is the truth. Rather than a POV. Cs01kh (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to indef Cs01kh as WP:NOTHERE. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, topic ban or indef. Based on the response above either seem reasonable remediations. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed for WP:RGW. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Big Brother 26 voting table dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an on going dispute about changing the voting table on the Big Brother 26 page particularly regarding the HoH during week four. Angela Murray won Head of Household that week and Quinn Martin a DeepFake Head of Household power. This topic has been voted and debated before in the past. I'm not sure why we are bringing this up again. It was clearly voted on back in August 2024. We are going to bring another full discussion until the matter is resolved. I suggest we protect the Big Brother 26 page from further vandalism. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As I stated at the WP:AN thread you created for this exact dispute, you and another user are in an edit war and need to both stop reverting and actually discuss any changes on the talk page. CoconutOctopus talk 18:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Devesh Bhondwe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, Special:Contributions/TraFu_Vlogger and Special:Contributions/Digitalsocialmedia are sockpuppets, as they admitted on Commons: [126]. Also probably undisclosed paid editing, and promotion of a non notable guy: Draft:Devesh Bhondwe. Both accounts are already blocked on Commons. Yann (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

And you opened (correctly) an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TraFu Vlogger. I don't see any need for action on AN/I given the sockpuppet investigation, do you? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:YourFriendlyNeigborhoodBisexual

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I stumbled across this account because they tried to vandalize an article, then made a report at WP:EFFP when a filter prevented them. The username obviously recalls User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (I was initially confused to see the latter's name there), to the point that I'm guessing whoever created this account is familiar with them. My reaction is that this is an impersonation concern, but I figured this is potentially complex enough to warrant posting here instead of UAV. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

"Your friendly neighborhood X" is a pretty common phrase. Taking a newbie to ANI for a possible username and one incident of disruption is pretty WP:BITEy. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 00:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this inquiry should be moved to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's impersonation, just a vandal and coincidence, the phrase "your friendly neighborhood ..." is pretty common (and quickly checking pretty common as a WP username too). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armandlee

Moved from WP:AN 03:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Armandlee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be an WP:SPA (they were tagged as such by @Some1). Their entire contributions history has been to the Sydney Sweeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) talk page or article. They've exhibited a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, insisting content they appear to want to include be added, accusing editors who think otherwise of forcing your own opinions on this article, and claims that what you have showed is a bias. You have shut others up and threatened those have a different opinion if this article (@TNstingray is the editor who allegedly threatened Armandlee). Accuses the same editor again that they have a clear bias that wants to withhold information on a public figure. In an interaction with @DocLG they stated You did not explain yourself. I haven't said anything that would not be of good faith. You just don't want to explain yourself. Accused me of editorializing simply for bringing the matter to the attention of WP:BLPN.

They appear to be stretching the limits of WP:CIV and when editors don't agree with them, they WP:BLUDGEON them expecting it's every editor who must WP:SATISFY them. Their talk page has three different warnings, two of them written seemingly by the editors leaving them in a genuine interest in helping them slow down, but this has been going on for four days. Bringing the matter here in the hopes of either attracting more attention or perhaps looking at a WP:NOTHERE block. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

(just realized I posted this at AN instead of AN/I, as I've already left the notifications pointing here I leave it to an admin to decide if this should be moved to AN/I with a pointer or left here) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Dunno how I missed this one, Clearly you are not actually reading the sources provided and jump to a conclusion that fits your viewpoint. As others have pointed out I can't help but think you are part of her team in some way. She's about to kick off her Oscar campaign and I'm thinking some of the wikiusers are here to cover for her. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Locke Cole, I think this should be moved to ANI as it really doesn't involve the admin community. There is a specific template to do this but perhaps you could just cut and paste since only I have responded to it so far. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, would be happy to be part of the discussion. I have not broken the rules of WP:CIV. Any discussion of a public nature will involve push back but I've been open and honest about why I believe I should push back. User Lock Cole has been harassing me non stop/ Armandlee (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Armandlee, Some1, TNstingray, DocLG, and Liz: post-move pings, will re-notify Armandlee. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• I've been following that section of the article talk page since it began. It's a testament to the other participants' dedication to WP:AGF that it's taken this long to escape the bounds of Talk:Sydney Sweeney. Pick any random contribution of Armandlee to the article's talk page for an example of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality; taken in toto it's something akin to WP:BLUDGEONING incarnate. TurboSuper+ left excellent advice on Armandlee's talk page, which was totally ignored for a day but finally responded to after the AN discussion opened, followed by a declaration a few minutes ago of Cool, if there is no fairness. I can do what I want. We are unable to help someone who refuses to hear us. tony 04:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The "I can do what I want" definitely makes me think that there's no way to not avoid a page block at this point. While I totally agree with Liz philosophically about this being a new editor, this is a failure of basic human interaction, not someone falling afoul of a tricky Wikipedia process, and presumably this editor has more than five days of being a human who has to communicate with others who disagree with them. Also, it's a page block, not a wider topic ban or an indef. If the discussion being here isn't a speed bump, then something else has to be. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• The solution would be an indefinite partial block for editing the Sydney Sweeney article and talk page. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but they can appeal later once they've demonstrated the ability to play nice. If they drag the issue to other articles, then an indef block sitewide. The partial block will give them the ability to demonstrate they are not a single issue editor (ie: WP:NOTHERE). I'm almost of a mind to just unilaterally impose it, but I'm not around often enough to deal with it afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  What draws my attention here is that Armandlee has been editing Wikipedia for 4 days. Locke Cole, you've had your account for 20 years now! You could not be more polar opposites on the ends of the editing experience spectrum. It's not an even playing field here and we can't expect an editor in their first week of edititng to be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and practices. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  This might be a new account, but I'm not convinced they've never edited enwp before. I would bet on it, so they don't get a pass for being new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  And in those 4 days, they have been like the proverbial bull in a china closet on the talk page, bludgeoning the discussion, and frequently responding to other editors with snark and snide remarks. I'm not necessarily advocating for a pblock (yet), but they do need to understand that civility is policy, and if they don't want to get on board with being civil, then their editing career here is likely going to be short-lived. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  Of course a newbie isn't going to be familiar with our thicket of rules and regulations, but I agree with Isaidnoway: it's not remotely a stretch to expect anyone, however new, to interact with civility. The immediate response of any newcomer to being pointed to WP:CIVIL should be "Alright, I'll do that going forward." Ravenswing 09:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not surprised to see Armandlee popping up here considering they seem to think anybody who disagrees with them even partially is part of a concerted effort to conceal The Truth. I am, however, very receptive to them being a very new editor and, as such I think we should avoid WP:BITE in this case and give them a warning that their comportment at article talk has been overly personal and insufficiently collegial. They're new and may not understand Wikipedia expectations. So let's try explaining those expectations before blocking them. If that doesn't work and they continue responding with unnecessary hostility after these expectations have been explained then we could always revisit other preventative measures. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• What makes me think they aren't so new is the lack of formatting errors and other newbie mistakes from the get go. Normally I don't like to spell it out so plainly, and I'm not saying they are a sock of anyone, but again, I'm betting they aren't really as new as their account shows. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment - As one of the editors involved with this situation, I contemplated coming here early on when it became clear that this user was NOT HERE for the right reasons, but I held off in the hopes that they would familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policy and reach an understanding (despite their accusations of me threatening them... I explained that a warning of potential administrative involvement is not a threat). I see they have only persisted in their problematic behavior. I'm in agreement with some of the other commenters that a partial block on Sydney Sweeney will hopefully be sufficient, and we can widen the block later if necessary. TNstingray (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenio Sena

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenio Sena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was going through the delsort on the football AfDs and this one seems very odd, HypothesisNull is a new account created, edits the article first to PROD and then sends it to AfD, there is a new account Robertogiulio1988 created to specifically goto this AfD to take part?? Are these two accounts one person?? Maybe an admin can review? I don't know if a check-user is needed. I have no qualms against the article being deleted, it's just the process here, they way it's been done! Regards, Govvy (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If you believe there's sockpuppetry afoot, WP:SPI is thataway. → - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

HypothesisNull wants the article to be deleted, and Robertogiulio1988 is arguing for the article to be kept. They're SPAs, sure, but I don't see them being sockpuppets unless I'm missing something here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's more likely than you'd think, alas. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Govvy,

Let me clarify: I came across one article that struck me as clearly non-encyclopedic in nature. I usually am just a lurker on Wikipedia (and a passionate one, at that), but I decided to seize this opportunity and so I opened an account, initiated a discussion and carefully reviewed each cited source, referencing relevant Wikipedia policies. I learned a bit on how Wikipedia works and I would happily continue contributing to it, in the future.

As for my sole contribution up to now, I would like to think that my comments were detailed and policy-based, aimed at reaching neutrality. Shortly after I proposed the article for deletion - a motion that received support from several other users - a newly created account began opposing the deletion in a markedly emotional and subjective manner. This user described the subject, whose most notable managerial role is with a team currently in the lower ranks of Georgia’s second division, as “one of the most talented and young Italian coaches” and suggested that dissenting opinions stem from a lack of football knowledge.

Interestingly, this isn’t the first time the page has shown signs of being closely monitored. In the past, there were attempts to insert highly adulatory content, further suggesting a pattern of self-promotion.

I believe maintaining Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability is essential, and I hope this comment clarifies what happened. HypothesisNull (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Odds and ends, something still smells off, I posted to this venue because I thought maybe an admin might have an insight into this type of behaviour. Still smacks of WP:DUCKS to me. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Govvy,

Could you please clarify what you're suggesting here? As @ChildrenWillListen rightly pointed out, the account you referenced earlier is actually *opposing* the deletion proposal I initiated. *All* the accounts who support it are well established and have been on Wikipedia for quite a while. If I were operating a sockpuppet, I think I would make sure it supports my positions instead of actively opposing them - don't you think?

I’ve tried to keep my contributions focused on policy and sourcing, and I welcome scrutiny of my edits. If there’s something specific that seems off, I’d appreciate it if you could point it out directly so we can address it constructively.

Thanks! HypothesisNull (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use AI tools to communicate. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If I were operating a sockpuppet, I think I would make sure it supports my positions instead of actively opposing them - don't you think? Well yes, but actually no, or at least not necessarily. Not saying one way or the other here, but noting that "opposing the other putitive sock" isn't a smoking gun against it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

User:OCDD August 3 2025.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Much content was transferred from AN/EW) There was already this discussion at right here a few days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:OCDD 31 July 2025. Considering the links of warning they have been given on that ANI thread, I think this user has had way too many warnings and it is time for them to be blocked indefinitely for pertinently making disruptive edits. Looking at the ANI thread, they have had way too many chances dating back 2 or 3 years. Many of their recent contributions such as this: [127], [128], they persistently edit warred and unexplained their changes, when I explained my changes and when they reverted they did not explain theirs. In many times they re removed content without explaining why it is being removed. It feels like they claim they own the encyclopaedia and every article they have knowledge about. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This situation is already being discussed above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:OCDD 31 July 2025. Both editors are currently blocked for edit-warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFA without my consent

I’m reporting a concerning behavior by User:Spworld2, for creating Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/User:Thilsebatti. I did not consent for this RfA. Per WP:RFA#Nomination, this violates the clear expectation that candidates must consent before an RfA is initiated.

This is particularly alarming because:

I have nominated several articles created or heavily edited by this user (or their likely socks) for deletion, and they are currently under discussion at AfD.

I have previously opened a Sockpuppet Investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msp7com/Archive that includes this user or their likely accounts. The timing and nature of this RfA strongly suggest harassment, as it appears to have been created solely to embarrass or discredit me. I request administrator attention on this matter and to delete the RfA per WP:G7 or WP:CSD#G3. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you could please expound on this. Borgenland (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/User:Thilsebatti opened by Spworld2. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

(Thilsebatti substantially edited this report after it was replied to) REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I suggested Thilsebatti name after seeing his experience. I don't know much about the withdrawal format in this. If you can help Spworld2 (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this RfA in my name was not a good-faith nomination, but a deliberate act of trolling. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Spworld2: do you check what you are doing before you hit submit? If you do, can you explain why you felt it helpful to submit an edit with the statement "Here write a few short paragraphs about yourself or the person you are nominating for adminship. Include their qualities and what you believe they would do well as an administrator. Explain any mishaps that have happened in the past you feel may affect the votes. Say why you think they (or you) deserve adminship" intact? If you don't, you really need to start if you are going to continue to edit Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know much about this nomination. I will pay attention to such edit nominations in the future. Sorry if any of the users who are candidates face any technical issues with this. Spworld2 (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Recently, I have seen a lot of deletion discussions, and I have seen this person actively working on new review pages. He is currently active on an AFD, so this person was nominated based on his editing history and user page. I don't know much about this admin nomination. I am surprised that he nominated me as a sock, I am only just learning about this incident really.

Spworld2 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I deleted the RfA as that seemed to be a fast and desirable way of resolving the situation given the above statements. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks and regards!! Thilsebatti (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know much about this nomination. Thank you for solving this case. Spworld2 (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess SPWorld2's edits should be looked at more in general as well. They are edit warring to keep seemingly false information in an article they created[129] and in another article[130] and repeating these claims in the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P.K. Shifana. Fram (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I have only 3 years of experience here, I am learning more editing. My argument sometimes goes beyond the limits. Sometimes it may seem repetitive, mistakes happen while learning, sorry Spworld2 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and if too many mistakes happen, contributors get blocked. Not that your highly-inappropriate RfA nomination looks like a 'mistake'. It clearly wasn't done in good faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being repetitive, it is about claiming some facts are supported by a source when the source says nothing to support it, and insisting that you are right even when this is pointed out, instead of checking whether you haven't made a mistake. Fram (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask a sub-question here? My question: Can I change my existing username? If so, how do I set the password? There is a misunderstanding about whether my username is another account or a user, I think it is because of the similarity of the nomination name to the SOCK allegation made by the nominee editor. Spworld2 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Changing your username in the middle of an active ANI discussion would be disruptive, and grossly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This is starting to look like either trolling, or CIR, either of which is incompatible with editing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Which is really odd to hear from a user with 2K edits. Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for my question. I am not knowledgeable on this subject. Honestly, I asked because I did not know. Spworld2 (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for my question Spworld2 (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Spworld2, Why did you create the article as Ashraf (social worker) instead of using the subject’s full name, Ashraf Thamarassery, which was first created by the Msp7com. Msp7com is the original sockmaster you are referring to. I cannot believe it is just a coincidence. This seems rather unusual and raises concerns. It is clear that you were trying to game the system and wanted to avoid genuine NPP process. That time I did not took it seriously as I had no time to waste. But now I thought I should ask you this. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Before I create any page, I type that page in the search box, and then in the edit column that comes up, I type the bio details

When I searched for Ashraf Thamarassery, I saw a link that someone had created before, but I didn't know how to reopen it, honestly

So I put his known section in brackets, and this is what happened in fact

I don't know much about editing, and that's what happened today. Spworld2 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies to other editors for bringing this up here, but since Fram suggested we take a broader look at Spworld's editing, I felt it necessary to raise this. The article Ashraf Thamarassery was created multiple times by the sockmaster Msp7com, who appears to have a strong interest in the subject—an interest that you seem to share as well. Msp7com has previously attempted to recreate the article under various titles, including Ashraf Palarakunnummal (Ashraf Thamarassery) and Ashraf Palarakunnummal. Both you and Msp7com have shown considerable interest in topics related to the Indian Union Muslim League, such as Muslim Students Federation (I. U. M. L.), Indian Union Muslim League, and Muslim Youth League.[131]. You were extremely fortunate that the earlier accounts in the farm had gone stale, so CU could do nothing. At the time, I chose not to pursue the matter further, partly because you seemed to be contributing some useful edits. However, your pattern of editing is now becoming difficult to overlook. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Note the above similarities. Also note the usernames: Msp7com and Spworld2. I'm amazed this wasn't blocked at the SPI, stale CU or not, based solely on  Looks like a duck to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This is not me, truly. I have absolutely no connection to this. This is a misunderstanding. Please do not spread rumors. Truly, you must believe me.

The claim you made, the similarity in names, is a misunderstanding. I have already explained the Ashraf Thamarassery article issue above; it happened because of a lack of knowledge. I believe that 1-2 pages like this were created similarly.

Another similarity is that the editors are from the same zone. I am actively involved in projects in the Kerala zone in India, especially in Kerala politics (UDF, LDF, CPM, Indian Union Muslim League, BJP), and topics such as political bios, geography, crime cases, disasters, villages, cities, buildings, roads, etc. I believe this is the reason for the similarity with the SOCK you have raised. As a fellow Malayali, I believe you will understand this.

I am ready for any investigation. Truly, this is not me. I have no connection to this. I have only three years of experience here. I am very saddened that I am being blamed for a misunderstanding after all the time I have volunteered for Wikipedia. If you decide to punish me based on this misunderstanding, I am ready to accept it.

I have not done anything wrong in this. I have no connection to this sock puppet account. Spworld2 (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Jerrypeton, the last sock in the farm was blocked in June 2022. Your account, Spworld2, was created just a few days later in July 2022. Since then, you have frequently edited many of the same articles that the earlier sock accounts focused on. The article Ashraf Thamarassery, which was previously created in a clearly promotional manner by Msp7com, was later recreated by you. Your username also resembles that of msp7com as indicated by The Bushranger. Most of your edits are centered around the Malabar region, similar to the previous accounts. Additionally, you have created or attempted to create multiple articles about non-notable youth leaders, the most recent example being P.K. Shifana. Can you explain how all of this is just a coincidence? Thilsebatti (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Socrynpinfeb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Socrynpinfeb has tagged Rhonda Roland Shearer for AfD and used the associated discussion page to post a "formal" cease and desist notice regarding content in the article, threatening legal action. They have also posted this notice at Talk:Thomas Girst. --Finngall ^talk 20:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Clearly The AFD for Rhonda Roland Shearer Needs to be deleted asap because the AFD contains a Legal Threat and User:Socrynpinfeb needs to be blocked from editing for making Legal Threats. Untamed1910 (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the subject of the article and don't represent any of the individuals involved, nor am I affiliated or employed with the orgs, so I'm not sure how this constitutes a legal threat Socrynpinfeb (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Libelous content is anything that is not true and causes harm. The consistent omission of Ms. Shearer’s name and leadership not only erases her decades of scholarly and administrative contributions but also undermines the credibility and ethical standards of the organizations promoting these inaccuracies. It makes it difficult to improve the page and no example has been provided by editors with experience for how to resolve what's a pretty egregious misrepresentation of The Art Science Research Lab's leadership. Socrynpinfeb (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You're the account that keeps posting an extensive list of sources that all say someone else runs the ASRL, correct?

And it represents a legal threat because you keep posting 'formal' 'cease and desist' notices and (incorrectly) claiming that the article contains libel.

And you are clearly involved with the subject. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The inconsistencies are causing issues for scholars who aren't related to the org and who rely on these resources. You guys need to clean up her page so it's neutral and give equal attention to pages that cross lines a lot more egregiously than this article. I have no goal other than to see it fixed so I don't know what is hard about cleaning it up if you're going to bully new editors who try in good faith. Socrynpinfeb (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Spamming notices about 'Cease and desist' is not acting in good faith. We do not make changes in articles based on "But What About Another Article." Asking you to follow policy and not claim to be unrelated to the subject of this article is not 'bullying.'

If you want changes to be made, use the COI edit request template and post them on the article's talk page. Most importantly, do not spam another wall of text, give a simple and clear change, along with a reliable secondary source the supports the change. Do not use the subject's resume. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't actually see a legal threat there, just some needlessly formal language that isn't really helping the situation from someone not familiar with how things work on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged the AfD as a CSD attack page. Just looks to be a long rant about a living person. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: They had since walked back their "Formal Cease and Desist" to "respectfully request[ing]" the changes they wanted to see. --Finngall ^talk 21:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Taking a brief look at the account, despite being created three years ago it has made the entirety of their edits in the last week or so of which they seem entirely focused on what they see as WP:RGW, with the introduction of large amounts of material wanting to "correct the record" so to speak.

Seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Girst seems to have been mostly written by SPAs so I am willing to hear them out if that article is overly promotional. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@REAL MOUSE IRL well that's unlikely, they just got blocked for sockpuppeting... Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

An example of their addtions, they've created this article, Art Science Research Laboratory. The majority of citations are either their own site or citations to award pages that immediately 404.

Definite promotional-vibe rather than any meeting of WP:GNG. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Current references 1, 3, 4 are all AboutSelf, 3 is from a summary note that indicates it was partly source from... Wikipedia. 7 gives me a 'phishing warning', 8-17 all 404 or say 'article not found on this site'. 18 says that *their* source is 7, and the last one is an NYT article that I can't access. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The NYT article does indeed discuss Shearer and supports the content it is being used as a reference for in the article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks to be a case of a possible notable topic that is buried under a bad attempt to force notability, if that makes sense. Given the array of socks they've used for this very niche topic I've drafted and reduced to stub as a COI of some kind. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Socrynpinfeb, Spiritualamerica, Jfksfoatx, Fromfairest and Vikidotwiki blocked. No comment on the content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to convert partial block of 2600:100F:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 to full block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2600:100F:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I feel like this is just going to be another repeat case with this IP range every time we have to do this. Recently, this range was partially blocked from some pages due to persistent unsourced additions, and over the last 2 months, admins have had to add more pages to the partial block via other venues, like WP:RPP, where I've been reporting much of this habit. I do not think this partial block is helping, and this anon is only going to keep finding new opportunities to cause unsourced disruption with each new page added to the partial block, with the latest target being Steve Moriarty (diff). Therefore, to prevent further disruption across the encyclopedia, I would like to propose that the current partial block on this /40 IP range be upgraded to a full block for the same period.

Note this range was also previously blocked for CheckUser evidence, so I am not opposed to a CheckUser running another check first. Jalen Barks (Woof) 20:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I've applied a full block of the /40 for one year, noticing that the partial blocks haven't stopped the problem. Other admins may adjust this as they see fit. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User conduct concern: OrionNimrod (Battle of Păuliș/Romania article and talk pages)

I feel like this is the best way to resolve this situation. In summary, I am filing this ANI report regarding the conduct of User:OrionNimrod across multiple articles and talk pages related to Romanian history, including but not limited to: Battle of Păuliș Talk:Battle of Păuliș Talk:Romania. His conduct includes repeated personal attacks, motive misrepresentation, forum shopping, hounding, and mischaracterisation of my account. 1. Personal Attacks / Aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVIL). He accused me multiple times of having "nationalist motivations" at the Pǎuliș article without evidence and twisted neutral phrasing ("heroic Romanian achievement"), which wasn't even my wording, into a claim of bias. 2. Hounding Behaviour (WP:HOUND). He followed my contributions across multiple articles and Talk Pages (e.g., Battle of Păuliș, Treaty of Trianon) and escalated a content dispute into repeated personal accusations. 3. Filed a misleading post on WP:WikiProject Military history misrepresenting me—without notifying me about Pǎuliș. Misuse of Policy / Forum Shopping (WP:POINT, WP:DISPUTE, WP:BLUDGEON). Posted walls of historical text to sidestep policy-based discussion and accused me of edit warring after a single revert. Tried to gather outside support after losing the Talk Page discussion. 4. Mischaracterisation of my account, repeatedly referred to me as a "brand new user" to discredit my edits, despite my contributions being sourced and policy-based. This is, I'm sure you can agree misleading, irrelevant, and contributes to a hostile editing environment. Some context... the dispute centers on how to represent the Battle of Păuliș in the infobox. I argued based on multiple sources—that Romanian forces led the decisive phase, with Soviet reinforcements arriving after the outcome was mostly decided. I proposed keeping "Romanian victory" in the infobox and fully acknowledging Soviet participation in the body. This aligns with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Additionally, in the Talk:Treaty of Trianon and Talk:Romania pages, OrionNimrod has consistently attempted to downplay Romanian perspectives and push alternative historical framings, often using similar personal accusations and dismissive tactics. Instead of engaging with content policy, he escalated with personal attacks, misrepresentation, and canvassing behaviour. I ask that admins formally warn or sanction OrionNimrod for: Repeated personal attacks. Hounding behaviour. Misrepresentation of my account. Disruptive editing tactics and forum shopping. I’ve remained calm and policy-based throughout. His conduct is turning a content disagreement into a hostile editing environment.

1. Personal attack — “nationalist motivations” accusation, Pǎuliș page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Păuliș&diff=prev&oldid=1304577420

2. Misrepresentation on WikiProject Military History (no ping)

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=prev&oldid=1304515332

3. My only revert — no edit war on Pǎuliș talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Păuliș&diff=prev&oldid=1304498758

4. Treaty of Trianon / Talk:Romania — dismissive tone on Romania talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania&diff=prev&oldid=1300146433

5. Bludgeoning with excessive, off-topic historical wall of text, both Romania and Pǎuliș talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Păuliș&diff=prev&oldid=1304509486

6. My policy-based initial Talk page comment during out first interaction on Romania's talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania&diff=prev&oldid=1299863799 Welcometothejungle007 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It has been my observation that most complaints at WP:ANI are more seriously considered if they are written by a human than by a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Habitual improper editing

• 136.50.2.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Pinged @136.50.2.119: and ANI notice sent, also with note: "Please respond". This editor has a habit of improper editing as shown here and has been notified about proper editing and warned three times here. Perhaps some timeout will help the editor go down the right path and quit fouling the encyclopedia and wasting other editors' time. Thank you. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Quaerens-veritatem, instead of pointing editors to a Contributions page, can you highlight specific edits that concern you? You brought the complaint here and so it's your job to help others understand what the problem is by posting diffs. Otherwise, you are unlikely to get a response here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. What called my attention was a pattern of edits including multiple reverts shown here that include failures to adhere to MOS, including MOS:GEOLINK, failure of sources, extraneous unnecessary edits, etc.; for example, this, this, and this, even though the editor was twice informed regarding editing protocol here. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed TBAN of Kelzoro from science fiction topics

On August 2, the community unanimously agreed to redirect Philip J. Corso to The Day After Roswell. As usually occurs in these situations, this prompted extensive Reddit and X threads accusing a sprawling conspiracy of being underway, peppered with various offsite legal and physical threats against Wikipedians. In the midst of this:

• On August 5, Kelzorro undid [132] the redirect and reintroduced a truncated version of the article. This was not a new version of the article with fuller sourcing, it was merely an abbreviated version of the article with the same sourcing and verbiage that existed prior to the redirect. This was reverted.
• Later that day, Kelzoro again [133] undid the redirect. This, too, was reverted.
• On August 6, Kelzoro again [134] undid the redirect. Again, this was reverted.
• Kelzoro was cautioned both on their talk page, and in the redirect target, no fewer than four times ([135] [136] [137] etc.). These discussions were met with a broadside of fire and declarations that he would reveal the truth about space aliens, and what seemed to be accusations that Wikipedians were part of this conspiracy: "Oh I know all about your behavior and antics, chersford. You dont intimidate me from getting the truth out." [138], "so you're just going to delete his page just because he spilled the beans about Roswell?" [139], "You're doing a disinformation campaign " [140]
• On his userpage, Kelzoro indicates his general dissatisfaction with our policies and guidelines "Wikipedia and its policies suck" and has previously used it to indicate his intent to extract revenge against his perceived enemies in science fiction topics "JBW must pay" [141]
• In a 2011 block over a science fiction topic (Aaahh!!! Real Monsters), he used the unblock request to launch into a tirade: "Fuck it, this site can kiss my arse. You admins are nothing but a bunch of bigots. You abuse your power, you don't care about fact, no. You depend on consensus and you really think I am going to drop on my knees and smooch your asses for punishment that idiot Banana should have gotten? I don't even care about being blocked. This site is a pathetic joke and sad thing is the creator has to depend on donations to keep it running. Far as I care, you and the admins can shove it. Block me permanently, I don't care."

For all these reasons, I regretfully propose Kelzoro be indefinitely topic banned from science fiction topics, broadly construed and inclusive of flying saucers, UFOs, and related subjects. Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I honestly feel like this should just be an WP:AIV report for vandalism and trolling and be done with it. But hopefully a discussion here can be just as swift. Full support on the topic ban if that's all we're doing. Silverseren^C 00:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I really hate to see anyone blocked outside of the most extreme cases and I'm certain Kelzorro could be a productive editor in a topic that provoked less intense passion. Chetsford (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I second the topic ban as a minimum intervention. Kelzorro has only edited sparsely, but in all cases, his editing has been in the fields of fringe science and his attitude has been that Wikipedia and its editors are deliberately trying to hide the truth as only he knows it. A topic ban is hard to monitor (it doesn't really stop you from editing, it just allows others to revert you based on the ban); I would recommend a temporary block to get his attention followed by a topic ban. If he obeys the ban, it is unlikely that he will contribute anything further to Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits of the proposed TBAN, Kelzorro definitely been edit-warrning on Philip J. Corso and has been blocked 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment, to be honest, this editor edits only every few years. If it hadn't been for a recent decent to Redirect an article, it might have been another 5 years before he emerged back on the platform. I'm not sure if an editor who is active so sporadically is worth galvanizing editors to vote in a topic ban. I think once this current article change dies down, it could go years before they edit again. That is not a support or oppose to the proposal, just a comment that I think this energy is misplaced when there is so much else that needs fixing here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't closely look at their edit history beyond the items that became apparent might warrant a ban but, given this, I'd agree it would probably be more efficient to just vamp until they've moved onto something else. While I hope they'll stay and make themselves productive on other things it seems the pattern suggests that's not likely. As such, I'm content to withdraw this as nom. Chetsford (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Is Aaahh!!! Real Monsters really a science fiction topic? I also think that this person's only non-alien edits in the past literal decade have been a minor spelling and minor grammar error correction so they can probably just be handled as an SPA if they continue being disruptive. Sesquilinear (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding a 2011 temporary block for edit warring to Aaahh!!! Real Monsters, saying "Fuck it, this site can kiss my arse. You admins are nothing but a bunch of bigots. You abuse your power, you don't care about fact, no. You depend on consensus and you really think I am going to drop on my knees and smooch your asses for punishment that idiot Banana should have gotten? I don't even care about being blocked. This site is a pathetic joke and sad thing is the creator has to depend on donations to keep it running. Far as I care, you and the admins can shove it. Block me permanently, I don't care. The unfairness here is ridiculous and it just goes to show you that you admins got nothing else going for your sorry lives, so you try and flaunt your authority on a site that's seen as a joke by everyone in academia. Go on ahead and block my page. I'm not even going to bother editing anymore on this shitty site. Consensus, and you guys wonder why Wikipedia is a joke.", I would suggest that this request reason might contain personal attacks to administrators, especially to JBW who blocked him temporary for 1 week on March 4, 2011. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 05:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive page moves by 毕明明

毕明明 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user regularly moves pages with no discussion or justification. A level-4 warning was given in May after their second move war on GAC Trumpchi. They have made two more page moves since, [142], and [143], in the latter case despite there having been a discussion on the talk page.

The user's only edits to article talk pages have been page moves and adding project banners, and they have never responded to any concerns with their editing. I'm not familiar enough with Chinese automakers to be entirely sure what's going on, but several of their page moves have been reverted, and the refusal to communicate - especially with something as major as a page move - is decidedly disruptive. --Sable232 (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)