Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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

    User:OCDD 31 July 2025

    [edit]
    EDIT WARRING
    OCDD blocked 2 weeks, Servite 1 day. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Liz Oh. Thanks for that notice! Here are some: [1] (Basically the ones that I reverted). I should provide more. Sorry! Understood! Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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: [2], [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] (I went to the version before archive because I accidentally gave a notice to the wrong user), [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Keizers and Saks Fifth Avenue store locations

    [edit]

    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 [[25]]. The list was removed by User:Galatz noting WP:NOTDIR in [[26]], but was reverted by Keizers in [[27]]. Galatz again removed the offending content in [[28]], but once again Keizers reverted the deletion of the content in [[29]].

    In 2021, User:JayJay removed the list of stores in [[30]] 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[[31]]. 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 [[32]], 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)[reply]

    Just fixed some internal links here. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    This isn't really the place to make the argument that this type of article is suitable for inclusion, though. Rather, it is important that you recognize the relevant policies WP:NOTPRICE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY and that they specifically mention these types of lists as not being allowed on wikipedia. Let'srun (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a good point. I could set down the same information without casting it as a list, and only leave out those locations that don’t quite fit — or even keep them, if I worked it into prose. I do find a list rather easier to follow myself, but you’re quite right that, as a body, Wikipedia seems to favor “better prose than tables,” or something of the sort. Keizers (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Harassment by User:PradaSaetiew

    [edit]

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

    Edit warring/Reverts

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

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

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Hello Tomarzig, regarding the first diff ([33]), 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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

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

    @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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Your mom??? Where did you learn your snappy comebacks -- from Leave It to Beaver? EEng 20:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, it was Shakespeare. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng, I think the only thing I can say to you here is (Redacted) signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I just thought of something -- we're always redacting things, but what about dacting them? Doesn't anyone do any dacting around here? EEng 03:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Aqsalsaputra

    [edit]
    PBLOCK FROM ARTICLES
    Waiting for them to communicate and agree to change before unblocking. Chronic unsourced BLP edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Still doing it! GiantSnowman 17:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thank you! GiantSnowman 20:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Andriyrussu and systemic disruptive editing

    [edit]

    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 [34] 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 [35]. Today, they resumed the removals (from the very same articles as they did before, [36]). 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    May be this could work. Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think this will depend on whether they decide to respond here or not. Mellk (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Your mum put dog poop on brownies? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Andriy, as you can see from the comments above and below this recent message of yours, your replies here do not fill people with optimism. I believe that I have, both here and on your TP, given you credit for your contributions and attempted to stop you from getting blocked, but you are making this very difficult. Rather than show even a modicum of self-criticism, you are trying to justify what is, in practice, clearly sub-par behaviour.
    While I can agree that you should not have to provide a source in the article for every mino change to a player’s career, on being challenged by a fellow editor you could simply post a link, in your edit summary, to the page you are using to update the statistics. I would assume that after the second such instance you will not be bothered again (by the same editor, at any rate).
    Regarding towns, however, your argument is off the mark. You claim that Ymblanter 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. First of all, this is not his logic, but our Manual of Style recommendations. From MOS:PLACE, [a]t the start of an article, provide notable equivalent names from other languages, including transcriptions where necessary. Secondly, the notability or relevance of these equivalent names is not up to the whims of an editor, and in the case of Ukrainian towns this is not due to Russian being the second most spoken language in Ukraine. Wikipedia guidelines consider a relevant name to be one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place. Many settlements in Ukraine are likely to fall under one or both of these categories, given that such territories were inhabited, controlled, or even founded by Russians, and that many of them are, for this reason, also best known in English by their Russian transliteration. Some minor places in Western Ukraine probably have weaker links to Russia and can do without the Russian version of the name (bigger cities probably should keep it, however), but for towns in Eastern Ukraine it is entirely reasonable to have the Russian name as well. Bear in mind that this logic also applies to other languages: in your userpage you indicate Tarasivtsi as the birthplace of your FM alter ego, and you will find that, for historical reasons, the Romanian version Tărăsăuți is also provided in the article. You will also find that this logic applies to Russia as well: Vyborg, near St. Petersburg, also has the alternative names Viipuri (Finnish) and Viborg (Swedish), despite the city having been a part of Russia or the USSR for 290 of the last 315 years.
    These things are what I mean when I said that you are a bit of a hothead and nationalist sentiment gets the better of you. With some luck it will now be clear that those changes introduced by other users were not arbitrary, nor do they apply to Ukraine alone. An apology to your fellow editors, as well as an acknowledgement that you were mistaken, will likely go a long way in keeping you around and sparing you an indefinite block. I hope you choose to do so and can stick around to continue your work. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. For the record, I created probably several dozen pages on locations in Western Ukraine; I never add Russian names to those. (Polish and Romanian names can apply sometimes though). Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also not convinced that they will stop the disruptive editing regarding names of localities, so if there is no appetite to reinstate the indefinite block at this stage, then I think at the very least there should at least be some kind of topic ban from names of localities. Mellk (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the same concerning their inability and unwillingness to change the way they are editing. I also believe that this editor has reneged on the "promises" they made in their original unblock request, showing that they were not honest to begin with. Anwegmann (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Alright, it doesn’t seem you care about what other editors think at all. Northern Moonlight 06:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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 [37] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think his answer is no. Northern Moonlight 15:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the link Bushranger posted would alleviate that confusion.
    Being right isn't enough MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I've been reading Rich's responses on his talk page and elsewhere and they are not encouraging to me. He's constantly pointing to his barnstars and thanks despite those being meaningless in the grand scheme of things and them having no effect on editorial/behavioral policy decisions. His initial post on RL0919's talk page here saying "If you (as an Administrator) can straighten them out I will recommend that you get an upgrade to WP:Bureaucrat.)" sounds like a bribe to me which isn't on. I could be misunderstanding this post but it sounds like the classic scratch my back and I'll scratch yours bribe to me which is really concerning. Overall there's a undercurrent of WP:IDHT throughout Rich's posts which isn't helping his chances of getting unblocked. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the whole discussion, to provide context and RL0919s reply and then Srich32977s response to that reply. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to JCW555. I'm sorry, I was trying to be funny. A promotion to Bureaucrat is a complex process and editors get throughly vetted. I'm sure RL0919 knows that! I think I'll go back and delete or strikeout my poor attempt at humor. – S. Rich (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I just saw this, but to alleviate any possible confusion: I did not take that part of S. Rich's comment seriously, and it wouldn't have changed anything anyway, for the reasons I indicated in my reply to him. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    [edit]

    Looking at their talk page post-block, I don't see any indication from Srich that they understand why they were pblocked - indeed they have repeatedly stated their intentions to return to ISBN editing immediately upon being "let loose". Thus I hereby propose a formal topic-ban from edits that alter ISBN format in any way for Srich32977. Note that this does not prevent Srich32977 from adding ISBNs - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am clearly involved here, so take this with a grain of salt. This editor has received many messages (yes, many are from me) on their talk page regarding a variety of incorrect citation changes over the years. I believe that if this editor gets unblocked, and if a topic ban is limited to ISBNs only, this editor will be back at ANI sometime in the next year or two due to undesirable non-ISBN citation changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then per WP:ROPE, isn't that what we do, and we then respond as needed? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is both an over- and an under-reaction. S. Rich has two problems:
    1. He's made many disruptive ISBN edits. They're disruptive because we insist that mass editing be paused when objections are raised and not resumed until consensus is reached. S. Rich's offer to restrict his edits to FA-quality articles is not the "I'll stop all ISBN edits" that many of us were hoping for, but it does address this issue. There is existing consensus (enshrined in the FA criteria), that FA citations should be consistently formatted, so mass edits to conform FA-article ISBNs would not be disruptive.
    2. He has not yet shown an understanding of what he's done wrong. Even if S. Rich stopped all ISBN edits, he'd still likely resume mass editing, and he hasn't picked up on how he should respond when an objection is raised. For this problem, an ISBN TBAN would not suffice. The current article-space pblock is working, but a more narrowly tailored sanction could instead be a ban from mass editing. I would support such a ban, though I'd much rather just see S. Rich explain that he now understands how to act if someone objects to a set of mass edits.
    Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – as this is the only way to get them to stop. This has been going on entirely too long to overlook anymore, and then to continue ISBN editing when you're brought to ANI over this exact problematic behavior is a reliable indicator they have no intention on listening to their fellow editors when we are telling S. Rich – we don't want you doing this. I also share Jonesey95's concerns about other undesirable non-ISBN citation changes if they are unblocked, but at least we can stop this particular behavioral issue right now. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      After getting blocked from article space, Srich32977 decided it’s a good idea to mass start editing ISBN in draft, template and Wikipedia namespace today (#1, #2, #3). Can we extend the indef to all namespaces except talk and Wikipedia? Northern Moonlight 22:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is so frustrating. Half of their ISBN edits are good: correcting an incorrect ISBN. Others are annoying and useless. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Their self-imposed wikibreak didn't last but a hot minute, before returning to the same behavior being discussed in this report. This might be blunt, but I don't know that I've ever seen someone so determined to dig the hole even deeper. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you just confirm that it is only a ban on "fixing" ISBN and not on adding references that contain one? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading is that alter means “modifying or removing an existing ISBN field” and hence would exclude “adding”. Northern Moonlight 16:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Presently I'm looking for the best template to announce my Wikibreak. Post-break I'd like to improve the ISBN-formatting in Wikipedia again. I will focus on the ISBN-error/checksum list category. I will put in all, I mean ALL, the hyphens I can find in OCLC, ASIN, Amazon, etc. Why do I have this mania about ISBNs? In my pre-US Army days I was a book sorter and shelver at the local public library. Library patrons would drop their returned book down the slot to the basement book sorting room. I'd help in checking the books back in, put them on the carts, and push the carts back to where we could re-shelf them according to the Dewey Decimal System number. Sometimes I could actually sit down and read the books! It was a great job. So bye-bye for now. It is time to start my brake. – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-break I'd like to improve the ISBN-formatting in Wikipedia again
    This has to be the most blatant WP:IDHT I have ever seen. Northern Moonlight 17:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this ban proposal goes through you can't alter currently added ISBNs. You would be able to add comments to the talk page using something like {{Edit COI}} CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how I read it as well. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my intent, yes. Fine to add, not fine to alter or remove. I've tweaked the wording accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read the 6 to 8 complaints listed by Jonesey95 I think the major criticism was that my edits were improper when I took out hyphens from the ISBNs. And yes I failed to explain my edits properly. (And double-yes, one of my WP mentors has pointed out how effectively I shot myself in the foot with my responses!) Well, I'm signed up with OCLC which displays publication data, plus much more. And OCLC will display the various ISBNs for different editions of books. At this moment I looking at a book published by Sage and OCLC is displaying a non-hyphenated version of the ISBN. (See OCLC 750831024 and ISBN 9781412965804 or 978-1-4129-6580-4.) In our discussions about my block editors have suggested using Template:Format ISBN. This template displays the ISBN with full hyphenation. (Also, it displays a red checksum note if the ISBN is invalid.) I suggest that I be allowed to modify ISBNs so they display the hyphenated version of the ISBN. (My first goal is to go through the categories that list articles with ISBN errors so they can be cleaned up.) And Market socialism is also one of my "targets" for ISBN fixing – it is an interesting topic and both Jonesey95 and I have recently edited the article. (It still has some gnomish errors.) There is no rush on my request. I'm on WikiBreak at present. But I do want to boost my edit count a bit more. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that isn’t really the main objection at this point.
    As at least a dozen people have told you, the objection is that when lots of people tell you that your edits are contentious and need to be discussed, you appear to be 100% unable to hear them. You also appear to be unable to hear what anyone in this report is saying to you.
    I believe that you’re editing in good faith, but whatever stops you from being able to hear what other people say is causing a big problem for you. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Willform ignoring all feedback

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    Would support this. Has been registered for 5 years and never made a comment on his own talk page--FMSky (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the massive wall of concerns on their talk page with nary a peep in response, and no alteration of behavior, I've pblocked from articlespace until communication improves. Anyone can unblock once it does. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that they've not even reacted to the block I feel it's likely they've just been ignoring the talk page and feedback intentionally and have just decided to abandon the account. Fear they'll just start socking. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Armandlee

    [edit]
    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Armandlee, Some1, TNstingray, DocLG, and Liz: post-move pings, will re-notify Armandlee. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Just a note for the archives but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armandlee was created as there was an account created shortly after this AN/I was opened that acted similarly. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also for the record it was resolved as unrelated. Armandlee was not socking. They also seem to have stopped participating in WP after being brought to AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also also for the record, it's still open, and there is no resolution. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases, specifically, Note: CheckUser is just one way to find evidence; it is not  magic pixie dust or a  crystal ball. Even if CheckUser shows "unrelated" or "inconclusive", it means that the CheckUser tool did not reveal any connection or is inconclusive. In some cases it may be clear or likely on behavioral grounds and an adverse finding could be justified by the evidence taken as a whole. In short, don't take IP addresses at face value. The similarities were enough for a clerk to endorse the technical check. However, as neither account is continuing to edit, we may never know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —Locke Cole • t • c 17:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't said a word in four days. This is my only account. Armandlee (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support article block on Sydney Sweeney with ability to appeal after showing productive editing elsewhere over a period of time - After reviewing @Armandlee's conduct on Talk:Sydney Sweeney, there are some serious issues of not only civility, but a clear unwillingness to listen to the advice and direction of more experienced editors. [41][42][43][44] are just a few examples. When (appropriately) advised of their conduct on their UTP, instead of listening, they turned things into a victim complex (Others have belittled, threatened and gaslight me[45]). Their response of if there is no fairness. I can do what I want[46] is particularly troublesome. Right now, I don't necessarily see them as a SPA, but rather a new/inexperienced user unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines and, more importantly, culture. That doesn't excuse not listening, but it does give me pause on sanctions. If they're not here to build an encyclepedia, that will become evident in time. @Armandlee: Regardless of the outcome of this ANI report, my strong advice is that you review the civility policy as well as learn to assume good faith of other users. There was a significant amount of advice given to you that you completely disregarded as an attack. We have a specific definition of what amounts to personal attacks and nothing that was said to you (that I see) meets that definition. If you're going to continue here, you're going to need to learn the difference. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think this response from @Armandlee should have been reverted. It needs to be considered in the scope of this thread in determining whether they are willing to move forward here productively. So far, that hasn't been the case. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support pblock on Sydney Sweeney and its talk page, per my comments on August 6, and because we've had no assurances that their disruption at that page will stop without administrative action. --tony 20:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support pblock. Armandlee's refusal to listen there is a real problem. In the United States, voter registration cannot be equated with party membership. Voters who live in states with closed primaries (I live in one) often register tactically. Is that the case here? We don't know, and that's why primary sources generally aren't acceptable, and especially not for a BLP. Mackensen (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support pblock While I don't like biting the newbies and have healthy skepticism of the claims this editor is not new [47] this diff shared below by Butlerblog doesn't indicate someone who has fully walked away from a discussion that they got too invested in and who is committed to avoiding disruption. I think the minimum necessary consequence to prevent disruption is appropriate here. That would be a pblock. Hopefully the editor takes this, and the many pieces of advice given to them by experienced editors, to heart and learns to develop some distance from their discussions and to avoid treating Wikipedia as if it were Twitter. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed community ban of Armandlee

    [edit]

    Based on the behavior of the account discussed above (exhibiting consistent WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE behavior, and also at best WP:CIV and at worst WP:NPA conduct), including most recently inserting a YouTube link to a Mariah Carey music video for her song "Obsessed" in reply to another editors genuine comments (an obvious WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG violation), I propose an indefinite community ban of Armandlee (talk · contribs). They may at any time request an WP:UNBAN using the usual methods outlined there should they wish to in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Obviously premature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose Frankly I'm not even sure a page block is necessary as they have voluntarily stepped back and stopped with the aggressive comments at article talk. It seems like substantial overkill to do more than a page block. Simonm223 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd tend to agree that CBAN is too drastic at this point. But this ridiculousness just a few hours ago doesn't indicate that they're serious about reversing course, either. They may have stepped back from the article, but the attitude of I can do what I want[48] doesn't seem to have changed. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I missed that. I think, perhaps, a page block may be in order. Still oppose a cban. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose simply based on where things stand right now. CBAN is simply too drastic - it requires community consensus to reverse. This early on, there isn't enough to show that's warranted. I don't belittle the fact that Armandlee has cast aspersions against you and TNStingray without evidence. However, sanctions are not intended to be punitive. It's far too early to in their editing to assume they can't change. I don't disagree with your assessment that certain behaviors appear to be there (IDHT, NOTHERE, CIV) but we also can't assume they actually understand our internal culture and definitions of things like "personal attack" yet. Part of our mission involves allowing new editors some grace to learn those things. Yes, that has been extended and, so far, seemingly ignored and/or rejected. But we do it anyway. If they truly are NOTHERE, it will become evident. (I do stand by my support of pblock above, though, as I don't see them reversing course on any of it - maybe a self-imposed block will do, but I would be surprised.) ButlerBlog (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as premature. Mackensen (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Sir I'm afraid I don't use any large language models or artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. Everything I've ever written on this site is my own language, structure and intent. Please can you help me with my query, thanks. Welcometothejungle007 (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi,
    I suppose Welcometothejungle007 is an old sockpuppet (Romania/Hungary related articles, I had a lot of conflict with a massive sockpuppetry over many years Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheLastOfTheGiants/Archive, in the report we can see this sockpuppet was very keen to use Hitchins as source, Welcometothejungle007 uses this source again [49]), Welcometothejungle007 has a very minimal edit counts, but he mentions randomly always many Wikipedia rules (even in this ANI report, edit logs, talks) which is really suspicious form a new user. (When I started edit Wikipedia, after 10 edits I did not know any Wiki rules...)
    I see Welcometothejungle007 accuse me harassment and that I follow him in more articles, but it seems he started following me and making a personal harassment campaign against me, as I made earlier edits in articles and he attacked them later. It seems he reverts only my edits in many articles by aggressive edit war. I added a country establishment event [50] a little later a new user he started an edit war [51] [52] [53] (but interesting, he was well aware with 3 revert rule, so he did not make 4 reverts). In talk page, at that time just after 10! edits he demonstrated a great knowledge of Wikipedia rules, which is very suspicious from a "brand new" user. Talk:Romania#Establishment event: Treaty of Trianon (in talk I mentioned this is suspicious). Earlier, a blocked user Napoli0079 did exactly the same revert after my edit [54].
    I earlier edited another page [55] in response of this edit [56] (this sockpuppet always creates many accounts, maybe this is also his account), of course Welcometothejungle007 started to attack my edit Talk:Voivodeship of Maramureș#Concerns about recent edits to Maramureș section - Neutrality 3? accusing "nationalist-fuelled claim to change the text".
    Earlier I restored a removed content [57] by a blocked user [58] User talk:Napoli0079 made a racist attack against me [59] now Welcometothejungle007 started to make an edit war to make the same edit what blocked user Napoli0079 did. [60] + [61] (he said he made only 1 revert, we can see 2)
    Welcometothejungle007 said in this ANI report that I followed him to Treaty of Trianon page, I see Welcometothejungle007 did not edit at all that page, I also did not make anything there a long time ago, but also I have a conflict with the mentioned sockpuppet many years ago in that page, which also support my suggestion that Welcometothejungle007 is the same sockpuppet TheLastOfTheGiants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treaty_of_Trianon/Archive_4#A_lot_of_incorrect_info_added
    Welcometothejungle007 said in this ANI report that I "lost talk page debate" (I do not know what does it mean and how), this was also the usual claim of TheThorLat (same sockpuppet) [62]
    I also recognize he uses ChatGPT for his comments, probably to use a difference communication style than his former sockpuppets.
    It seems very suspicious that most of his dispute and edit wars focuses on my edits. And now we can see he reported me here, just because in talk page I provided a reliable modern academic military historian source regarding the battle (Welcometothejungle007 says that is "off-topic") which support the stage of original article before Welcometothejungle007 arbitrary started to remove contents with edit war. For me his sentences an admitted nationalistic personal motivation to remove other combatants, to emphasize the participation of only 1 combatant: Talk:Battle of Păuliș, I asked to follow WP:ATT instead of his personal belief WP:NOR. [63] "Heavily, heavily undue... Romanian forces did all the fighting defending Pǎuliş and most of the fighting pushing back Hungarians, stop trying to diminish Romanian participation" [64] "A Sole and decisive Romanian victory" "This is perhaps the greatest military achievement in the history of the modern Romanian army" [65] "by no means is a Romanian-Soviet victory when Soviet forces had extremely limited involvement in the battle". I think using the ANI after 40! edits also very suspicious. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Welcometothejungle007 - If you aren't using a large language model, don't write like a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Napoli0079 SPI case opened OrionNimrod (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is many signs of sockpuppetry. I suppose an old sockmaster (5+ years), had many socks, it is hard to know the things, so I did an another report with another evidences. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheThorLat OrionNimrod (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive page moves by 毕明明

    [edit]

    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, [66], and [67], 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)[reply]

    This user has just made two more disruptive page moves, in one case moving it twice ([68], [69]) to make it more difficult to revert. This user needs, at minimum, an indefinite p-block from page moves - that would appear to be the only thing left that will get them to stop. --Sable232 (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See User talk:毕明明#Warning. Please let me know (ping me from here or on my talk if no response) if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Block user for confirmed sockpuppetry

    [edit]
    NO ACTION NEEDED
    Sock claim unraveled by zzuuzz. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Block user HistorianAlferedo[70] with VikRagnarr[71] for sockpuppetry who is also active for disruption in Indian caste related articles on this platform.

    Who is also blocked on Simple Wikipedia for committing sockpuppetry by CheckUser block-account. 2402:E000:44F:E557:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll notify the user for you. VikRagnarr is unused on this wiki. We don't typically block people for what they do on other wikis (nor does simplewiki). If you have evidence of disruption on this wiki, please provide it. Also just curious, do you have an account? -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Zzuuzz
    1. He posted Copyrighted content on Dhir Singh Pundir [72][73][74] Kachhwaha, [75][76][77] and Political marriages.[78]
    2. Citing poor sources from WordPress.[79] citing non reliable sources of Sikhhero.com and WordPress.com on contentious caste articles. [80]
    3. Caste promotion with unreliable travel guide books source that also not mentioned any caste origin.[81]
    4. Removed sourced information with invalid edit summary.[82]
    5. Removed other caste names[83][84][85] from articles but added rajput caste name on many articles openly pushing rajput caste POV.[86][87][88][89] 2402:E000:4B6:EA6D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an account I read and edit independently on both Wikipedias and in native language platform of Wikipedia. 2402:E000:4B6:EA6D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SPI is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't know about this. Yes go please. 2402:E000:450:710B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bushranger You should investigate later or tomorrow. 2402:E000:450:710B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I should not. One, I'm not a CheckUser, and two, you need to file a SPI request. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Zzuuzz
    sir jee then close this if you don't want to take actions. I give you evidence you people said provide evidence for disruption. Good night. I don't know other task of reporting. I KNOW ANI on Simple Wikipedia and English Wikipedia that's why posted here. On simple Wikipedia they say we don't have responsibility for English Wikipedia. 2402:E000:450:710B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have concerns about sockpuppetry, you need to file a report at WP:SPI, which has directions on how to do so. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I take a slightly different perspective to my esteemed colleague above, because I consider the SPI already closed with my initial comment in this thread. I wouldn't want to waste the OP's time. The other stuff doesn't really strike me as ANI material, but I'll defer to others on that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? I thought it was this way ←–. 208.105.244.131 (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it's ↔ thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're both wrong. It's ↓ that way. In hell. -- asilvering (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this page already hell? LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 17:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the fifth circle. SPI is the eighth. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: Chesesenomy - Vandalism + Threatening

    [edit]
    INDEFFED
    Disruptive editing and personal threat. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User has came onto wikipedia with the seemingly sole intent of being disruptive, has vandalised Cabra Dominican College and has also decided to come on my talkpage and seemingly made some backhanded threats towards me.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabra_Dominican_College&oldid=1304755825

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabra_Dominican_College&oldid=1304755570 NeoJade Talk/Contribs 02:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    NeoJade, this editor has been editing for an hour and has 5 edits. It seems a very quick to open an ANI complaint on them. This is for "urgent" "intractable behavioral problems". Have you tried talking with them? Posting a welcome notice? Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As linked above, Chesesenomy made a clear and obvious threat to NeoJade and their family on NeoJade's talk page. I am surprised at the suggestion that the appropriate or expected response would be for NeoJade to post a friendly "Welcome to Wikipedia!" message on Chesesenomy's talk page. --tony 02:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See also this. Sorry Liz, your degree of WP:AGF is often a model for the rest of us to aspire to, but this one is clear and obvious. I've indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, think this was closed a little bit too early to not allow a discussion and/or response from myself on Liz's seeming query.
    This user clearly never would edit outside of causing harm - personally, I get the suggestion they are a younger person who's just made their account to get around a school IP block.
    Plus, they were already on a final warning for vandalising, before making threats towards myself. NeoJade Talk/Contribs 03:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I didn't take these comments as a serious threat. I suggested engaging the editor so I went to go talk with them. If my remarks were insensitive, I apologize. I guess I've seen too many threats that I thought were truly vile that I have become a little jaded over what looked to me to be juvenile trolling. Thanks to other editors who responded more appropriately. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    78.81.123.235 and WP:RUSUKR again again

    [edit]
    PBLOCK FROM ARTICLES
    One month. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP-user 78.81.123.235 made this non-trivial, misleadingly summarized edit: [90]

    The user has previously been sanctioned for WP:RUSUKR, but evidently has a problem to accept the policy. Lklundin (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've partially blocked the IP from articlespace for one month. If there's evidence of disruption in other namespaces, I'd consider expanding the block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers, @Lklundin. Sorry to edit the namespace. Just forgot it's tangentially under the sanctioned policy, which I accept and support. Thank you. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rht bd

    [edit]
    NO ACTION NEEDED
    Referred to article talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Rht bd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made multiple disruptive edits to the article Bangladesh Chhatra League — in this and in this edit, where they removed sourced content written per WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD and added unsourced or non-neutral material. Also, seems like a bit of WP:EW aswell. I warned him twice on his talk page, but the behavior continued. Requesting admin attention for review. Goku from bd (talk · contribs) 14:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]

    Discussion ongoing on the talk page of the article. Hope other editors will also join the discussion to reach a consensus about the lead. Rht bd (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Uncivil language by editor Trasheater Midir

    [edit]
    BLOCKED, TPA REVOKED
    Generalized hostility and nastiness. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am quite concerned about the aggressive and POV-pushing tone of Trasheater Midir's edit summaries, which may amount to uncivil behaviour. I think The RedBurn raised concern about the user's POV-pushing before. As recent examples:

    1. In this edit, the edit summary states "what a rat, hope he will perish miserably"
    2. In this edit, the edit summary states "cope and seethe, CIA-backed soyboys, CWC allows gassing soyboys"
    3. In this edit, the edit summary states "if CS gas is suffocating for you, it's skill issue, lmao", appearing to imply that the victims of chemical weapons were to blame
    4. In this edit, the edit summary states "someone left a caption like it's normal to have stinky Amis on the street of a town outside Amerikkka" – note abusive misspelling and calling Americans "stinky"
    5. In this edit, the edit summary states "-Western funded propaganda outlet. No person with brain will trust it even when it says that Siberia have some bears and pines", when removing RFE/RL source. I thought the recommendation of WP:RFE/RL was to use inline attribution for recent sources (after the early 1970s).

    As much as I am frustrated by American politics, the above appear to be toxic language that I don't expect from editors: the userboxes in their userpage are also concerning, particular those that claim "This user wants Japan to be invaded and subjugated by Mongols" and "From the river to the sea, two-state solution is for soyboys" (diff): the former seems xenophobic. --Minoa (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Yes, I wish harm to members of terrorist organizations, sorry if it offends you.
    2. I agree it may sound impolite, but it's factual information. CWC approves use of riot control agents in internal conflicts, including adamsite. I'm always frustrated by false claims that something is "internationally banned". Such counterfactual claims are mostly used as "coping behaviour" by claimants.
    3. I was refering to incorrect description of gas effects. Tear gas is irritant, they were trying to represent it as pulmonary agent. See point 2. I despise false claims. It's skill issue when you need to resort to such claims.
    4. US soldiers deployed in occupied Middle East countries really stink of their MREs (that contain very low quality food) and sweat (for obvious reasons).
    5. RFE is Western funded, so always suspect when writing about Eastern bloc. I may have stated it in incorrect terms, but it's true.
    I can agree that some my edit summaries sound too harsh or emotional, I'll try to avoid it.
    About userboxes: they are, as explained in edit summary, reaction to other user's userboxes that called for expulsion of some countries from the UN. I see no difference between their userboxes and mine. I see no problem in one about Palestine (two state solution is not only one and not universally accepted solution), I may slightly adjust one about Japan (sorry, Genghis Khan, you could have tried better). Trasheater Midtier🐉(talk) 18:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you agree to be less trollish on WP in the future? (Also: wrong Khan.) --JBL (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since "trollish" implies insincerity of expressed views, no. I never troll. I can agree to be more polite and less emotional. Trasheater Midtier🐉(talk) 19:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Trollish" certainly does not imply insincerity. Your problem is not that you're impolite or too emotional, it's that you're incendiary, and in my opinion that is obviously intentional. This might be a good opportunity to own up to that and to agree to rein it in. (But you don't need to address it to me, this will be my final comment in this discussion no matter what.) --JBL (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see [91] (ok, westerner,) [92] (how rude, that's what wathcing CNN/BBC does to your manners and worldview, recovery not guaranteed😢) [93] (ukrainian Oppengamers (sic) don't know a thing. Well, considering that nobody in country has access to ScienceDirect🤔), [94] (If it was French Pleiades, every Western pawn would say "earth observation", "it's doing research!", "it's for environment!". But when it's Chinese, everyone assumes recoinassance). Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing inappropriate in stating facts. Ukraine doesn't have access to ScienceDirect (check Elsevier#Ukraine). Their claims of being able to make a nuclear weapon out of reactor-grade plutonium are ridiculous and unscientific, it's all what I said. If they had access to Elsevier, they would have read article that I cited.
    There's real difference in Western media coverage of Western dual-use spacecraft and Chinese dual-use spacecraft. Trasheater Midtier🐉(talk) 19:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are incapable of stating a point without insulting people, you should not edit Wikipedia. Northern Moonlight 21:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also bothered by the top of their talk page, describing what appear to be justified warnings to their talk page as vandalism. It doesn't appear to be enforced as much as I feel it should, but there seems to be precedent for false accusations of vandalism to be considered a personal attack. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 20:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue the bigger concern is a series of tendentious edits [95], [96], [97], [98]. I found four in the past month that a pretty clearly fall into this camp, not to mention a lot that are... marginal at best. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain what's wrong in calling Coalition forces in Iraq invaders. See invasion of Iraq. Or in stating the fact that RFE is US-sponsored? They had a documented relationship with the CIA. This all looks like a politically motivated attack on me. And to political attacks I always say: mam to w dupie. Trasheater Midtier🐉(talk) 19:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is definitely not a politically motivated attack. All we're trying to say is that you're less than neutral when it comes to Russian and "western" topics. Also, what is mam to w dupie supposed to mean? I'm getting some... interesting translations for that. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From their userpage, This user wants to subdue Anglo-Saxons and make them pay tribute? Placeholderer (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This user thinks that every bomb dropped on wokou country was justified doesn't inspire much confidence either. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are we wasting time on this? This is a very obvious troll and they are not here to help Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether the anti-Japanese racism is sincere or pure trolling for amusement. It's just as bad either way. Please somebody just indef them. They are also editing the Russian Wikipedia, the Commons and Wikiversity so maybe a global ban should be considered. DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a Russian slur by the way: Anglo-Saxons (slur). Super Ψ Dro 10:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    TrruthPrevails editing disruptively and communicating only with LLMs.

    [edit]
    OWB #72 STRIKES AGAIN
    TrruthPrevails indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TrruthPrevails (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing tendentiously at Advance (lobby group) – among other things they want to remove paragraph about an exposé about propaganda published in two newspapers of record. They added false claims and obviously POV text. There's plenty more tendentious editing at that article from this user; just look at the page history.

    The user defends their POV-pushing with edit summaries claiming they're supporting WP:NPOV. ([100]) Note that in that diff they also introduce WP:SYNTH by implying the lobby group impacted the Greens. The lobby group is not mentioned The Guardian article.

    When confronted on their talk page, the user adds blocks of LLM text which have had to be hatted. ([101], [102])

    The user should be blocked indefinitely, as these are their only contributions as of this comment, so they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. (@Gommeh, LakesideMiners, Epsilon.Prota, and ChildrenWillListen:) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree the person is NOTHERE. Namely, they appear to have zero to no ability to edit collaboratively, as stated by WP:NOTHERE: The following may indicate a user is not here to build an encyclopedia: [...] Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and cooperatively with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns. As much as I would not have used the word "confronted" there myself, their responses on their talk page mean to me that they interpret the findings of the Australian Electoral Commission as definite truth even though they're not necessarily always independent and/or primary (I haven't looked at the sources in question). Gommeh 🎮 18:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the user's continued vendor-style edits without reliable sources, lack of meaningful engagement, and what appears to be AI-generated responses that don't address the concerns raised, I suggest a temporary block or editing restriction to prevent further disruption during this ongoing ANI discussion. Goku from bd (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean, block them temporarily while we're talking about them, and then determine what block to give them? That sounds too complicated. Let them respond here if they want to; however, I think they should be indeffed. (remember "indefinite" is not "infinite") Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, Based on the pattern, an indef block makes sense here. Appreciate the input. Goku from bd (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly I have to agree here - an indef block would probably be the best course of action. The user has to learn to make constructive, neutral edits without the use of AI. If TrruthPrevails shows they can do that, then we can always welcome them back later. For right now though, let's at least give them a chance to explain themselves. Gommeh 🎮 18:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with indef block in this case - in general I would be more inclined to support a targeted editing restriction in cases of POV-pushing, but the displayed lack of interest in communicating with other editors suggests this may not be effiective in encouraging constructive edits. Epsilon.Prota talk 22:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Their use of AI after they were asked not to suggests that an editing restriction may not be enough as well. Gommeh 🎮 22:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, a name like "TrruthPrevails" suggests a WP:RGW mentality, and as other editors mention, WP:NOTHERE behavior. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They posted more AI slop in response to this report. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    equest to update outdated AEC reference
    The current sentence in the article reads:
    As of 2019 Advance Australia's independence had not been tested by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in the same manner as similar lobby groups.
    This statement is now outdated, incomplete, and potentially misleading, as Advance’s status and reporting obligations have since been formally established and documented by the AEC.
    Proposed updated text:
    Advance (formerly Advance Australia) is registered with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) as a Significant Third Party and is subject to financial disclosure requirements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. As a Significant Third Party, Advance must lodge annual financial disclosure returns covering donations, receipts, debts, and electoral expenditure. For example, in 2023–24 Advance reported total receipts of A$15,676,823, total payments of A$13,014,688, and electoral expenditure of A$297,378.[1] The AEC also conducts compliance reviews; in 2021–22 it confirmed Advance’s compliance with transparency requirements and foreign donation rules after amendments were made to its initial disclosure.
    Rationale:
    WP:V – The updated wording is based on verifiable, official data from the AEC transparency register.
    WP:NPOV – The change removes any implication of non-compliance or lack of scrutiny without evidence, replacing it with factual, up-to-date information.
    WP:UNDUE – Retaining the 2019 statement gives undue weight to an outdated situation that no longer reflects Advance’s actual regulatory status.
    WP:RS – All figures and statements are drawn from primary AEC records and Advance’s own public disclosures.
    This is not an interpretation or opinion — it is a factual correction to reflect the current, verifiable regulatory position. TrruthPrevails (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Advance – Annual Return 2023–24". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 9 August 2025.
    I'd be in support of a indef as there are clearly here to right great wrongs LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 23:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    TrruthPrevails rejects the suggestion that their edits to Advance (lobby group) were disruptive or politically motivated. All contributions were made in good faith, using reliable sources and with the aim of improving accuracy and balance in line with core Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Where the subject’s own statements were included, they were clearly attributed.
    Allegations of adding “false claims” or “synthesis” are disputed. Any references to election outcomes or campaign impacts were based on published sources, and if wording unintentionally implied more than the sources support, TrruthPrevails is willing to adjust it. These are content disputes, not reasons for an indefinite block.
    It is true that some research (AEC) was assisted by AI tools, but all material was reviewed, fact-checked, and edited before posting. AI use is not prohibited under current policy so long as the editor takes responsibility for the final text, which has been the case here.
    TrruthPrevails also wishes to note a pattern of multiple editors reverting contributions without substantive, policy-based explanations and without prior discussion. The repeated, coordinated nature of these reversions creates a hostile editing environment and can have the effect of suppressing well-sourced, policy-compliant material. This feels less like normal content review and more like targeted editing to preserve one perspective, which undermines WP:CONSENSUS and the collaborative process.
    From TrruthPrevails’ perspective, this situation has become a test case for whether free expression of differing but verifiable viewpoints can survive in a collaborative encyclopedia. At present, the experience suggests that the process is not functioning well, as coordinated opposition appears to be preventing neutral and balanced updates from remaining in the article.
    The editor has invited discussion on talk pages and is willing to:
    Re-word disputed text to address concerns,
    Limit changes to those agreed upon through discussion, and
    Use formal dispute resolution mechanisms where needed.
    This matter should be treated as a content disagreement rather than a conduct issue. Indefinite blocks are appropriate for editors unwilling to work within policy; TrruthPrevails has shown willingness to engage constructively and seeks a collaborative resolution TrruthPrevails (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrruthPrevails Please don't use AI tools such as ChatGPT to communicate. That's not doing you any good. Use your own words to explain what's going on and we might be able to help. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Testing TrruthPrevails (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    TrruthPrevails, why do you talk of yourself in the third person, as if you are someone else? Generally, people use "I" language not "name" when talking about their own actions and opinions. This makes it look like you are using an LLM to compose a response instead of your own words. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi - we are a large community group and subject to bullying online -happy to use I if that helps you. TrruthPrevails (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @TrruthPrevails, I gather you are a group of people representing Advance. In that case, you should understand that we have strict policies about conflicts of interest – pretty standard stuff, and I'm sure you understand all about conflicts of interest if you're a lobby group. Basically, you're strongly discouraged against editing your own article; instead, you can post requested edits on the talk page.
    We at Wikipedia also have a policy against accounts being controlled by more than one person (and similarly against one person controlling more than one account). It's like one man, one vote: you get one account per person, no sharing.
    Hope this clears things up for you. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Cremastra,
    We want to make it absolutely clear that we are not a group representing Advance - such assumptions are not helpful. This account is operated on behalf of a community group focused on accuracy, neutrality, and free speech in public information spaces, including Wikipedia. Our recent contributions to Advance (lobby group) were aimed solely at correcting outdated or misleading statements — specifically the 2019 claim about the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) “not testing” Advance’s independence. That statement is now factually obsolete. Our proposed update relied entirely on publicly available, verifiable AEC records and complied with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. We believe the focus should be on whether the content itself meets Wikipedia’s content policies, not on assumptions about the identity or affiliations of the contributor. Suggesting a conflict of interest without evidence shifts attention away from the accuracy and neutrality of the article, and risks becoming a form of failure to assume good faith and personalising a content dispute. For the record this account represents one community group, operated in compliance with Wikipedia’s account-use policies. Our edits have been transparently sourced and open to discussion on the talk page. We ask that editors engage with the substance of the official AEC reference update and other proposed changes on policy grounds, rather than seeking to discredit contributors by association. Bullying or intimidation of editors — particularly over unfounded assumptions about their identity — undermines the collaborative environment Wikipedia depends upon.
    — TrruthPrevails (talk) TrruthPrevails (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They claim that their account is controlled by multiple people here. I would support indef at this point. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    == Allegations of Disruptive Editing / COI – Request for Administrator Review ==
    This report concerns allegations made against the account TrruthPrevails in relation to edits on the Advance (lobby group) article.
    1. Nature of the edits
    TrruthPrevails has been updating outdated and incomplete content in the article, particularly replacing the 2019 AEC reference with up-to-date, verifiable data from the Australian Electoral Commission’s transparency register. The proposed wording is factual, neutral, and supported by primary AEC sources, in accordance with:
    WP:V – Verifiable with reliable, official data.
    WP:NPOV – Avoids unsupported implications of non-compliance.
    WP:RS – Sources include AEC public records and official disclosures.
    2. Allegations made
    Several editors have alleged that the account:
    Is pushing a political point of view.
    Is controlled by multiple people.
    Represents the lobby group Advance.
    Uses AI to generate content.
    3. Refutation
    The account is operated by a single designated editor. While the editor belongs to a community group concerned with accuracy and free speech, there is no organisational connection to Advance. The “we” used in discussion posts refers to that community perspective, not to multiple editors controlling the account.
    All content added is fact-checked, neutrally phrased, and based on reliable sources.
    The issue at hand is a content dispute — specifically whether the current AEC statement should reflect 2019 conditions or current, verifiable data. This is not a conduct or COI matter.
    AI tools have occasionally assisted with research, but the editor takes full responsibility for the final wording. This is not prohibited by policy when used appropriately.
    4. Concerns about process
    There appears to be a pattern of multiple editors reverting sourced contributions without engaging first on the talk page, followed by coordinated conduct accusations. This creates a hostile environment and risks suppressing accurate, policy-compliant updates.
    5. Request
    That administrators:
    Confirm there is no policy breach in replacing outdated material with accurate, sourced content.
    Address any COI concerns through normal disclosure and talk-page request processes.
    Remind all involved editors to seek WP:CONSENSUS through discussion rather than repeated reversions.
    This matter should be resolved as a content dispute, not escalated to indefinite block proposals. The editor is willing to re-word, discuss, and follow dispute resolution where needed.
    TrruthPrevails (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have off-wiki obligations not to engage with the subject matter here. May I suggest that the article be locked until the question about paid editing I added here be answered? Thanks. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 02:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:CIVIL block request for User:Geogene

    [edit]
    WITHDRAWN
    I thought this was a clear cut line that was crossed, but I can see that those here do not agree. It is a waste of time to attempt to take it further. Buffs (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have repeatedly asked for User:Geogene to leave my talk page and he continues to post grievance after grievance. At this point, I am asking for a block. He is not my personal conscience and has no justification to continue to harangue and hound me per WP:CIVIL.

    "If that's all you're going to do, leave." Responds with a litany of complaints based on half truths and out-of-context remarks; some are outright lies

    ask to stop #2 Continues #2

    ask to stop #3 (put it in edit summary too) Continues #3

    Buffs (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support IBAN at this point both of you have been noticeably uncivil and disruptive to each other. EF5 21:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your original remark was far more telling but I didn't have time to respond before you changed your remarks. I'm not "pinning" anything on Geo other than his repeated remarks on my talk page. On that page we've found a generally found a detente despite minor changes here and there. That's a normal part of the editing process. He didn't have to my user talk page; he chose to do so repeatedly despite being asked to stop. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “Far more telling”? Really? I edited my comment because I realized it was inaccurate. What, exactly, is the issue with that? And don’t use past revisions of edited comments as if they’re the most recent revision; there’s a reason they’ve been edited. EF5 22:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Remarks struck accordingly based on that explanation. Didn't realize how short lived it was (in hindsight, I should have checked timestamps closer). Buffs (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re all good, sorry for lashing out. EF5 22:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; likewise. Buffs (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment this is related to "Buffs, American politics, and climate change" subsection on this page, which I procedurally closed after three different admins recommended taking it to AE. Geogene (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be blunt, no it is not. It is 100% with regards to my talk page and that page only. If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected...repeatedly posting on a user's page without good reason after being asked not to, may be seen as harassment or a similar kind of disruptive behavior. When in doubt, ask for help from another experienced editor or uninvolved administrator. I shouldn't have to put up with the constant harassment on my own user talk page and I came here as directed. Buffs (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so why don't you go do that? And then avoid posting on Buffs' user talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made any edits today since closing that thread. Sheesh. Geogene (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't joking about the admins on this board earlier Geogene. They only make decisions about obvious vandalism and whether someone may be gaming ECR. Someone said DEI is a pipedream here. Since they had over 100 edits they can't be held accountable here. 166.205.97.37 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    166.205.97.37, what on Earth are you talking about here? Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the IP is talking about unblockables. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having over 100 edits doesn't mean they wont be held accountable(I have seen people with far more than that sanctioned here.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll say what I said before the last one was closed: both of you are acting uncivil toward each other and bringing a lot more heat than light to the dispute. And again, I strongly urge both of you to drop the stick, take a break from AmPol, say three or four weeks, and get some time to cool down and reflect. Neither of you have presented anything that's the equivalent of crossing the Rubicon, and there don't need to be any IBANs, TBANs, or indefs or anything else logged. You two have nearly 40,000 edits; is it really necessary to require a sanction to keep you two from fighting like SPIs edit-warring Sambhaji? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To both the disputants here: CC is flagging you both towards the off ramp with marshalling wands, and you should really both avail yourselves of the guidance. As they said, this is a tempest in a teapot at present, but it wouldn't take a whole lot to reach a point where a sanction for one or both of you begins to look like the only way forward.
    Geogene: when someone asks you leave their talk page, 99 times out of 100 it's the right call to comply. On the other hand, Buffs: if you really want someone to leave your talk page, consider not coupling the requests with paragraphs of accusations, some of which might reasonably be taken as WP:ASPERSIONS by your rhetorical opposition. If you make these kind of detailed accusations of misconduct (or even just suboptimal/bad faith behaviour), you are actively de-incentivizing the party you claim to want to go away from doing so. The manner in which you combined the requests with these sorts of comments was either an effort to lock in the last word or just a really obtuse strategy for getting someone to stop engaging with you. Bluntly speaking, it's a little obnoxious to come here to essentially request that the community order Geogene to WP:DROPTHESTICK when you yourself were being equally obstinate about ceasing the broadsides.
    Again, I urge you both to take the feedback you've received here to heart, and short-circuit a cycle that is leading neither of you anywhere good. SnowRise let's rap 03:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    consider not coupling the requests with paragraphs worth of accusations I see nothing here that resembles that on my side. I've answered questions and provided quotes. The only person who has provided detailed accusations of misconduct is Geogene, not me; perhaps you misread that. Likewise, this was done before I submitted here. I am attempting to disengage. Buffs (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really can't see which comments I am talking about there, that significantly heightens my concerns for your ability to properly de-escalate these kinds of situations and avoid wasting the community's time on frivolous requests. That said, let me be more express: when you say to Geogene "You've miscategorized, mislabeled, misquoted, demonized innocuous edits, repeatedly taken partial sentences completely out of context, and generally created a nuisance." (which is just a small fraction of one post, itself a part of a protracted back-and-forth about who is really running afoul of behavioural standards) what result were you really expecting? You can't have your cake and eat it too: if you want someone to leave your talk page, you expressly ask them to in a quick and pointed matter. It can be accomplished in seven words: "Please don't edit my talk page further." If you instead opt for 200+ words, most of them criticizing the other party and others in their rhetorical camp for the underlying disputes, the aggregate effect is not going to be to discourage them from commenting further.
    And yes, since then you have deleted the entire user talk thread, but I don't think that actually improves the complexion of how you behaved here or whether you are making use of community time in good faith. Because you deleted the discussion a full day after Geogene last commented on your talk page, and after they seemed to be finished there, having given up on that discussion and opened a thread requesting oversight here at ANI. Geogene didn't comment on your talk page again after they opened the above discussion, and there doesn't appear to be any indication that they would return there, since they were seeking a community resolution at that point. And yet you opened this thread, ostensibly asking for community intercession and a sanction in regard to the user talk discussion where a) the discussion was effectively over at that point, and b) you had been equally as active in maintaining the discussion for the time it did run.
    So, when one looks at the specific actions and timeline as an outside observer, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the most likely reason this thread was opened was as retaliation for Geogene's filing--which, not withstanding that it was redirected to AE, appears to have been made in a good faith belief that it was needed to address a pattern of issues in your conduct. Whether those concerns are warranted or not, they contrast with your own approach in how you have handled this filing, which I would not hesitate to say looks much more like an abuse of process and a waste of the community's time. I would seriously drop this approach and stop doubling down, as I think the most likely outcome if you do not is a WP:BOOMERANG. SnowRise let's rap 23:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The result I was expecting was that an admin would simply say "He's asked you repeatedly to stop posting on his user page and you won't stop. Therefore, you're blocked for XX hours." That's all I was looking for. The idea that my responses to his remarks somehow justified his continued posts is baffling at best. YMMV. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PA. Both need to work on acting more nicely, User:Geogene for attacking and Buffs for managing the problem with civility. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 02:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    JazzyOxygen and LLM use

    [edit]
    I think the original locus of the dispute has been resolved. Agentic web has been merged, and JazzyOxygen has been advised to use WP:AFC for the time being to get more through reviews of their work. -- Sohom (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    To date, JazzyOxygen has created eight articles. The second and most blatantly LLM-generated one (Jobs to Be Done – see first revision) was originally created in article space, and I moved it to draft space after they confirmed in a user talk page discussion that it was LLM-generated. Although JazzyOxygen said that they do not recall creating any other LLM-generated articles, I'm not sure if that is the case and I'm asking for more opinions.

    Specifically, JazzyOxygen's first revision to the article Agentic web (Special:Permalink/1296595657) cites a number of sources that do not verify the article content. For example, this cited Engadget article does not verify the article paragraph about "educational" and "Healthcare" use cases, and it is unclear how this Indian Express article has anything to do with how agents "help customers discover optimal deals". When I asked JazzyOxygen about two of these discrepancies, they said that the Engadget citation was a mistake and should have been this Wall Street Journal article. However, while the WSJ article mentions healthcare, it does not mention education. It seems like the Agentic web article was generated by an LLM that incorporated unverified content into its output.

    The first revisions of JazzyOxygen's other articles also show some signs of possible LLM use (e.g. in the section headings), although not as clearly as these first two. Additionally, JazzyOxygen started editing by making a bit over 500 "newcomer task" suggested edits and requesting the new page reviewer permission (which requires 500 article space edits), then creating the LLM-generated Jobs to Be Done article in mainspace the same day the request was declined; I found the timing of this to be peculiar.

    Does this editing pattern warrant any kind of response? — Newslinger talk 23:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There's more than enough evidence to suggest they're an undisclosed paid editor. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Redacted) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've picked things up quickly. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've lurked here for a while, but yes, it's obvious when someone's only trying to superficially contribute versus do it because they actually want to. There are some more signs, but I would rather not discuss about them publicly per WP:BEANS. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does warrant response. If they're persisting in creating LLM-generated articles they should be blocked from mainspace. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nominated Agentic web for G15 based on the evidence provided here. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Sohom Datta has WP:BLARed the article by redirecting it to Agentic AI. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More a merge, but yeah. Sohom (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp, that was quick. Don't worry about me contesting it and trying to improve it. Thanks. JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JazzyOxygen, you are welcomed to improve the more condensed section about agentic web on the Agentic AI. For what it's worth, I'm sufficiently familiar with that area to say that there is not enough at this time to create a non-stub article. Sohom (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm currently being accused of being a paid editor so I'll pass. JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Frustrating. I am not a paid editor. Not sure what I can do to prove to you otherwise? I have indeed admitted to using an LLM on some of my articles and I don’t claim to be an A+ editor like you all are. I’m also aware that using LLMs are discouraged but not against the rules.
    I thought the ethos of this community was to build upon and improve? I’m not vandalizing and I’m not spamming I’m trying to make the place better and fill in gaps that need filling.
    What would you all like me to do moving forward? According to my “pattens” I cannot apply to help even work on any newcomer articles? I’m at a loss. JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have two suggestions for you:
    1. Please do not use LLMs to generate articles. Their outputs usually have many problems that cause them to run afoul of Wikipedia guidelines. If you haven't, I would suggest reading (or re-reading) WP:LLM.
    2. Repeatedly denying allegations is likely to make other editors more suspicious of you.
    Thanks, SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Yes I understand that now. I have read it, but will read it again.
    2. Okay, but I'm also not going say I'm getting paid to do this when I'm not. Or say I have some sort of vested interest in random people, topics, and theoretical frameworks when I don't.
    So how can I prove to you that I'm not a paid editor? Perhaps go super deep into a single topic and never come back? When I first started this, I thought the idea was to get things started and then people would come in behind me and improve upon my work? As I previously said to Newslinger, when I come across topics I find interesting, I try to get something started for the community to see it get built upon by others. One of the example I used was an entrepreneur who has built two very large companies that already have their own Wikipedia pages. His name was even listed in the info box on both company pages. It's not unreasonable to think a type of guy like that should have his own page. I understand it wasn't good enough now and will work to improve it if you all don't immediately delete it like the last one. JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not edit with the idea that you can make lots of errors - especially the kind of sourcing errors LLM tools produce - and that someone else will come along and fix or improve it later. Make your best effort to get it right the first time, that's all anyone expects. MrOllie (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, all that we're asking is that you be careful when editing, especially if you are using LLMs. I don't think that you're a paid editor; other editors may think so, but I think the best thing to do in this scenario is to just move on and let it go. Using LLMs to get ideas and such is perfectly fine, provided that you carefully check all the references and text to make sure that is acceptable for Wikipedia; since it is usually not, I would recommend just writing articles yourself if you can. Thank you for your contributions! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LLMs are more trouble than they're worth because they lie pathologically and their content needs to be checked. Far easier to just write stuff yourself. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I think an admin should close this discussion since it seems the issues have been resolved. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi JazzyOxygen, a large part of the problem with your LLM use is that it was undisclosed. After originally saying that you don't recall using an LLM for more than one article, you are now saying here that you have used an LLM on multiple articles. If any of your other article creations contain LLM-generated text, a big step toward transparency would be to disclose on the corresponding talk pages of those articles that you used an LLM to assist with editing the article. As WP:LLMDISCLOSE (part of WP:LLM) states, "Every edit that incorporates LLM output should be marked as LLM-assisted by identifying the name and, if possible, version of the AI in the edit summary. This applies to all namespaces." I also recommend against using LLM outputs for editing, but if you disregard our advice to avoid using LLM outputs, the bare minimum expectation is that you properly disclose every single one of your LLM-assisted edits and ensure that they do not violate any content policies, including the verifiability policy.
    Regarding your two requests for the new page reviewer permission on 19 June and on 7 July, please keep in mind that the 500 edits in article space are only a minimum requirement. New page patrol involves identifying and correctly handling promotional content and sourcing issues, and at this point, I believe you would need to gain additional experience in these areas before qualifying for the permission. For instance, when I said that phrases such as "focus on performance, security, and customer support" and "focused on long-term vision, product innovation" in your created article Jason Cohen (entrepreneur) were promotional, that was intended to be constructive advice to help you recognize (and hopefully correct) that promotional content.
    As for what "to do moving forward", I recommend that you submit your new articles as drafts through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process to ensure that they are thoroughly reviewed, instead of publishing them directly into article space. AfC reviewers are there to help catch any issues that would get your article deleted or merged, so that you would be less likely to run into problems after publication. — Newslinger talk 06:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay JazzyOxygen (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way things are going, LLMs will be the death of Wikipedia. The only defensible use case for them (on Wikipedia) is grammar-checking and so on, but the marginal benefit of allowing that particular use is nothing compared to the overwhelming existential threat posed by opening the door to the flood of horseshit already being heaped upon us by people who are incompetent to edit and think using an LLM turns them into a useful contributor. If someone can't contribute usefully without an LLM, then they're also not able to properly review LLM-generated material so as not to post garbage to our articles and discussions. We are wasting more and more time, here at ANI and elsewhere, dealing with such people, and I challenge anyone to show me the benefit we reap from it. We should be forbidding all LLM use, period. (That's step 1; step 2 is figuring out how to do that.) EEng 17:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2600:1700:7A50:9C0:90AF:6E84:560F:3811

    [edit]
    Blocked 31 hours. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can an admin please block this IP? Looks like some combination of disruption, trolling, and frivolous requests. Left guide (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/2600:1700:7A50:9C0:0:0:0:0/64 blocked 31 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]

    Alex_21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The articles for Doctor Who series' 14 & 15 have been subject to several RMs over the last two years regarding the naming of them, invariably reaching a conclusion of "No Consensus" each time. However as these have gone on the user's behaviour has become more and more bludgeoning to the point I believe is actively worsening discussions.

    As can be seen in each of the now closed RMs[103][104][105], there's been a growing tendency to reply under a growing percentage of those who take the opposite view (namely those Opposed to moving the articles to a new name), and with a tone that can only be described as at times incredibly patronising ("So, it's not actually part of any policy? That's a shame, that's what most arguments need to be based on, RM's especially. The policy on article titles states that, yes, it should be based on the consensus of sources - and in the lack of that, the consensus of editors. Do I need to repeat the above quote? I can bold it for you"[106]).

    To better exemplify this issue, at the latest version of the current RM[107], despite it being open for less than four days they have already replied under 5 of the 6 people of the opposite viewpoint, even stating in their initial contribution they view all potential Oppose votes as invalid (there is no other reason not to move the article, other than "I don't like it"[108]).

    They also seem incapable of stopping themselves from doing this. In the previous RM at Series 15 on May 8 this year they explicitly state I was legitimately trying to avoid this talk page any further, since it seems to blow up every time, but this was an insane argument.[109] only to then proceed to keep getting heavily involved in these discussions in the same manner as before.

    As a result of all this, I now believe the only way to resolve this behaviour is admin intervention. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies if you have viewed my tone as patronizing; viewing discussions over a screen can certainly distort intended meanings. I agree that I have a firm view on the topic at hand, as does every other editor involved, and they can definitely clash.
    I added a comment earlier this morning (in my timezone) summarizing the !votes that were given in the current discussion, and how they lack the usage of sources, guidelines and policies. Indeed, one very detailed thread in the active RM is using fan-sites to give support to their meaning; I only intend to educate on the usage of proper, reliable sources. Another examples of my comments have been to make the details of WP:NCTV clear, having been heavily involved in my contributions to that project and relevant WikiProject for over a decade now. Could I perhaps do that at the talk page of NCTV, to avoid inflating the discussion? I could certainly consider that.
    Official discussions such as RM's, RFC's, etc. need to be grounded in Wikipedia's core policies. My only intention has ever been to abide by that. No intervention is necessary here; if you'd agree, a discussion section could be opened up, to invite proper discussion and analysis of sources and the expectations's of Wikipedia's core. This would allow the RM to flow more easily. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex 21 To be quite honest, as I have said to you previously over this same issue I really think the best way you could help this RM topic reach a consensus isn't by offering what you see as guidance, even at a different forum, but to simply take no further part. You've made your position on the content issue clear but if you take a look at WP:BLUDGEON (in particular "dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process") you are matching it wholesale when it comes to this issue at this point.
    You are now replying to basically everyone who takes a different view to yours, you keep pointing out how you regard those of that viewpoint to effectively boil down to "I don't like it", you keep effectively pestering people for more exact evidence over and over as it's never good enough to satisfy you, and by your own admission can't seemingly help yourself but engage even when you try not to. This can also be seen in how this attitude bled over into you opening a Move Review into the previous RM closure[110] where you seemed to mostly just rehash the RM and vent about all the ways you saw it as policy not being followed, only for everyone uninvolved who left a comment endorsing the RM as closed appropriately.
    You are simply too invested in this issue to maintain a healthy distance to it and see that what you may think as helping or educating instead comes off as Luke Rattigan shouting "I'm cleverer than you". Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alex 21, in these discussions, would you agree to put forward your opinion and not comment or critique other editors' opinions even if they are in opposition to your own? I can see where that behavior would quickly become tiresome to other editors. Promising this means not "correcting" other editors when they put forth views you disagree with. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I could certainly do that. It's not the fact that they oppose the RM, that's not what has been targeted here, it's the necessary information being given relating to the relevant guidelines and policies. As an administrator, I do ask, would it be considered critiquing if I request a user not use fansites to support their arguments? What of misinterpreted policies? I'm absolutely happy to remain in line with other editor and discuss civilly and collaboratively while still adding positively to the discussion.
      There's a big difference between contributing positively, and another editor recommending that I do not contribute to the discussion at all. That will help nobody. To also be told by the above editor that following procedure correctly (i.e. the move review) was also unaccetable feels like I'm being directed in my every step on Wikipedia on what they believe I can and cannot do (I have no idea who Luke Rattigan is). Like I said - happy to abide by whatever you recommend here, while still contributing. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just adding onto this, I have continued in the discussion with this reply; the responding editor replied in kind, showing that there's no animosity in the discussion at all. I'm sure to point out that they asked me direct questions, so I provided direct responses. I hope this would be within an acceptable frame of responding, as the reply was directly to myself. Please do correct me if this would be considered out of line. Thanks. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have not looked that closely at the RM but generally there's no reason to repeat an argument five times. You already said 'there is no other reason not to move the article, other than "I don't like it".' so I guess you've already made an argument so compelling that there isn't even any real need to continue to monitor the RM. Just wait for it to end and it will be closed with consensus on whatever side your arguing on. To be clear, I'm serious here and not being facetious. Consensus is not simply a vote count but instead a discussion trying to find which side is supported by our policies and guidelines. So if you're sure of what you said, then you should also be reasonably sure consensus will be on your side in the end since whatever anyone else says, it's irrelevant. In the event the closer makes a mistake in closing, you can bring challenge the close in an appropriate manner. There's no need to challenge everyone who makes an argument which isn't supported by our policies and guidelines. Any competent closer having read what you said earlier perhaps along with anyone else arguing on your side, should see you're right. In cases where you're less sure of your argument and so you don't say what you said here, it might be okay to continue to monitor the RM (or whatever discussion) to reply if someone say something which raises a point you did not previously consider, to help you understand the point they are making perhaps as part of reconsidering your !vote. Or sometimes if they say something you did not address previously but you feel is wrong, to challenge them in a limited fashion. Note you still only have to do this once. Having said it once even if someone else makes the same point there's no need to challenge it again. Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I can see where you're coming from.
      I try my best to recommend the relevant policies applicable, as I believe Wikipedia should stick to its core policies whenever possible, rather than basing this website on our opinions. I absolutely agree that "consensus is not simply a vote", and that I can "challenge the close in an appropriate manner", and while it's great to hear those ideas from you and I try to stick to that idea as much as possible, it's disheartening when the opposite happens - that is exactly why we're at this current RM, because the last RM was closed based on simply counting votes, and I did indeed challenge it at MR. However, despite following the correct order as you've suggested, me doing that was listed in the opening statement above as another grievance. (I do hope that me detailing these events will not be further taken as a grievance by any editor that disagrees with my procedure there.)
      We can only abide by Wikipedia's guidelines as much as the next person, and deal with the situation if it becomes to difficult to follow that. I'll be sure to follow any advice that recommends I ease up on that, to allow editors to provide personal opinions to further Wikipedia's content, rather than try to force points they may not be aware of.
      I can refrain further from commenting on other's !votes, and if I have anything further to add to my own !vote, I'll happily simply add it to my original comment as an addition or ammendement. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have attempted to hide my extended comments in good faith to allow the discussion to continue, but have been reverted. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring by user "True narrator"

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    True narrator blocked one week for edit warring. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    True narrator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    A new account, True narrator is edit warring against multiple users and causing major disruption on practically every article they edit. They got reverted because their additions were unsourced, and after multiple requests by different users (such as here, on their talk page, and numerous times in the edit comments of the reverts), they start to add sources, which, however, only tend to cover one claim they add, but not the rest. They continue to edit war [111] even after two warnings on their talk page that they must not edit war and may be reported on this page when continuing; these warnings came not from me but from two different users. Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, this user is indeed just doing edit war. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    again since when did i edited arctotherium again? and apologies for not providing every source i am new to wikipedia True narrator (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when we talked about Arctotherium article here? Link shown is Daeodon. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i have provided source for arctodus size and yet that 1000 kg estimate is a speculation based on visual comparisons True narrator (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, this user is also causing copyright violation. See c:User talk:True narrator, two images they uploaded for article was uploaded from non-free website, and after that I warned about that in talk page. But they did again.[112][113], this image is apparently "uploaded from Reddit". Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    that image might be from reddit but it is free to use True narrator (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not. Read c:Commons:Licensing. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but i cant access the website True narrator (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    my apologies for that True narrator (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • User is continuing edit warring on Daeodon: [114]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      can you please tell whats the problem with my edit? why are you reverting it without mentioning the problem? True narrator (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You have to read and understand Wikipedia:Edit warring. If someone disagrees with your addition and reverts you (and it does not even matter who is right), you must not revert back but open a discussion on the article talk page to convince others that your proposed addition improves the article, and not add it back to the article until such consensus is reached. On Daeodon, you just now added your info back again, after already having been reverted six (!) times. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      i have fixed all the problems which were the cause of the disagreement added a reliable source fixed grammer and evenn more if you still think theres an error then please tell me and i dont think anyone who would read my current edit would revert it back True narrator (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This user claims that there are no papers that estimate the weight of Daeodon, and tries to show its weight by comparing it with Arctodus, which has a similar shoulder height. However, considering that the two are completely unrelated animals with very different body shapes, this is completely WP:OR. The paper cited in the Entelodontidae article[115] clearly states: "750 kg or more (large male Dinohyus hollandi)". Dinohyus is synonym of Daeodon. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      again the study doesnt cite any study as a reference that puts daeodon at 750 kg and yet arctodus and daeodon might be unrelated with daeodon having slender legs but daeodon was. Bulky and was robustly built since it was related to hippos and whales and arctodus on the other hand had a leaner built
      They had similiar height with daeodon exceeding it in both height and lenght
      And yet in WP:OR it is stated you should not inculd any analysis out of your own i only inculded a speculation True narrator (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, you just reverted again, now for the seventh time in the same article (Daeodon), continuing your edit war despite multiple editors asking you to stop many times. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Again whats the problem???? You guys need to understand that i just fixed all the errors and mistakes True narrator (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Analysis, educated guess, speculation, all of that is original research. We don't care what you (or I) think about our subjects. We're here to summarize what reliable sources have published about them.
      Reliable sources, on the other hand, are able to do original research or analysis. They don't have to show their work or cite their sources, either. Woodroar (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Okey pal just remove that 1000 kg guess then also that 750 kg estimate has no reliable source to be proven. True narrator (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Acroterion beat me to it. You're blocked from Daeodon for a week for edit warring. Original research is unacceptable here. Please read WP:OR carefully. You are also showing ownership behavior and personal attacks in your edit summaries. Please read WP:NPA and WP:OWN. If you continue down this path, you may completely lose your editing privileges here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • True narrator (talk · contribs) blocked from Daeodon for a week for edit-warring. True narrator, if you keep adding unsourced content and edit-warring, the next block will be longer and more extensive. Acroterion (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    185.215.34.88

    [edit]
    Stale. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Reverted an edit that was political vandalism on "Found a Peanut", calling Israelis... I'm not going to repeat it here. 108.160.120.113 (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit was three days ago. No action to be taken (and at this point, posting here only calls attention to it). - The Bushranger One ping only 07:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New Boy666

    [edit]

    New Boy666 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

    This user has received numerous final warnings, including last week for vandalism. On 29 July, they moved a dozen Moroccan soccer-related pages to "anglicized" titles with no explanation, and at least once (twice rather [116][117]) against explicit consensus. It seems to me like they should be blocked for disruptive editing. JBchrch talk 08:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a cut-paste mess on the Mohammed V Stadium one. I don't have the ability to fix it right now. Sennecaster (Chat) 10:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have begun to fix it [118][119] and have requested a technical move back to the consensual title [120]. JBchrch talk 12:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just performed the technical back to last consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 12:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahmedreza72718

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    Personal attacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ahmedreza72718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor has a history of personal attacks (check warnings talkpage) and this new message on my talkpage[121]. Semsûrî (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You keep editing pages without a source ur a pan kurd making up fake history and when i rewrite it showing the truth you edit it back without any sources Ahmedreza72718 (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Red X Blocked Ahmedreza72718 indefinitely for disruptive editing. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Can you redact his inappropiate edits here?[122] Semsûrî (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done for the maternal insult. I'm not familiar enough with the topic area to determine whether the other edit qualifies for the criteria for revision deletion. ​— Newslinger talk 12:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. Thank you. Semsûrî (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ces.althea162003

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Ces.althea162003 indefinitely blocked by Ad Orientem due to disruptive editing. --tony 20:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ces.althea162003 (talk · contribs) has been inserting multiple hoaxes and vandalising Philippines-related film and BLP articles by inserting made-up films derived from their user page. [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]. Borgenland (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV is there. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinitely blocked from article space unless/until they communicate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I filed one but given the tendency of that site to backlog I filed it here and had the AIV deleted. Borgenland (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noting that they recreated their userpage that had been deleted for abusive purposes and other G10 behavior. Borgenland (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now just indeffed. They have had plenty of opportunity to communicate and have chosen not to. Moving on... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Clarity needed on moving talk page discussions during merge prop

    [edit]
    Moved to Wikipedia talk:Merging#RFC needed on moving open WP:MERGEPROP discussions to different talk pages
    — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This isn't so much a behavioral problem, as a need for clarity on whether it's ok to move talk page discussions during a WP:MERGEPROP. I've personally never seen other editor's comments get copy pasted from one talk page to another, and I've been editing for a very long time so it shocked me. There was a merge proposal made by FaviFake at Talk:Placeholder name#Proposed merger of Oceanic Airlines into Placeholder name to merge Oceanic Airlines to Placeholder name but that was opposed by pretty much everyone in a short window. The nominator mentioned a WP:SNOW close for this reason and suggested a new target article at Fictional companies. In good faith I interpreted this comment as a withdrawal from the nominator, so I boldly closed it per SNOW (which perhaps in hindsight was a bad idea) with the advise of starting a new merge proposal at Talk:Fictional companies for procedural reasons so that proper notification tags could be placed. FaviFake objected to this, and undid the close (which I am ok with because I could reasonably interpreted as an involved editor). What I do have a potential problem with is copy pasting others comments onto another talk page, and moving a formal merge proposal midway onto a different page. (See Talk:Fictional company#merge proposal) Are either of those actions allowable in a formal merge prop discussion? If it is I can accept that, but it just seems very unusual.4meter4 (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm the nominator in question. This description of the situation is correct. I would add that I moved the discussion mainly because many editors in the discussion (including me) said they believed Fictional companies to be a better target for the merger, and because 4meter4 attempted to close it for this reason. To me, it seemed consensus was forming to merge the page into Fictional companies instead of the original target, so I moved the discussion to allow it to continue and to satisfy the concerns of improper notification and labelling of the different pages involved. Editors' time is a valuable resource that I didn't want to waste by disregarding the previous discussion and starting from scratch. I have witnessed talk sections being moved other times and it seemed to me that there isn't a policy advising against the practice. I now understand 4m4's closure was caused by a misinterpretation of my comment mentioning SNOW and that my un-closure was partially caused by my lack of understanding of their motives, which wasn't aligned with AGF. FaviFake (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit 1; edit 2 bigger picture. For formal discussions, such as merges where a {{merge from}} (or similar) tag was used, bots and scripts will send out notifications, and also maintain a central list. Even though edits like this were also made, can we be certain that the bots and scripts will update the pages that point to the original location? I would say that FaviFake has performed a series of improper actions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64 Thanks for pointing this out. I discussed the matter at Talk:Fictional company#Proposed merger, and FaviFake has done what he can to resolve the bot issue. I still think this is WP:DISRUPTIVE procedurally at MERGEPROP, but it is highlighting a weakness in our procedures rather than an editorial behavioral issue (ie FaviFlake is acting in good faith even if their decisions are problematic). For this reason I started this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Merging#RFC needed on moving open WP:MERGEPROP discussions to different talk pages. All opinions welcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rambling_Rambler

    [edit]
    OP IP BLOCKED 2 WEEKS
    Trotted away. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User has a history of targeting Socialist/Trotskyist political pages for AfD or reverting edits and engaging in edit wars on aforementioned pages. Claims to be "slowly clear-up Trotskyist pages the last few years." because they "attempt to reform their image" They've been warned against continuing to target the specific page ROSA, but their history shows at least a year long bias against Trotskyist pages specifically.

    "I got distracted by trying to deal with the BLP violations getting put on multiple articles regarding sexual misconduct allegations (including ROSA) and then it was locked. Once the page protection is over the plan is to put it to AfD and try to work out how best to deal with ROSA as a subject given it's got relevancy to multiple articles."

    All evidence to support these claims can be found on their User Page history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor, I have added some links, it would also be helpful to add some diffs, see Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide. TSventon (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Socialist_Alternative&oldid=1304200836
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ROSA_(organisation)&oldid=1303929928
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ROSA_(organisation)&oldid=1303931881
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_(Ireland)&oldid=1303942177
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ROSA_(organisation)&oldid=1303946218
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ROSA_(organisation)&oldid=1304358299
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asilvering#Further_issues_related_to_IP_user_on_Socialist_Party_(Ireland)
    =1305022817 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To whoever looks at this, 188.65.190.67 was earlier on this week blocked following the ANI discussion Edit warring on Socialist Party (Ireland) and related pages. What started as a content dispute saw them escalate to repeated harassment of myself and they were banned for 31 hours as a result of this.
    They then proceeded to lose access to their talk page after making repeated unblock requests that made remarks about the conduct of various admins[131]
    They have now returned under this same IP and 217.75.5.71 to dispute the same content where they started off by stating how they'll just re-insert the disputed content and report anyone who removes it,[18] and have since made further remarks about myself and how my conduct is "malicious"[19][20][21]
    I have raised this with the admin who initially blocked them.[132]
    This report is basically further harassment from this user, so please dismiss and block accordingly. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering tagging for your awareness. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In all other regards to the conduct of involved parties in discussion on this matter, both here and on other pages, please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:HUSH&redirect=no, and lastly "IP users and registered users are considered equal in status; Discrimination between the two is frowned upon when it comes to conduct and online behavior. This is wikiquette for ensuring healthy project contributions." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IPHOPPER&redirect=no
    Additionally it is not "harrasment" to address inappropriate actions made against me. To claim otherwise is extremely abusive behavior in itself, as it shields abusers from accountability. See "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." My attempts to address this in more appropriate forums such as user talk pages were suppressed by the parties addressed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOPA&redirect=no , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_the_victim , and
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO .
    If I am continually blocked from editing, especially on my own page to prevent my appeal attempts, by any currently involved admins; without any attempt at discussion, warning, or accountability for all parties involved; all relevant parties will be reported for violation of blocking policy and harrasment. There has been a serious, consistent, lack of accountability and impartiality in regards to the conduct of all involved parties and admins on this matter.
    An involved admin went so far as to say this is regards to my block appeal -
    "Decline reason:
    Contrary to your comment at ANI, you have no "rights" on Wikipedia - you have privileges. When you violate the policies and guidelines that grant you those privileges, they are revoked - as was appropriately done here."
    This assertion, being contextually grossly abusive rhetoric on it's own merit, is refuted by "As current policy stands, unregistered users have the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia (with the exception of certain protected pages)." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IPHUMAN&redirect=no
    See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLOCKNO&redirect=no , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOPUNISH&redirect=no , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:HUSH&redirect=no , and "Blocking for harassment" under https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:HARASS&redirect=no .
    It is very disappointing and discouraging to have seen and experienced this conduct, especially by involved admins. In my view it paints Wikipedia as a whole in a bad light, and makes me question it's reliability and impartiality. Especially as it's often the main source of information provided to anyone researching a topic online, even moreso with AI generated topic search summaries.
    Again, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers , but also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IPHUMAN&redirect=no . 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:188.65.190.67&oldid=1303932489
    User engaged in harassment by sending me these superfluous warnings for combating their reverts. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Im done engaging with this user. They clearly have an issue with Trotskyist pages and are fine with engaging in abuse to revert any meaningful contributions to them. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone involved in this debate, as well as someone with some personal knowledge on the subject, I'd have to suggest that if Wikipedia articles on Trotskyist groups are getting special attention, it is because they very frequently deserve it. Far too many are far too dependent on primary sources, and a good few fail to demonstrate the level of coverage in independent sources necessary to demonstrate notability. Some are a disjointed mess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone with first hand experience on how Trotskyist groups operate; due to their often extreme positions and subsequent repression by governments, they tend to be very secretive. And independent sources often don't have much of a reason to report on their activities, or have access to accurate details regarding their activities. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's their problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump their response also suggests a possible COI may be present, saying they have "first hand experience". Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their problem? I don't even support Trotskyism, but to say they aren't notable or don't deserve inclusion on Wikipedia is a somewhat jarring position to have. People deserve to know they exist and what they are/do, even if independent sources are hard to come by. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    People deserve to know they exist and what they are/do, even if independent sources are hard to come by
    This is literally the opposite of how notability on Wikipedia works. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an admin who was and is uninvolved, both in my decline of your previous unblock request and now, as my only involvement in this has been adminisrative: you're not just done engaging with this user, you're also done editing Wikipedia for awhile, since upon the expiration of your previous block you returned and went back to the exact same conduct that got you blocked before. Blocked both 188.65.190.67 and 217.75.5.71 for two weeks. I've left talk page access open for now, but given their conduct after their previous block, an eye should be kept on it. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Bender the Bot is malfunctioning

    [edit]
    Issues should be resolved. Bot unblocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This bot generates invalid URLs, at least in Special:Diff/1305071787, where the http → https change yields SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN for infocenter.arm.com. The change summary is also incorrect: it mentions SourceForge, but this isn't. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @bender235 voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vincent Lefèvre: are there any other errors or is that it? I'm not going to shut down a bot for a single error. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, but I noticed that in Special:Diff/1305077849, the bot also changes a non-SourceForge URL, still with a summary "HTTP to HTTPS for SourceForge" (no errors for this one, though). So, if it changes arbitrary http URLs without checking, this is very wrong. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Diff/1305078896 has a http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/uk/download.php URL but the bot changes another one. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Diff/1305079077 is similar: the bot identifies a line with a sourceforge.net URL, but it changes the first URL, whatever it is. The bot is very broken (bad greedy regexp?). — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the bot for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also notified bender235. Please notify bot operators when you report their bot at AN/I. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, can't really explain why Special:Diff/1305071787 happened. As the summary said, the run was supposed to find SourceForge links and fix them. The Regex was: find (?<!/)http://(.*\.)?sourceforge\.net/ and replace with https://$1sourceforge.net/, so I'm as surprised as you that it changed http://infocenter.arm.com/.... I will look through the changelog to see if any other URLs where erroneously changed. --bender235 (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should change .* to [^/]* — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. .* is greedy so will match across URLs. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, didn't think of these edge cases. My bad. I went through the last 200 edits and found 7 erroneous edits (fixed them). Will go through the rest. Thanks for pulling the plug on the bot in this case. --bender235 (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    .* is greedy and dangerous. I'd avoid it whenever possible. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (This is one of those situations where I have to remind myself that even though I find them terrifying, plenty of people actually find swimming, hot sauce and maths enjoyable.) Umm, so in regular expressions, * is "greedy" because it matches too many things, yeah? Can someone explain why it is also "dangerous"? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    .* is dangerous when using it in an automated task, because . matches anything and the * zero or more operator won’t stop until it would otherwise fail the following parts of the regex. This is bound to give unanticipated results when used with real text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    People often assume it will stop when the following part of the expression first matches, but it won’t stop until it finds the last match of the following part. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, when a line can contain multiple expressions you want to match, a regexp of the form prefix.*suffix is generally incorrect because prefix will match the prefix in the first expression, suffix will match the suffix in the last expression, and .* will match everything between. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Went through all ~2000 bot edits with a fine comb, found about 100 erroneous HTTP/S changes and reverted them. Took about four hours, so lesson has definitely been learned! --bender235 (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to unblock? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that'd be great. --bender235 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your conscientiousness in the cleaning up, Bender235. ♫ Bender is great! Oh, Bender is great! ♫ SnowRise let's rap 05:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciated. --bender235 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    AI-generated edits by User:Glaubenswächter17

    [edit]

    I believe some or all of User:Glaubenswächter17's edits are LLM-written. I first noticed this on Brandon Herrera, where the link for almost every single reference added was broken, despite the access-date for all of them being 2025-08-09 (yesterday). I checked a few of Glaubenswächter17's other edits, and they all had multiple issues:

    Open to see big table
    Page Date Issues
    Brandon Herrera (diff) 04:05, August 10, 2025
    John Ratcliffe (governor) (diff) 17:09, August 9, 2025
    Russell Kirk (diff) 13:25, July 27, 2025
    1976 New Jersey casino gambling referendum (new) (now at Draft:1976 New Jersey casino gambling referendum) 02:12, July 27, 2025
    Joseph Bradway Jr. (new) 04:59, June 28, 2025

    I have reverted the edits made to the first three pages, but there are dozens more that I haven't looked at. Just one or two errors in total could be attributed to human error, but the huge number of nonexistent links and identifiers seems indicative of AI hallucination. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed there is a new WP:G15 CSD that I believe these edits fall under: Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. --Iiii I I I (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not clear to me how LLM use is verified and CSD are suppose to be obvious and uncontroversial. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think technically, we're not verifying something is written by LLC, but the name of the criteria is misleading; it really ought to be some form of G15. Pages with LLM artifacts, implausible references, or non-existent citations. Think of it like drug testing at the Olympics, where masking agents for performance-enhancing drugs are tested for, even if those masking agents provide no competitive advantage. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The signs of LLM usage are simply indicators of the real problem that G15 tries to solve: unreviewed LLM-generated content (i.e. when an editor, unaware of the problems that AI output has, copy-pastes in AI output without bothering to check if the references exist or if they accidentally included the prompt they used to generate the text). The stuff in the criterion is used to verify LLM output; if, judging by the page history, the author did not adequately review the LLM output, the page can be speedily deleted. The main sign that I've used to nominate pages for G15 is the presence of obvious AI markup (like the ":contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}" code that gets produced by a ChatGPT bug) throughout the article/draft/page with no attempt by the page author to remove it or clean it up. CoffeeCrumbs provided a good analogy with masking agents. The signs of LLM usage listed in the criterion (the masking agents) are not necessarily the problem (although fake references are definitely a problem); they are just indicators of the underlying issue, which is unreviewed LLM-generated content (the performance-enhancing drugs). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It requires an admin to verify that the speedy deletion tag is valid, and we certainly have other criteria that do that (such as G11). As such, I have moved Draft:1976 New Jersey casino gambling referendum to Draft for the author to fix the multiple citation problems (by human means, hopefully). Black Kite (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As regards Joseph Bradway Jr., the sentence about marrying Patricia Butler has no citation I can find, I can however find two about his first wife being named Carol and his second Stephanie (and their marriage date), so I have inserted these cites correctly and updated the article. This is mostly fixed now, just the "Legacy" section unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic. Please feel free to propose improvements to LLM-related edit filters on the edit filter noticeboard or the LLM noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 11:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Honestly, this whole LLM generated content battle is laughably hopeless. This project is fighting against an avalanche using a toothpick. It's over people, it's over. Fighting against it with the pretty much useless tools at our disposal is an absolute waste of time. Let the jerks who want to destroy this project have their fun with LLMs and instead of reporting their idiocy, spend the energy developing tools that will actually stop the avalanche. An absolutely MUST begin point is to have edit filters that stop the addition of LLM content, unreviewed or not, before it ever gets posted. Stop messing around and get it done. You're dealing with a symptom and ignoring the disease. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    but how exactly would you implement those edit filters? AI can have various signs, and the only really easily filterable ways might be collaborative messages, markdown and possibly em dashes (last two will probably have several false positives) 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B054:635:CEE8:66A0 (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And those things already have filters, by the way. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So I dunno what @Hammersoft wants to do here? More sibjective edit filters? Trying to filter every 'not x but y'? 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B054:635:CEE8:66A0 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit filters, as written, are effectively useless. Tag? Come on. That's a wave of bots coming at a handful of humans willing to do something with the tagging. Automation vs. manual. Who do you think wins in that equation? Anyway, meta discussion will be useless here on this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really want to open that discussion, you should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup, maybe you'll have a more proper discussion. Anyways this thread should be closed before this sprawls 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B054:635:CEE8:66A0 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hammersoft you know you could use your first reply as the content in your new discussion, it has great writing! 37.186.46.26 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    69.14.4.153

    [edit]
    BLOCKED 60 HOURS
    IP doing lots of bad stuff. Longer block if resumes this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    Akhter Hossen surname was spelled incorrectly

    [edit]
    NO ACTION NEEDED
    Referred to article talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhter_Hossain . I tried to edit the article mentioned that all the reference shows Hossen but, he refuges to accept the change. Please help me, i need to edit this page for my public visibility as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saikothjahan (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming that this is not someone whose native language is non-English, I find such editing for attention-seeking WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Saikothjahan, you've taken the appropriate next step by raising this on the relevant talk page a few minutes ago. I don't think there's any need for this to be at ANI at this time and would recommend this discussion be closed. signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible vandalism

    [edit]
    NO ACTION NEEDED
    Referred to article talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is this edit vandalism? BodhiHarp (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not ask about it in the talk page section that the reported editor started on the topic at Talk:Voiced dental and alveolar taps and flaps#Standard in Italian? Nakonana (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AN/I is not really the correct venue for this. Please try discussing it with the user in question first as Nakonana says. This forum is for urgent and chronic issues only. CoconutOctopus talk 21:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism in Wikipedia is defined as editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Also Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Given the talk page comments, this is not vandalism. As discussed above, engage with the editor on the talk page to resolve your concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:WikinonBot4

    [edit]

    WikinonBot4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't like opening ANI's when the user has been reported at WP:UAA (see here and WP:ANEW (see here already but the EW has essentially stopped for now as a discussion is underway at the talk page of said article, and EW takes two to tango so I've stopped reverting and EW is not an active issue. However the discussion at the talk page has brought more issues namely WP:CIR or WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWNERSHIP.

    After being told about WP:RSPYT [133] (this is the second time linking to RSPYT the first was [134] on his user talk page) he continued insisting on using youtube as a source. WikinonBot4 also has ignored/skirted around direct questions.

    The WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is accusing me of bias not once, butmultiple times making a (borderline?) personal attack you appear to be delusional (see first bias diff) harassment [135] and using very sad bully boy tactics [136], the last one after I informed then that per Wikipedia:Donating Copyrighted Materials, the copyright owner is the one who needs to upload copyrighted materials. The WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour is reverting anyone who removes or edits not just the paragraph in question but the paragraph before (going back months, not every incidence of reverting listed).

    Even an attempt to compromise with leaving the paragraph in the article with a different source (the paragraph is about the book, so I asked why not just use the book in question as the source) was ignored.

    In sum it appears the user is a net negative to Wikipedia either for WP:CIR or for WPIDHT WP:BATTLEGROUND. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    this is wikinonbot4 responding. I hope this is the correct place to post my response. this is my first time doing this in this forum.
    my response:
    Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Under WP:RSPYT, the reliability of a YouTube video depends on the origin of its content. In this case, the video is published on the official channel of Rabbi Gavriel Bechhoffer, a widely recognized and respected Orthodox rabbi and rabbinical court judge on the Beth Din of America. He is a notable public figure with an :established reputation for expertise in Jewish law, meeting the criteria in WP:SELFPUB for self-published expert sources.
    The video directly quotes primary source material (Kuntres Shmoi Shel Moshiach by Aharon Yaakov Lieberman) and includes Rabbi Bechhoffer’s own scholarly interpretation that the Rambam did not rule out the possibility of Moshiach arising from the dead according to halacha. This use is consistent with Wikipedia’s sourcing policy:
    The author is an established subject-matter expert.
    The content is from the expert’s own official channel.
    The statement is about the subject matter in which the author is recognized as an authority.


    Given these factors, the video should be treated as a reliable source in this context.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikinonBot4 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikinonBot4, this response appears to have been generated by a large language model. We're interested in hearing what you have to say about the interactions Lava described, not what someone else's computer spat out about how reliable a specific YouTube video is. tony 03:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this is wikinonbot4 responding to Tony: I am sorry you feel my response was from a large language model. I will not ask you how you came to that conclusion or why that would even matter. however to say succinctly, assuming I am posting in the place. the video referenced to is appropriate based on the facts and circumstances enumerated above the the response you described as "someone else's computer spat out" I trust judgement is based on facts and established Wikipedia rules. as such the edits I have made are appropriate and should remain. Happy to answer any other questions you may have in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikinonBot4 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there, WikinonBot4! AN/I is a forum for discussing conduct, not article content. Do you have any comments regarding Lavalizard101's statements against your behavior, especially the quotes highlighted in green? — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 03:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this is wikinonbot4 responding to volatile. if I offended lizard or anyone I apologize. the comments as well as his comments to me and his many edits and reverting that he did are for all to see in there proper context which included several messages he sent to me of which I could have made a complaint about. the comments and his reverting is there on the history for all to see. in any event I apologize if I offended anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikinonBot4 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WikinonBot4, the problem is not that you offended anyone. It's that you are not editing in line with policy. At the top of this discussion, in Lavalizard101's statement, there are links to policies which are being pointed out as problems but I think you didn't spend much time reading over the complaints about your editing. These comments are not aboout you personally, it's about Wikipedia's policies and standards and whether your editing is in line with our accepted practices. If you could spend time, click on those links and read over the policy pages, you can see what some of the issues are. I recommend you spend some time doing this. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this is (rather was) wikinonbot4 I changed my user name to Jamie53c due to complaints my previous name had "bot" in it. in any event, Liz I believe I have read the relevant document and stand by my edit. the YouTube video used as reference 15 I believe meets Wikipedia rules.
    please let me know if you have any other questions or if any other information is required of me. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie53c (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, you are saying that you have examined the diffs and quotes presented by LavaLizard101 in the original post, and find that they are all compliant with policy? EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the YouTube video used as reference 15 I believe meets Wikipedia rules. It doesn't. Not for the material it is being cited for, or for anything other than the opinions of the individual who uploaded it, stated as opinion. And to include that, we'd have to have evidence that the uploader's opinion is of any significance. And why have you given the video a fictitious title? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to note they changed their username to Jamie53c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 08:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is malicious, I think it's a lack of ability with computers and English. And we still have no policy absolutely forbidding AI use on the project. I wish we did have policy measures with more teeth, but we don't. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's honestly commendable that they stopped using an LLM after it became obvious that we didn't want them to use it. Someone changing their behavior based on others' feedback is awesome. Lavalizard101 did not bring them here for LLM's, though -- they brought them here with evidence of a pattern of disruptive behavior, and Jamie53c hasn't even acknowledged any of it besides arguing in support of a single YouTube source (which appears to be one tiny part of the larger pattern Lava described). tony 21:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is at ANI too... Well, I have blocked them sitewide for 2 weeks for disruptive editing, which seems to be a pretty good summary of everything they did so far. Feel free to extend this to indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ~ ToBeFree, I had to explain to them about clicking on a link to take you to a page (ANI in this case), so I just assumed they were unfamiliar with using technology or online editing like Wikipedia. I hate to cite CIR but I think it might be a factor here. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not questioning their intentions at all, and the block isn't about intentions/faith either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Philippine City Editor

    [edit]
    Indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Philippine City Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has been adding unsourced claims and unsourced statistics such as economical data to Philippine-related articles. He has been warned numerous times before (and was blocked for a week), however, it seems that the user ignore these warnings and continue to insist of readding them. For instance, he insists that I should just "Google search" his claims: here and here. Even if he added sources, I am not even sure whether they are LLM generated such the one he did in the Hualien City article and the Calabanga article. I can't find the specific claims made in their respective government websites.

    The user also has a tendency to edit war whenever his edits were reverted constructively, just take a look at the Calabanga's revision history page since June 2025, which is filled with reversions, back and forth, as well as insults. I have been reverting his edits since July 2025, and the edit warring with him is making me demotivated to make another constructive reversion, especially in the Calabanga article which now becomes a battlefield. I tried to communicate with him in the Calabanga's article talk page and his user talk page, still no progress. AsianStuff03 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding this vandal edit [137] of theirs involving a Filipino sexual act. Borgenland (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only vandalism but also attempted to remove warnings on him here and here after his 1 week block and harassing users such as Pencilceaser123 AsianStuff03 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AsianStuff03, hopefully you are aware that any editor can remove content from their own user pages. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Was there some other problem you were trying to point out? Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thank you for pointing it out. The reason I wanted to raise his reversion to his talk page is because he doesn't engage in discussion with other editors. I tried to communicate with him in the Calabanga's talk page and his user talk page to reach a consensus, however, he kept on his battleground stance and edit warring. AsianStuff03 (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if he did reply to other editors, he won't engage in discussion with me in terms of content dispute in the Calabanga article. I literally don't know what else to do. Aside from wishing the best and hopefully respond to my messages. AsianStuff03 (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AsianStuff03 it would be better if you posted diffs in format such as this [138] (clear trolling following a warning). It is difficult to prove WP:NOTHERE behavior when all we see is the entire article. Borgenland (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah thanks, I already changed it. AsianStuff03 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also shouting [139]. Borgenland (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Calabanga is my town whether you like it or not. Trust a local. Kung abo mo magtubod bahala ka. Dae ko yan problema basta ako tigcocorrect ko ang info kan banwaan ko. Iyo tabi noy? Philippine City Editor (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In summary, unwillingness to work collaboratively, WP:IDNHT and municipalist editing bordering on WP:OWN in Bicolano. Which still does not explain why they deliberately misspelled Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya into a sexually-offensive Filipino word and trolled another user as outlined above. Borgenland (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    im sorry for the NV one. That's the only one I'm gonna say sorry for Philippine City Editor (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? You're only sorry for the vandalism you made in the Nueva Vizcaya one but not the edit warring and insults you made with fellow editors? AsianStuff03 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention this incitement to suicide on another user [140] in Tagalog and calling them a motherf*****. Borgenland (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philippine City Editor Yes, I get it, you live there. But that doesn't change the fact of you insisting on adding unsourced claims to articles. Wikipedia is concerned about verifiability and using reliable sources NOT your own guesses and original research on the topic. Aside from unsourced statements, you also edit war (instead of discussing) with editors such as me that does not align on what you think the Calabanga article should look like. Wikipedia rules and policies are here to stay whether you like it or not. AsianStuff03 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We trust sources, not locals. Articles are not edited based on either the personal experiences or personal knowledge of editors. I don't know whether you cannot properly source many of your edits or just don't want too, but both are serious problems. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Offending user continuing to WP:IDNHT with more unsourced content and WP:OWN [141]. Borgenland (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    huh? It was old content not more content. Also I'm a local.
    Borgenland you sound like you're from Northern Europe.
    You are Baltic
    Baltic or Saltik is a psychopath person in Bicol/Tagalog hahahaha Philippine City Editor (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate awarding yourself the indef barnstar and letting the community know you are a racist WP:NOTHERE editor. So much for describing yourself as an honor student. Borgenland (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You being a local doesn't matter. You have no more Wikipedia right to edit this page, nor do your edits carry more weight than someone in Tokyo or Moscow or Paris or Buenos Aires. I try to stretch good faith as far as humanly possible, but the WP:INDEF can not come quickly enough in this case. You have no business at this time editing English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing wiki pages isn't solely for locals. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are Baltic. Baltic or Saltik is a psychopath person in Bicol/Tagalog hahahaha. That insult is totally unacceptable. Narky Blert (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised this has gone on so long. See User talk:Philippine City Editor#WP:ANI. User was already on last chance. Indefinitely blocked now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have loved to propose a CBAN on grounds of making the rare combination of ethnic and mental health slurs in one sentence but realized that no self-respecting editor would dare bring them back even in six months after reading this report anyway. Borgenland (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For easy-to-block accounts like this one, I agree that having a CBAN discussion is a wasted effort. An admin looking at the appeal will easily see the problem with the editor. No need to bring appeals to the community for review. To help in the event of an appeal, I included a permalink to this AN/I discussion in the block log. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attack by IP editor 2A13:9500:2D:1002:BFEA:561E:447D:7AA1

    [edit]

    Diff of personal attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASon_of_Sardaar_2&diff=1305269032&oldid=1305133396

    The IP editor 2A13:9500:2D:1002:BFEA:561E:447D:7AA1 has made public, unfounded accusations that I am working for Mrunal Thakur, that my edits are paid reviews, and urged others to “beware” of me. These comments violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF, targeting me personally rather than my edits. Requesting admin attention and possible block. Computeracct (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Computeracct, I've posted a warning on their User talk page but this IP account only has 2 edits so I think if they return to editing, it will be on a different IP address. I think it was a "hit and run" comment. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the prompt action. Computeracct (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff of personal attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASon_of_Sardaar_2&diff=1305333086&oldid=1305297131
    The IP editor 2A13:9500:2D:2002:DACC:F61D:B3AF:5931 has attacked me personally false accusing me of deliberately giving false information by paid reviews without giving evidence of either.
    I’m reporting repeated personal attacks against me from multiple IP addresses, including this recent comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASon_of_Sardaar_2&diff=1305269032&oldid=1305133396 accusing me without evidence of being part of an actress’s PR team and engaging in “cheap PR works.” This is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:PAID (which requires proof before making such accusations).
    This is not the first occurrence — similar comments have appeared from different IPs, suggesting a pattern of harassment and possible WP:Sockpuppetry. The comments do not address article content and instead target me personally.
    I request:
    • Removal or redaction of these personal attacks from the article talk page.
    • Administrative warning or block of the IPs involved.
    • Possible page protection if the harassment continues.
    Computeracct (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is adding paid reviews as mentioned at Son Of Sardaar 2 talk page. This user is working for Mrunal Thakur. Either he is a hardcore fan of Mrunal Thakur or in a team of her. His previous edits are proof.
    1. Removed negative reviews from Sita Ramam [142]
    2. Added a film called Tum Hi Ho to Thakur with an unreliable source [143]
    3. Added non notable award with unreliable source to Thakur [144]
    4. Added another non notable award with an unreliable source to Thakur [145]
    5. Added award to 3rd IIFA Utsavam [146]
    6. Added an award with an unreliable source [147]
    7. Removed budget with reliable sources and added lower budget with unreliable sources. Also added box office with an unreliable source [148]
    8. Also blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring in Son of Sardaar 2.
    And so on. Beware of this user, who is working for Mrunal Thakur. These three reviews here are definitely paid reviews, sometimes given by him or producers. 2A13:9500:2D:2002:DACC:F61D:B3AF:5931 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already replied to this, but this user insists on repeating unfounded accusations and lies
    To clarify, I am a fan of Mrunal Thakur but have no professional connection to her or her team. My editing history includes contributions across various topics, including film and tennis, and my aim is to improve Wikipedia with useful, verifiable information. I have been learning about reliability and notability requirements as I go along.
    Some of the awards I added were later identified as non-notable; once this was explained, I supported their removal. Tum Hi Ho has completed shooting, and there are multiple independent sources confirming its existence.
    I note that this comment comes from an IP address with no prior contributions. While everyone is welcome to participate, I would encourage keeping the discussion focused on article content and sources, rather than on speculation about motives. I am happy to work collaboratively with other editors to ensure the article remains accurate, neutral, and well-sourced.There is no clear evidence that these are paid reviews from what I see. If there is clear evidence pointing so, anyone is welcome to share that in a fact based manner. Admins, I'd request you to review and take appopriate action as requested.
    @Liz, you had previously warned him.
    Computeracct (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Computeracct: Your edits that noted above including removing reliable negative reviews and adding unreliable positive reviews to Sita Ramam and adding paid reviews to Son of Sardaar 2 feels that you are not just a fan of Mrunal Thakur. Your edit warring with other users in Son of Sardaar 2 that led to the block definitely feels that you are a member of Thakur's team or paid for her promotion work. You have a conflict of interest towards Mrunal Thakur. There is no personal attack towards you as you said and only replying with what I see from your contribution history. 2A13:9500:2D:1002:BFEA:561E:447D:7AA1 (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already responded to most of these in the talk page and shown so many of your accusations are unfounded or lies. not going to keep on repeating everything. You have no proper evidence for the IANS/Zee/DNA India reviews being paid.

    These are personal attacks as you have already been warned before.

    This is not the first occurrence — similar comments have appeared from different IPs, suggesting a pattern of harassment and possible WP:Sockpuppetry. The comments do not address article content and instead target me personally.
    I request:
    • Removal or redaction of these personal attacks from the article talk page.
    • Administrative warning or block of the IPs involved.
    • Possible page protection if the harassment continues.
    @Liz Computeracct (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is attacking you personally? I said my findings at Son of Sardaar 2 talk page, checking your contribution history? You are blocked for disruptive edits and edit warring. I only said you have conflict of interest for Mrunal Thakur? What's the wrong here? 2A13:9500:2D:1002:BFEA:561E:447D:7AA1 (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting verbatim from an admin who has already warned you.
    Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC) Computeracct (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, (including @Liz). Also note user has admitted to using multiple IP address accounts on his talk page for the same purpose (which as admin @Liz has already pointed out are personal attacks.) Now this is also proof of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry.
    User talk:2A13:9500:2D:1002:BFEA:561E:447D:7AA1
    Not personal attacking. The user who reported is actually doing fan work or paid editing for Mrunal Thakur. More details replied in above link. 2A13:9500:2D:2002:DACC:F61D:B3AF:5931 (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff link ->
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2A13%3A9500%3A2D%3A1002%3ABFEA%3A561E%3A447D%3A7AA1&diff=1305441899&oldid=1305304378
    I have already said I am fan of Mrunal, but not associated with her team or PR in any way.
    User has not provided any proper evidence of the IANS/Zee News/DNA India reviews being paid/sponsored either.
    Requesting a ban on the 2 IP addresses after review and a possible cleanup of these personal attacks against me. Computeracct (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Qoo2Qoo

    [edit]

    I have repeatedly asked user Qoo2Qoo (talk · contribs) to stop deleting content and citations from the Yona of the Dawn article and instead to present evidence that explicitly refutes what is stated there. The user has refused multiple times, and the most they have done recently is to cite a few X/Twitter accounts that simply do not mention what is stated in the article, they are not refuting it. The user continues to insist on deleting content without compelling reasons. I discussed this on their talk page and on the article's talk page, and they still maintain the same attitude. I also reported them at WP:SPI. Xexerss (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely partially blocked from Yona of the Dawn for persistently removing sourced content. (Also blocked for 72 hours for sockpuppetry.) jlwoodwa (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Veldecima WP:NOTHERE

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    Indeffed by ScottishFinnishRadish. Giraffer (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Account user:Veldecima is WP:NOTHERE: it generates aa steady stream of false information in numerous subjects. It appears it runs some kind of chatbot designed to generate false information, as I guessed from this accidental slip and this obviously AI-generatted edit. I am not even menntioning lack of adherence to our rules of referenceing. Several other editors reverted gthem, but ghey did not check other edits of this acccount. --Altenmann >talk 16:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How exactly do those diffs show usage of a chatbot/LLM? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My hunch, based on miinor detail in all edits I do not want to waste my my time explaining . but the undeniable fact is that ALL edits of this accoount are false info. --Altenmann >talk 17:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the "accidental slip" is "Articles created by Qbugbot", that is true, the bot Qbugbot created that article in 2018, and the category is real. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing, but tell me how a normal human editor would insert this text? Dont tell me WP:AGF and novice and stuff. --Altenmann >talk 17:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have accused them of "testing information warfare", which is a lot less probable than a confused new editor making mistakes. If they are a disruptive LLM user just provide diffs and make your case, the "hunches" and conspiracy nonsense are not helpful. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that, like in Jokester, once the plot uncovered, they go away. --Altenmann >talk 17:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If my guess is correct, Wikipedia is in grave danger. I am surprized it did not happen earlier, with this influx of AI edits. May be I am paranoid, but this account is testing information warfare on wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 17:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What is this grammar by the way? This is so confusing 37.186.46.26 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SFR has taken care of this. There was some LLM in there, but also some nonsense writing, and a whole bunch of missing sourcing. Looks rather WP:CIR to me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ozan33Ankara

    [edit]

    Ozan33Ankara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    This may sound exaggerating, but it genuinely looks like the majority or at least a good chunk of Ozan33Ankara's time here has been dedicated to cause trouble in articles and talk pages by pushing an Arab origin, generally without WP:RS on their side. Several users have voiced their concern against this. In other words, Ozaan33Ankara is engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

    1. Removed sourced information that the Ayyubid dynasty belonged to a Kurdish tribe [149]
    2. Pov pushing an undue Arab genealogy and edit warring [150] [151]
    3. Removed sourced info (and edit warring) of the Ayyubids speaking Kurdish as their mother tongue [152] [153]
    4. Kept causing trouble at Talk:Ayyubid dynasty: "Ozan33Ankara, it's quite noticeable that all three of your contentions so far on this article relate specifically to mentions of Kurdish identity or language in this article, so edit-warring or deliberately absorbing editors' time with regard to every minor detail pertaining to this issue is not a good look."
    • June 2025: Daysam ibn Ibrahim al-Kurdi: Tried to forcefully redirect the article to "Daysam ibn Ibrahim" [155] because they didn't want the word "al-Kurdi" (the Kurd) mentioned. Also removing that Daysam was a "Kurdish" Kharjite [156]. Downgrading the article [157] so that they can overemphasize Daysam's origins (that he had an Arab father), not even bothering to make a space between the words, nor write the name of one the authors (Madelung) name correctly. After their claims were quickly debunked by WP:RS, they said they were willing to "compromise" and go with the version provided by WP:RS [158]. I mean of course, that's what we're supposed to do, yet they saw it as a compromise on their part...?
    • July 2025: Sultanate of Mogadishu: Edit warring since July 2025 to push an Arab origin [159]. Don't know what this one is about, but I am not optimistic per the rest of the cases here.
    • August 2025: Abu Mansur Wahsudan: Downgrades a GA article by forcing a random medieval poem about this figures father being Arab [160], despite the article of his dynasty (Rawadid dynasty) saying that their origins are disputed between Kurdish and Arab, but that they were still ultimately Kurds. Of course, Ozan33Ankara does not care about what WP:RS says and the quality of an article, as long as they get to make x appear Arab.

    And it wouldn't be a proper WP:TENDENTIOUS case without some WP:ASPERSIONS, which are quite rich;

    To no surprise, they never backed this up with diffs.

    Before all this, last time they really edited was back in 2020, I won't include diffs from then unless it requested. Based on all this, I propose a smaller topic-ban that does not allow them to edit nor discuss about any piece of information related to an Arab origin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also add the fact that they went into the Walashma article and removed sourced text that went against the Arab claim for no valid reason. They then ignored the sources cited in the article pointing to them being of a local origin, and added them into the Arab dynasties template. When I removed it, they added it back then removed it later. I suspect they only removed it because I objected.
    Also, as for WP:ASPERSIONS, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sultanate_of_Mogadishu, they kept accusing others of "promoting narratives", or "suspect coordinated editing" when users disagreed with them. They were advocating for the entire removal of the early origins section of the article just because it didn't support their Arab argument. Users in the talk page and NPOV noticeboard disagreed with this as there was no valid reason to delete that section. Limegreencoral (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I have been on Wikipedia for many years and I am not a new account created to push a narrative. Like any editor, I may make mistakes, but I am always open to dialogue and understanding. Disagreement does not automatically equal disruption, and I have repeatedly shown willingness to reach consensus when differences arise.


    1. I did initially remove that statement, but I later recognized that it reflected the majority opinion of scholars and have not attempted to remove it since.
    2. I believed adding the opinion of certain scholars was permissible after Rawaddid Dynasty page where minor view was added, but I now understand that per WP:HISTRS and WP:UNDUE, outdated views should be avoided.
    3. I still disagree with this point because the cited source does not explicitly claim what is stated, it is an interpretation by the original editors. However, to avoid edit-warring, I have left it as it is.
    4. Disagreeing in a discussion does not mean I am “causing trouble.” I have left that discussion to avoid constant edit warring.
    • June 2025: Al-Tirmidhi: This is not about “pushing” anything, other editors besides me have attempted to add that he was from the Banu Sulaym and this is actually widely known. Even recently someone tried to do that and you reverted their edit. [169]
    • June 2025: Daysam ibn Ibrahim al-Kurdi: My initial reasoning was that the article title should reflect the nature of the individual. “Al-Kurdi” implies Kurdish identity, yet some scholars (e.g., Encyclopaedia Britannica) note he had an Arab father and just referred to him as Daysam ibn Ibrahim. I later saw that many reliable sources indeed refer to him with the name Daysam ibn Ibrahim al-Kurdi, and I accepted that. This is another resolved issue being brought up to frame me. We even discussed it in the Talk page and reached consensus.
    • August 2025: Abu Mansur Wahsudan: Consensus was reached here. My intent was to include one of the few remaining historical references to him, a poem by Qatran, which in my honest opinion is relevant for readers as it's one of the few remaining historical works on the individual.
    • August 2025: Samaale: My edits concerned the genealogical traditions of the Somali clan, not pushing Arab origins. This is similar to the unfounded claim you made on Template:Historical Arab states and dynasties, where you accused me of adding entries that had been present for years and only objected when following my edit pattern.
    • August 2025: Template:Historical Arab states and dynasties: I repeatedly invited you to reach consensus, but you refused. You argued the Rawadid should be removed because their origin is disputed, yet the majority view accepts them as Kurdish with possible Arab ancestry by your logic, this reasoning would also apply to cases like the Muzaffarids, whose Arab origin is undisputed.
    I have a long editing history on Wikipedia and consistently seek consensus. Disagreement over content is not proof of POV-pushing, and I have made efforts to step back when consensus is clear. My aim is to highlight scholarly opinions in a fair way, not to promote an agenda. I have invited you constantly here, yet since I am here It's fair to speculate that was only done to make a notice on me on this page. By your logic you are WP:STONEWALLING Iranian, Persian, Iran or MENA pages. Based on the above I might disagree, but I am always open to an understanding. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As expected, taking zero responsibility of your months of disruptive pov pushing, dismissing it merely as “disagreements” or “misunderstandings” (despite them all being the same story, i.e you disregarding WP:RS/Wiki policies to push an Arab narrative), not even reading what WP:STONEWALLING means yet randomly accusing me of. Hope an admin will look into this before you cause trouble to other articles and users. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi (talk). Can you not assume I didn’t read it? And no, I leave disagreements to avoid constant back-and-forth like in the above cases, or I try to reach consensus. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have let many disagreements go. Anyway, I will await the admins conclusions on the matter. Also, if I were pushing an agenda, I would not have asked for your input User talk:HistoryofIran#Request for Neutral Input Regarding Sourcing on Sultanate of Mogadishu Article even though we have disagreed many times. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, either on subjects related to Arab origins as proposed by HistoryofIran, or perhaps even better on ethnicity broadly construed. Despite Ozan33Ankara's ~2300 edits (when their alt account AlaskaLava is counted in), they seem not to understand how WP articles are supposed to be written (i.e., from the sources up, rather than from a specific POV down). I don't believe their lack of understanding is in bad faith, and I do believe that they can become a good editor, but only if they learn it by editing dispassionately in areas where they don't have as high stakes as they appear to have in ethnicity-related articles. Given their sporadic editing history (since 2015), topic ban should be appealable on WP:AN in no less than one year. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per HistoryofIran's long and detailed timeline of events and pattern of disruption outlined above. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RedactedUser15 - shared account, gaming EC, and likely LLM use

    [edit]
    Indef'd for the multiple users and AI use. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RedactedUser15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I stumbled across this user after seeing this edit with a very promotional tone and a non-existent web page as a source. Looking through the rest of their edits, a significant number of them were like this, simply parroting the lead and subsequent section and passing it off as an "expansion" of the description. In at least one case, it was just pasted after the existing content. The more edits I looked at the more this appeared to be LLM-generated, especially this promotional-looking content.

    I posted a notice on the user's talk page. They deny using an LLM, but state that roughly 8 friends have access to the account and that they are trying to get extended access so we can write on big articles together.

    I don't want this to come off as too bite-y in case this is good-faith unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, but as shared accounts are not allowed, and gaming extended confirmed status and use of LLM content are severely frowned upon, this situation likely needs administrator attention. --Sable232 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Passive aggressive behaviour

    [edit]

    NullIndex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    This user proposed a move using what appeared to be language generated by a LLM. When questioned about this, they replied: I'm going to win this argument, and the title of this article will soon be the 345 Park Avenue shooting. LLM or not. In a separate exchange with @Locke Cole, who asked, "You were asked a very direct question above, would you be so kind as to answer it?", the user responded: Who cares? Buzz off. In my view, this was passive-aggressive and discourteous. Given that the account is one month old and has made 17 edits (15 of which are on the Talk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting page) what administrator action, if any, would be appropriate under the guidance of WP:BITE? Goku from bd (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just closed the move discussion. It's hard to know what advice to give a user who doesn't think they need any. Asking whether someone used an LLM is a fair if abrupt question; people need to understand that whatever norms they're used to, LLMs are unacceptable here. It's best to learn that right away. My advice to NullIndex would be to look at how they handled themselves in that move discussion, and never do any of that again. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As regards the LLM/AI concerns, I have started a discussion at VPP. Not an RFC yet, though it may end up going that way depending on feedback received. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Please redirect me if there is a more specific noticeboard these days, but I recently was contacted via LinkedIn and Instagram by two business executives who had been emailed by someone posing as me offering paid editing/article monitoring services. These were minor executives with existing articles (notability a bit dubious but apparently they did not request or pay for their creation), and so contacted me out of suspicion. No doubt there are a lot more who are being spammed and potentially defrauded this way. Other than adding a warning to my userpage, is there something we should do about this? They shared the email address with me, if we have an avenue to report this to the WMF for Terms of Use violation investigations? Steven Walling • talk 01:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:REPORTPAID. Confidential information should go to the Arbitration Committee. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    112.207.178.96

    [edit]

    This user has been repeatedly warned to stop adding film entries to biographical articles without sources, as their entries do not exist and are merely false information. - Arcrev1 (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly a Ces.althea162003 (talk · contribs) sock. Borgenland (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1305487487"