Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=}} ~~~~ 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

Gurdeep Hora

Gurdeep Hora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a genuinely comically evasive discussion about AI use with @Gurkubondinn at User talk:Gurdeep Hora#April 2026, user proceeded to again rewrite their draft with the use of AI - see this diff which contains both WP:RO3 and WP:AIATTR in the line Jeet frequently explored themes of displacement, loss and the complexities of human relationships in times of upheaval. His short story Thandian Kandhan ("Cold Walls") has been widely discussed in academic studies of Partition literature, as well as their request for review at the AFCHD which contains the usual nebulous AI generated promises (what on earth does All facts have been reverified mean? weren't they verified to begin with?)

Whether it's WP:CIR or just plain disregard, this editor needs to make a clear commitment to lock away their ChatGPT and throw away the key or else get blocked. Athanelar (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm pretty sure All facts have been reverified means that they (or their AI) double-checked the facts in question to the best of their ability. I don't have knowledge of the topic in question, so I can't be certain whether this is actually true or not though, or if they're aware that AIs can hallucinate. No other opinion from me here. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 14:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I appreciate your understanding.

The subject is a pre-internet era noted Punjabi Author with over 50 published books in many languages and finding citable references was not an easy task. I have tried very hard to double-check and cross-reference all the facts to ensure there are no inaccuracies. Gurdeep Hora (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Support WP:CIR block. Something this brazen probably belongs at WP:AINB instead. guninvalid (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That talk page discussion is the most horrifyingly obvious case of AI slop misuse and incompetence I've seen. BrandNewSaint (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked from Article and Draft space as a provisional measure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for your message.

  I am making a comprehensive note today to address these concerns and explain the context.

  Although a creative writer myself, its my first effort in writing a Wikipedia article and I genuily expect advise guidence to bring all facets of this well-known, pre-internet era writer of 40-50 books to the readers

  Regards

  Gurdeep Hora Gurdeep Hora (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Let me first thank the reviewers for their time.

  As it’s my first attempt at writing an article for Wikipedia, I admit that there may be initial errors in my understanding of some rules and resultant confusion.

  To clear the status, let me comprehensively share the background and context:

  1. The article is about a famous Indian Author with over fifty published books (Novels, Short Story collections, Criticism, Translation of Classics et el) mainly in Punjabi & Hindi. He was awarded for his writings by various literary bodies including Punjab Government, Punjabi Academy etc.

  2. He lived in the pre-internet era, from 1922 to 1993 and hence it was difficult to easily locate contemporary reviews on the net.

  3. While I was fully aware of his literary legacy, still I collected and read physical copies of most of his published books.

  4. The major challenge was to locate, on the internet, ‘citations and references’ that can be referred and verified by the readers.

  5. For this purpose, I spent days searching the net, using numerous sites, tools and apps, in India (and during my stay in Europe) to find reliable sources and cross- verifying facts against multiple references; writing citations, translating extracts from his original books in Punjabi & Hindi into English, etc.

  6. I found numerous- lists and data published by Encyclopaedias, literary bodies like national Sahitya Academy, Punjabi Sahit Academy, Punjab Government Languages department, Library and University catalogues, newspapers etc. - I tried to find links to every reliable fact that I could.

  7. Every fact and citation was verified several times (and I can share extracts, with full context, from direct sources) and written only after ensuring that I have personally cross-verified the original source.

  8. The ‘latest edits’ were made only after that, and no AI tool was used for writing.

  I request you to please reconsider your observations and will be glad to answer all your specific questions.

  Further, I seek guidance and advise from all experienced reviewers to further improve and align the draft with wiki policies Gurdeep Hora (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  So, this doesn't quite read like AI, but it seems like it's ignoring the main question here. The issue is not the subject of the article you have written, but your conduct. Can you please address your obvious repeated use of AI in this discussion? Given that context, it raises concerns that some of the text in diffs such as this may also be AI-generated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well, firstly, let me confirm that there is no AI generated text in the Draft now. I specifically confirm that the latest references of Jeet’s contribution to writing about Partition (which have been flagged) are 100% written by me and are well-supported by independent citations.

  Next, I agree that during the initial stage, I didn’t fully comprehend the questions or intent and so my responses may have sounded vague.

  I, myself, do not like/ use any AI for writing, and my usage of AIs was primarily to “search” accurate “references” on the web which I can cite. Even after that I cross-checked such references with independent primary sources.

  Please advise what else can I do now and the next steps forward. Gurdeep Hora (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Did you use any tool like Grammarly to copyedit your writing? Statements like ...has been widely discussed in academic studies (which only cites a single study) are very common types of puffery for AI to introduce, but less common for human editors.

  It's also interesting that at the start of the "Critical reception" section, there is this statement ; According to The Sikh Encyclopedia, Jeet's fiction drew on settings and characters from diverse cultural backgrounds and explored a range of themes

  Then at the end of the same section, there is this statement; He chose his characters and locales from a pan-India palette and not just Punjab.

  Both of these statements convey exactly the same information and are cited to the same source, but they are written in distinctly different styles of English, and the first glows with AI signs. Either you wrote the same thing on purpose in two different styles in the same section, or the first was spat out or copyedited by an AI tool of some sort and you didn't realise when you wrote the second one that you were repeating information already present in the section.

  I don't think the whole thing is AI generated, because there are clearly two distinct authorial voices in the text; I find it much easier to believe that part of the text was generated or edited by AI than to believe that your writing style changes massively from paragraph to paragraph. Athanelar (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just in case anyone missed this.

  Delete this section before submission. After pasting the article, convert as many items as possible in the citation list into inline references attached to the exact sentences they support. If a reviewer questions print-era sources, explain that the article relies on identifiable published books, journals and newspapers from the pre-internet period, several of which survive only as scans from original printed copies.[emphasis added]
  — Draft:Gurmukh Singh Jeet § Notes for upload in revision 1348412352

  There's also a § Suggested citation list to paste under References section in the same revision. The user didn't even notice this (either of these) until I specifically quoted this section to them. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  ..., I didn’t fully comprehend the questions ...

  You didn't comprehend the question did you use AI? ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  The ongoing inability to give a direct answer to a question is a problem, even if we (irrationally) assume that AI isn't involved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for your time and precise questions. Pointwise responses are as follows:

  1. No. Neither Grammarly nor any other such tools were used.

  2. It is an important and critical distinction of Jeet’s writings. He was a unique Punjabi author of that time who had travelled widely across India and acquired a deep lived-in understanding of different nuances of human psyche, and universality of emotions. Thus he consciously chose characters from different regions of India (e.g. “Hyderabad – novel- Surkhab de Par”, “Kolkata – stories - Tumi Ammar Bandhu & Aye Shala Dakat”, “Pune- award winning novel- Ik Suraj Hore”, and others.

  I can certainly write additional citations here from (1) Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature (2) Revati Sharan Sharma (3) Dr. Maheep Singh (and many others). Will be happy to share the extract here or change citation in the article- if you permit.

  3. Maybe it seems so, because the writing was spread over a long period of time, and locations, while I was travelling through various countries and still unearthing citations from the web.

  4. Let me explain this in context and the fact that it was my first effort to write for Wikipedia:

  a) The confusion arose because I always felt that I was being asked if I used AI as a ‘writing tool’ (while I initially used AI as a search engine for deep internet search about references to Jeet & his books and to counter-verify specific info, recheck citation references etc. – and that was my primary objective). Maybe, somewhere, I made a mistake in pasting my first draft in April. My approach changed totally once he referred me to read different pages from Wiki rules. I have already confirmed that now there is no content written by any AI.

  b) After writing my first draft, I had asked AIs that (although I have read, scanned, got text/pdf of most of the information relied upon), I am having difficulty finding ‘citable references on the web’ because Jeet belonged to the pre-internet era. I did seek help to do deep internet search to locate all such references. For example, I did not find, in India, the reports published in 2012 in Pakistani newspapers Dawn and Tribune about the Goethe Institut selection of Thandi Deewarein for a Partition Anthology and, also the fact that a telefilm based on the story was also made by the noted Director Ehteshamuddin and shown on the opening day of the event. Later, I ‘cross- verified’ this fact from Wikipedia page of Ehteshamuddin. I could get these details only after repeated searches in the UK/ Europe through Google/AIs.

  c) So, the intention was never to dodge answering or use tools for ‘writing” per se. I had clearly replied that “I had used AI tool at an early stage to help structure my first draft” but it was subsequently completely rewritten.

  5. Now that I have explained the entire background/context, I seek your guidance about the next steps, including adding additional citations, rephrase/rewiring the portions that you suggest or any other initiative. ~2026-40555-91 (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:TLDR. You either accept and not use LLMs or you stop editing Wikipedia, or at least the English one. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 08:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  You also need to actually be logged in to respond, otherwise we have no way to determine that this is actually Gurdeep Hora responding. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  As for the original concerns at issue: I am still concerned by the repeat pattern of responding to questions that only require a single word or a single sentence with multi-bulleted responses, as this is both bad practice in itself and possibly indicative of other issues. That having been said, as there has been a commitment to not use AI (and, despite some similarities, I am fairly confident that the most recent responses in this thread are not AI), I think that perhaps be closed with a formal warning and a rescinding of the p-block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks.

  I wish to Edit the draft to address all the balance concerns raised so far (and without any reference to any LLM), please advise if I can Edit & resubmit.

  What steps do I need to follow? Gurdeep Hora (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  First, wait for this thread to reach its conclusion; I've proposed a resolution but am waiting for other editors to say whether they agree. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• SUPPORT: User:Rosguill asked a question, about their AI use in this discussion and in the draft, and they answered something else altogether that too at great length. That is WP:IDHT and its the same evasiveness already flagged on their talk page. There are textbook signs of WP:AIATTR, I take a hard line on WP:LLMDISRUPT, repeated LLM use after being warned is also disruptive. Keep block until there is a direct, specific and most importantly NON-LLM generated reply. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have replied in detail to the question with context ~2026-40555-91 (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I fully appreciate your advice and observations. It being my first article, I took time, but now fully understood the Wiki policies and concerns.

You would have noticed that, in the last few days, I have been honestly trying to answer all the issues raised by you and the other editors. I have shared, in detail, the context as well as remedial steps undertaken.

In fact, on my laptop, I have rewritten all the sections pointed out by the editors and added additional citations.

Will be happy to share these, as you suggest.

Thanks. Gurdeep Hora (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

for Athanelar, I have just replied to your note of 14th - I am not sure if it's showing correctly - Can you please see Gurdeep Hora (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Which note, where? @Gurdeep Hora Athanelar (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

In this discussion ( Athanelar (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)) Gurdeep Hora (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not a link to a discussion, that's a copy of my signature from a comment I made on July 14. Athanelar (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

By Note, I meant your comment. Gurdeep Hora (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurdeep Hora You haven't answered the questions on why the draft contains sections that say "delete this section before posting" and "if a reviewer asks...". If you rewrote everything yourself, those sections would not still be there. David10244 (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This was the mistake in the very first trial stage draft and had to be deleted.

I am unable to see this in the current draft. If it is still there, please advise me how to delete it. Gurdeep Hora (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

User not stopping their mass-creation of articles despite community concerns.

Nampong123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been engaged in the creation of a large number of articles on Malaysian constituencies, likely in violation of WP:MASSCREATE (~311 articles since 13 July). On 14 July I asked them politely to slow down and seek community approval for mass-creation of articles, but got no response [1]

On 17 July an AfD discussion was opened to draftify all of the articles, which appears to be heading towards draftification due in large part to sourcing concerns: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kubang Semang (state constituency). Of particular note is this comment [2] Pulling this many articles into draft space for an indefinite period risks turning into a deletion by neglect rather than a genuine improvement. which I think is dis-respectful of the community by expecting others to spend their time fixing their articles as they continue to mass-create them. They also removed the AfD template from articles [3], which normally I would dismiss as inexperience, but I feel I should highlight as it forms part of a pattern of behaviour.

Some of their articles have already been draftified, and the user has submitted them to AfC unchanged, in some cases multiple times after a quick rejection (e.g. [4]). In another case they removed the speedy delete tag from the left-over redirect from one of their articles getting moved to draft space and re-created the article while also submitting the same article to AfC [5][6]

Yesterday I asked them again to stop their article creations [7] but it doesn't appear to have stopped them. At this point its become disruptive. I think the the user is clearly violating WP:MASSCREATE and the community's concerns have been made clear to them through the AfD discussion as well as multiple users draftifying some of their creations, but they just keep piling a bigger and bigger workload on NPP, AfC and whoever has to eventually deal with these articles. The sad thing is if they'd followed the proper process outline in WP:MASSCREATE, after some improvement the articles would likely have been accepted.

Giulio 09:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Question Do we generally create articles on very small sub-national constituencies? These creations would appear to be equivalent to wards in UK county council elections and we definitely don't have articles on those. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Low level electoral divisions, such as wards in the UK are generally not considered notable, however high level ones typically are, (e.g. UK parliamentary constituencies), then there are intermediate levels depending on countries (e.g. US state house districts), for which some articles exist, but which I am not totally clear about and I don't think a clear guideline exists at the moment. In part this is because its impossible to write a concise guideline that covers all countries. I don't know the Malaysian system, but my sense is that these fall closer to US State house districts than UK wards, but this is something that should have been discussed before starting this WP:MASSCREATE effort. Giulio 10:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  (The population of the one on the AFD would (today) be around 40K, which is definitely closer to state house seats than to council wards. ) Morwen (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  In terms of rough equivalence think US state assembly districts (California's 28th State Assembly district) or Scottish parliamentary constituencies (Glasgow Cathcart and Pollok). Whether these or Kubang Semang (state constituency) make good articles is different exercise. CMD (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well, UK parliamentary constituencies are national, not sub-national. There do appear to be many articles about US state districts, which are sub-national, but the ones I looked at are cookie cutter stubs like these Malaysian ones. But yes, this should have been discussed first... Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just to clarify I believe Chipmunkdavis meant Scottish Parliament constituencies (which are subnational for the purposes of this argument) not UK Parliament constituencies which happen to be in Scotland. 11:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Do we generally create articles on very small sub-national constituencies? If they meet GNG, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This user is still creating articles. Port Dickson (state constituency) was created 11 mins ago. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Judging by this, a CIR block may be needed. In solidarity, Miniapolis 22:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Odd reply to the notification. And latest creation (Port Dickson (state constituency)) exemplifies non-notability. Blocked from namespace and invited to reply here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concerns. I understand that my recent rate of article creation has caused concern, and I apologise for not responding earlier.

My intention has been to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Malaysian state constituencies, which I understood to be comparable to other sub-national legislative constituencies that already have standalone articles. For example, articles such as Shahbandar Raya (state constituency) already exist and cover the same type of subject. This led me to believe that Malaysian state constituencies were generally considered suitable for standalone articles, provided they met Wikipedia's content and sourcing requirements. My goal was to expand coverage consistently, not to create unnecessary work for New Page Patrol, AfC, or other editors.

Regarding the ongoing AfD discussion, I respect the community process and will not contest it by continuing to recreate or resubmit articles that are under discussion. My removal of the AfD template was a mistake on my part, and I now understand that it should not have been removed.

I also acknowledge the concerns about mass creation. I was working through a dataset systematically and did not realise that my editing pace itself had become disruptive. I believe that the source from https://electiondata.my are valid are trustable as a primary source.

If the preferred process is to seek consensus first, improve a smaller sample of articles, or work in draft space before creating additional articles, I am happy to follow that process. I am also willing to improve the existing articles by adding more independent sources, expanding the prose, and addressing the issues raised during the AfD discussions.

My intention has always been to contribute constructively and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Malaysian elections and constituencies. I appreciate the feedback from everyone involved and will work within the community's expectations going forward. Nampong123 (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Your comment obviously is generated by a large language model. We normally ignore such (WP:AITALK). In an LLM-generated comment, it’s hard to know what you really are thinking versus what the LLM has written on its own. However, in an effort to get you started down the right path, I’m going to reply to some errors and misconceptions in your generated comment on the assumption that those might represent your own ideas as well. If you want to get unblocked, you’re going to have to reply in your own words and satisfy us that unblocking is appropriate.

1. Just because other sub-national legislative constituencies have articles doesn’t automatically mean any such article is appropriate. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.

2. For an article to be acceptable, the subject must be notable. This generally means that it must have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. See WP:GNG. A database is a primary source: existence in a database does nothing to show that it is suitable for an article.

3. Given the notability issues listed above, going through a database and adding articles based on database entries is not appropriate. You must first find appropriate sources establishing notability before starting an article on a constituency.

Your efforts may be better spent in working on other articles that meet your interest. Your ability to read a language other than English gives you an advantage there, as most of us cannot read sources written in your country’s language.

However, you must demonstrate sufficient ability in English to understand Wikipedia policies and communicate with other editors. (And don’t use AI to tell you what the policies say: AIs are awful at interpreting policies.) If you are unable to communicate in English and understand policies written in English, you should think about contributing to a Wikipedia in a language you do understand. There are many, and they would appreciate your help. See List of Wikipedias. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

1. That's why I referenced Shahbandar Raya (state constituency) as example earlier. Based on my experience improving the national legislative constituencies, I added information such as historical boundaries and past election data to make the article more meaningful. You may refer to this article :Perlis Utara.
2. The primary sources is backed up by a few secondary source such as article, thesis and book. I may upload it once I have the access, but let me prioritize with other article with need improvement first since a new election cycle started recently from 2025 Sabah state election, 2026 Johor state election, 2026 Negeri Sembilan state election, and other state elections.
3. Same answer as point 2.
4. Just to clarify, the usage of AI is not the same as not understanding English. I want to make sure my message can be delivered correctly.

Nampong123 (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

(The reply below is 100% without using LLM)

1. Back to point 1, I wish to implement the same style of the article at the main historical national legislative constituencies at the historical state level constituencies, that's why I created an article first.
2. For point 4, I understand the theory of LLM, but my intention of using LLM is to ensure my message can understand by everyone and I believe that the usage of LLM is a complement on writing an article.

Nampong123 (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models: the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited.

You can't do it. You can use LLM for correcting spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and other simple mistakes, but not to write or rewrite your text.

You can't write an article without using reliable secondary sources. If you don't have any when you start writing an article, you're doing it all backwards, and potentially wasting everyone's time, considering how unlikely it is that you'll later find appropriate references for many of those constituencies. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

1. I'm not using LLM to write an article, I used LLM to reply your message to fix my simple mistakes. (No intention to argue here).
2. I have a secondary sources. How can I add the reference but my access blocked

Nampong123 (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I already replied 3 questions above. You may reply if you still have questions. Nampong123 (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Why then did Paya (state constituency) (July 2026), the first in the batch of rapid creations you did, have a maintenance tag dated to 2022 when it was created? This is a common thing for LLMs to do (ie. hallucinate), and something I've never seen a human do Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

They probably used an article like Kaki Bukit (state constituency) as a template, which has a legitimate 2022 citations template. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

At the first moment, I didn't realise that's a tag, however I removed it shortly. Paya (state constituency). No LLMs used during article creation, I just use other article as a template, then I change the content manually. Nampong123 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Source:

1. https://electiondata.my/
2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-06502-7
3. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24211
4. Abdullah, Z. G., Adnan, H. N., & Lee, K. H. (1997). Malaysia, tokoh dulu dan kini = Malaysian personalities, past and present. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Malaya.
5. Anzagain Sdn. Bhd. (2004). Almanak keputusan pilihan raya umum: Parlimen & Dewan Undangan Negeri, 1959-1999. Shah Alam, Selangor: Anzagain.
6. Hanna, W. A. (1959). Elections in Malaya: A report. New York: American Universities Field Staff.
7. Hussain, M. (1987). Membangun demokrasi: Pilihanraya di Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Karya Bistari.
8. Surohanjaya Pilehanraya Malaysia. (1959). Penyata pilehanraya-pilehanraya umum parlimen (Dewan Ra'ayat) dan dewan-dewan negeri, tahun 1959 bagi negeri-negeri Tanah Melayu. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Chetak Kerajaan.
9. https://mysprsemak.spr.gov.my/semakan/keputusan I already provided the relevant sources to fullfill your requirement on the secondary source.

Nampong123 (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

10. https://www.scribd.com/doc/96706353/250-penyata-Pru-1969

11. https://www.scribd.com/doc/39877213/keputusan-pilihanraya-umum-2004

12. https://www.geocities.ws/hualian_studentclub/pilihanraya/

13. https://github.com/TindakMalaysia/HISTORICAL-ELECTION-RESULTS/tree/main Nampong123 (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You have lots of evidence that the elections took place and that the results are correct. That's not the issue. The issue is whether there was in depth secondary coverage. Read about secondary sources in WP:SECONDARY. Additionally, the coverage must be in-depth about the subject of the article: if you're writing an article about all the constituencies, a general article would work, but for a specific constituency there must be in depth secondary coverage about the constituency.

Additionally, listing lots of references is not useful: finding a couple that are in-depth secondary sources is.

Because of the mass nature of your creations I am very hesitant to unblock you until there is concrete evidence that you've learned how to produce articles suitable for Wikipedia. I suggest you create a new constituency article in draft space and submit it through Articles for creation. Once you demonstrate that your submissions are appropriate and won't flood wikipedia with non-notable articles, I'd be more likely to unblock.

If you disagree, you can make an unblock request on your talk page. Just follow the unblock request instructions in the block notice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I create a new draft article Draft:Kudat (state constituency). Please have a look and it contain the secondary sources you want. Nampong123 (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Nampong123 needs to slow down by a lot. As has already been suggested, they need to add reliable sources (with significant and independent coverage in each source) along with the article. This flooding the zone with non-notable material does not work. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Well, I've got unfortunate news y'all; I've checkuser blocked Nampong123 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PPP001; they're a sock of someone who's been blocked for a while. They also just created a new account to get around the partial block with User:LHY1226, also now blocked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Moneytrees First of all good job! Second, this is actually a relief. Third, I am surprised, even though I should not be. Maybe I should have realized it was a sock in the first place. Oh well. Live and learn. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are a boatload of pages created by this user. I've deleted about 500 so far that didn't have significant contributions by other editors, and that only goes back 90 days (as far as massdelete allows). I'd be grateful for assistance in identifying and deleting other pages eligible for G5. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  rsjaffe Thanks for letting me (or us) know. I want to help. I can't at the moment. I will get back to you on your talk page. Or do you prefer to deal with this here? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Best thing to do for interested parties is to review the pages still existing that were created by Nampong123 and tag those that don't have significant edits by other users for G5, creations by a blocked user (PPP001) and let them go through the usual process. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Happy to contribute once I'm back to my computer in a couple of days if this doesn't get cleared up before then Giulio 22:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've looked some more. The user had ~23,000 edits, so there's a lot to review. However, the older the article, the less likely it qualifies for G5, as it is more likely to have had significant contributions from another editor. So caution is needed when tagging, and concentrating on the more recent article creations is a good tactic.

  WP:BLOCKREVERT is useful reading for those who might look at rolling back edits by this user other than page creations. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  OK. Thanks for the tips on the best way to approach this problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Another supposed helpful editor came to the templated section on Nampong123's talk page and stated that they will restore some of the deleted edits [8]. I noticed in their contributions that they have at least started to do so [9]. I have them a note warning them not to do so.[10] Y'all my want to check the restorations that this oh-so-helpful editor did. I am guessing they are also a sock of Nampong123 and User:PPP001. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  ...seriously? I just saw the first page which is completely outdated when I searched on Google, and reinstated back the updated version. What's with the sarcasm and accusatory tone? Syn73 (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  For reference (copied from talk ): I just selectively undo only a few edits that are related to the Malaysian government's information, which becomes outdated due to the mass rollback. They are non-disruptive and I've checked them. Also I don't see how our editing style have any similarity at all. Maybe because we're both Malaysians so the tone seems similar? Syn73 (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

User using AI in discussions.

Haddad Maia fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently got involved in a couple of AFD's and someone pointed out that during the course of them a contributor appears to have been using AI to write their posts in the AFD. The AFD's in question can be found here and here. The user in question is the creator of the nominated articles and has been warned about the use of the AI on their talk page. They didn't react to that message and subsequent posts in one of the AFD's look very much to have been written through AI. A check through some dedicated tool flags them as very likely AI generated. Since this is not allowed per Wikipedia policy I have decided to raise this with the administrators here.Tvx1 18:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

a quick glance at some of their drafts [11] [12] have revealed some stuff like AILEGACY, SUPERFICIAL, RO3 (this is since the beginning of their edits on wikipedia), i'm going to file a AINB, but this is a really sizable case ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

CRESSPOM was created with 3 red-linked (ie. potentially hallucinated) templates, including a maintenance tag. Mostra tua força Brasil had/has plenty of WP:AIVOCAB like emphasized, shaped, highlighted etc and WP:SUPERFICIAL. Also see Luciana Mariano (sports journalist), Luiza Fullana, and Magali Fernandes. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

What makes you think Haddad Maia fan is using AI? I ran it through an AI detector, and it came up with nothing. Idacticus (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Automated detectors aren't very accurate (WP:GPTZERO), people mostly use WP:AISIGNS Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

LLM detection tools are usually unreliable, we go through the list of WP:AISIGNS and WP:AICOMMENTS to check for the usual signs of LLM text

when i say stuff like AILEGACY, i mean the section on the essay "signs of ai writing" titled "Undue emphasis on significance, legacy, and broader trends" and so on ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Multiple users stating in one of the AFD’s that they did, the subsequent warning on their user page and the comments by others here that they did. Moreover I checked these posts myself using the relevant tools and they all came up with them being likely written by AI, so I think the problem lies with your detector. Moreover, I’ve been interacting with the user at the tennis WikiProject for a couple of years now and their sudden jump in English language proficiency is just abnormal. They really struggled in their original interactions in the project. Tvx1 19:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tvx1: please remember to notify the editor about this discussion, like it says on the top of the ANI page. I've done it for you. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I had already done so.Tvx1 20:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that, even though I looked for it. Sorry about that, I thought you had forgotten about it or something. I prefer broccoli over trouts. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• There is a bit of a problem that Haddad Maia fan seems to be using AI to generate responses in lucid English in talk page discussions (English is not his/her native language). There are two reasons this is a problem. (1) It is difficult to know how much of what he/she writes is what he/she thinks. (2) Haddad Maia fan has genuine and useful knowledge about the subject matter, and his/her use of AI causes other editors not to value his/her comments.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  People shouldn't be editing on wikis whose language they're not proficient in (nor translating from such a language). Maybe we could ask someone else whether they could translate some of their work from another wiki? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  They frequently do. In a few cases, they add a lot of value because they find sources in their own language that enable articles to be corrected or improved - but it is a problem if they use AI to write in English, because we do not know how much is real and how much is hallucinated.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is that with what has transpired through these investigations, we don't even know whether the source gathering was done by the editor themself or through AI. Also note the complete lack of any reaction of defense from this user to the post on their talk page and here at the threads on the noticeboards.Tvx1 14:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for notifying me about this discussion. I only became aware of it recently, which is why I hadn’t replied before.

  I understand why some editors have concerns, and I would like to give them a response.

  First, I never tried to mislead or deceive anyone or add inaccurate information to Wikipedia.

  Most of my editing has been on topics related to tennis of which I have spent a lot of time on looking for reliable sources on the Portuguese language, that were not already being used on the English Wikipedia, because that is my primary language.

  As I said, English is not my native language, and sometimes I have used writing tools to help me express myself more clearly.

  I can see why that might have raised questions, especially in discussions.

  However, the opinions I express are always my own. I do not post arguments that I do not understand or agree with and always read everything before posting.

  If my way of writing created any type of confusion or made other editors question what I was commenting, I totally regret that. I never had this as my intention.

  I also understand the concern about accuracy of what I wrote.

  If anyone has specific examples of mistakes, incorrect sourcing, or anything that should be corrected, I am happy to look at them and fix everything.

  I have no interest in keeping incorrect information in articles, and when something I wrote in the past was tagged to be in need of a revision, I always tried my best to do so and improve the article.

  So, going forward, I will write my own comments in simpler English if that is judged to be the best, even if they are less polished. I would rather be understood as myself than give the impression that someone else or a machine is speaking for me.

  I hope my contribution is also taken into consideration. I always have tried to improve articles by finding reliable sources that most of the time could be difficult for English speaking editors to access or understand, and I like to continue contributing in a way that follows the community’s expectations.

  If there are particular practices the community expects me to follow regarding writing assistance, I am open to do that. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry to ask, but was this comment translated into English from your native language? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, I wrote everything without the use of translations, just with my personal language knowledge Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Your English is great then, certainly good enough to write content. Thank you for replying here.

  I'm sorry to say this but would it be possible for you to go back and cleanup any edits and articles for which you used LLMs? It's usually recommended to stubbify or rewrite LLM-generated articles/text as it often takes a lot of time to clean it up while trying to preserve it, especially at this sort of scale. The biggest problem with LLM-generated text is hallucinations which mean that the content is not completely supported by the source cited (WP:V), though there are other serious concerns like WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV/WP:WTW. I know that's a big ask, but otherwise someone would have to delete/remove your past contributions (in this case from around 28 October 2024 to just before this discussion, see WP:LLMPRV).In case you need any help with this, feel free to ask at WP:AINB#Haddad Maia fan, and I'm sure people would be happy to. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  No hard feelings. In fact, thank you for pointing that out. I will do my best to improve going forward and be more careful with my editing process. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Haddad Maia fan, this doesn't address what I said. Can you please promise not to use LLMs while editing in future? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking the time to explain your concerns. I understood everything, and going forward I will not use any LLMs while making my editing on Wikipedia. I will be more careful to make so my edits are backed up by reliable sources and that they follow all Wikipedia’s policies. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ok, and what about all the previous articles, that Kowal2701 asked you about? Morwen (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for bringing that up. I understand this concern and am open to go back and review my previous articles and edits.

  It is certainly going to take me some time, but I will be revising everything and making sure they are supported by the provided sources and fix anything that does not meet that criteria.

  If there are particular articles or edits that you think I should look first, please let me know.

  That would help me to prioritize what to review.

  I intend to make sure my contributions meet Wikipedia’s standards and will do my best to address any issues that are found by either me or someone else Haddad Maia fan (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Again a comment full of clear WP:AISIGNS.Tvx1 09:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yep, might be out of WP:ROPE. They're also blocked on ptwiki (their home wiki) for being a sock of Rodrigovgm44 (who is globally locked as an WP:LTA). For some reason the sock wasn't glocked? Block needed Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Wow, big facepalm here. Can't believe I hadn't thought of checking their ptwiki activity before. Tvx1 13:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Tbh I was only looking for what their home wiki was lol. Requested a glock here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  As I was a bit suspicious since the interactions I had with this user when they first started editing and discussing at WP:Tennis showed a far inferior level of English, I put Haddad Maia fan's above post through the Pangram AI detector, which is one of the few generally reliable ones according to the sources in WP:GPTZero, and it returned as 100% written by AI. And even without using an AI detector, there are clear WP:AISIGNS like WP:AIASSURE and WP:AIUNSURE in that comment. This really makes me struggle to believe in this user's sincerity.Tvx1 15:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Apparently concerns that this user had been using AI/LLM for their edits and talk page comments had already been voiced in places like this older AfD or talk page discussions like here and there already was a warning on their talk page regarding AI usage following one of their earliest identified such edit. All of which they ignored.Tvx1 16:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Gang stalking article: what to do?

• Gang stalking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As soon as the protection expired the disruption resumed. Asking here rather than at WP:RFPP because I would like to discuss what the best way to handle this is. Semi? Pending Changes?

Related:

• Gang stalking#Online communities
• Electronic harassment#Support and advocacy communities

As Corey Doctorow pointed out at [13][14]

"The internet era has profoundly changed the nature of delusion, by connecting people with the same delusions to one another, in order to reinforce each other.

Take 'gang stalking delusion,' the traumatic belief that a vast cabal of powerful, coordinated actors have selected a group of 'targeted individuals' to harass. People with gang stalking delusion will sometimes insist that passing bus-ads, snatches of overheard music, and other random/ambient details are actually targeted at them, intended to bring them distress:[15]

The 'targeted individuals' suffering from gang stalking delusion have formed vast, sprawling communities that are notionally designed to support them through the trauma of being stalked. But the practical function of these communities is to reinforce the delusion and make things much worse for their members...

People today with gang stalking delusion are able to find one another and reinforce and amplify each others' delusions, to their own detriment.

Now, even this isn't new – through the historical record, we find many examples of small groups of people who coalesced around a shared delusion. The difference is that old timey people had to luck into finding someone else who shared their delusion, while modern, internet-enabled people can just use the Reddit search-bar."

Given the large number[16] of online communities "organized around the conviction that its members are victims of a sprawling conspiracy to harass thousands of everyday Americans with mind-control weapons and armies of so-called gang stalkers"[17], it is my opinion that temporary protection isn't going to cut it, and that whatever is done at Gang stalking should be done at Electronic harassment as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

First I've heard of this. How is it different from Targeted Person Syndrome (and I might not be exact on this name but believe it is shortened to TP) Sgerbic (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh never mind, just read the gang stalker Wikipedia article. It is the same thing apparently. I thought there was a separate Wikipedia article for TP, I guess not. Sgerbic (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: Targeted individual both mentioned articles are there interestingly enough. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Pending changes is a pain IMHO. Every edit has to be examined and usually reverted. Article history becomes unintelligible. Electronic harassment was indefinitely semi-protected on 31 March 2024. I usually avoid indefinite but maybe the same at Gang stalking or just another 2-year semi. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Could go for a longer interval using a custom interval, e.g., 4 years. I dislike indef because indef protection becomes de facto permanent protection. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Only problem is, by the nature of the subject, people will always be coming in to <polite>add unreferenced dubious information</polite> no matter when we set the expiration date. It's not like Soleil Moon Frye, where we had to keep pushing out the protection in the hopes that the vandals would lose interest (which finally mostly happened). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• It might be merely 'broadly construed', but this strikes me as potentially falling under WP:CT/PS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think so - this isn't so much a science as internet-enabled, and it's not like it doesn't predate the internet anyway. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Is there any reason it can't just live under permanent semi-protection? I thought that was a tolerable outcome. If it is, just, to paraphrase film Gimli, have his head and be done with it. Less cycles here, more on articles. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 07:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Its very nature makes it a magnet for disruption. I have no qualms about indef semi-protection in that case so I've done it. Fences&Windows 18:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• The people who think they are being gang stalked / electronically harassed are unlikely to stop trying to disrupt Wikipedia no matter how long we wait. I am, no doubt, now listed as being in on the conspiracy...

On the other hand, the "indef protection becomes de facto permanent protection" argument has merit. "Anyone can edit" is a core value.

How about setting up a help page that automatically lists every page that has indef protection with wording that encourages editors to evaluate the pages and to ask that the protection be removed at RFPP if they think that it is likely that disruption is no longer likely? Maybe a noticeboard format where we can discuss whether to remove the protection? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Guy Macon, there's Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages, which links to a search. Setting the parameters to semi-protection, indef, articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ProtectedPages?namespace=0&type=edit&level=autoconfirmed&wpfilters%5B%5D=indefonly&size-mode=min&size= most recent here Fences&Windows 19:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going through and lifting some of the very old indef protections that aren't on very obvious vandalism magnets like Fuck or Idiot (e.g. McDonald's, Obama (disambiguation)). Rusalkii (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I lifted it for Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni as there seemed to be an issue with a banned user 18 years ago, not a general vandalism issue. Fences&Windows 21:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Lifting for Robert Frost might go OK. Fences&Windows 22:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Got one that might have been relevant 15 years ago, but now? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not brave enough to lift Margaret Thatcher unilaterally but I think it probably should go. Rusalkii (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Still too soon. Looked for recent news articles with her name: there's plenty. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is an interesting one. It appears to be an example of "protect and then ignore for 20 years". It also makes me think that maybe we should have a dedicated place to discuss these old protections rather than doing it here.

In 2007, Ronen Segev and Ronnie Segev were permanently protected by order of Jimbo. Which technically means that removing the protection violates WP:OFFICE.

Related:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Segev
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 27#Deletion/protection of Ronen Segev
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 38#Wikipedia now ReputationDefender Internet Alteration Services
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 159#Reputation.com and Ronen Segev
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive147#Ten O'Clock Classics
• Ten O'Clock Classics
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 10#WP:Requests for page protection/Archive/2026/01#Ronen Segev and Ronnie Segev
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 16#Ronen Segev
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 28
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive464#ReputationDefender & Administrator Sanctioned Censorship

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it a WMF action by default if "Jimbo" says it, or only if he says it an office action?

Even if I was financially employed by WMF and sometimes did WMF stuff on this account, anything I say is not an Office position.

We just settled with Larry Sanger no one is special. Jimbo himself if doing something block or ban worthy gets the airlock too. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Jimbo has no official special position now. This was not true at the time of the protection, though I haven't looked to see if it was meaningfully made in that capacity as opposed his personal admin one. That being said, if the issue is just that the action was made by Jimbo and we're concerned about that, we could just ping him and ask exactly the same way we ping any admin before undoing an action of theirs we aren't sure we have full context on. Rusalkii (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that move protections should also not be left in place for no reason, as they render page movers unable to go about their business as usual. It is relatively infrequent, but when it does happen it forces you to put it at the admin section of WP:RM/TR, so you don't know when the move will happen, but you're still on the hook for doing any potential clean-up when it does happen. This also wouldn't be an issue if basic move protection did not apply to the user group created specifically for moving pages. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level is something people seem to not know exists. Most people know you can ask for an increase to the level, but it seems the decrease hasn't been as widely advertised. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I put together a bot to collect some likely candidates for unprotection (old indef protection, protection log isn't too long, not very high page views): User:Rusalkii/Candidates for unprotection. With some relatively conservative filtering I've got 2537 pages, which isn't out of the scope of individual human review. Unfortuantely I do not think it would be reasonable to attempt a mass-unprotection here without page by page review, because a short protection log sometimes indicates pages that no one was stupid enough to ever unprotect. (See e.g. Shit, Douche, School, Hoe, Me.) Rusalkii (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Guest 290758

• Guest 290758 (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-41008-94 (talk · contribs)

I'm in a content dispute with Guest 290758 at Domenico Berardi - that's not the issue, which is being discussed more widely at WT:FOOTBALL. The issue is that Guest 290758 appears to have just edited from a TA to (try) avoid breaching 3RR. Can I get some more eyes/help here please? GiantSnowman 19:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, maybe Guest 290758's editing is the issue - they are mass reverting other editors at other articles, see e.g. this and this, in order to restore post nominals to infoboxes. GiantSnowman 19:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Just addressing the edit warring issue, @Guest 290758 just reverted the TA's edit which represents an attempt to back off from the edit warring. Both you and Guest... are near the 3RR bright line, and I don't see your reverts as exempt from that, so I'd back off as well. No comments on the rest of the issue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah you will notice I posted here rather than breach 3RR, please give me some credit... GiantSnowman 08:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

This user is making WP:MEATBOT-like edits such as adding post-nomials or ribbon icons. In my view, these are disruptive and go against guidelines like MOS:POSTNOM or MOS:ICONS. The user is constantly triggering edit filters and making/reverting edits without providing an edit summary.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Fully agree, I have yet to see one useful edit (other than them self-reverting at the Berardi article!). GiantSnowman 08:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I guess you're WP:INVOLVED now, but I think it would be appropriate for an admin or rollbacker to massrollback their edits. I reverted like 8 or 9 of their edits, but quite frankly, I have other things to do and I'd rather spend it doing something other than reverting all these meatbot-like edits.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd 100% support a mass rollback. But I'm not doing it, for numerous reasons. GiantSnowman 16:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Can we get further eyes on this please? We have an editor mass making edits which violate MOS, edit warring to maintain them, and editing logged out to breach 3RR... GiantSnowman 09:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

We have to get him contributing to this discussion here. Blanking the talk page shows that the editor has seen the messages but chooses not to comment. But Wikipedia:Communication is required... Kante4 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Edits like this, which mimic this, are evidence of further editing while logged out. See also things like this and this, which again suggest links to the TA accounts.

Editor is clearly WP:CIR / WP:NOTHERE and needs to be blocked and mass reverted IMHO. GiantSnowman 19:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to also add these instances: [18], [19]. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the recent blanking of various TA talk pages of other editors or operated by Guest 290758 while logging out. All in all, as well as editing and creating TA user pages of others, bad habit. The blanking continues after Kante4 commented yesterday. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Wow. Actively trying to avoid engaging in conversation is not good, regardless of the merits of their edits. Blocked from Article space and invited to discuss here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Referring to the logged-out issue, are there any TAs that have been recently active? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I don't understand why I'm blocked. Can you let me know the reasons for the block and when I will be able to edit Wikipedia again. Thank you. Guest 290758 (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if trolling or not, tbh. In case of not, read what is written here and discuss. Or read at the Footy project, which you tried to remove several times so you are aware of the discussion(s). Kante4 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. It is not clear to me exactly what you wanted to say. Can you explain to me what you meant? Thank you. Guest 290758 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There are a number of linked TAs listed at ~2026-41008-94 (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 18:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't understand why I was blocked. Can you please explain why I am blocked and what I need to do to be unblocked? In addition to the reason for the block, I want to know how long the block lasts.Thank. Guest 290758 (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Read this thread and re-visit the multiple warnings on your talk page (y'know, the ones you removed), and why don't you tell us why you've been blocked... GiantSnowman 20:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I've given more explanation to them at User talk:Rsjaffe#Guest 290758 and directed them to respond here. To recap my remarks there:

• If you are getting multiple complaints on your talk page or on an article talk page about your editing, you are expected to either stop the action that is causing the complaints, or discuss it with the community of editors at the appropriate venue. You didn't. Instead, you deleted the questions and ignored them. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party is part of our policies and it is important that you follow this.
• You must read the concerns listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Guest 290758, reply to them, and satisfy us that you will communicate properly and follow wikipedia policy and the Wikipedia manual of style (which is the core concern with your edits). Until then, you will not be unblocked.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I read the discussion about me and realized that I was wrong. At first I didn't understand the Talk Page on my accounts before logging in. When I remembered those messages I decided to delete them. When I had problems editing on the tablet (I make changes on Wikipedia, and they show up incorrectly), then I replaced the content on the phone. About Domenico Berardi: it was written on Wikipedia that some Italian footballers were awarded the OMRI, and I wanted it to be like that for everyone. I thought there was no need to talk about this. I apologize and promise not to make these mistakes again. When other Wikipedia users disagree with my edits, I promise to use the Talk Page and resolve the issues without an edit war. When the editor won't work on my tablet, I won't edit on my phone if I'm not logged in to the Guest 290758 account. I'll never delete the Talk Page again, and I'll review every discussion in detail. Once again, I apologize for breaking the rules and promise it won't happen again. Thank you for your understanding. Guest 290758 (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the TAs, the one you provided and the linked TAs haven't edited in three days. I'll hold off blocking for now until and unless they return. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

They've probably cottoned on to me being on to their tactics... GiantSnowman 17:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced content

Nedlowe2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User continues to add unsourced content despite warnings. Provides no edit summaries and does not engage with their talk page. Reverted multiple times at Danny Roach and Kiss (band). Continues to persist with the same edits despite reverts and explanation, and keeps removing tags - see here here and [20]. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Was just reverted by another user here, and then re-added the same content again here. 3RR violation. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Belligerent reply here [21]. Borgenland (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for 31H Star Mississippi 14:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: user has returned to doing the exact same editing behaviour. Longer block needed now please. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay @DaHuzyBru, I have been offline. Is this still an issue you need me to look into? Star Mississippi 00:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: the user is still getting reverted at the same articles for the same reasons. So yes please. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

reblocked indefinitely from article space. Star Mississippi 01:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Persistent addition of irrelevant content by an unregistered editor

• ~2026-40859-33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-40956-30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-41386-72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-41382-71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An unregistered editor who is assigned the abovementioned temporary accounts persistently adds irrelevant content to Hogots monastery. They cite a report of New York Times but the said report does not mention anything about the monastery (the unregistered editor acknowledged this). The report states that people were killed in a wooden building in Bitlis, not in the monastery (the monastery itself is not a wooden building and is in Gürpınar). The report also states that a number of people were thrown into Lake Van. The monastery is in a mountainous region and 33 km away from the lake. There isn't any claim in the report that those victims were related to the monastery. I tried to remove the irrelevant content but the unregistered editor kept reverting my edits. I do not want to start an edit war. I request an action from an administrator.--BSRF (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Administrators do not intervene in content disputes. You've both been edit warring. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

331dot then please intervene and restore the latest revision before the edit war.--BSRF (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Please be patient and use article talk to slowly discuss the issue. The TA has provided sources and coherent text. That needs to be discussed per WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Johnuniq per WP:BRD the TA is the one who should start a discussion. Anyway, I'll start the discussion since the admins won't implement any policy regarding an edit war.--BSRF (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

BRD doesn't say anything about who should initiate discussion. You may be thinking of WP:ONUS which sort of implies it, but onus doesn't justify edit warring so if an edit war develops then someone needs to initiate discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this not a WP:GS/AA issue with the TA adding content about the Armenian genocide? KylieTastic (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes I would say it is meaning the TA needs to cease editing the article directly about this. Since it's GS and not CTOP they may continue to make constructive comments (and edit requests) on the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I've ECP the article so all involved can use the Talk. @BSRF this does not give you license to continue edit warring or you will also lose access to the article. Star Mississippi 14:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, Nil Einne, Johnuniq, and 331dot: I just got noticed by this IP on my talk page. BSRF is doing nothing but disruptive edits and constant edit warring in the last months. He is mostly active on the Turkish wikipedia and is now simply mass-removing references to the Armenian genocide or the Pontic Greek genocide from articles like the here or in the articles of Hogots monastery or Surp Nshan monastery.--Gefälligst (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Gefälligst has been adding unsourced material in line with their POV. They even add contradicting material to the existing sources in articles. For exapmle; the existing source from greekreporter.com states that Virgin Mary Monastery was in use until 1940s. However Gefälligst keeps changing this information and they claim that it was in use until 1922 without providing a source. I'm just reverting unsourced and unverifiable content.--BSRF (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The first and last linked diffs are pretty concerning to me FineIllDoIt (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Group of TAs seemingly copying and pasting large amounts of material into articles

I'm a bit overwhelmed trying to figure out how to present what I've come across. I've tried to make it as clear as I can.

I've recently been doing some editing at Premiership of Andy Burnham, about the new UK Prime Minister. I noticed a TA (~2026-40978-77) adding very large amounts of material to the article at once. If you take a look at this example of their edits, you'll see a few problems: there's a lot of unencyclopedic/promotional tone/writing; some of the material (e.g. "Burnham also initiated contact with John Swinney"...) is just straight-up not in the citation; there are some access dates from a few days prior to the edit; and the edit was auto-tagged with "Edit Check (paste) shown". [At the time, I only really noticed the poor quality of the writing, and am going back and noticing more problems in light of new information.]

The next day, another TA (~2026-41114-48) started making similar-looking edits. If you take a look at this edit here, you won't see the same kind of blatant issues but this and some of the other edits just felt off to me. I ended up reverting this TA's edits and asked on their talk page if they were using an LLM (which I'm not currently alleging; I believe the issue here is unrelated to LLMs). There was no response

Earlier today, another TA (~2026-41200-43) appeared and put all their edits back. I asked them on their talk page if they're the same user, to which they said yes.

Yes, and the answer to your initial question is no. The cabinet section does not have LLM/pasting, the information is from the Burnham ministry article which was written entirely by another editor.

By this point, I had already done a little digging through these previous two TA's histories (not very thorough at all) and I started seeing some more problems, which I presented in my response:

Hey, thanks for responding. It's clear to me that you're editing in good faith and I can see why, for someone new to Wikipedia, it seems like it would make sense to put material from articles into closely-related articles in the way that you're doing, but this can only be done under certain circumstances.

You say you're not copying/pasting but you're also saying that you're taking material from other Wikipedia articles, and it's similar enough to set off paste check, as can be see in the tags on this edit. I recommend reading WP:CWW - while Wikipedia obviously isn't supposed to publish original thought, the words that editors come up with are still technically copyrighted, and copied material needs to be properly attributed via edit summaries. What you're doing is also causing other problems. Quite a lot of your edits insert large chunks of text without any in-line citations. And even for the stuff that does have in-line citations, because you're taking them from other articles, it's resulting in technical errors; in this edit here, you insert a named reference called "Williams decade", which was presumably defined elsewhere in the article you used, but because that's not an already-established reference name in the article you're editing, it just creates a broken citation

I hoped I would get a constructive response but the TA started making more large edits within the hour after this message without responding. I looked a bit further back through the edit histories of some of these articles they've been editing and realised that this is a way bigger problem than I thought. Just take a glance at the edit histories of some of these accounts:

• ~2026-35551-28
• ~2026-40676-02
• ~2026-40264-52

I don't really know what to do here ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

~2026-41484-35 also seems to be the same person ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:RPP is a place to ask for pages to be protected so (e.g.) temporary accounts might be temporarily restricted from editing there. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but - if you'll forgive my selfishness - I'm not always keen to prevent TAs in general from being able to directly edit articles. The problem here seems to be one particular person ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sent there. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Here's my response to the request, if anyone wants to take a look ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I left a warning about AI use on ~2026-41484-35's talk page given their history on other temporary accounts. I will partially block them from the mainspace if they make another AI-generated edit without responding, or I recommend another responding admin do so if I am asleep and they feel it is appropriate. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This one may need administrator attention considering this, people have approached them on their talk page about this and other edits. LateFatherKarma (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that one was an easy WP:NOTHERE block. Morwen (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that one was easy! Some activity is also possibly dubious, but less concerning. For example, ~2026-40264-52 added this, which was unsourced and also contained an incorrect nomination close date (16th when it was 15th). I've corrected this, and just warned against adding unsourced. Later ~2026-41404-95 came to the page, making this edit, which introduced an archive link to The Independent which was similar but not the same article and minor (possibly good faith mistake) like spelling an author as 'Peachy' not 'Peachey' etc. That didn't raise concerns, but then I noticed most of their other changes consisted of changing figures by a digit on other articles, which is why I am highlighting these two TAs. I don't believe there is a problem with promotional content currently, it is more subtle content and sourcing issues which I have addressed to some degree on the article, but there does appear some slightly strange activity with TAs, which are possibly the same person. Not a chronic problem, I am more trying to highlight that I also feel something a little untoward is occurring. LateFatherKarma (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@LateFatherKarma:

Hey there. I know it's probably frustrating to have to keep track of a bunch of TAs, so I'll try to keep this simple. I am ~2026-32492-01, the OP of this AN/I thread. I somehow got logged out despite having a month left until that account was gonna expire. Obviously, this isn't a big deal to me - I only really care about improving the encyclopedia, why is why I'm an unregistered editor, but it is annoying that I don't get the extra month of being able to easily keep track of pages through my contributions page.

I was going to leave this thread alone because, as far as I can tell, this problem has mostly died down on the Andy Burnham article (it seems this thread deterred the copy-and-paster) but since you've brought up my new TA, I have to jump in.

which introduced an archive link to The Independent which was similar but not the same article

I did fuck up by not checking that the archive was good and I'm sorry about that, but if you check, you'll see that it was an archive of the same URL. For some reason, The Independent decided to replace the article with a slightly different article but keep the same URL. I didn't notice because I pasted the article URL into the Internet Archive, saw that it was already archived, and just selected the earliest one. I'll be more careful about that in the future.

and minor (possibly good faith mistake) like spelling an author as 'Peachy' not 'Peachey'

I did misspell Kevin Peachey's surname as Peachy, yes. Thanks for fixing it, although I'm a little annoyed that you're presenting that like it's evidence that I'm the copy-and-paster.

That didn't raise concerns, but then I noticed most of their other changes consisted of changing figures by a digit on other articles

You've phrased this in a (clearly unintentionally) misleading way. You make it sound like I'm vandalising dates or something, but by "changing figures by a digit", what you're referring to is me correctly updating the number of reviews and/or aggregate scores for Metacritic, Any Decent Music, and Rotten Tomatoes. Those are a) good, factual edits; b) not even remotely similar to what the copy-and-paster has been doing; and c) something I was already doing for a long time on my previous TAs, including the one I made this thread with. Look at this edit I made two days ago (the last day before I somehow got logged out) and then compare it to the first edit I made with this TA yesterday. I've also developed a distinct style of edit summary, if you need more proof that it's me. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, given your report I tried to take a look and help with the article and support with concerns you raised, not knowing what other TAs were yours. No-one is perfect and mistakes happen, absolutely no worries. Obviously in your report you raised ~2026-40264-52, it just felt slightly off to me in the wider context, main thing is the problems are less so. I wasn't calling out concerns on whether the changing of digits were bad faith edits, the ones I checked were not, I should have been clearer on that, just that it was interesting activity given the past activity on the page and the concerns you brought to ANI. I will probably dis-engage now as I don't believe I have anything further meaningful to add. LateFatherKarma (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Other than, would a check user on the issues raised in this report be helpful? LateFatherKarma (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by ~2026-39062-52

~2026-39062-52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings - also see warnings on related TAs. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked before with other temporary accounts. Blocked again now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Avengers350 – lack of communication & unsourced additions

Avengers350 (talk · contribs) has made a long list of both unsourced and inappropriately sourced additions to 2026 United States Virgin Islands gubernatorial election. By "inappropriately sourced", I mean that they are continually adding political endorsements with either no source or a non-independent source, in violation of WP:ENDORSE. They have also made many unsourced or poorly sourced candidate additions and attempted to add a large unsourced section multiple times without explanation. They have done the same at 2026 United States House of Representatives election in the United States Virgin Islands. Post-1992 United States politics is a contentious topic.

There are simply too many examples to list in "diff form", but the page's revision history will shed some light. On their talk page, I have informed them about the existence of WP:ENDORSE four separate times. I have also reminded them about their unsourced additions multiple times. Despite the fact that communication is required, they have continued editing without acknowledging any of this or changing their behaviour.

It's pretty apparent that they have seen what I am saying/doing, because they chose to request speedy deletion of the page (which was quickly declined by @CoconutOctopus) rather than simply reply to me or start using adequate sources. Given the complete lack of engagement, I have decided to bring this discussion to ANI so that perhaps they will decide to respond. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

2 days and no reply. @Avengers350 can you reply? You need to engage with others' feedback if the feedback is given in good faith; it is mandatory on Wikipedia. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Non-admin comment " You need to engage with others' feedback if the feedback is given in good faith; it is mandatory on Wikipedia." is entirely untrue ( Wikipedia:NOTMANDATORY). If an admin asks them to justify their actions that's a different matter. Secondly, the article in question seems to currently contain only well-sourced endorsements, the user hasn't tried to re-add endorsements that others have removed, there's no ongoing behaviour that really need ANI attention.. IMHO. @Aesurias' edit summaries leave a lot to be desired (e.g. removing a well-sourced table here with "Not in polling". [22] or "Seriously?..." [23]), there seems to be not a little bit of WP:OWN going on here too. JeffUK 11:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Jeff; have you actually read Wikipedia:NOTMANDATORY? It does not pertain to this discussion. Communication is most certainly required on Wikipedia.

The user has tried repeatedly to re-add removed endorsements, I would suggest scrolling further through the revision history. Misrepresenting things I have said (I did not say "not in polling") is pretty low. I said "not included in polling" – questions like "What issues concern you the most?" are not included in the polling section of an election page.

I wouldn't throw around WP:OWN so carefully – Avengers350 is the one who quite literally tried to delete the page instead of replying to my multiple attempts to reach out to them. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for paraphrasing, but I don't see a differences between 'not in polling' and 'not included in polling', besides, 'Issue questions' are frequently included in election pages, it helps all involved if edit summaries are consistently descriptive, especially in the case of reversions. This was much better! Also. Wikipedia:Communication_is_required explicitly states that involvement in an ANI discussing 'Is not mandatory'. JeffUK 12:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not this specific discussion. It's the fact that the user has never edited a talk page other than to move it, and hasn't made a reply to a user talk comment since 2024. and that was only to get unblocked after another similar issue. Morwen (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Jeff, it's functionally true on a macro level; "entirely untrue" is an exaggeration. I really don't want to debate this specific point though, it's not worth it. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I really don't agree with Jeff's analysis of the situation. Avengers350 has been edit warring this and ignoring all feedback. They've been repeatedly readding poorly sourced endorsements even after Aesurias removes them with explanation. I don't think Jeff has scrolled back far enough to look at the explanations. The page only looks ok now because Aesurias has done cleanup work; none of that is WP:OWN, imo that's a poor judgment of the scenario.

I think perhaps Aesurias's fault is that they should have gone to the article talk page earlier. But they have been talking on Avengers350's talk page, so that's at least something. Still, Avengers350 has ignored all attempts at communication.

Can an admin please ask Avengers350 to respond here and acknowledge feedback? Otherwise I'd support a block until they actually decide to respond to feedback. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have given them a friendly but sharply shorted notice. Morwen (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring on math articles across multiple temporary accounts

This person is currently inactive, but based on their history, they might start again.

They've been adding original research on math articles then edit warring to try to keep it there.

Many people have been reverting their edits, some of their accounts have been blocked, and some of the articles that they've been editing have been protected.

The tricky thing is that they're using a spread of IP addresses, not in any particular range, though they're all in the same geographical area. If any admin has time to check for a correlation, that would be great. I might try to do an analysis myself if I can figure out how to do it.

My previous thread on ANEW: Multiple temporary accounts ... (Result: Semiprotections)

Accounts: (latest to earliest)

• ~2026-41246-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-41326-82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-41064-16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-41280-11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-41067-32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-41094-07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-40865-63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-41031-97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-40919-75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-40906-71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BTW, a post on WikiProject math talk: § Rouge [sic] on a rampage

Thanks — W.andrea (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like their IP addresses are all on the same network. — W.andrea (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Tried to tell them read MOS:LEAD. And they kept edit warring with me and I stopped after three reverts because I had enough and they weren't listening to what I was trying to tell them. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 15:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Taking responsibility if I did anything wrong, but I am not the one at fault. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 16:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

For reference, that was with -58 at Gravitational singularity, yeah? Don't worry, your actions are not in question here. This user has been edit warring with a bunch of people on a bunch of articles. Thanks for dealing with this disruptive editing :) — W.andrea (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Welcome! Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 19:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked one more IP that was active today, found through WP:TAIV but don't see any obvious rangeblocks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Another account was active last night and blocked:

• ~2026-41605-62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same geographical area, same network. It also has the same /16 range as one of the previous ones, but that seems to be shared by other people, so no chance we'll block the whole range.

— W.andrea (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It is a block of dynamic IPs obviously. It looks like some rangeblocks are in place but the individual may still pop up elsewhere. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• I wonder if you could track the IPs to a university or Institute? Putting original research on math pages sounds like something someone in a Math PhD or Physics PhD program might do. Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  It looks like a dynamic residential pool of IPs. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I doubt they're a graduate student. This comment they made reads more like Time Cube than professional work. Don't let the name "original research" fool you; it just means "info that has not been published by reliable sources", which extends from "hasn't gone through peer review" all the way to crackpot theories. Their ideas seem to be somewhere in the middle: interesting, but possibly misunderstanding the philosophy of math. — W.andrea (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  The IPs don't track to the other problem mathematics IP editors that I am familiar with (and the pattern of editing is different too). And if we could use the IPs to provide an external identity for the editor, we couldn't state the results. Anyway, I agree with W.andrea that this does not resemble professional mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Pulseoraus AI use and lying about it

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

---

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

This editor has categorically denied in multiple places that they have used AI to create their drafts. However, their denial first of all carries the usual evasive hallmarks, one of their counterarguments being that the draft cannot be AI generated because editors with 7+ years of experience also worked on it; but this is not true. In the case of Draft:Nëse Vdes (Mirud Song) for example, they are the only significant contributor, with other editors only cleaning up refs and categories.

As for other evidence; edit summaries like this one and this one are completely riddled with every common sign of AI generated edit summaries, and @Gurkubondinn also provided some analysis of their editing behaviour in an edit summary here which shows inconsistencies/edit speeds very typical of AI usage.

There is no miscommunication or misunderstanding here, this editor is obviously using AI tools and blatantly lying about it, and should be indeffed immediately unless they own up to it and agree to stop using all AI tools. Athanelar (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I disagree with the characterization of my editing and the conclusion that I have lied. My drafts have been edited and improved over time by multiple experienced contributors as well, and many revisions involve sourcing, copyediting, formatting, and restructuring. That does not demonstrate that the original drafts were AI-generated but you can rest assure you will not see any signs of AI on any contribution I make. The policy is very clear to me. So, to clarify - I am not using AI to write Wikipedia articles, the policy has been made clear to me from the start of my editor account, and I will not use AI to do so. Thank you! Pulseoraus (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain how it is, then, that when you created this draft all of your references contain the parameter "utm_source=chatgpt.com" which indicates the links were retrieved by ChatGPT? Athanelar (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a different draft from the one you declined as AI generated. On Adrian Hadribeaj, I already had explained that I did use a tool to look for sources to make sure I did not miss something important but that was only when I was still learning properly. You're talking about multiple drafts I have pending and you're grouping them together because I made a mistake by using it on one of the pages in Adrian Hadribeaj but not for the writing just for the sources to make sure I did not miss an important source. As soon as that was brought up to me days ago I corrected myself. I apologized to the administrator who brought it up to my attention and I notified them and promised them I would not use AI ever again because I understood the policy and spent hours on reading on policies other administrators brought up to me. However the song draft has been done with AI. I had already been called out once before for the Adrian Hadribeaj article days prior. I took accountability and I corrected myself, bettered my editing and stopped using AI even for sources I think I might've missed. That apology is still on the talk page written days prior for the Adrian Hadribeaj. I can confirm, that the song article I wrote, I was not using ai or any ai tools while drafting it. I spent many hours, days in a row correcting it, improving it and i intend to continue improving them. I moved sources around because of a feedback I received from multiple other editors that are visible on talk pages. You have my promise no AI use or AI tools will be used. Thank you for bringing this to my attention once again. Pulseoraus (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are not using LLMs can you explain why you are saying stuff which is blatantly untrue? While some other editors have done some minor work on your drafts, they definitely have not been "rewritten many times" as you claimed Multiple independent writers and seasoned editors on wikipedia have contributed to it and its been rewritten many times. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I apologize for that. My intention was not to make it seem like other editors wrote on the article itself. I was referring to the general contribution weather that was clean up, maintenance. But I did request feedback everyday for each draft and I implemented chose based on my understanding at the time. I appreciate your feedback as it helps me learn more. ~2026-41460-64 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I had to leave for work and I was trying to log in the response above is mine. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Also it's a little silly to use other editors working on your drafts as a defence when AFAICT, pretty much all editors who've worked on your drafts think they been made with LLMs & are unsuitable for Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

My goodness! I’m sorry it came across that way. That’s not what I said nor intended to say. I’m a person that always responds to every feedback. Including on my user page I’ve stated how important it is for me to have editors teach, guide me and learn from them. I’m humbled everytime I get feedback.

In reference to what I said just to clarify I did not intend to say other editors wrote LLM I was referring to the contributions they provided after the first draft. I was not accusing them or anybody. I’m grateful for each and everyone of you who are trying to guide me the right way based on policies and how to be a stellar editor! Pulseoraus (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

That is why I’m also responding to each and everyone of the amins who have questions for me because I value transparency. I value honesty. I value learning from all of you and I simply wanted to provide the contributions in my community. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my point. This has nothing to do with you accusing others. You've said the work by others means that your drafts are okay. But the other editors in fact think the drafts are generated by LLMs & remains unsuitable for Wikipedia. Therefore their work doesn't mean your drafts are okay, your drafts remain unacceptable LLM generated content. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

That is not what I was implying. I explained above what I said and what I’ve mean on your first question about the other editors. Your interpretation of what I said despite all the explaining I’m doing - it doesn’t alter the reality. Thats your continued interpretation of them. That’s not what I said. If the drafts were an issue to start with on article Nese vdes song - why would many other editors who cleaned up the drafts not flag them as LLM? And I specially was referring to the Nese vdes song article because the Adrian Hadribeaj draft had been flagged from the first draft and I’m aware of that. I understand enforcing policies is very important - however twisting what I’m explaining is not fair. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

We can see that only three editors other than you have edited Draft:Nëse Vdes (Mirud Song) - one of them was a mechanical edit to fix categories you accidentally included on a draft; another was a semi-automated edit to fix up some references, and the third is the very user who declined the draft and submitted this ANI request. Editors doing such mechanical or semi-automated tasks would be unlikely to look for LLMSIGNS. Morwen (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct. I tried to clean up anything needed with the editor prior to it being brought as an ANI request. But I wasn’t saying other editors edited the text themselves. I’ve edited the text of the article many times because I kept leaving messages on talk pages so editors can give me advice on how to better it and I kept making changes based on that advice all the time. Those are documented across. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this user has also been contributing content about the artist Mirud to multiple other language wikipedias, including what appear to be whole articles in Albanian, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Latvian, Macedonian and Spanish. The user also created, as their sixth edit to Wikipedia, a userpage saying "Outside of my professional work, contributing to Wikipedia is one of my favorite hobbies."

Additionally, they have two images uploaded to commons. One is a MIRUD album cover File:Nëse_vdes_by_MIRUD.jpg which they claim is "own work", and the other is File:Adrian Hadribeaj portrait 2023.jpg, which is a potrait they also claim is "own work", and is of the subject of a declined draft Draft:Adrian Hadribeaj. This may indicate a conflict of interest with respect to these topics. Pulseoraus - would you like to address any of this? Morwen (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have covered multiple Eurovision related artists not just the artist you've mentioned. My profile states that I'm a huge fan of festivali i kenges and i watch Eurovision closely. It's one of my main interests. I'm fluent in multiple languages. I was unaware that's a violation. I have addressed it before that I have no conflict of interest with either topics. I have created other pages besides these 2 topics including in Albanian. My apologizes. Pulseoraus (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Please explain how you came to take a professional studio photo of Adrian Hadribeaj but do not have a conflict of interest. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I was asked this during the first draft as well. I was a new editor and not fully experienced yet at the time when I added the Adrian Hadribeaj image. I’m mentioning that I’ve addressed it before on other talk pages when I was asked by admins - so you can check and make sure that answer has always been cohesive. I had found the picture on the press releases he has and when I had uploaded it I classified it wrong due to the lack of experience on wikimedia commons. Then when I was asked I understood the policy fully and I removed the picture. Thank you again. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this situation the same for File:Nëse vdes by MIRUD.jpg? If it is not your own work and you have no evidence it is freely licensed, then it will need to be deleted from commons. I have submitted the first image for speedy deletion on commons. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 19:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Jacob,

That is correct. I found them on the press sources I had used and I had uploaded both Adrian Hadribeaj and Nese vdes the same day I just simply added it in a way I shouldn’t have due to the lack of experience and once other admins had asked me about both of them, I immediately corrected the article itself, issued an apology to the admins for the mistake I had made. This is just being escalate it here but I want to make sure that you’re aware I’ve addressed the situation before and that it was a genuine mistake. I’m so grateful for all of you and the feedback on teaching me how to be a better editor while following wiki guidelines. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain how a "lack of experience" would cause you to call something your "own work" when you had no involvement in creating it? Assuming no LLM use, English seems to be one of the many languages you are fluent in. And you don't need to know anything about policy to know that something you did not create is not your own work. When you use the upload wizard as you seem to have done, you have to tick the box which says "This work was created by me and anyone is free to use it." and then you must have also ticked the one which says "This work is entirely created by me". Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It was a genuine mistake that I addressed right away. When I clicked on “own work” my understanding of the time was that it referred to the article itself that I was trying to do. It was a genuine mistake. I apologize. That is why they were removed right away from the drafts itself. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

So you're saying you read the text which says "All media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are free for anyone to use and share anywhere on internet or off internet. To ensure the work you upload is copyright-free, please provide the following information." and thought it referred to the article? And you also though that "This work is entirely created by me" (emphasis added) referred to the article but not the image you were uploading? Also you haven't properly addressed it as you haven't marked the files for deletion on commons. Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi again, thank you so much on all the guidance you’ve provided. I feel so devestated by all this mess when all I was trying to do is contribute and I was quite enjoying the community. Yes, because many sources had those pictures I had thought that they are permitted for use by anyone which was a mistake of mine. When admins brought it up I remove them from the drafts right away. And I left a note on talk pages with confirmations of those. In regards to the Wikipedia I didn’t even know I can delete the file myself from wikimedia commons. I thought that’s something I cannot do and it’s not on my capacity. Again, lack of knowledge but I’m learning as I go. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It's also still live on the Albanian Wikipedia, although I suppose the commons deletion will take care of that. Can we clarify, are you claiming to be fluent in all the following languages: Albanian, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Latvian, Macedonian and Spanish? Morwen (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have studied literature and I’m familiar with many cultures due to my visits long periods of relocation in multiple locations you’ve mentioned while studying and many Fulbright Programs I’ve done across Europe. I grew up in the states so of course I speak English. My family is Albanian I speak that, Macedonian from mother’s tongue, Spanish I’ve learned myself decades ago since ancient history was a huge passion of mine. I speak those I’ve mentioned fluently and have a very good understanding of the other languages as well. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's a very incredible achievement. Any others, or is that it? Morwen (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to 4 languages I speak; English, Albanian, Macedonian and Spanish fluently. These are the languages I speak fluently. It is not an achievement. It’s knowledge.

The rest you referenced, I have basic to moderate knowledge of. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Are there any other languages you would feel capable of writing a Wikipedia article in? Morwen (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Besides the ones we have already discussed and clarified. I’d be happy to film a video while drafting one and submit it through email if you’d like further proof of my writing abilities in the topics I’m interested in and the languages I speak fluently and the ones I’m familiar with. Thank you. Please let me know if there’s any other questions I’d be happy to answer them. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I would like to bring the community's attention to the tags on nl:Mirud (zanger) and lv:Mirud which appear to have both been identified by local users as machine/AI translations and nominated for deletion. Morwen (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct. Theres talk pages on both of those and I’ve been given the opportunity to improve them! Thanks for notifying the community for something they can already see and something that’s already been discussed. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

If you continue to insist against all common sense and plain observation that you have not been using LLMs, even in the face of multiple accusations from multiple editors across multiple language versions of Wikipedia, the inevitable outcome here is going to be an indefinite block of your editing privileges. Athanelar (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have already confirmed why it was used in the Adrian Hadribeaj article. I have also stated that I appreciate the feedback provided on them and I stopped immediately using any assistance of AI to locate any sources at all. I already addressed why the issue initially started. I made a mistake by using it for sources for Adrian Hadribeaj’s article meaning to locate sources I’ve missed and then the same hour I was notified not to do so and I stopped using it even to locate any source I must’ve missed. I’m not denying anything whatsoever. I’m clarifying my position. I’ve not denied it. I responded on this same thread to explain why it was used initially on the draft for Adrian. Ever since I’ve been getting notices about the same article until it was routed to ANI today. I will not use any AI tools, not for writing and not even for sourcing moving forward. If the admins see it fit to block my editing privileges that’s fine. I understand the policy and I understand what has occurred. I understand what happened in the Adrian hadribeaj article and it won’t happen again! I’ve said it for days on a row now. Pulseoraus (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m gonna continue contributing to this great platform and have many things to work on such as learning how to draft better be better and policies. I have a lot of opportunity to grow. If you have any construction feedback or questions I’ll be happy to answer them. Thank you for the time. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Can I suggest as a first step you stop telling outrageous lies that nobody here buys? Morwen (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you for your feedback.

You’ve been on Wikipedia for 23 years? By now I would expect better conduct and writing rather than write insults.

Can I suggest you keep a professional tone? I’m not selling anything so nobody is looking at what you or some else is buying. I’m making contributions and learning as I go. I’m being asked questions and I’m responding. You seem to be wanting an argument, write accusations and offend editors since I am an editor myself. And I have no interest in participating in personal insults or aggression with anyone. Thank you and have a blessed day! Pulseoraus (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Note here the misunderstanding of a very basic English colloqualism which any native English speaker would understand. Morwen (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

My understanding of what you said is clear. You cannot tell me how l can interpret something you write towards me. Maybe in the UK, absolutely not in the US when you write messages of your sort on that aggressive tone, it’s disrespectful and unprofessional. I’m here to answer any questions in a respectful manner. Pulseoraus (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not seeing any issues with Morwen's conduct here, and I think that you should take their advice.

Can you explain how you created the article on the Danish Wikipedia, despite having confirmed that you don't speak Danish well enough to write a Wikipedia article? ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

When did I confirm this? How about you take Morwen’s advice and stop telling lies left and right Mr. Hacker? Since I’ve joined Wikipedia 4 days ago you’ve come to my talk pages for non sense. Is this a court? Is this the fbi? You can provide constructive feedback and enforce policies but being an editor on Wikipedia doesn’t give the permission to offend people and try to push your own beliefs on a matter. Somebody who doesn’t want to take accountability doesn’t respond. I’ve been responding to each and every single one of you for hours in a row. Please enough already. I’m a new editor trying to learn and contribute. This aggressive tone is absolutely unnecessary. Pulseoraus (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we are wasting our time here. Given the [baseless] allegations of "unprofessional" behaviour, does someone else want to do it? Morwen (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Your time is being waste? I’ve spent 4-5 hours responding to each and everyone of you. And you’re gonna teach me how to speak my own language? I’m sorry your little feelings are hurt. Go ahead and do what you want to do. I’ve already escalated the matter through email. Given your unprofessional tone. Removing me as a user doesn’t give you authority in the world, cause let me remind you started as an editor but I understand it serves your ego. I wrote no accusations. I responded to your wording and your disrespect. Thank you! Pulseoraus (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have discovered another image on commons that may be related - File:Mirud Signature.png, which was uploaded by commons:User:AlienMegastar at 04:13 today - this is their only contribution on the wikis that I could find. Five minutes later Pulseoraus linked it on wikidata. The signature is marked "own work". Morwen (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It definitely is not "own work", because the image file has C2PA metadata indicating that it was generated by OpenAI tools. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not upload the file to Wikimedia Commons nor do I control the Commons account that uploaded the signature in question. I simply found the file while I was working on multiple articles and linked it to Wikidata which is a normal edit I thought. If you have concerns about who uploaded the file, metadata, or its provenance, those questions should be addressed with the uploader and through the appropriate Commons processes not by assuming my involvement without actual evidence. I have already escalated this matter to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team and I'll wait for those reviews to be conducted. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

How did you find it in 5 minutes? Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I had already been browsing Wikimedia Commons while working on an article in another language - which is how I came across the file. I did not upload it or control the Commons account that uploaded it. I simply linked an existing Commons file while editing. I was editing many pages at that time. I have already escalated my issues through the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team where I provided the ANI discussion and the further evidence for review. At this point, I will wait for those reviews to conclude rather than continue debating assumptions here. Thank you. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Wow what an extreme coincidence Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to respond to every reply I make here, as that only makes it harder for everyone to focus on the actual issue. This is not a personal dispute; it's a discussion about the facts. You asked me a question, and I answered it. I've already escalated my concerns to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team, where I've provided the ANI discussion and supporting evidence for review. At this point, I'll allow those reviews to run their course rather than continue debating speculation here. Thank you. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations on your accomplishment. Please provide evidence rather than speculation. The points you continue to raise have already been discussed. I've formally escalated my concerns to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team, and I'll wait for those processes to run their course. You also continue to focus on a small number of articles while ignoring my contributions across many others. Drawing broad conclusions from a handful of examples, while disregarding the rest of my editing history, is not an objective assessment. Thank you.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

What many others? You have 217 edits to a tiny number of articles. This is one of the many reasons why you shouldn't get an LLM to respond for you especially when they don't know your history. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I will make sure no LLM usage is happening on anything I edit or draft. I apologize for any miscommunication and I strive to learn, get feedback and implement those feedbacks. Trust me, I have learned a lot on what is expected from a good editor. I have sent the matter to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team. Thankful for your feedback in resolving this issue. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked the users edits on svwiki, dewiki and nowiki (since I speak the languages), and they've been adding this (forged?) signature to articles on svwiki and dewiki as well. On nowiki, they created the no:Mirud (sanger) article, which was promptly deleted five minutes later as "foreign-language article, machine translation and/or cross-wiki spam/abuse" per their deletion guidelines. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Forged?? I added and edited elements according to Wikipedia once I noticed the file. It’s interesting how nobody addressed all the other edits I’ve done on the other pages. The whole focus is on Adrian Hadribeaj page which we are going in circles about. Stop writing accusations with no facts. We have already discussed this above, MANY TIMES.

You speak all of those languages? Oh - so it’s okay for you to speak more than one language? But when other editors like me speak multiple languages then it’s not real?? Oh okay. Pulseoraus (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You earlier denied that you would feel capable of writing a Wikipedia article in Norwegian. We can also see that there were additionally articles at Czech, Slovak, Lithuanian Wikipedias which were was deleted recently as "spam" - if we contacted our colleagues on those places would they tell us that you are the person who created those articles? Morwen (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don’t twist my words and do not write lies as facts. I never made such statement. I made sure to write it, right on this thread that I’ve made those articles and I’m still working on them according to their specific guidelines. Read properly and stop doing this unnecessary endless back and forth for the same question. Stop changing what was said. That’s not what you were told earlier. This back and forth and adding the same questions continuously. Pulseoraus (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

And the user also confirmed that they would not feel comfortable writing a Wikipedia article in Danish, but responded with utter bewilderment when asked to explain how they created the da:Mirud (sanger) article on dawiki. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Pulseoraus - I named Albanian, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Latvian, Macedonian and Spanish, and asked Are there any other languages you would feel capable of writing a Wikipedia article in? and you responded with an unconditional No. Besides the ones we have already discussed and clarified. to this. The Czech, Slovak and Lithuanian articles have not previously been mentioned on this thread. gurkubondinn - I think you're wrong on the Danish denial, as i did include that in the list of languages i was asking about. Morwen (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

For point, I was going off them saying No when you asked if there were any other languages they felt comfortable writing articles in. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

As in, I understood that to be denying any languages other than than ones that they had themselves mentioned in the comment prior to your question. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn@Morwen Pulseoraus is either trolling or using an LLM for all the talk page messages (likely both). Each response is just going to feed them more. May be best to just WP:DENY. EaglesFan37 (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

So everybody who reviewed Draft:Adrian Hadribeaj is wrong?

"There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed 'My God! There are DOZENS of them!!'"

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Please stop arguing nonsense and arguing the same topic which has been discussed from the start of this ANI thread. I already took accountability about the Adrian Hadribeaj first draft everywhere possible. If you had spent 3 minutes reading the thread you would've seen that. It was a one time where I made a mistake of using it and I swore to not use it again. I was new and still am new and learning as time goes. I have forwarded this for review for the committee and I will wait for their review. Thank you. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion here will remain open, and it is in your best interests to participate. ArbCom getting involved in a situation like this is exceedingly rare and you're more likely to win the lottery than to get T&S involved in something like this. While you're waiting on a process that isn't going to do anything but tell you to participate at ANI, people are going to be discussing your words and your actions, but without your input. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your unnecessary input and your extra point from this contribution, you have officially won a dishwasher. I have been responding to everything instead of trying to jump in acting like you know the issue head to toe, learn how to read a thread or get someone else to read it to you. If you don’t have anything constructive to say don’t write unnecessary things just to argue. Weather Arbcom can resolve this or safety or ANI or whoever it doesn’t matter; I exercise my freedom and liberty to report it wherever I see it fit. I’ve responded to everyone. So, for my interest, I’m fully participating in this and I’ve been participating from the moment it was brought to my attention. Thank you for repeating and writing nonsense that doesn’t solve anything. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Re: "I've formally escalated my concerns to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team" is there any evidence that this actually happened? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I submitted the reports today and have the confirmation emails. Those emails are not public and I don’t intend to post them on ANI unless requested by the reviewing team. Pulseoraus (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

This has now reached the point of a WP:CIR issue, because if you really did send this to ArbCom/T&S then you did not read the requirements and purposes of either committee before doing so. You are wasting everybody’s time. The best thing you can do for yourself is start telling the truth, and hopefully avoid an indefinite block. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 00:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this idea that being a jerk will help your cause. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

An indef might be necessary here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, we're being trolled. While some of the (mostly, more recent) comments by Pulseoraus are clearly written themselves, the vast majority of their comments here are blatantly LLM generated. We'll start with this one as one of the most egrerious examples, but this whole thread demonstrates that whatever is exactly going on here it's not compatible with a collaborative project. Indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Good block. I was on the fence about LLM use at first, but the more they wrote that clearly wasn't written by an LLM, the more obvious it was that they weren't actually capable on their own of churning out full rewrites in 10 minutes with impeccable grammar and control of tone. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  TPA's been revoked so I've LLMPRODed their one article. Idk if anyone fancies reverting all their edits (I don't!) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Admin intervention request, neutrality, and reliable sources on WP:ANIME

Per Fairyrosequartz's request, she is asking for an admin following myself and other editors at WP:ANIME reverting and discussing her edits, paricularly around boys' love and yuri media. While I do agree that there is a general coverage bias against media and culture aimed at women (particularly Japanese media that don't get Western coverage), there has been a constant pattern where she would add unsourced information, and when it gets reverted, she would go on (sometimes unrelated) tangents about her experiences in working in the Japanese BL industry. She states that information directly from her and her social media accounts should be accepted, as she works as a manga artist and is friends with hundreds of manga artists in the industry.

Please see discussions on User talk:Fairyrosequartz and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#"Series Composition", "Developer", "Screenplay"; and Infobox Television for context. She has no problems communicating in English, but she specifically wants to speak to someone who knows Japanese, which is seemingly because of cultural bias. lullabying (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Not an admin, but may I suggest: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard depending on which one you feel is more proper? Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but there are a lot of concerns happening at once, including conflict of interest. What I am mostly seeing is that she is rightfully pointing out that there is, to some extent, a gap of knowledge in niche industries. However, her only support of information comes from her personal experiences working as a creator in the BL manga industry and is using Wikipedia as a place to vent for editors not allowing her to make certain edits. There's original research at play, not understanding the vetting process of sources, and possible conflict of interest. I think she just wants her concerns and personal experiences acknowledged by an admin, which is why the conversations keep being cyclical and exhausting. lullabying (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also WP:COI. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I did consider this, but there are multiple issues happening at once and what I see happening is that she just wants to be heard by an administrator. lullabying (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@lullabying, these admins claim to know Japanese to varying degrees, but I cannot make amy guarantees. I asked one admin who knew Japanese, but they are unfortunately not available to help. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

User: Kurdanparez, problematic and disruptive behavioral patterns, the spread of misinformation, biased editing, ongoing hounding, arbitrary removal of content, harassment, ongoing personal attacks and insults

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

---

Hi, I have been showing forbearance toward this user for a long time, however, I am uncertain as to what further actions can be taken. They never stop. So, I would like to explain briefly. User Kurdanparez has been systematically hounding my edits, introduces unverified content into articles, removes verified data or relocates it to less visible parts, interferes with my messages in discussions that are entirely unrelated to them and not addressed to them, when they fail to refute my arguments they resort to personal attacks and "lecture" me to stay away from Wikipedia. By leveling countless unsubstantiated allegations against me that they cannot prove, they are both hindering my contributions to Wikipedia and and propagates unsubstantiated and groundless claims about me. The latest example can be seen here.

They call me liar, accuse me of distorting the truth by making baseless allegations, without providing any evidence, try to drive me away from Wikipedia by lecturing me to keep my contributions to myself and telling me that I could use them to build a cool website or write a thesis instead and after all, call me "unfriendly" and "hostile" in talk pages of other users here and accues me again here. They never stop. They are currently indefinitely blocked by an administrator on the Zaza Wiktionary for engaging in efforts to Kurdify the content, they were rejected on the English Wiktionary by another administrator again because of their Kurdifying activities, and their distorted and biased pattern of contributions was once again identified by another administrator. They claim to have a great interest in Northwestern Iranian languages, but do not even know that the Talysh language has no grammatical gender, but add to the Wikipedia article a paragraph spreading false information that "In many Northwestern Iranian languages, the Old Iranian gender distinction is preserved. This includes the Central dialects, Talysh....", as if grammatical gender actually exists in Talysh. They consistently claim that the Gurani and Zaza languages are closer to each other than to other Western Iranian languages; however, they fail to provide a single piece of evidence demonstrating the specific points on which Zaza shares a distinct proximity with Gorani, separate from other Iranian languages. They are even unaware that the notion that Zaza and Gurani constitute a so-called "Zaza–Gurani" branch is not accepted by the vast majority of Iranologists and specialists in Iranistics (Markwart 1927: 110, Hadank, 1932: 24-26; Stilo, 1981: 171; Lecoq 1989: 247-264; Windfuhr, 1989: 295, Asatrian 1995: 405-411, Gippert 1996, Paul, 1998: 166, Borjian, 2009: 63, Windfuhr, 2009: 12, Glottolog 2017, Saloumeh 2022: 27-28, Hakobian, 2022). They were also unable to explain why the Zaza language is so closely related to the Caspian languages, nor could they explain which shared innovations unite Zaza and Gurani. They overtly insert unverified or uncorroborated content into linguistic articles. Writing about linguistics is a serious matter; it is not about copy-pasting unverified content from various sources and transferring it to Wikipedia. They hound my edits everywhere, they present unsubstantiated assertions without empirical evidence and fail to prove them, consequently, upon their inability to provide evidence, they either lodge complaints against me to other users or misrepresent the content to impute blame to me, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, these are just a few examples; there are many more. They never stop. They have numerous errors; I have listed only some of them here.

Even though I knew it would be a waste of time and despite their personal attacks since the beginning, I have chosen to engage with Kurdanparez's "arguments" rather than reporting their conduct, in hopes of maintaining a constructive dialogue as can be seen. But they failed to refute even a single one of my arguments and instead began insulting me. I provided them with so many examples that they were neither able to substantiate their claims nor refute mine. I do not want this user to hound me and make baseless accusations against me and remove my edits and distort the linguistic articles. I do not want to waste the time I could spend contributing to Wikipedia on responding to this user's accusations or correcting their errors. Thanks. Vuzorg (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

First and foremost, I am in doubt, is this specifically an argument about me being wrong about the Zazaki language, or is it me being hostile?

While I may have been overreacting in past discussions on my talk page, I have apologized for it. I do not know now if you have included this as well. But we ended the discussion somewhat "civilly", but we could have been better, of course.

Since then, I have taken effort to edit on Northwestern Iranian language pages, and I've tried to be very specific as I do have a small amount of time and knowledge on this subject. I've worked extensively on the Zazaki and Gorani (whether or not they are directly related) vocabulary and grammar and I am now also actively working on incorporating this in the English Wiktionary. So no, I'm not here to target people. I want to be neutral, and if someone has a question about it, one could just notice me kindly. I don't think this is what is happening here. This has never happened by Vuzorg, and he has had plenty of time to make a decision.

"Coincidentally", every article that I am editing on seems to include a mention of Zazas first and foremost. What do I do about it? I check the sources and I can see the crucial details being left out. I invite you all to review my edits - I've been specific about article contents as well.

You accuse me of hounding. I've only edited twice in your user talk page. And then I stopped as you clearly didn't want me to write anything on there. Alright - let me write on the article talk pages then, but that doesn't do anything either, since you won't respond to me. Every time I'm writing something to you, you always have a million "arguments" ready at hand. I'm not joking - you can all take a look at all our past discussions. Even if I wrote a short message, he resorts to superficially "civil" attacks.

I believe this is a clear case of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, specifically WP:Sealioning. You are saying right now "They are even unaware that the notion that Zaza and Gurani constitute a so-called "Zaza–Gurani" branch is not accepted by the vast majority of Iranologists" - how is this relevant to my behavior?

Whether or not I'm "kurdifying" Zazas is not relevant regarding behavior. We all have different opinions on topics, the important thing is to stay on a neutral point of view.

I don't want to make a bunch of text-walls again. I am honestly tired. Kurdanparez (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I have another question for the admins. It looks like there is a big breeding ground for edit-warring, as he has consistently reverted my edits and removed sourced content. I'm therefore looking for remedies by you guys:

Diff Caspian languages

Caption: "please discuss on the talk page before making dramatic changes or removing content."

He removed sourced content about the Gorani language. The only "major" change was moving Zazaki, which is recognized as a language in a different language subgrouping under the NW Iranian language according to Glottolog, to a relevant subsection. Sources mentioned regarding Zazaki also consistently frame it from a Zazaki POV, therefore it doesn't warrant to put it on the primary paragraphs of the article.

Diff Old Azeri

Caption: "please present your proposal on the discussion page; I tried to fix the errors, but there are too many."

This is not a proposal but an elaboration of the existing sources.

Diff Gilaki

Caption: "use talk before removing the table and verify the bashkardi and gurani's situation there, the added source does not present a clear picture."

I believe it is appropriate to talk first before deciding on removing it. It's not welcoming new edits to simply delete it. Furthermore, I used talk on the Turkish Gilaki page, which you wrote and has the same sourcing, and you did not respond. Therefore, I believe it is better for you to explain why we need to keep an unsourced table on the article.

Furthermore, please check the Talysh discussion page on the Turkish Wikipedia, as this is an example of a hostile discussion by Vuzorg: Tartışma

What can we do?

I am tempted to, and I do think I have the liberty to, revert these seemingly bad faith changes, but I do not want to risk breaking rules regarding 3RR. Similar issues have occured between User:Semsûrî (whom I wrote a message to) and User:Vuzorg on the Zaza language page. That wasn't productive.

Therefore I think it is better that we settle these matters beforehand, since Vuzorg and I seem to be the "primary" editors of these pages in this current timeframe. Vuzorg is not communicating clearly with me before reverting my contributions. Kurdanparez (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• I've blocked Kurdanparez for 31 hours for violating WP:GS/KURD despite prior warnings. As they have no standing to be engaging with Kurdish topics until they reach WP:XC status, I'm not sure further action is necessary to address the conduct issues alleged here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

TPA revoke

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

---

Please revoke TPA for Ohio910 (talk · contribs), they have been misusing their talk page while blocked. RaschenTechner (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

A troll is harassing me on my user account

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

---

A troll visits my user page (User talk:Encyclopedia45) and harasses me using multiple anonymous accounts.

This troll harasses me and leaves strange comments.

~2026-41553-83 (talk · contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia45 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

~2026-41618-17 (talk · contribs)

This is the same user who stalks and attacks the Candy Candy and Keiko Nagita pages.

The troll returns whenever the protection on my page expires, just as happens with the Candy Candy and Keiko Nagita pages.

I request renewed protection for my page and that this troll's anonymous accounts be blocked. Please also closely monitor activity on the Candy Candy and Keiko Nagita pages, because the troll will attack once the protection on those pages expires.

Wikipedia has also launched an investigation into this troll's vandalistic behavior:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JustTheFacts93 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stephanie89T89/Archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stephanie89T89

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia45 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked the TAs for harassment. Fences&Windows 21:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

And I've readded semi-protection to your talk page for a month. Fences&Windows 21:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

AccessibilityProfessional2014, paid editing & potential socking

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

---

User:AccessibilityProfessional2014 made multiple promotional edits to the page International Association of Accessibility Professionals earlier this month, as can be seen in the page's edit history, containing severe copyright violations that needed to be suppressed. When confronted about this, user admitted to having engaged in undisclosed paid editing [[24]], and made a required disclosure on their userpage, albeit after lashing out over their edits being reverted [[25]]. Although they were asked not to edit the article directly, per Wikipedia consensus, they came back a week later and edited the page again [[26]]. It's also possible that this user is a sock of User:IAAPorg, who was indefed earlier this month after making a plethora of similarly copyright-violating edits to the IAAP page. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 22:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It's clear from the edits by both accounts that this is the same person operating both accounts. However, the User:IAAPorg account was blocked as representing a group, and the notice on the talk page advises one of the potential courses of action being creating a new account. This new account seems to represent an individual, so there's no basis to block them as an abusive sockpuppet. However, I have pblocked them from International Association of Accessibility Professionals for their insistence on edit warring in elements the prior account attempted to add, constituting a slow burn edit war. Further, they are ignoring the advice about making edit requests. They are welcome to continue to contribute to the talk page of the article, but they are now pblocked from editing it directly. If they create a new account to get around this, please re-report. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Grotesque racial slur

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

---

This is an atrocious example of WP:NOTHERE.

• ~2026-41635-60 is the user in question.

Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 00:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked (and TPA revoked). Morwen (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing / edit warring by Itsekiriwriting

User: Itsekiriwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Primary article: Itsekiri people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Summary

I am requesting administrator attention for a pattern of repeated large-scale unilateral edits by Itsekiriwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Itsekiri people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and related articles. The editor has made substantial removals and alterations of existing material without first seeking consensus on the article talk pages. The pattern has continued after the issue was raised.

Evidence

• [27] — substantial rewrite and removal of material.
• [28] — subsequent restoration.
• [29] — further edits after the matter was noted on the talk page.
• [30] — related removal on another article.

Similar edits have also been made on Yoruba people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Tebu community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Itsekiri language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Please see the user’s contribution history for the full pattern.

The editor has been asked to discuss proposed changes on the talk pages rather than continuing to implement them unilaterally. The editing has continued.

Requested action

Please review the contribution history, the diffs above, and the talk-page discussions. If this constitutes disruptive editing or edit warring, appropriate administrative action (including a temporary block or page protection while the content issues are discussed) would be appreciated.

I have notified the user on their talk page.

Repair it (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to generate reports. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a very curious case because for all the world it appears that one chatbot has brought another one to ANI. Morwen (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I am real not a bot. You're welcome to check my page. Thank you. Repair it (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Your user page looks remarkably like the output of ChatGPT when given the prompt "hi i'm a wikipedia editor interested in nigeria history and culture please make me a wikipedia user page". Morwen (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Itsekiriwriting's talk page at the moment looks a lot like two LLMs arguing with each other. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Like I said I’m not a bot. Grammar correction that’s the only thing I did. Repair it (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

would you be willing to post the prompts you used to induce corrections of your grammar? Morwen (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

“Fix grammar, punctuations and paragraphs” Repair it (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I would imagine that telling an LLM to “fix paragraphs” is likely to result in much wider-ranging changes than what you are asserting you intended to do. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you please not every thing is Ai I used it to correct my grammar and arrangements. Repair it (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Please use your own words and arrangements. Morwen (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Should I resubmit it as I still have it written on my notes Repair it (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, if you would like to post the original below we can start again. User:Morwen 14:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Second attempt

I need help from an administrator to review the changes made by Itsekiriwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Itsekiri people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and some other related pages.

The editor made a lot of changes, including getting rid of sources that were already there. They did this without talking about the problems with the content on the talk page first. Even after constant warnings from other editors to stop his vandalism he has ignored all warnings and continued his disruptive edits.

Evidence

[31] removal and alteration of existing material. [32] restoration of the material. Diff another set of changes to the article. Diff removal of material on another article.

He also made changes without reason on these articles Yoruba people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Tebu community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Yorubaland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I have provided some examples above, and the user's contribution history shows the other edits.

I have asked the editor to discuss disputed changes on the relevant talk pages instead of continuing to remove or change the material he refused and instead gave his own opinions and he resumed vandalism again.

I would appreciate an administrator reviewing the user's contribution history, the diffs above, and the relevant talk-page discussions to determine whether this amounts to disruptive editing or edit warring and whether any administrative action is necessary.

If the disruption continues page protection may also be appropriate while the content dispute is discussed.

I have notified the user on their talk page. Repair it (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved this to be immediately below.

I don't see how for example, this edit to Tebu Community constitutes vandalism. Morwen (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Repair it (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Would you like to explain how the diff I highlighted constitutes vandalism? Morwen (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I added that because he made changes there with no explanation and He has once again started to vandalize the Itsekiri people page again Repair it (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

(a) making changes without explanation isn't vandalism - you might want to read WP:VANDALISM (b) there was an explanation! it's the edit summary. Clarified Tebu’s location and relationship to the Warri Kingdom; removed the unsupported claim of an eleventh-century Ijebu foundation; and added a source. Having checked all the references it looks to me that this user is indeed correct that there is no claim of an 11th century foundation in any of the references on the article - am I wrong? Morwen (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

A more detailed book will be added to clarify that. A previous editor had said that same site isn’t reliable as it is considered a personal blog. But a book will be added and changes will be made Tebu community isn’t the focus. Repair it (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Since this report was opened,

Itsekiriwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued making changes to Itsekiri people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

See evidence below:

Diff further removal and alteration of great sourced materials.

After I undid his vandalism he continued again

Diff

These edits were made after the issue had already been raised at ANI and after the editor had been asked to discuss the disputed material rather than continuing to make unilateral changes.

I am adding these diffs to the report so that administrators can review the continued editing pattern and determine whether administrative action is warranted. Repair it (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed your claim that the change to the Tebu article is vandalism and I have determined it to be false. Morwen (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you but It is and it will be corrected with a book or journal in the coming weeks. Not from a blog. Please check the others. Repair it (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

No, it's just straight up not vandalism, and we're going to need you to read WP:VANDALISM and understand it before throwing around accusations like that. I will, however, look at another edit [33]. This has two components. One of this is the removal of a main article note. This is a bad change but it's the sort of thing that is easily done accidentally, especially by a new user. The other is a removal of the map that the user claims is improperly sourced / WP:OR - which is a solid policy-based reasoning. Do you have access to the journals that it was citing? Morwen (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The editor is making judgements based on an agenda it’s not about editing for him. And yes I have access to journals he deleted and he is not editing he is copying from Ai and pasting it. I took a whole month to verify every edit I made on that page. Repair it (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue is source relevance, not alleged motive or drafting method. A conservation study that does not discuss languages cannot support a map of linguistic boundaries. If you believe it does, please quote the exact passage that supports the map. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Also those maps does have sources in them. He is carrying an ethnic agenda and anti Yoruba argument from social media and causing all these disruptive edits. Look at his talk page he was warned multiple times up to 4 times by other administrators. Repair it (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is one of those references a conservation study that makes no reference to languages as far as I can tell? Morwen (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t make them you can point them out to me and I will work on them. And can I also correct errors on the itsekiri people pages which I just saw? I want to add Proper citations. Repair it (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If you don't understand how the map was made and the other user is removing it and giving policy based reasons for why it should be removed, did you consider the possibility that the reasons they gave were in fact correct and the map should be removed? Morwen (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

He specifically targeted Yoruba from all pages and articles he does not care if or not they are right or wrong. His target is Yoruba and to cause disruptions on the itsekiri people page. I’m telling you he doesn’t care about anything or how you’re seeing it. He has an ethnic based agenda. And all other editors saw it too thus that’s why he was warned. Repair it (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not have an “ethnic based agenda”. My aim is to ensure that Itsekiri history and culture are represented accurately.

The problem was that large portions of the Itsekiri article attributed Itsekiri history and culture to the Yoruba while lacking support from sources. Many of my edits therefore concerned unsupported and inaccurate Yoruba attributions. I also edited similar claims on Yoruba related articles where the same issue existed.

It is not about targeting Yoruba people or Yoruba articles. I would make the same corrections if Igbo, Hausa, or any other ethnic group were being given unsupported credit for aspects of Itsekiri history and culture. My concern is the accuracy of Itsekiri content here on Wikipedia. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Those were not your concern the scoures are there you did not read them you just deleted all of it including the chief of Warri kingdom mentioning similar thing on the video you did not like it and also deleted the video because it doesn’t suit your own personal opinion and views. Repair it (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Please do as advised. It does not look good for you to accuse me of editing to my personal opinion and views while you are unable to provide any passages from the sources that support your own edits. I do not remember deleting the video of the chief, if I did it was an accident and I have no issue with it being restored since it does not support your unsourced claims. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not anti-Yoruba. Rejecting unsupported claims that attribute the founding of Itsekiri communities, Itsekiri identity or ownership of Itsekiri territory to Yoruba people is not hostility towards Yoruba people. It is a question of source accuracy. Documented Yoruba linguistic and historical connections should be included. However, claims you have made which go beyond the sources should not be included. Please address the specific sources and article wording rather than attributing an ethnic agenda to me. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Itsekiriwriting, would you like to comment on Repair it's allegations that you have been using AI/LLMs to generate article text or comments? Please note that if you have been using them and acknowledge it you're not going to get in to trouble. Morwen (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Itsekiriwriting It is very important that you tell us truthfully whether you have been using AI or LLMs to generate or assist with article text or comments in any way. You will not get in trouble for responding truthfully. Morwen (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There were no place that it was written that the ownership of itsekiri territory is Yoruba. You have no single knowledge regarding these subjects and I suggest you click the sources added on the article to read and enlighten yourself before going on rampage deleting well sourced articles because it doesn’t suit your own personal views or interests. Repair it (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you show us the specific edit you're both arguing about here? Morwen (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Like I told you he has an agenda against anything Yoruba so anywhere it is mentioned he deletes them. Despite great sources being cited Repair it (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

"Everywhere" is not helping, given that the two edits I have looked at specifically were not vandalism but a content dispute. Please provide a diff. Morwen (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This is one notice his pattern of deleting

Diff

Now this is another this shows he doesn’t know what he is talking about other than copying Ai and deleting anything that has to do with Yoruba and other things he doesn’t like.

Diff Repair it (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

So in the first part of this edit they remove some information sourced to Ethnologue and then a statement that has had a citation needed tag since September 2021. That seems entirely reasonable to me on the face of it. Now I can't find whether the community as a whole has an opinion on 'Ethnologue, but my understanding is it is a cataloguing project that probably acts as a reliable source for basic categorisation; but I don't think they're a reliable source for the whole paragraph before it, including things like It has also been influenced significantly by the Bini, Portuguese and English languages due to centuries of interaction with people from those nations. which would be a matter of historical linguistics. I take it you would disagree? Have you seen the Ethnologue entry in question? Morwen (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You cannot say I am copying AI and removing material I don’t like when those materials are not backed by reliable sources. If you are not actually putting in material there simply because you like it then why is it your material is not backed by any reliable source? I can gladly send you my pdfs of Moore, Lloyd, and Okime since you believe you’re the only with access to these works. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Itsekiriwriting. You might be a bit confused about the purpose of the board. It is to report complaints to administrators and other editors. We then ask questions and evaluate arguments and behaviour. This board is not for the mere continuance of arguments with other editors. I am the only administrator so far to have posted to this thread. I really need you to answer the direct question I have asked you now on multiple occasions. Have you been using AI or LLMs to generate or assist with article text or comments in any way? You will not get in trouble for responding truthfully, whether the answer is yes or no. Morwen (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Morwen, Thank you for your clarification. I will cease engaging with the other editor. The work I have published is my own. I have only used AI to assist me in understanding Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and adjust my work based on that. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Ok got another question - let's pick this edit as an example - can you tell me what sort of computer you're using and how you're drafting your comments? Is it a PC or a Mac? Sometimes apps can sneakily do LLM stuff without telling you - WP:GRAMMARLY is a big one for that. Morwen (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

For this response to Repair it on the talk page, I did use AI. However, it was only to summarize all the changes I had myself made and how it aligned with Wikipedia protocols. So that the full, correct information on the changes I made were on record. He was trying to make it appear as if his edits were well-sourced and the only basis for me removing it was “anti-Yoruba agenda” so I thought it was necessary to provide a comprehensive description of how my edits followed Wikipedia protocols. And it was easier for me to use AI to do that. If it is an issue, I will definitely discontinue using it in that way going forward. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, AI-generated comments are not good and they are not considered be part of consensus. The problem here in particular was that the other user was also using an AI to generate or refine comments, and so you were not really communicating; you were both just acting as conduits for your AIs. This does not help anyone. I can tell that both of you clearly care passionately about getting correct information about this topic onto Wikipedia, and I don't want to have to block either of you. What I would like to see is both of you together picking one of the articles to work on, and then finding one specific thing you one of you wants to change, and then try and come to a consensus together on that. No AIs. Just you two. Do you think you can give that a try? User:Itsekiriwriting User:Repair it. Morwen (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If he has concerns then he should just raise a question in the article talk page and wait for editors to check it or possibly explain it to him before he goes and deletes everything. That’s all I am saying. Repair it (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to take that as an indication you're willing to engage with him constructively on the talk page, yeah? How about it Itsekiriwriting? Morwen (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for offering this solution. I would not mind doing this but I am honestly not confident it will accomplish much in this situation. The edits he makes are so substantially deviated from the source material, that it strongly suggests he has a personal agenda in including them. Often times, he straight out includes things that are not in the source material then attributes it to the source material. Some other times, the source material even contradicts his conclusion. Just consider that he is defending a map that depicts the territory of an ethnic group, considered distinct by all the sources he draws from, as part of the territory of another. I genuinely do not see how I can write an article on the Itsekiri people with someone who wants to write it around another group. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In the infobox of the Yorubaland article, a map labelled “Yorubaland” depicted the Itsekiri homeland as part of its constituents. I removed it because it is not supported by any reliable source. However, another editor has restored it again. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sir, this is the internet. Everyone can open and read those sources themselves. You do not have the sole copy of Lloyd’s work. Rather than accusing me of having an ethnic agenda, cite the passages from the sources that support the disputed claims. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I will not engage in any further discussion with you as it is clear you don’t know what you’re talking about if you had click on those citations you can see the pages you didn’t read them and you deleted them because you didn’t like them. Repair it (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. The removal of the main article hatnote was accidental and I have no problem including it going forward. My concern was with the lack of any reputable sourcing for the map. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• It appears that despite extended prompting and coaching, Repair it has not been able to present an actual example of Itsekiriwriting violating Wikipedia policy or guidelines, but has instead simply repeated their unproven allegations regarding rather negative motives behind their work, and presented diffs that don’t demonstrate anything amiss. Repair it, are you able to either present more compelling evidence or else retract your allegations? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am not the only one who has warned him on his edits and I have presented my case well. You can check his talk page where other great editors have warned him as well. For the same series of deleting he did. Read all comments here Repair it (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I’ve read through the whole discussion here. All I see are poorly-substantiated allegations: that is my view of the issue thus far as an uninvolved administrator. Reviewing the notices on their talk page, it appears that the main concern was making changes without clear explanations in edit summaries in June. They appear to have since addressed that concern. Further looking at the articles affected, Itsekiri people and Yorubaland, I see edit wars that reflect poorly on both of you. There is an attempt at discussion Talk:Itsekiri people, but it’s rather shallow and does not clarify whose version is better supported by the sources. My suggestion would be that, absent actual evidence of misrepresenting sources or hateful rhetoric, you stop accusing Itsekiriwriter of having an agenda, and discuss with them which claims are actually well-supported or else needing removal at the articles in question. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  he deleted an entire page replaced them with an Ai generated article and he specifically removed all Yorba and yoruboid text saying itsekiris have no ties to them despite the fact that there are sources that proves it. And you are saying my accusations are baseless? When I first started Wikipedia in 2014 I was banned for way less disruptive edits than he did. I took years studying wiki and worked on pages to get here. If all the deletions he did isn't vandalism what is? I told him repeatedly to use the talk page he refused and kept deleting and my accusations are pointless? Thanks. Repair it (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  What entire page did they replace? Nil Einne (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Diffs of the alleged page “deletion” and addition of AI-derived text would be helpful here, as would diffs of attempts to delete discussion at talk pages. You really have not done your homework to present this case. Meanwhile, you’re still misusing the term WP:VANDAL. Read that page, carefully. Edits can be wrong, even egregiously inappropriate and sanctionable, without being vandalism, which is a very specific accusation. A real-world analogy would be that it’s like repeatedly accusing someone of First degree murder when the actual evidence suggests that only theft was committed: it undermines your argument and suggests you’re not actually paying attention to the advice and instructions you have been given. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Please tell us more about your ban from wikipedia? Is it still active? Morwen (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  That was when I first started to make edits like 10years ago I don't even remember the logins anymore. Repair it (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  So, you’re a WP:Sockpuppet account? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Given how long ago that block/ban is asserted to have occurred, I would consider this an User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock situation. But assessing that this is in fact something we can safely treat as water under the bridge would best be accompanied by a clear admission of what the prior account(s) were, in addition to commitments to engage in good faith going forward. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  You could probably work it out if you can remember or havea a guess at pages you edited. Morwen (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is simply incorrect. And it is the reason I posted that long summary of my edits in the talk page because I know how your sort operates. Yorubas and the Yoruboid language classification were still in my edits. What I removed were the unsourced, unsubstantiated claims; including unsourced migration accounts that exaggerated the Yoruba connection and appeared to make the basis of the Itsekiri ethnic identity that of Yoruba. In the info panel of my edits, Yoruba are still included there under related groups. I included the Itsekiri’s direct neighbors, the Urhobo and Ijaw. You removed this and replaced it with Yoruba and Igala merely due to language classification. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  can you explain what you mean by "your sort" here? Morwen (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I apologize for my language. I was referring to many people on twitter who basically make it their job to create historical and cultural propaganda about the Itsekiri people. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  thanks. can you tell me how long this has dispute has been going on? I mean outside of Wikipedia. Is it the subject of actual dispute between say politicians or academics? Or is it just a twitter/other online thing? Morwen (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  It’s mainly a Twitter/other online thing. I’m not aware of any serious academic work that supports his interpretation, certainly not in the sources he usually cites (Lloyd, Moore, and Ikime). Itsekiriwriting (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  That’s it you have confirmed you have an agenda against it and that’s where I will wait for you. Come and change it again. We will continue until a real admin put a stop to you. Everything added on that page is well sourced. Is it same Lloyd in the work “the itsekiri” in collaboration with abrey which also stated that “ The Itsekiri speak a dialect of Yoruba. In a list of over 100 common Itsekiri words over 90% are almost identical with Yoruba words, especially those of the southern and eastern sub-tribes. Only in kinship terminology is there any marked afinity with Edo.” This with others confirming that itsekiri’s are connected in race and language with Yoruba? Everything is in the sources tagged on the article this is my last warning carry out deletions because you don’t like them again and I will keep reporting until a real admin put end to your account. Repair it (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, Itsekiri being a closely related language to Yoruba is not in dispute. However, Lloyd’s claim that it is a dialect of Yoruba is outdated and later linguistic works such as Akinkugube, treat it as its own branch of the Yoruboid language and not a dialect of Yoruba. Hence why my edit included Itsekiri as being a Yoruboid language. I am not even sure what your purpose of bringing this up is because it is not an area in the Itsekiri article where our edits actually differ.

  The ‘others confirming the Itsekiri are related in “race” and language to the Yorubas’ was H.L. Gallery. The term is not only grossly outdated, but Gallwey was a colonial military officer and administrator, not an anthropologist, historian or a linguist. His brief observation in his 1893 travel accounts is therefore insufficient to substantiate the broader claims and disproportionate emphasis being placed on the Yoruba connection in your edits.

  You can report to as many admins as you want, you will only continually disgrace yourself. The standard is not the number of admins you report to, it is whether you can substantiate the disputed edits by reputable sources. So far you have been unable to do so. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  You can not use your own opinion to delete sources because you think it is outdated or because you think they are not ethnographers so you delete them? Those are well cited sources stop your disruptive behavior that’s is all I have to say about this and will comment no further @Morwen and @Rosguill thank you both. Repair it (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  It is not that I “think” Gallwey is not an ethnographer. It is a matter of fact. Review his Wikipedia article. Secondly, you are misrepresenting what I wrote. The statement “connected in race” reflects an outdated colonial misconception. Please review the modern scientific definition of race (human categorization) before dismissing something so commonly known as my “opinion”. WP:V WP:NPOV WP:DUE

  The statement also goes into no description and cannot justify the specific historical and cultural connections you made which are in dispute. WP:SYNTH Itsekiriwriting (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Have you now confirmed from his reply that his stance is based on an agenda? And you said my accusations were wrong. Despite how incredibly and over sourced those statements were he still disagrees because it doesn’t suit his agenda. Repair it (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Attributing a source to something does not make it correct. The source has to actually support your claims. Did you even review the edits I made and the edit summary? Itsekiriwriting (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  The edits you made are all Ai that excluded Yoruba which are all in the provided sources. Repair it (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  The only academic group who were a still are an interested party during my research was the itsekiri historical front (IHF) all of which were okay with the edits made and said it’s 100% accurate. Like I said this person here is pained and have an agenda as he himself has unveiled which proves he came straight from Twitter or an online arguments and began deleting and delinking anything connecting Yoruba and itsekiri together. I started making research on this topic for 3years before I started to make the pages improved and added so much context and materials which the royal family and the historical groups has even thanked me for. But this editor doesn’t care as long as the article whether or not it is well sourced doesn’t match his own opinion and ideas he will delete them. Repair it (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  You’re asked to substantiate your claims and you keep returning with irrelevant stories over and over. Does this mean you cannot actually substantiate your claims? If so, why not just acknowledge it and allow it to be removed? What do either the Itsekiri or the Yoruba gain from misrepresenting Itsekiri history and culture, and is it worth it? Itsekiriwriting (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think you're both getting into the detail of the content dispute too much now for this board. Can I suggest you do as we agreed might be a way forward above - pick a specific detail and try and work on it on a talk page together? Morwen (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I see a lot of WP:ASPERSIONS from Repair It. Content dispute or no, a lot of claims of a hidden agenda seems like a personal attack to me. Shouldn't Repair It at least be formally warned? I would have done it myself had thought my words would hold weight enough to make a difference. A content dispute cannot be reliably resolved under the distraction of continued incivility like that, at least in my opinion. — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 15:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, at this point I think we need to consider boomerang sanctions for Repair it. If it weren't for the adverse-possession sockpuppetry noted above, I would consider proposing either an IBAN from Itsekiriwriting or a TBAN from Yoruba topics. Given the admission of sockpuppetry without any sort of commitment to do better on engaging in constructive discussion regarding sources, I am considering just going straight to an indef block to enforce the prior ban. Morwen, any opinions as the other admin responding to this? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think something of the sort may be necessary, yes. Morwen (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Seeing that they spent this morning adding references to Itsekiri people, I considered changing course as it appeared constructive. Spot-checking diffs, however, leaves much to be desired. I randomly looked at Special:Diff/1366396687, which exhibits problems: the added source does not actually mention olukumi, nor does it confirm anything about the word for “my friend” in Itsekiri. In Special:Diff/1366473590, I’m having a bit of trouble searching the full text, but the visible portion on page 370 in these search results does not support the claim [Yoruba groups related to Itsekiri] migrated in early antiquity into the western Niger delta region and established several communities, among them; Inorin, Ugborodo, Irigbo, Ureju and Omadino. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'd agree that at this point the block should be (re)instated, given the hole they've managed to dig for themselves here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I added source that addressed that directly same sources are at other places of the page but now I have name a page inside the source for so it can be easily verified. And for the suggestion to have me blocked. To my creator and men I have done no wrong but to bring to your attention what I considered wrong doing from someone who is unrepentant and he admitted here that his actions were based on his opinion that he doesn’t see those sources fit because they are not ethnographers and yet he wasn’t quarreled but I am being punished for my reaction based on ignoring the reason I brought it here and instead facing me as the problem. I have given 8years of my life to Wikipedia and maybe this is the end of the road for me if no one can be honest here and I constantly get burnt for calling out people doing wrong then there is no need for me. I will get rid of my account. Thank you all. Repair it (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I’m actually confused. Did you write the entire Itsekiri article around the Yoruba people on the basis of a one-line opinion from a 19th century colonial officer? It is as if you just intend to ignore all the rules when they don’t support your narrative. Admins, please address his Gallwey source and determine if it breaks Wikipedia’s rules.

  My objection wasn’t simply Gallwey was not an ethnographer. Per WP:RS, the sources should have appropriate expertise, and Gallwey was neither an anthropologist, linguist, nor a historian and his statement on “race” is considered obsolete by academics. Adding a page number doesn’t suddenly make the source appropriate when its statements are considered obsolete by academics. Next, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, since the statement is outdated and represents a personal opinion, it should be attributed to the person and not written in Wikipedia’s voice. Repair It wrote a bunch of the article in Wikipedia’s voice that went well beyond what the Gallwey source claimed. Per WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH, the source shouldn’t be used to make conclusions beyond what it explicitly states. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Do you see what i have been saying now, @Rosguill, @Morwen, This guy just won’t budge, and at this point it really doesn’t seem to be about sourcing or policy anymore. It seems his mind is made up about severing any ties between the Itsekiri and Yoruba, regardless of how well the information is sourced.

  He keeps framing this as though the Yoruba connection has to rely on that single, Gallwey quote. That is not the only source even used. The sections in question are about the Itsekiri, their migration and history, and their linguistic and cultural relationship with the Yoruba. Those sections use several sources, including Ayomike, Sagay, William Moore, P. C. Lloyd, Henry Ling Roth, Gallwey, and several others, many of whom carried out firsthand research or interviews.

  One particularly relevant example is P. C. Lloyd, who was not merely a colonial officer. His specific work, The Itsekiri, discusses the possible origins and migration of the Itsekiri into the creeks, their language, and their cultural relationship with the Yoruba. He describes Itsekiri as having a dialect of Yoruba and discusses their “proto-Yoruba” connections. He also notes the similarities in vocabulary and mentions that the Itsekiri themselves considered their language to be closer to the Ijebu variety of Yoruba.

  so his argument that this information should not be used because Gallwey was not an ethnographer simply misses the issue. Gallwey is not the only source in these sections, nor is he the foundation of the argument. It’s like saying the word kind of England should no longer be used in Wikipedia since the sovereign is now called king of Britain  or that other researchers or eyewitness should be removed from Wikipedia as sources because they are not in the field of what they wrote about so their research and eyewitness accounts are invalid. This would no doubt throw Wikipedia into confusion and a place of lawlessness if someone can just come in and delete things based on his own personal opinion.

  What @Itsekiriwriting is doing instead of providing counter-information based on cited sources is giving his own opinion on what should qualify as fact on these subjects. He dismisses established historical connections as outdated based on his own view. That is why I am asking the administrators not to treat this as merely a personal dispute, but to look at the wider issue of his selective approach to sources and policy. Historical sources need proper context, attribution, and, where applicable, support from modern scholarship. But there is a big difference between properly contextualising historical information and simply wanting that information removed because an editor considers the source “old” or outdated.

  This editor seems to be driven less by a genuine desire to improve sourcing standards or apply Wikipedia policy and more by a desire to remove any documented historical connection between the Itsekiri and the Yoruba from the article. He is trying to decide which sources are valid for discussing Itsekiri history based on what appear to be his own personal beliefs, despite the number of documented sources on the subject, including Ayomike, Sagay, William Moore, P. C. Lloyd and others.

  Even after more sources have been provided and the context has been explained clearly, he continues to reject the evidence. That is why I am appealing for administrator intervention not simply because of a disagreement between two editors, but to prevent well-researched historical information about the Itsekiri article and their documented Yoruba associations from being repeatedly altered or removed without proper justification.

  I am willing to discuss any relevant concerns raised in the talk pages and work with anyone to address any thing they observed instead straight deleting without discussion or proper explanation but not him he doesn’t even want to discuss anything because he doesn’t care if the sources are correct all he cares about is that in his opinion they should be removed. Please I beg all of you to restrict him from making further edits on that page and related pages. Repair it (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  You brought up your Gallwey as if he were the main reason for your inputs so I addressed that. I’ve already previously addressed how the other sources you mentioned do not substantiate your claims. You, on the other hand, keep making up false stories about me and begging the admins to accept it rather than focusing on substantiating the disputed edits. I’ve said many times now that I did not remove the linguistic connection to Yoruba and the edit history (WHICH IS PUBLIC) shows this. The admins themselves have confirmed it. Wikipedia wouldn’t be lawless so long as people want to follow the rules and report verifiable facts. It is not for pushing your narratives. Keep that on twitter. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Please check again and verify the sources if there is any other please point it out for me and it will be worked on. Thank you. Repair it (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Look, the number 1 issue here at the end of the day is what have been, so far, un- and under-substantiated accusations against Itsekiriwriter. You accused them of rather despicable behavior, but the evidence you have provided doesn't prove that level of misconduct. Based on diffs in this discussion alone, there's very little to go on. In my own investigation of the articles in question beyond the diffs provided here, I would not call Itsekiriwriter's work and conduct flawless––but neither is yours––and I don't see evidence that anything they've done rises to the level of systematically removing mentions of Yoruba connections in relation to Itsekiri, misrepresenting sources, espousing ethnic hatred, or vandalism. If you can either a) provide clearer evidence of such behavior or (at this point, preferably) b) drop the the accusations and commit to discussing disagreements over article content on the basis of clear RS-based arguments, I think we can move on with the other issues being water under the bridge. I can see from your edits today about Isekiri festivals that you are committed to improving Wikipedia and able to do so constructively, but you also need to be able to work with people that you disagree with who, as far as I can see, are playing by the rules. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I only added few diffs the entire thing is on his contribution page you can check it and he also admitted here the reason he removed them despite well sourced is because he doesn’t think they a fit to discuss on the topic. Because in his opinion they are not ethnographers. If that is grounds for deletion then Wikipedia will be turned to a battle ground for deletion of sources and references because people believe some doesn’t have the right to speak on issues? Repair it (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm honestly very tempted to do a block for ban/block evasion now. I've gone through the history of some of the articles RI has been editing and there are a quite a number of users blocked for sockpuppeting in their histories although its hard to pin on any individual case. Morwen (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I am correcting what you all complained about. Should I leave it? I did ask you that there are errors I need to correct and that is what I am doing. I asked that if you see any point it out like we did with the last one you complained about and I fixed it and you said good. What wrong did I do? Repair it (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

oh my apologies I thought you mean me. Repair it (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

User:28AmirMAHDI

28AmirMAHDI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite being warned repeatedly, the user continues to violate WP:GS/AA and WP:GS/KURD. I have explained in great detail on multiple occasions how the articles the user focuses on involve controversial topics, [34][35] yet they persisted in their behavior; [36][37][38] even after they responded, I explained the situation again in minute detail, [39] but they continued to commit violations. [40][41] Kajmer05 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Jasja1o gaming for permissions

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

---

Jasja1o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Numerous edits to User:Jasja1o/sandbox, all of which aren't particularly necessary/constructive/relevant to Wikipedia, often a few minutes apart. Began doing this July 23, and takes a break of 2 days before coming back at almost the exact same time (around 5 PM UTC). User:Jasja1o page history also has some obvious gaming. They continued after I left them a warning. jolielover♥talk 16:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be a sockpuppet account (compare to this user); I've filed an SPI. TonySt 17:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Sexual solicitation posted on user talk page by Linda693

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

---

Not certain where exactly this should be reported, but I am reporting Linda693 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edit on my talk page, which is inappropriate sexual content, which violates the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct. PeriodicEditor (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Content removal by TA

• ~2026-27053-62 (talk · contribs)

I was recently contacted on my talk page by Aciram of a temporary account that continuously removes decently sourced content from the Slavery in the Ottoman Empire article. They were warned [42][43] of this twice , and instead of going on the talk page, they continued to blank content.

I would have went to the edit warring noticeboard, but technically their editing falls outside of the basic 24hr rule. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I have renounced deleting the "decently" sourced information and have only now deleted the unreferenced and poorly written oppening paragraph to the subsection. It was still reverted as "vandalism", along with information that was personally written and referrenced by me, which consisted of an entire paragraph that I put care into writing. ~2026-27053-62 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

While I wouldn't personally have called your latest edit vandalism the fact you only now went to the talk page after a long edit war and claimed you were just making grammatical fixes in this edit [44] makes it understandable editors are frustrated with you. Now that you've finally made it to the talk page, you can resolve your dispute there and there should be no reason for ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

That post I made on the talk page was actually a draft that wikipedia inexplicably saved for me, I called off posting it the day before because I doubt anyone but me cares enough about the topic of this particular subsection, least of all this "edit warrior" who has stated elsewhere that they simply do not actually have the time to engage with me, and as such appear to only be undoing my edits on a shallow analysis of how many characters my edits have deleted, and concluding that I must be vandalizing as such. So now I fear I may have to wait months or even years until someone replies. ~2026-27053-62 (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

That great but I had a more careful look at what you posted on the article talk pages and it was clearly written by an LLM so I've collapsed it. Please don't use LLMs to talk for you. It's forbidden under WP:AITALK. We're only interested in what humans have to say, not LLMs. If you're used an LLM to make changes beyond basic copyediting to the article (and your LLM describing of the changes is beyond basic copyediting), this would also be forbidden per Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models and might at least partly explain why your changes were reverted. It's also a little silly to talk about your talk page comments being saved when you could just have gotten the LLM to rewrite them (or probably find them in your LLM history) so it's sort of moot.

As for the rest, since you've both been edit warriors to now and utterly failed to discuss it's a little silly to fault the other side for that. Likewise it's silly to complain about shallow analysis when you started this off by misleadingly implying you were just making grammatical fixed when you were making substantive changes. Pot-kettle-black an all that.

And if the other editor does not at least explain why they continue to object to your changes on the talk page within a reasonable time period (for something like this is I'd say at least a week) that can be taken as an indication of a silent consensus and it so it wouldn't be edit warring to reinstate the edit once. If they continue to edit war by refuse to explain themselves on the talk page that would likely be an indication of a behavioural issue and so they can be brought here. So it's simply not try they can refuse to engage with you. Note that if you are using LLMs to make changes beyond basic copyediting, this is one case when just reverting with an edit summary about reverting LLM changes would be sufficient and there's no reason to do anything on the talk page. Likewise if you continue to use LLMs to talk for you, then no one owes that a response. Again we talk to humans not LLMs.

Now if you stop using LLMs, note that engaging doesn't mean they have to agree with you or even take part in intensive discussion. If it's clearly they still disagree and there's little chance of agreement you need to come to consensus somehow.

A WP:3O is the obvious option if it's just the two of you. 3O (like to some extent a lot of WP:dispute resolution) doesn't require any interested in the particular dispute. It just requires editors committing their time to helping resolve disputes which fortunately we generally have. And for the editors to be able to succinctly explain their preferred version based on our policies and guidelines and without extraneous stuff. While there are places to get help if for editors who don't understand how to edit like WP:Teahouse and WP:Help Desk, editors dealing with dispute resolution will often not be that interested in educating others on such things.

So for example, if editors call for a 3O and someone wanting to offer a 3O comes and finds they need to read several pages of back and forth between the two editors the chance of success is going to be far lower. Likewise if an editor comes and find neither editor seems to have really understand our policies and guidelines (e.g. an editor is calling something vandalism when it isn't or saying they were making grammatical changes when they were making far more than that) and so neither have made a good case for their preferred, again the chances of success will be low. For that matter any extraneous discussion (behavioural issues don't belong on article talk pages so discussions about edit warriors etc would generally be inappropriate) would also make it more difficult to get help. Perhaps most importantly here, any use of LLMs in anything the editor has to read would almost definitely doom the request.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

LLM use aside, if you continue to make nonsensical changes like this [45] Geneticists have concluded that the Crimean Tatars, as a distinct ethnic group, were formed directly within Crimea, rather than migrating to the region, thereby affirming their status as the result of Turkish migrants from the Ottoman Empire emigrating to Crimea. you will be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This User has repeatedly been removing well referenced information from this article. Ths was vandalism. They have attempted to hide this by writing in their edit summary that they were only making spelling corrections. When reverted, they engaged in a drawn out edit war. When warned, they claimed that they had been threatened. When reverted again, they accused the editor who reverted the vandalism for being guilty of vandalism.

I have both created, expanded, edited and watched many articles on enwp adressin the issue of slavery in an Islamic context. Since slavery was regulated by religious law, this is a highly controversial topic. These articles are often targeted by editors - often IP-adresses - who attempts to vandalise them, remove well referenced information by claiming it to be false, adding their own content, and engaging in long, drawn out discussions where they question referenced content for religious or even ethnic reasons. Anyone can verify this by checking the edit history of most of these articles. If you deal with this issue for years, you start to recognize the pattern.

My impression was that this user fit a pattern I have observed previously. This user claim that the references does not fit the description. They deleted large chunks of referenced text and rearranged the article. If they had simply added their own referenced text without removing already referenced thext, that would have been different. I opose the claim that the references given in the article does not support the content in it.

Users with a bias agenda, such as for example users who attempt to edit an article from religious or ethnic grounds, have the motivation to engage in article discussions for weeks on end. I have participated in such discussions before. I am bussy in real life: I have work as well as a family emergency. I do not have the time to engage in a discussion. If this results in an article being vandalised and subjected to bias editing, that would be destructive to wikipedia. The same goes for this article. The fact that I am unable to engage in a debate should not be intepreted as silent consent. --Aciram (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit warrior adding repeatedly original research

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

Unresponsive SPA repeatedly adding OR to Bodhidharma. Was blocked last November (by Fences and windows) for the same but has now returned.

Should ECP the article and bar Sumarokov from editing it. Unless they can explain their OR additions (unlikely to respond). Was likely IP socking through temp accouts in b/w at the same article as well [46]. Gotitbro (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:Bodhidharma#File:Central_Asian_Buddhist_Monks.jpeg. What's the rationale for ECP vs pending changes? Fences&Windows 22:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: The article is coincident with WP:CT/SA and WP:CT/CASTE, Bodhidharma's origin from India being a long held tradition including his supposed caste (one can see disruptive edits and editors regarding this in the article/PP history).

Further, the OR here pertains to portraying Bodhidharma (an Asian) as a blue-eyed red-haired 'Caucasian' monk. One can make of that what they will but to me the purpose of these edits doesn't really appear to be nice to say the least. Gotitbro (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Harassments and threats from another editor

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Harassments and threats from another editor

 – Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Can I please ask for help regarding editor user:Zackmann08, or at the very least have someone limit they ability to interact with me. He constantly sends me messges accussing me of being disruptive, over minor spelling errors or errors in the templates. I understand and appreciate a friendly message or even just correcting it without sending me messages. But they keep sending me messages with threatening tone, calling me disruptive as if I was a vandal, when I spend a lot of my time writing well reaseched and sourced articles. This has been going on for months now, and it comes to the point when I'm afrad to edit, becouse I might get another message from them. I asked them before to not write to me again, as I do not feel comfortable with their messages, which they ignored. Now they call me "repeted offender" and threaten to, to parafrase, "call admins on me". Recently, they undid my entire edit, which I spent some time working on, over literally one mistake in an inforbox where I accidentally wrote "other_parties" instead "other_party". I do believe calling someone "repeated offender" and "disruptive edditor" over such minor thing is an extreme over reaction and abuse of power. And I'm sure, I'm not the only editor attacked like that by them. I find entire situation extremely stressful, and I would really love to get any help or even just an option from an admin. Thank and for reading this. Sincerely, Artemis Andromeda (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, as I did not keep good archive of my talk page, to keep such stressful messages off it. I can for now link to history page and try to find more specific edits with those messages tomorrow. 1 2. I also place link to edit history of the article, Agnieszka Kłopotek, regarding their recend undoing of my edits. Also, the eitor pointed out, I called them an offencie term on the recent occasion. I admit and apologise about that, I was under huge stress seeing het another message from him and what he did with my edits, and reacted. I'm not good with interacting with strangers, especially in such stressful situations. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

User has been warned multiple times about their breaking of pages. The below diffs are the warnings that I have issued dating back to September. A review of their user talk page history shows a long history of warnings ignored and deleted.

1. Special:Diff/1309066571
2. Special:Diff/1314495509
3. Special:Diff/1339742599
4. Special:Diff/1344704379
5. Special:Diff/1344706665
6. Special:Diff/1353743220
7. Special:Diff/1356580652
8. Special:Diff/1356580713
9. Special:Diff/1358285816
10. Special:Diff/1366448408

EVERY single time I have left a message, Atermis has responded in bad faith, calling me a moron (Special:Diff/1366448683) and deleting my comments, EVERY time. Never once acknowledging that they have made a mistake. Now I totally understand we all make typos. But Artermis has shown a clear pattern of simply not caring that they make mistakes and making ZERO effort to clean up those mistakes. What is more, when notified of a mistake, rather than thanking the person who took the time to both fix their error AND notify them of the mistake, they lash out.

I also call total BS on the idea that Artermis is afrad [sic] to edit, becouse [sic] I might get another message from [me] as if messages are something that to be so afraid of.

I also want to point out, that far from focusing in on Artemis, my focus (as is clearly shown on my user page) is on cleaning up pages. When I see the same user repeatedly and constantly breaking pages, then yes I say something. But this idea that I'm out to get Artemis or am somehow focused on them is preposterous. If anyone has any doubt of this, please consult my contributions to the User Talk namespace alone.

Also worth noting that Artemis failed to notify me of their post on this noticeboard, as required....

I will restate what I said in Special:Diff/1358285816. @Artemis Andromeda: If you don't like getting messages about breaking things, then stop breaking things.

WP:BOOMERANG should be strongly considered here. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I never said I see you as "trying to get me" specifically. I'm sure you send similar messages to numerous editors. It is about that your messgaes are threatening, and you implied to notify admins if I do not comply with your demads. You very much called me disruptive and very much implied that I'm bad faith editor and borderline a vadanl over a few mistakes. Also, you are not an admin, yet all your messages sound like you personally will ban me if I don't comply. And to also point a huge elephant in the room. I have made over 60,000 edits. I would guess somewhere between 5-10,000 this year. If you can produce only 10 examples of me doing mistakes, that sounds like less than 0.01% of my edits, not even a rounded error. So, calling me repead offender who do watches for my mistakes and corrects them, is just falasy and extreme exaggeration of what's happening. (And just so youdo not state I sait, I'm not claiming I'm only made 10 mistakes, I made more like any humans, but its so small compared to how many articles I wrote, you can not just claim it's all I do). My eddits on average also have like 5-10,000 characters, which makes a singular spelling errors also a rounding error and something hard to spot. I apologise I called you a name, that wasn't nice, but your actions towards me made me angry. And this is about the fact I told you I'm not comfortable with your messgaes and accusations, and do not want to recive messages from you. And, just to clarify my point, someone making a singular typo once every few houndres and thousends edits, is not a disruptive editor or a vandal, or someone with agenda to break things, and attacking and treating them as such is wrong, and you should not do that. I have problems with stressful messages like those of yours, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, and I would like you to rething your tone when interacting with other users, if you would be so kind. Sincerely, Artemis Andromeda (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, please understand, no one owns you an answer to your messages, especially when I answered numerous times, told you I do not want to talk with you, and that, every time I tried to talk about your messages, you argued with me, basically called me bad editor, and told me you "will not answer to any more messages". Also, users have right to control what they keep and not keep on their talk page, and you cannot just demand I keep all messages from you. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If you find my messages unkind, I would once again remind you, that you were kindly and gently warned multiple times and ignored every message. Additionally, running to admins on an Administrators' noticeboard because someone criticized your breaking of pages is a stretch. However your calling of another editor a moron (as admin Staraction pointed out below), is a clear personal attack. My comments have always been about the content of your edits, not about your personal nature beyond the clear pattern of not checking your work.

I'm not going to go around in circles with you. If you don't like being warned about breaking pages, start actually previewing your edits and stop breaking pages. Also stop reverting when people fix your broken code and blanking the notices on your talk page which show a clear pattern of not being interested in the feedback of other editors. Part of being in this community is being receptive to the feedback of other editors.

I want to be clear, I am not upset that occasionally make a typo. Lord knows I make those all the time. What is upsetting is that when someone points out that you made a mistake you seem to consider it some form of "threatening" attack on you. I would strongly encourage you to rethink things. When someone takes the time to fix your mistake and to notify you of your mistake, your reaction should "wow that person went out of their way to fix my error and let me know I goofed. I should thank them instead of feeling personally attacked. Here is an example of how I recently reacted when someone pointed out my screw up. Gratitude instead of feeling personally attacked, because at the end of the day I was the one who screwed up... Why would I take that out on the person who fixed my error and notified me? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

can we get more examples of "EVERY single time I have left a message, Atermis has responded in bad faith, calling me a moron (Special:Diff/1366448683) and deleting my comments, EVERY time." please? Morwen (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, making a minor mistake, one in around 5-10,000 is not "breaking the page", especially that no mistake was ever intentional, and was corrected. All I want is you stop claiming I'm some vandal braking pages, when I jave gave so much of my time to Wikipedia, and wrote and destubbed over 1,300 pages. Most of pages you accuse me of breaking, wouldn't exist if I haven't wrote them. Not saying gives me permission to "break them", but I clearly do not do that. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Artemis Andromeda: I've (semi-boldly) moved this from AN to ANI, which seems to be a more fitting forum. I've also notified Zackmann08 as required by both AN & ANI. I haven't looked too closely into this case but please do note that calling someone a moron is pretty clearly a personal attack. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Alright, this totally doesn't have to escalate. Both of you are pretty clearly both acting in good faith and your contributions are both highly appreciated 'round the project. I looked back through the past couple months on User talk:Artemis Andromeda. Could both of you have communicated better? Yeah, probably (1/2). In particular: @Artemis Andromeda, I think you should address Zackmann08's concerns. The talk page is meant for collaboration, and if there's some issue someone is pointing out with your edits, the easiest way around it is to fix it. Perhaps with duplicate parameters you can edit the old version of your page via Special:Permalink and just fix the parameters that are broken, for example. I understand that Wikipedia editing can be stressful, but please, take a break if you need to, and try to make sure it doesn't affect your editing in a negative way.

  On the other end, @Zackmann08: in addition to ToBeFree's comments at AN3 (2), which you seem to have understood well, perhaps a personally written note is more effective than successive templates (3/4); and a little bit of grace usually goes a long way (e.g. is saying It is really that simple here really necessary?).

  Now to resolve the issue. Artemis Andromeda seems to have recognised the "moron" comment as wrong. "Dense" and the other examples Zackmann08 gives are in the same vein. If Artemis Andromeda can see why these comments are issues, and commits to try to fix them, do we think we can move on? Staraction (talk · contribs) 04:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I want to move on. To be clear, I'm not asking for the user to be banner. All I'm asking is they stop writing to me, and deleting my entire edits, and be either asked nicely to stop doing that, or if possible, blocked from my talk page. I do not want a conflict, and this is not intended as slander piece against the user, as I feel at least one of people here took it us. I just want to peacefully edit articles. At this point, I think it is well documented I got the memo from the user, and also, I corrected they mistkaes or saw them correct them. Also, at no point have i intentionally ignored mistakes. Also, I'm just saying removed entire edit, which regarded entire aritcle, instrad of letting me correct one character or do it yourself, is overreaction, and destroys all hard work put into the article. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  reverts don't destroy anything! i'm sorry if this is patronising but your comment implies you don't how this works - if you get reverted because of an error you made, you can go to the edit history, select your version, edit that, fix your error and save! simples! now its a bit more complex if someone has done extra edits on top but its still the same principle. Morwen (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  or if possible, blocked from my talk page Artemis Andromeda, if you want to invoke WP:USERTALKSTOP, then you should consider doing that after you have read the advice at WP:SOMTP ("Stay Off My Talk Page") first. There is a near 0 chance of your specific remedy being applied, but there are remedies that you can apply right now that would have somewhat of the effect that you are looking for. (Specifically, adding {{Don't template me}} to your user talk page would be the remedy that you want overall.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Staraction: For the record I am 100% happy to move on (I didn't open this ANI....). My concern at this point is that this will happen again. I am sure that Artemis will once again break a page as they have thus far refused to acknowledge the need to WP:PREVIEW their edits (the dozens of typos in their comments on this thread alone indicate this: "user to be a banner", "stop weiring me", "not intended as slanderou peace against", etc... ). When this happens, in the course of my daily work fixing things, I will once again leave a message on their talk page, as I do for all editors that they have broken something. They will once again feel personally attacked and we will be right back here where we started. I again maintain that if Artemis Andromeda has gotten the message and doesn't want to hear from me, then they should stop breaking things and learn to WP:PREVIEW their edits.

  Now I want to be clear, I will not seek out this user. I have neither the time nor the desire to patrol their contributions. But if their edits end up on my screen as having once again broken something, I think it is preposterous for me to be required to stay away from their talk page because they feel personally attacked by my fixing their mistakes.

  Going to bed so won't respond more for a while. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  1. It's a chat, not an article, it doesn't require the same level of spellchecking. 2. I'm extremely tired and angry, not a good combo for perfect grammer. 3. I'm on a phone right now. And finally, 4. I wrote over 1,300 articles, and had 60,000 edits. There were no major issues with my work, nor my spelling, and a few typos were corrected by me or other users, like I'm sure happens with work of all editors. Again, a singular mistake every tens of dozens or so articles, and hundreds of edits can slip through, I'm not a machine, I'm just a human. And finally, their messages were read, I'm aware. And I'm sure at this point they are aware that I saw they messages. I hope we can just agree we read eatchothers messages, there's nothing new to say, and just move on and stop talking to not cause any more of problems? Sincerely, Artemis Andromeda (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have no dog in this fight, but I do want to point out that something as seemingly minor as a single character mistake can indeed break an entire page if it introduces a critical coding error. Ask me how many times I've thoroughly borked things coding by hand. If such a mistake is noticed by a different editor who doesn't know where in the text it is, especially if you're adding very large chunks at a time, the most logical solution is for them to simply revert it in order to un-borkify the page, rather than digging through your addition attempting to solve a problem that they didn't create. As already noted, all of your work is preserved in the page history and you or someone else willing to try to fix the error can easily recover it. Also, in addition to previewing your edits to try to avoid introducing such errors, it can be helpful to make numerous smaller edits instead of one big one, so that it's easier to isolate the error and just revert that smaller change instead of all of the work at once. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you point out which edits broke the page? Because I looked through some of the warnings and followed them back to the pages. If you're going to pile on with Zackmann08, and make claims like that, then please come with diffs. He claimed page breaking, then linked to diffs of his warnings. Not the page breakings themselves. So please, supply those diffs or strike the remark.--v/r - TP 17:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't make any claim as to which edits did or did not break anything, nor am I going to attempt to dig through 60k edit history to look. I said it can happen, which is why it doesn't matter how small the error is - it can still have major implications. Mistakes do happen, and reverting is a perfectly appropriate reaction to them. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  "Around it is to fix it". Respectfully, all mistakes have been corrected. But I'm not a machine that can just guarantee I will not ever made any more mistakes in my entire life. As such, I think it's unreasonable to send me the same threatening-tone message over every time I will make to the end of my life, or until I get bullied enough into quiting Wikipedia. That's all I'm asking for. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Artemis Andromeda, I suggest that you drop this in the next few hours. If not, I plan on participating in this with a BOOMERANG. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hello, listen, I'm not here to get your friend banned, no need to demand I drop it "or else". I just feel uncomfortable in the current situation, and the messages and just want this issue peacefully resolved. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  And just to be clear. I'm not seeking a conflict with anyone here or on Wikipedia, or a ban or problems for this user. I'm neither here to claim I'm somehow better or perfect, nor seeking Boomerang situation. I made mistakes in the past both in typos, and in some interactions with other users. I admit that. I just do not feel comfortable with current situation, and wanted it resovled, and speak to an admin or just people who can help resovle it. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well, since I doubt I will get any help here anyway, I drop this matter. Congrats Artemis Andromeda (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  (Having re-written this multiple times over the past 40+ minutes, I am just going to address all that was said to me.) I am confused by why you are assuming that Zackmann08 is my friend, (though I would not be surprised if I have have positive interactions with him), but you seem to be misunderstanding my comment. I am unsure if you have read BOOMERANG and was warning you that you potentially had one headed your way.

  That said, I was about to say that I was surprised by the end of your first comment. I was going to ask you why did you bring this dispute to the Administrators' noticeboard at all, but apparently you believe that this will somehow resolve your dispute. Just a heads up though that you are bring Zackmann08 to AN over warning templates. We have hundreds of warning templates as can be seen at WP:WARNING. To quote from Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, [T]hose who receive a template message should still assume good faith regarding the user of said template. The editor using the template may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not themselves consider the template use rude. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template. Alternatively, the editor using the template may have never read this essay, or they may disagree with it. Recipients should also put themselves in the shoes of the user of the template. How were they to know you are a regular? Were you acting like an experienced user? No one is perfect, you or the editor that used the template. Take the template as a reminder and/or constructive criticism and just move on. If you really don't like the warning templates, then add your user talk page to Category:Wikipedians who opt out of template messages, add Template:Don't template me to your talk page, and we can all try to move on.

  Finally, just specifically about your initial third comment, you have a history of ignoring requests on your user talk page and have a history of problematic interactions with other users as you yourself noted. You had an incident in May with another user where you displayed concerning behavior and ended up getting blocked for 24 hours. The reason that I know this is because I replied to you during that incident more than once. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template.

  Especially when the editor being warned doesn't appear to be interested in addressing the issue. Who wants to take the time to personally hand write messages over and over just to have them blanked? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I get your point, but it seems that Artemis Andromeda isn't treating the warning templates as if they are just templates: But they keep sending me messages with threatening tone --Super Goku V (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

"EVERY single time I have left a message, Atermis has responded in bad faith, calling me a moron". I said "moron" once, and not "every single time" as you try to claim here. I did not say in thr message, but in edit, which still is wrong and I apologies. But claiming I did it numerous times, is just plain lie and clear attempt to get me baned or have my case dismissed. Also, keep in mind, at this point you threatened and harrased me on numerous times, and removed my entire edit over literally one typo, and I got angry over that. I'm sorry your feelings might have been hurt, and I do not excuse myself, it was worng. But please consider other editors also have feelings, implying I'm bad editor and basically a vandal is in my personal opinion as great of an insult, and you did it numerous times. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Every time I have left you a message you have EITHER ignored it/simply deleted it or responded in bad faith, for example calling me a moron on one occasion. You need to stop claiming you are the victim when you are the one causing the problem and lashing out with personal attacks.

@Morwen: per your request, a couple of other examples of bad faith...

1. Special:Diff/1358287031 calling my advice and feedback trash
2. Special:Diff/1358284879 calling my comments spam
3. Special:Diff/1366449012 calling me dense because I didn't take the time to fix your error this (9th? 10th?) time and instead just reverted your breaking of the page.

And examples of ignoring and simply deleting (not archiving) comments:

1. Special:Diff/1357932042
2. Special:Diff/1353775103
3. Special:Diff/1353619316

Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, no one owns you an asnwer or archival of your message. I clearly saw them, and all mistakes were corrected. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Artemis Andromeda: I am more than happy to let this ANI that you initiated die out, but let us be clear. You are complaining about being warned for the mistakes you are making. If you continue to make these mistakes, you will continued to be called out for them. Though this entire ANI, you have never once accepted responsibility for the errors you have made but have instead cried victim for me daring to notify you of mistakes. Numerous other editors have pointed out your failed logic and you have in turn lashed out at them, claiming that at least one of them is simply my "friend".

For the final time, if you do not want to receive warning messages about errors, stop making errors. All you need to do is take the time to preview your edits, which you continue to fail to do. The onus is on you to stop breaking things. I would also strongly encourage you to reflect on your attitude as you continue your wiki editing. If someone takes the time to fix your errors and notify you of them, your reaction should be gratitude that someone took the time, not victimhood for someone daring to call you out for the mistake you made. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 13:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:USERTALKSTOP says not to edit a user's talk page when they've asked you to stop. "If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected." And it also says that if they archive your comments, it counts as acknowledging it. "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic." That is a guideline and should be followed.--v/r - TP 17:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Wait a damn minute. I don't see a WP:BOOMERANG here. I looked at diffs Zackmann08 offered. There was no page breaking on the diffs I looked at. You wouldn't know there was missing parameters unless you looked at the page source and then followed it back to the template to read the parameters. Here is an example of Zackmann08's reversion of an unbroken page. And those reversions reverted more than the simple extra parameter, they reverted other good faith edits. First, Zackmann08's actions have been extremely aggressive. Second, he would only have even known about these things if he is reviewing each and every one of Artemis Andromeda's edits. The original complaint has merit and needs a thorough review. Not a boomerang. If I was being stalked by someone that was full reverting my edits, over and over, for months over trivial non-page breaking extra parameters in templates - I'd have words for them far worse than "moron".--v/r - TP 17:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Adding unknown parameters typically inserts the page into a maintenance category that can be tracked; in your example this was Category:Pages using infobox officeholder with unknown parameters. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is not page breaking.--v/r - TP 18:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's not stalking either. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Targetting someone's edits and constantly going to their talk page where you are unwelcome is the very definition of it.--v/r - TP 18:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  If they're tracking that category and fixing issues from various editors (as they've said) it isn't targeting. I suppose they could just keep reverting, NOT mention it to the editor, and bring it here when they finally get fed up. Same end result. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Or they could fix the 3 characters from "y" to "ies" and not revert the rest of the good faith edits and move on with their life. Artemis Andromeda has 64K edits, and unless we've perfected robot technology, it means they're human and humans make mistakes. And another editor comes along, fixes it, and we all move on with our lives. Are you telling me your edits are flawless? And if he's at the "fed up" point, then he should step away from Wikipedia. We don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is inappropriate. WP:REVERT itself says "Revert only when necessary. Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits."--v/r - TP 19:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Not at all. My very first edit got borked due to my keyboard glitching. It was reverted in record time - then I fixed it and apologized in my edit summary. I didn't get mad at the editor who reverted or drag them here, because it WAS an error that didn't belong in a live article. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's great that you didn't get upset at a single error being identified. When you are up to 64K and you have an editor houding your talk page expecting perfection and harrassing you because of a maintenance category, then let's review again. Personally, I like to remember that editors and humans and volunteers. If it is stressing Zackmann08 out that a maintenance category isn't empty, he can walk away from it or the encyclopedia until he's calm.--v/r - TP 19:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sure it's far from the only edit I've had reverted, but I think a lot of editors would be more discouraged by having their very first edit reverted, rather than what they themselves have pointed out is a very small percentage of their total edits. If someone lets me know that I made a mistake, I fix it and try to avoid it in the future, as is expected from ALL editors. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but mistakes do, and will continue to, happen, despite any effort you make to be precise. The fixation on Artemis Andromeda has exceeded coincidental encounters and drive bys. There is an effort here to track her edits and revert, in whole, for even slight mistakes.--v/r - TP 19:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Taking a glance at Zackmann08's edits, they have warned users 33 times this month (including Artemis Andromeda) of repeatedly adding unknown parameters into articles based on a search for the edit summary, "Caution: Unknown Params Repeat Offender." It does not appear that they are tracking her edits, but are instead tracking a maintenance category. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V: I probably have issued 33 warnings today alone... Your count is WAY off... Please consult my User talk contributions... Any edit summary begining with "Notice:" is me using a TWINKLE warning... By my count that is over 700 this month alone... The idea that I am targeting Artemis is preposterous and doesn't remotely hold water. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Not for repeat offenders, which is what I was talking about. Super Goku V (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V: Facepalm Sorry!!! I totally missunderstood your comment. Been a very long day and I'm playing catchup with the 45+ notification I found when I logged back on. That does sound correct. My general rule of thumb is that if I have warned a user for the same issue 3 times, I upgrade the to the repeat offender language stating that this has been an ongoing problem. I will reiterate that far from being uniquely applied to Atermis, this template has been used multiple times over the last 7 or so months since I created it for myself. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I'm keen about the words "repeat offender" ending up in the edit summaries for these. Morwen (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's fair. You are certainly under no obligation to use the template or the edit summary... I will also consider a different edit summary. FWIW I never intentionally put that in the edit summary. That is what it is called in my dropdown menu and the way that WP:TWINKLE works is that whatever value you put as the name of the template it automatically inserts into the edit summary. Never really thought about the fact that I am calling it on my end gets transferred to the edit summary. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  @TParis: you claims that There is an effort here to track her edits and revert, in whole, for even slight mistakes doesn't hold water either. Look at my contributions. Look at the number of other users I have issued the exact same warning to. This idea that I am out to get this one user is absurd. If their edits didn't keep causing errors and placing pages in maintenance categories, we wouldn't be here. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  You have reverted and warned for non page breaking edits, then claimed they were page breaking using diffs of your warnings and not the edits themselves. You have lost credibility with me.--v/r - TP 02:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry that you are choosing to view it that way by only looking at a very select number of my comments. Your comments here have also made a number of incorrect assumptions such as that I am out to get Artemis as well as assuming that it is stressing [me] out that a maintenance category isn't empty and suggesting that I should walk away from it or the encyclopedia until [I am] calm. Not sure who said that I was stressed out by anything, but it certainly wasn't a statement made by me. Your assumption of facts not present in this discussion (or anywhere else) about my conduct is rather concerning.

  Now I am happy to concede that we may have different definitions of "breaking a page". Perhaps I should choose my words more carefully in that area. It is indisputable that Artemis has repeatedly made the same type of edits that have either blanked information from an Infobox, dumped hundreds of pages into Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls (while removing information from said template) and dumped page after page into maintenance category because of their refusal to do the basic thing of checking for typos. What is more, after repeatedly inserting the same invalid parameters and being told that they were invalid, they lashed out at myself and other editors (see Strugglehouse's comments below). Now if you feel that the language of my warnings needs work, that is totally valid and I am certainly open to that feedback, but accusations that I am out to get this one particular editor or am somehow following all their edits to look for problems just don't line up with any facts or reality. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  It was ChompyTheGogoat (talk · contribs) that suggested you were "fed up". Not me. As for the rest, provide the diffs of that. Not diffs of your warnings.--v/r - TP 03:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @TParis: I find it interesting that is the only part of my comment you chose to address. Particularly when it is so clearly not true: your comment was If it is stressing Zackmann08 out that a maintenance category isn't empty, he can walk away from it or the encyclopedia until he's calm. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  You can see by scrolling up that it is true. So do not tell me that it is not true. Your credibility with me is at about zero, now. As far as what I find interesting, I find it interesting that you go on the attack against an outside observer. Is that your default? To attack?--v/r - TP 04:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I did not. I said an editor might get fed up if they're expected to keep on fixing the same issues over and over without bringing it up to the person who caused them because that person doesn't want to hear it, in which case their only option would be to bring it up here, when discussing it between them to minimize future problems is the preferred outcome. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  And I addressed your hypothetical.--v/r - TP 04:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @TParis: I am unconvinced that Zackmann08 is targeting anyone and think it's probably more likely that he's using the tracking category. For instance I got a reminder just yesterday too. Otherwise, I agree with what you're saying. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure, but I'll accept it.--v/r - TP 02:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @TParis: for what it is worth... You might want to look at Module:User:Zackmann08/unknown links as well as my user page. At the moment, the unknown params section is empty, but if you check it in a few hours, you will see it full of red and categories with bad params. Also, for what it is worth, the reason I monitor these categories is that they are often a first line defense of vandalism. Let me be clear, I am not saying what Artemis was doing was vandalism. What I am saying is that a large percentage of pages that end up in currently empty unknown param categories ARE the result of vandalism. One of my favorites is when someone comes alone and adds a paragraph about a person's favorite band/movie/color/etc (happens all the time). This small thing would slip through but for the fact that they also have added |favorite movie=Bad Boy II to the Infobox which has triggered my custom module.

  All of this is merely an explanation as to why I have made this my passion project. We all are free to pursue whatever avenue we want on Wikipedia in terms of editing. This is one of the many projects I have invested myself in. Hopefully this will help allay your concerns that I am in any way targeting one editor. I think my contributions can more than speak for themselves that I frankly have way too much else going on to be spending my time pursuing one editor... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you explain why you are reverting edits with good faith additions to the encyclopedia simply because nested inside of them are malformed templates?--v/r - TP 03:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @TParis: I have tried, multiple times to explain this issue. You continue to select small portions of my lengthy and details responses to pick apart while ignoring everything else that was said. You also continue to change your concern/accusation of my misdeeds. First it was that I was unfairly and specifically targeting a single editor, now suddenly your concern is that I have been reverting edits. You have already made clear here that I have lost credibility with [you] and that [my] credibility with me is at about zero, now so not sure what you expect from me. Anything I say you find a counter to or simply shift tactics to level a new accusation of my misdeeds. Signing off for the night. I'll consider a response tomorrow. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I expect you to provide diffs of Artemis Andromeda's behavior - substantiating the claims you have made. Not the warnings you've levied at them. That's the expectation per WP:ASPERSIONS.--v/r - TP 04:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this discussion by saying that I've also experienced issues with Artemis Andromeda, similar to those shared by others.

There was a dispute over on the Jaiden Animations page, in which Artemis Andromeda was going against WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE.

During this time, Artemis Andromeda used multiple personal attacks against me, as well as going against Wikipedia guidelines, and being rude to other editors.

• They swore at me, claiming that I was "looking for drama", and saying that I should "go bother someone else, or go actually contribute something useful to Wikipedia" (see Special:Diff/1361606557).
• They searched through my talk page to find things to use against me and to belittle my arguments (see Special:Diff/1361607133).
• Even after discussions, they continued to revert my edits, against guidelines (see Special:Diff/1364996682).
• They referred to my edits as "bullsh*t" (see Special:Diff/1365044568), "moronic", and "stupid", saying they were "genuently [sic] tired of dealing with [my] edits, and with [me] in general", claiming that I was "trying to mess with actual editors work" (see Special:Diff/1365049277).
• They claimed that I was "constantly trying to mess with good article [sic]", using the number of articles they had created to big themselves up and belittle me, and implying that I'm not a "real editor" (see Special:Diff/1365130419).
• They were rude to other editors too, using phrases like "Oh, cry me a river" in response to being asked why they were making these claims about me and referring to my edits as stupid. They stated that they "do not care anymore to give respect to people", saying that those in the discussion "clearly do not respect [their] option [sic] either", and again implied that I and others in the discussion were not "real editors" (see Special:Diff/1365130685).

Strugglehouse (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, Artemis Andromeda is taking a wikibreak until Sept. 27, so it doesn't look like they'll participate in this thread that they started any more.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:RADAR? Borgenland (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

That essay is not applicable at all here. Apart from that, WP:AGF applies here, the editor is clearly stressed out, feels the need for a 2-month full break, and both announces it on talk and user page and forces it on themselves. This doesn't stop the proceedings here, only ends their participation. Posting links to essays that don't apply but clearly try to put them in a bad light is basically a personal attack, and in any case not helpful at all. Fram (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Serious personal attack

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

---

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

Not sure how this user has been able to edit for six years, but anyway, I don't think this user knows how to respect other users including me: calling my featured article "total ass" and using a variety of offesive words toward my featured article candidate. Well I don't mind him sharing his opinion that listing all chart entries in Commercial performance would be ridiculous, although this has been encouraged multiple times among music editors for a long time and they are learned to write everything in prose which are listed in table or with bullet points. Not knowing this is totally fine for him, but calling and disrespecting someone's work like this should never be accepted. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Very disappointing conduct, particularly for someone who already has a list of items on their block log for this sort of thing. I've had to warn them several times this year in regards to inappropriate comments and refusing to collaborate with others. I was ready to bring them to ANI for this comment but held off because they said they were going to stop interacting with music-related editors/content, though they went back on that comment. Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate the dishonest presentation of my words. The comments were not towards Camila's words personally, but of the status quo of how these portions of articles like it in general are written. It wasn't agains't Camila, just the FAC process letting and forcing contributors to write articles in this format. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 11:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

And this just today. Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Telling another editor to stop existing is fucking disgraceful and unless HumanxAnthro apologizes for that comment, I'd go for an indef. That type of comment is beyond the pale. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 04:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

So we're just taking comments out of context now, and twisting them aren't we? HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 11:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you also wanna show that I reverted that comment before this discourse happened because I knew you would twist it like this? HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 11:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Strongest support for indef for insanely incivil behaviour. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In regard to the block log, you probably meant to link here. MiasmaEternal☎ 04:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support an indef block for egregious violations of civility. Even their contribution history is full of WP:NOTHERE hateful commentary - this is not a user who is interested in working collaboratively with others, an inviolable requirement to contribute to Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

A lot less of an issue than the incivility, but are all those edit summaries with "screen reader" forced in, an adequite way of explaining edits? Kaotac (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support an indef block as well. This editor has been having incivility and uncollaborative issues for years, and these comments to Camilasdandelions and Sergecross73 happened after my thread on Sergecross73's talk page earlier today about HumanxAnthro returning to work on music articles by doing things multiple editors, including myself, had taken issue with and raised with them several months ago. Their response earlier this year was to issue this criticism to a bunch of editors (including ones who had not even been present in the discussion, indicating HumanxAnthro was still holding on to grudges) and post this screed (removed only just last month) on their user page. They have a serious chip on their shoulder when it comes to editing music articles on Wikipedia and according to their talk page (User talk:HumanxAnthro#Best of console lists), it extends to other topic areas they have worked in too, like video games. And all of that's just the tip of the iceberg. Their behaviour is a cycle: they make bold edits that go against consensus, they are asked to slow down and discuss or stop by multiple editors, they attack everybody and say they're retiring from editing music articles, then come back several months later angry at everybody (two more charming edit summaries: [47], [48]). They have proven they cannot work with others. Enough is enough. Skyversay (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Stop dishonestingly representing my words. Most of those latter diffs were on the quality of content edited, not on other editors, and I have no clue how you could assume I had a "chip on my shoulder" in the Best-of consoles discourse. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 11:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The users comments are inexcusable, however they have some serious contributions, including 41,103 edits (42 deleted), and 487 pages created. I believe this shows they are capable of building an Encyclopedia. I'm not sure what is going on with them, and have never interacted with them personally, but I'd advocate for sanctions that don't completely stop them from contributing. Maybe blocks from participating in projects where feedback is required, like discussing featured article candidates. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, we have blocked editors who have contributed far more for less than what this editor has said to others in the time they've been here. I would characterise a lot of these as repeat minor edits (whether marked as such or not) to a smaller number of pages, a lot of work in their own userspace, and as of late, a lot of additions of screen reader-only templates to articles. A lot of these were also done in contravention of established styles too, even after being asked to slow down by numerous editors. The untold story from those numbers alone is the refusal to discuss or the indignation at anyone even suggesting they should. Skyversay (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware we've blocked editors who have contributed more for less, and I'm really not a fan of that personally. While there needs to be some moderation, I think blocks should be the last resort for extreme cases or sock puppets. I've dealt with a lot of otherwise great people with "cruder" communication styles, and I think it should be possible to cut people slack and give minimal sanctions if they are demonstrating that they can contribute productively. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't give people passes for toxicity especially when they're long term users. Long term users that are toxic chase away potentially good editors; why I'm more worried aobut those people.

I'm in favor of temporary blocks to deal with toxicity from long term users. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The contributions an editor gives to the encyclopedia are visible, the damage an editor causes to the encyclopedia by driving away other productive editors with incivility is often invisible. The logic that since an editor was productive, they must not face consequences for their actions is flawed, as they may be doing (or already have done) far more harm to Wikipedia in the long run, perhaps by an order of magnitude. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

To add to this, I don't think saying they have "487 pages created" tells the whole story. They only made 58 mainspace pages - most of their pages are just lists of sources in userspace. A good chunk of their actual mainspace pages are "Video games listed among the best" lists, which are clearly more of a personal passion project than some earthshakingly essential contribution, given such listicles can commonly be found with a simple Google search and these pages just combine them. The typical articles they contributed are small in number, and mostly stubs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't care whether this user has contributed over 40k edits; as Skyversay stated, most of their edits are composed of very minor and simple changes, although some of them would be significant. This user was once blocked due to a similar reason with this, and they just exactly did the same thing today even though they promised not to be uncivil that time. Giving them one more chance just because they edited over 40k contribs doesn't make sense to me at all, honestly. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 08:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

"clearly more of a personal passion project than some earthshakingly essential contribution". That's an outrageous WP:ASPERSION to say and obviously not true. Don't gaslight me about my motives. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 11:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In this context, their previous appeal against indef block User_talk:HumanxAnthro/Archive_11#Unblock_request makes interesting reading. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, this just displays the cycle of behaviour this editor goes through. They have apologised and/or "rage quit", so to speak, then they return several months later angry at others and their own self-imposed exile just to repeat it all over again. Skyversay (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe users like you being aggravating to work with is the reason? HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 11:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

What a complete lack of owning up to any responsibility, which is yet another problem. The fact that we have only "worked together" (interacted) three times previously and the very obvious dislike you have of me from such limited interactions, even forbidding me from posting on your talk page after one interaction, is a perfect illustration of the issue here: you refuse to work with others, and when you do, you lash out. After promises to change to others, you are still blaming others and not yourself. Skyversay (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support indef block for civility violations. A long-term problem and previous warnings, discussions and blocks have not prevented recurrence. More than enough WP:ROPE has been provided. Meters (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Good lord, I read that comment the moment they posted it, I was very baffled. After checking their contributions, I thought that maybe they're going through some stress that may require a wikibreak or something of that sort. Gosh, typing on ANI is very slow and difficult, so I might not comment again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

And you didn't catch the humorous hyperbole, did ya? HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 11:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Ill give you these words of advice. Now Im not claiming to have an intimate knowledge of you or your personal life, but I dont need to be a therapist to tell you that this kind of anger and hostility at others does not arise out of nowhere. I have chronic anger management issues and often find myself being hostile towards others irl for outwardly no good reason, but Ive grown to realize that this urge to hurt others often comes from a place of hurt too. Sometimes the negativity and bad experiences in life are so unbearablr and unfair that we feel like dragging others down with us. And I have sincere faith that you recover from these troubles. But in collaborative environments like this one letting impulse and emotion reign over us instead of the other way around goes against what we editors should stand for. Please take a step back from the keyboard and calm yourself before you dig a deeper hole. Please; I mean this with kindness. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 12:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The anger arises out of other users treating me like shit and insulting my intelligence, as is the case here, not some long-term mental condition. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 12:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not make a definitive statement about potential mental conditions. But alright, then let me indulge you - who here exactly is treating you like shit and insulting your intelligence? People are rightfully calling you out for being confrontational and vulgar about other people's works. I know the thread here feels like a dogpile - if we are being real 90% of ANI is like this and I empathize with the knee-jerk reaction of being defensive - but there are genuine critiques of your behavior here. They should not be treated as character assassinations. Again, I get feeling scared of being the subject of an ANI thread, but please do not let this be cause for you to lose perspective. All this is made worse by the fact that these very accusations youre throwing - treating others like shit and insulting their intelligence - are the samr thing you are doing to others. Like, you just told someone to stop existing. These are the words of someone whos heated and defensive and who needs to step away from the keyboard before they say even more things theyll regret. Again, please, i urge you to take some time away from your device and reflect why people are commenting on your attitude. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 12:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no way you expect us to believe, given your previous expressed dislike of Serge, that telling him to "stop existing" is just hyperbolic. If you really thought your comment to Serge was such humorous and obvious hyperbole, why did you remove it a minute later? I think you know you went way too far and tried to take it back. Too late. Besides, this lashing out is not out of character for you. You have repeatedly done it, even after telling others that you would change to get unblocked. Yet you haven't. Skyversay (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Users have repeatedly insulted my intelligence and tried to get me in trouble based on their illiterate readings of comments, so of course I'm not going to take kindly to that. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 12:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Your replies here are not helping you at all. You're now at the stage of insinuating "stop existing" is being misinterpreted, like there's any other way of taking that than the very obvious way you meant it: literally. You are still blaming others. Skyversay (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support indef block per my comments and difs above. Sergecross73 msg me 09:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support indef block given their recent responses in this thread; clearly not a bit of self reflection. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Kind of impossible to self reflect when others lies and make shit up about you, isn't it? HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 12:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Jesus christ I dont even comment here regularly but this conduct from HxA was so beyond the pale that as someone who used to go a lot to FAC I felt the need to comment. I'll say that "comment on content, not contributor" does not give you a free pass to be obscene and vulgar about other people's ckntributions. fACs dont come out of the ether; people write them and people teview them, and the diff'd comment was an implicit condemnation of the people who participated in that FAC. Clearly they knew what they were doing when they said that awful remark. Support an indef. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 11:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

"implicit condemnation" Dawg. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 11:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Telling someone to kill themselves should be an immediate indef. sapphaline (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't tell them to kill themselves. To humorously "stop existing". HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 12:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that "stop existing" wasn't an euphemism for "kill yourself". sapphaline (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm literally telling you, as the person who wrote the comment, it wasn't. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 12:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no humor here. No discernible punchline. Just unconstructive responses that fail to address your own conduct. Sergecross73 msg me 12:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support: They never listen to advice and completely ignore consistency and consensus in and across articles, despite being called out on it multiples times—see here, and I also think this comment is worth noting. HumanxAnthro, if you would not recommend talking to these people or editing on the music side of Wikipedia at all, then why are you still doing it? At least when you were editing video game articles I was rooting for you, but now it's time to pack your bags and go, at least until you have a major attitude adjustment. This WP:TIMESINK has gone on long enough. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

How about you pack your bags and go? HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 12:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely as an individual administrator action and due to the ongoing personal attacks. This discussion can certainly continue to determine if this should be considered an indef by the community. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It is ironic he claimed people were "insulting [his] intelligence" but then proceeded to say that his personal attack was intended as a funny joke despite nothing ever pointing at that being the case. I find that a pretty big insult to my intelligence, tbh. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Best course of action at the moment; anything to force HxA out of their state of impulsive hostility. I'm not fully aware of their full conduct history so my default approach is to give them some time to seriously reflect on how uncivilly they acted. If the comments about chronic incivility are true and they continue to spew hostility then I'm afraid that an indef wouldn't really be enough. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 12:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

From a quick glance at their history and previous claims of understanding and repentance, I don't see how anyone could possibly buy it if they came back with another unblock request. Whether or not they believe it when they're typing it, they certainly don't seem to be capable of following through, and I believe the risk of alienating other editors far outweighs the potential value of any one person's contributions (even if those contributions were more impactful than these appear to have been). WP:ROPE should not be infinite, and IMHO they've already been granted much more than was justified. Repeatedly insulting other editors at ANI demonstrates a complete inability to control their own actions. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support a CBAN, they have clearly proven themselves to be a menace to Wikipedia on this ANI alone. Borgenland (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support indef - This is way beyond egregious and has no business being part of this community. Additionally their entire attitude during this ANI shows a complete lack of understanding/remorse but instead doubling down on their actions. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 13:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support. Thank you SFR, it should be indef for violation of WP:CIVIL Ar1201u1 (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support converting SFR's administrator action to a community ban. What we have here is a pattern of egregious disregard for civility, a core value of this community, and a completely unapologetic response to being called out for it. In cases like this, where the sanctionable behaviour is of the kind that has had a widespread reach, I think it is only right any appeal be to the community as a whole. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support converting the block to a community ban. What I saw in the edit summaries linked above is perhaps the most egregious violation of NPA I've ever seen, and it's made worse because Camila did absolutely nothing to deserve that. Not to mention, I don't detect a shred of sincerity in his "apology" to her (if you can even call it that). Even on this very thread he replied "How about you pack your bags and go?" when faced with criticism and told people to "stop existing", which as has been pointed out is a euphemism for suicide. That type of behavior is unequivocally unacceptable and detrimental to the very spirit of collaboration we value so much here. I'd only be willing to reconsider iff they show they've changed their ways for the better. This is not the first time they have been blocked for incivility however, as they were blocked for this in 2023 twice for similar conduct (block log). My patience is getting thin here, and I don't think I'm the only one. IMO, we've given SFR this person enough rope. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 14:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

IMO, we've given SFR enough rope. I'm catching strays over here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah darn, apologies! You know what I mean... In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 16:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

My daily coffee must not have kicked in fully, haha... Reworded to clarify just in case. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 16:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I knew, just gave me a chuckle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support CBAN, this is appalling behavior and it is obvious that this will not change anytime soon. Looking at their 2023 unblock request we can see this user making a promise to avoid uncivil behavior with stuff like I will absolutely never, never treat anybody here the way I did in the above examples ever again. I have slashed my claim that I "do not" regret or apologized for what I did; I absolutely do. (emphasis in original). And yet, here we are. Lynch44 15:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support an indef block at the very least. This comment alone would warrant a block; telling someone to "stop existing" amounts to a threat of harm and is completely unacceptable. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 15:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support indef, think the block's already happened but consider this another support. It's so unprofessional to be so crude, and is not constructive in the slightest. Thought in FAC, you gave suggestions to improve or point out current flaws, instead of just using immature expletives. Combined with the numerous incivility violations, a block is needed, clearly this person hasn't learned what they're doing is inappropriate. jolielover♥talk 15:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe two months, not an indef, again with the indefs. The last block for language was in 2023, so going back into bad habits is, well, bad. But an editor with well over 40,000 edits should probably have a third escalating block of maybe a month or two off to give them a kick in the pants and not the Wikipedia death sentence. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOELDERS exists for a reason. An edit count of a million could not excuse the chronic behavior that this user has displayed; an indef is necessary to prevent further harm to the Wikipedia community. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 15:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, they've got 3 blocks for the same sort of behavior, including one that started at an indef, and he's was warned about multiple inappropriate comments made earlier in the year that only went unaddressed because they stated they would voluntarily stay away from related editors/content, so this is far from this oops-he-had-a-rare-bad-day framing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support community ban following a glance at their block log, examples of past incivility, and their unblock request for their previous block. As I read them it became clear to me that HxA is fully capable of being introspective, level-headed, and mature, but has gone through a lot of hurt. Their defensiveness and claims of being victimized say enough. I may be foolish in trying to empathize here - I see part of myself in them and do not wish to participate in a way that comes across as dogpiling and beating someone when theyre already down. At the same time, when I look at how much hurt they have inflicted on others, my sympathy swiftly runs dry. Insulting others' works, swearing profusely at editors, and telling someone else to essentially die is too far and comes across as even more frustrating when HxA has said theyve already changed and wont do this again. They are driving away editors from contributing to the encyclopedia and producing good content, and as someone whos faced that kind of incivility from someone else before, it fucking sucks and no one should ever have to go through that especially at the hands of a veteran editor. I acknowledge HxA's years of good work, ability to introspect etc., but at some point enough is enough. The community should not have to bear the brunt of their anger issues. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 15:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Its nighttime where I'm at and only now did I realize I typed community ban and not indef which is what I originally stood and continue to stand by. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 15:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

An indef block by the community is a WP:CBAN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Wait, so they are the same thing ? 😮 Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 16:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it just means an unblock has to go through the community rather than a single admin accepting an unblock request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support indef, but really, "stop existing" is just a stronger version of "pack your bags and go", it's most definitely not a "threat of harm", as claimed above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It may not constitute an IRL threat, but it is decidedly not the same as simply asking someone to leave WP. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support indef. If a user isn't able to communicate without offending people then whether it's deliberate or not is somewhat beside the point. Mackensen (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support indef. If you're a relatively new editor, and either get attacked like this, or see that someone else on an article you're working on is getting attacked like this, and then you look and see that the editor saying those extraordinarily uncivil comments has tens of thousands of edits, you're likely to conclude that Wikipedia's long-term editing community -- whoever manages all of that -- has decided that this behavior is more or less okay. This would deter you from wanting to get involved at a deeper level. Novellasyes (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

I wouldn't normally pile on to a closed thread, but it was closed as I was typing, and this strikes me as somewhat important. @SarekOfVulcan:, "stop existing" is absolutely not just a stronger version of "pack your bags and go". It's a only mildly bowdlerized version of "kill yourself". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I do see your point, but still disagree. Maybe it's that I've read more books with dimension hopping, etc., that makes me read it differently. Then there's ""I think not" and disappeared"... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say this is highly dependent on the context. If someone were to say in isolation, "stop existing", it would be interpreted as telling the reader to end their own life. It would not normally convey a meaning like "go away". A phrase like "just disappear already" might convey either meaning, but that isn't what the user said. In any case, I think we're on the same page that an indef is appropriate. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Coming from a country were extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances and online warlordism are facts of life, suggesting one should stop existing would be the most polite death threat to send. Borgenland (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a more polite way of saying KYS jolielover♥talk 05:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Some guy keeps on abusing their power

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

---

User DoubleGrazing has been rejecting all my articles without giving a valid explanation why. He wanted me to add a topic here MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

All your drafts (as well as the many threads on your talk page) have repeated lengthy explanations for being declined/rejected, alongside links to relevant guidelines. I'm not sure how much clearer the explanations can get. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Some of the articles like learning lodge got rejected for the wrong reasons MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage, what you need to do is stop submitting low quality drafts that have no hope of becoming Wikipedia articles. You need to read and study Your first article and take it seriously. Your bizarre username indicates that you may be here for promotional reasons instead of being here to build a high quality, neutral, well-referenced encyclopedia. Be cautious. As for DoubleGrazing, that editor has done nothing wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not making low quality articles and I read “Your first article”. Double Grazing keeps on rejecting my articles without telling me why MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, multiple editors here, here, and here have attempted to lend their time and advice to you, to now come accuse one of them of "abusing their power" is wild stuff. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not sending hate to anyone. I even listened to them. I’m only pointing out someone who keeps rejecting my articles without any VALID explanation MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems you didn't listen to the part where I advised you not to create drafts like these.

And maybe not also the part where I recommended reading Don't shoot yourself in the foot before coming here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I read that aswell MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t have a conflict with you I just want you to stop MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Also YOU wanted me to write here MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage: I did not "want" you to drag me here, I was merely saying that is something within your rights if you have a grievance, actual or perceived. Obviously I think this report is completely without merit, and only serves to waste the community's time, but I can't really tell you not to report me, should you feel the need.

But now that we're here, I would like to ask you if you've previously edited Wikipedia under a different username? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

He gave you a valid reason, the topic isn't notable. Every other editor you have engaged about this has agreed with that. WP:CONCENSUS Sulfurboy (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The topic IS notible MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The learning lodge is notable. MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - User:MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage, I strongly, strongly recommend that you remove the comment about DoubleGrazing from your user page. It isn't constructive or appropriate. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ok but he needs to stop MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  You have no right to place caveats on your WP:NOTHERE behavior, especially as it is solely you who has been displaying behavior that needs to be stopped. That user page of yours is enough for you to be indefinitely blocked for being an attack page. Borgenland (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Looking at the drafts you created, Draft:Tic tac toe squared, Draft:Learning lodge and Draft:Ictoat it is clear they were rejected for good reason. No experienced editor would have approved them, and had they, they would have been speedily deleted for notability. You haven't provided multiple reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage to demonstrate they pass our notability guidelines. This is the bare minimum for an article to be included in mainspace. This should probably be closed, and you should take the time to go read up on the policies here before pointing fingers or making claims against others. We don't care what YOU think is notable, or what I think is. We care what the policy on WP:Notability says is and isn't notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If you persist in WP:IDNHT, WP:SHOUTING, and WP:BATTLEGROUND, the only thing you’ll get out of here is a WP:BOOMERANG for being WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Between this wild CTA on his user page and still pestering Double about something that's been answered a dozen times, I don't think WP:HEAR is in their to do list. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Some OP keeps abusing their account to evade an existing indef block. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Большая сэлианская башня

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

---

Resolved

• Большая сэлианская башня (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps mentioning people on their talk page. 2600 etc (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Identical phrasing to that used by ~2026-41404-12 (talk · contribs), ~2026-41215-16 (talk · contribs), ~2026-39286-11 (talk · contribs), ~2026-39160-29 (talk · contribs), Kico9iwd (talk · contribs), Samsudjv (talk · contribs), Amanda is in the Nazí Party7 (talk · contribs), Saeed Abdulla Alqemzi frac454d0 come c37u7it1ic4 m47c061da2 (talk · contribs) and probably others. Those have all been blocked. Modest Genius ^talk 10:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

These are WP:LTA/SB1 and all blocked/TPA'd as of now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Systemic source falsification, WP:NONENG violations, and disruptive editing

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

---

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I am bringing this case to the noticeboard because we are dealing with a severe, extensive, and systemic pattern of source falsification and tendentious editing WP:TEND by User:Brat Forelli across multiple politically sensitive articles.

This goes far beyond a standard content dispute. This user is engaging in aggressive Civil POVPushing. They deliberately twist foreign-language quotes to mean the exact opposite of what the original text says, weaponize journalistic sarcasm as academic fact, and deploy massive walls of redundant citations assuming that other editors will simply not bother to check the primary sources.

Below is the empirical evidence of how this user systematically alters and lies about the references they provide.

Fraudulent translations and cherry-picking (Prosperity and Peace Movement)

For this Polish party (RDiP), the user slapped a "Communist" label in the infobox. To justify this, they cited a Polish outlet (nto.pl) with the following quote in the code: "Apart from organizations that directly refer to communist ideology... this is the only openly pro-Putin group." In a blatant violation of WP:NONENG, Forelli chopped off the first half of the sentence—the part that explicitly separates the party from communist organizations—to fraudulently push their label. Furthermore, they cited a satirical headline from Polityka that mockingly called the candidate "Comrade" due to his pro-Russian stance, turning a journalistic joke into a formal ideological classification (violating WP:RS).

[49]

Extreme original synthesis (Montoneros)

Forelli inserted "Falangism" (Spanish fascism) as the core ideology of Argentina's largest historical Marxist guerrilla organization. The book they cited (Hodges, p. 109) merely mentions that during their teenage years in the early 1960s, a few of the founders were part of a different right-wing group (Tacuara) before they "converted to Peronism." Sticking a fascist label on a mature left-wing guerrilla group based on the abandoned teenage affiliations of three members is a severe genetic fallacy and a textbook violation of WP:REDFLAG and WP:SYNTH.

[50][51]

Misusing marginal sources to flatten profiles (Zmiana and the Justicialist Party)

On Zmiana, the user actively ignored academic sources documenting the group's neo-fascist roots, relying instead on personal anecdotes from opinion blogs to push a "Socialist patriotism" label. For the Justicialist Party—a historically massive, syncretic, catch-all movement—they used passing international mentions and literally cited an undergraduate student's paper (a Bachelor of Arts assignment) to flatten the party into a monolithic left-wing box. This is a severe breach of WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Zmiana [52],The entire section of the article of the justicialist party referring to the political left was written by this user.

Ideological caricatures and wikitext manipulation (Homeland Force)

When you dissect Forelli's wikitext here, it becomes clear they operate as an ideological sniper, isolating extremist satellite factions to caricature an entire syncretic coalition. For instance, Forelli wrote that the coalition "rejected the declaration that accused Nicolás Maduro of committing electoral fraud," citing La Nación. They deliberately hid the actual headline, which states the coalition demanded Maduro publish the voting records but refused to sign a specific repudiation. They cherry-picked this to imply blind support for fraud, omitting condemnations from key coalition figures.

They also wrote that the coalition's government rejected UN and OAS human rights reports on Venezuela and Nicaragua. This is historically false: Alberto Fernández's administration literally voted in favor of the UN Bachelet report in Geneva in October 2020.

Additionally, Forelli used a routine, protocol meeting of a "Parliamentary Friendship Group with Russia" to claim the coalition officially wants normal relations with Russia WP:SYNTH, completely hiding the fact that the coalition's own foreign minister officially condemned the invasion at the UN in 2022. They also gave undue weight WP:UNDUE to a fringe impeachment attempt regarding Iran, attributing a radical minority's project to the entire coalition, and used a single quote from Jorge Taiana as WP:COATRACK to label the whole front.

[53]

Stonewalling and "I didn't hear that" (Law and Justice - PiS)

Finally, when confronted with top-tier academic literature (such as Routledge Handbooks) on the Law and Justice talk page, the user systematically ignored them. They demanded impossible levels of absolute consensus and bludgeoned the discussion with massive walls of text WP:STONEWALL to exhaust other editors and prevent any collaborative resolution.

[54]

Fabricating consensus and direct source contradiction (Frente Renovador)

Forelli forced the "Centre-left" label onto this party's infobox using a source from Infobae. However, if you actually read the original headline, it translates to: "Agreement with the Post Office: the Frente Renovador, the Justicialist bloc, and the centre-left establish a joint position." The user's own source grammatically separates the party from the centre-left, treating them as distinct political actors. Forelli falsified the source's conclusion to back their edit. To shield this from being reverted, they used WP:CITEOVERKILL to inflate the reference count, citing the exact same article written by Manuel Bertoldi twice under two different publisher names (People's Dispatch and The African).

[55][56]

Forelli relies entirely on the assumption that administrators and editors will not translate their sources or dig through their citation walls. This behavior destroys the encyclopedia's credibility. I respectfully request that administrators review these diffs and apply the necessary sanctions. ~2026-41143-74 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Who wants to read this? It reads like AI slop. I looked at one section, "Stonewalling", which doesn't have a diff but only a link to the talk page, from reading which we are to interpret what, precisely? It looks to me like Forelli is making reasonable comments there about sourcing and such. And the TA, how are they a party in that particular conflict? Drmies (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, clearly AI. Jako96 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You should not be using AI in talk pages. See WP:LLMCHAT. Jako96 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, you have to inform someone when you start an WP:ANI discussion about them. Please do that next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jako96 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Rajwikirak

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

---

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

While examining the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikram Shri, I began examining the page creator's own page, and I discovered that this editor has a pattern of behavior which is highly suspicious for a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure violation. Multiple articles about obscure Indian actors, each with photos that are uploaded by the article's creator under their own license, despite being apparently professionally taken. I also noticed that their user page indicates that they are an alt account of User:Rod57, but their content, style, and overall voice is completely divergent from User:Rod57's, and they also claim that they lost access to their account, which Rod57's contributions as recently as four days ago suggest is untrue.

I dove a bit deeper, and discovered that they had previously disclosed the very paid editing I suspected [57], and that the edit which added the claim about alt accounting User:Rod57 [58] came only after they were warned multiple times about articles they had created or were trying to create being non-notable, per their talk page. Foxtrot620 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for the repeated denials of using AI whilst continuing to use AI to edit, blatantly promotional editing, and so on. CoconutOctopus talk 19:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

References

I want to directly address the concerns raised by Foxtrot620, apologize for the confusion, and clear up my actual standing here. 1. The Sockpuppetry/Rod57 Claim: I am absolutely not Rod57. When I was first setting up my user profile, I foolishly copied the wikitext from another established editor's page to use as a formatting template, and I carelessly failed to strip out their specific identifying text. It was a massive copy-paste error on my part, not a malicious attempt to impersonate a veteran editor or borrow their credibility. I have completely blanked my user page to rectify this immediately. 2. The Paid Editing (WP:UPE) and Image Licensing: I am not operating a digital PR agency, nor am I being paid by any of these subjects to create promotional Wikipedia pages. I am an independent, reputed content creator who works directly within the South Indian cinema and entertainment industry. Because of my active, professional involvement in filmmaking and production, I naturally focus my research on actors and crew within this space. This professional proximity is also why I have direct, authorized access to high-quality, professional media assets of these individuals. I am editing based on my knowledge of the industry, not client contracts. 3. Moving Forward: As seen in my recent edits on the AfD boards (like Kiran Hampapur), I am actively listening to feedback. I have been voluntarily stripping out unencyclopedic tone, removing original research (WP:OR), and working to ensure my articles are strictly backed by reliable secondary sources (WP:GNG). I made a careless technical mistake with my user page, but I am operating in good faith and working to align with Wikipedia's strict policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajwikirak (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rajwikirak: did you use an AI to help you write this reply? Please see WP:AITALK, we want to hear from you and not talk to you through a chatbot layer. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rajwikirak: do you have any connection to User:Vikram shri 25? ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Troll and harassment from sock ongoing for two years

The troll and persistent sock User:BrocadeRiverPoems (see archived SPI where they and their socks were blocked) is back again as another sock created in the last month (see the SPI filed three days ago). I've laid out my case there why I strongly believe Ibnqirtaiba is another sock. Ever since I created the SPI, they've been ramping up the trolling. They created an SPI against me in retaliation where they blatantly lied about what I said, they made nonsensical arguments to defend themselves by essentially calling me paranoid, they posted on my talk page, again lying and misinterpreting my arguments (they are trying to make it seem that my entire argument hinges on their use on Twinkle, which is obviously not the case), and have posted on an AfD that I participated in, taking the opposite stance. They have been following me around ever since they created this new account. There is no arguing with this person, as all of their arguments are made in bad faith. I just want it to end. Please help. –GM 18:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It is definitely a sock of BrocadeRiverPoems. They admitted it here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ibnqirtaiba&diff=prev&oldid=1366040176, and then denied it after, saying that they "inadvertently lied", see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ibnqirtaiba&diff=next&oldid=1366040230, obviously a lie. Jako96 (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I support indefinite block to both Ibnqirtaiba and BrocadeRiverPoems, as there are even more confirmed socks of him. Jako96 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the reasoning that that is a confession or a retraction. They were asked if they ever edited with other accounts, they said no in the first diff (apart from incidental TAs/IPs, which I think most of us have done from time to time), and then in the second diff they remembered they had registered as User:Xenoshi. that user made two edits and doesn't appear to be linked to BRP in any way? Morwen (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

They say they "inadvertently lied", which isn't possible. They literally answered "Hi Ibnqirtaiba, have you edited Wikipedia under a different username before? BrocadeRiverPoems perhaps?" "i edited logged out before i made this account and i made the account bc everytime i closed firefox it logged my temporary account out...," IMO, this is pretty straightforward. This is also consistent with their edits relevant to GregariousMadness, and not using capitals. Jako96 (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Nah, I think that's a misreading of what they said. "the account" in the first message refers to their current account and "inadvertently lied" means they were mistaken and are 'fessing up to the Xenoshi account - obviously it's very slangy language. That's not to say they're not BRP, mind. the first message also contains the words "no ive never had a wp acct before" which are, despite the txtspeak, very clear. Morwen (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I see it now. But still the edits are somewhat suspectible. Jako96 (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I think I was mostly going into it because I was prepared to make an immediate sockpuppet block if that had been the smoking gun. The editing history is certainly persuasive though. Morwen (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It's just the incredible number of coincidences that have to be true for anyone to believe that they are genuinely a new user who happened to fall into all this drama within their first month of editing. All of their conduct points toward the actions of someone who has edited on Wikipedia before and is now trying to hide that fact by pretending to be a new user. I mean, are there any genuine Wikipedia editors who'd insist on always using this slangy text speech in talk page discussions despite using proper grammar when they edit namespace articles? To me, it's fairly transparent that they're only writing like that to make it seem like they're unrelated to the other socks in the archived SPIs. –GM 22:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

(to be clear I absolutely believe you i just haven't dug into the evidence enough to do it myself) Morwen (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That's understandable. But isn't creating a frivolous and retaliatory SPI based on a fabrication in response to me creating an SPI a form of disruptive or tendentious editing? –GM 23:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

for the record, i type the way i do because i have deformed pinky fingers and reaching the shift key for capitalization is extremely uncomfortable for me and at times actually hurts lol see Clinodactyly you could always have asked. i am grammatically correct when editing articles because they need to be grammatically correct but talk page discussions dont rly need me to exert extra effort just to come off all stiff and proper.

Truly though if the nature of my current manner of typing is the source of your vexation, I am most capable of talking in a more professional, academic manner. I was unaware nor uninformed that writing in such a way was a mandatory requirement or expectation for Wikipedia and had I been made aware of such a stringent requirement I would have endured the mild discomfort for the sake of adhering to expectations. However, as I was never made aware of such matters until the time at which you have accused me of being someone I am not solely for the sake that I do not type as they have typed, I had no inclination that the manner in which I was communicating on Wikipedia was illadvised or even outright prohibited. If it would give you peace of mind, I shall endeavor now to speak in a formal manner with correct capitalization, punctuation, and no attempt at brevity by way of common abbreviation.

As to the matter at hand regarding my edit history. I again maintain that I have had no significant overlap with GregariousMadness and that it is unfair to infer otherwise. In the past I, as a random passerby, have edited Wikipedia as an IP Address/Temporary Account sporadically but only to the extent of ever fixing problems where I saw them. In 2009 a dear colleague of mine had become fascinated with Wikipedia and, to my memory, had attempted to get me interested in Wikipedia. To my memory, I did not share his fascination and thus I made two edits (wherein I reverted vandalism) and allowed my account to fade from memory. Since that time, and over the course of the years, I had only ever edited Wikipedia articles when I had been actively reading them and had noticed some error or flaw. In this instance, the creation of my account and participation in AfD are strictly because I had attempted to participate in the AfD as a temporary account and was informed that I could no longer create Temporary Accounts (as noted elsewhere, my firefox logs me out whenever I close it). I ultimately made my way to AfD because an article I had been on dn42 had a large red message at the top of it which read: "You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion, which will decide whether to keep it. This discussion may also result in the article being merged, redirected, or draftified."[59].

At which time I realized that simply looking up "Dn42" might not produce adequate results and so I went to the AfD Discussion (as the message invited me to do) and posted that you could find academic sources if one searched for "Decentralized Network 42" versus "Dn42"[60]. I am unsure as to why you feel that discovering the deletion discussion is an archaic hithertoo unknown and deeply occult process when the page has a giant message inviting you to said discussion. Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I explained in the Dn42 discussion how I got there before I ever knew GM even existed where I wrote: "got here from the giant thing on the dn42 article that says it being discussed for deletion" [61] Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

uhhh i mean (Personal attack removed) that's not what i said at all, i was asked if i ever had an account before and i said no but that i had edited w/out an account before i made this acct because firefox always logged my temporary account out whenever i closed the browser and it told me that i couldnt make any more temporary accounts. i then checked my old email inbox and found a registration email from 2009 about a wikipedia acct i had made that i forgot about and only ever used all of two times and in the interest of full honesty i told the admin who asked if i had had an account before that i had inadvertently lied when i said no bc i had forgotten about a wikipedia account i made over a decade ago and never really did anything with lol Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Then, you should obviously log into that account to prove. That's how it works. Jako96 (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

i didnt make it seem like your entire argument hinged on twinkle lol you literally added me using twinkle as evidence against me and i sent you a talk page message saying that my knowledge and usage of twinkle is bc it literally recommends using twinkle and that it explains how to install it and how to use it on the page that explains how to delete things. idk how you are convinced i am hounding you when i edited an article you hardly have any participation at, i participated in an rfc on an article that was being discussed on social media, and i participated in an afd for the harkness test the result of which was initially to merge to fictosexuality, my engagement at fictosexuality was strictly related to the implementation of the harkness test afd lol your entire argument is that i am stalking your edits and editing there but i have hardly any significant overlap w/you lol. as for my posting the spi investigation you only launched your own spi investigation against me after i began to look into the provenance of the 15 (Software Engineer) article as seen here [62] which i had posted at 16:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC) and then at 19:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC) you apparently posted an spi into me and given that two of the tpa accounts which i suspected were you and that were involved in the draft of 15 (Software Engineer) ultimately got blocked by checkuser i think my spi was well and truly valid uhhh that's really all i have to say about this entire debacle. i have like 100+ edits on wikipedia so far and outside of talkpage discussions and frivolous investigations launched at me i have only interacted with pages edited by gm like 20-ish times? but i have no idea how im expected to know what pages gm is involved in like according to this there were 300+ days between my edit on fictosexuality and their edit, 104 days to my attempted edit at harkness test for the afd closure redirect, etc. [63] my edit at Talk:15.ai was removing random nonsense [64] my edits at 15.ai were reverting WP:CRYSTALBALL [65][66] and my other alleged crimes of tagbombing/removing sources on 15 (Software Engineer) were ultimately endorsed by other editors [67][68][69] nothing i have done has been remotely disruptive so this entire affair baffles me lol i cannot stress this enough i have had next to no interaction with gm outside of they reverted me and i explained to them why i made the edit i did and becuase they seem to just dont like the edits i made they have launched this entire campaign against me across multiple venues all bc they got blocked for editing warring someone else on the article that i edited and now they couldnt revert me [70] and notably here their edit war was about them disagreeing with maintenance tags that someone else was putting on the article and are acting like they WP:OWN the article everyone else is wrong and only they are correct it is exhausting and i cant be bothered to keep dealing with them. this entire ani essentially just exists bc they kept adding new stuff to the spi and i kept trying to add to my defense and we were both told to stop [71]. taking the opposite position on you at an afd is not trolling you, posting a message to you explaining why i used twinkle is not trolling, posting an spi against you is not trolling lol i did not accuse you of trolling when you reverted me [72] you literally went to my talk page and thanked me for my response to TooBeFree rofl how is that not stalking and trolling me??? how is your spi investigation on me after i questioned the weird history of [73] and [74] not retaliatory??????? at no point in my spi investigation did you even deny or refute the temporary accounts are yours you just accused me of doing it out of retaliation lol Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll just note down that SPI reports will often require some patience, especially if it's a person that doesn't have a past record of jumping accounts. The process is designed towards accuracy and not speed like AIV/ANI/UAA are. It might take a week or two for an SPI to get acted on.

In the meantime, if there's a lot of harassment going on even after one person says to the other not to talk to them ever again, a temporary block may be in order while the SPI remains open. This goes for both parties since they have both accused each other of sockpuppetry with evidence. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Cool, I volunteer to never interact with them again if they can be made to never interact with me again. I have zero interest in harassing them, following them, engaging with them, talking to them, etc. I have literally muted notifications from them and they continue to otherwise hurl insults and accusations at me as far and as wide as they seem capable. I fully, fully welcome and invite never interacting with them again if they'll just agree to (and I apologize for my language) leave me the fuck alone. Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

In case anyone still isn't convinced of the sockpuppetry, I've done some forensic linguistics and provided a list of how all the socks share peculiar terminology and behavior with Ibnqirtaiba. Here's the diff. –GM 09:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Sexual harassments and personal attacks

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

---

~2026-42104-13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP ~2026-42104-13 is making sexual harassments and personal attacks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Camilasdandelions&diff=prev&oldid=1366563518, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:~2026-42167-95&diff=prev&oldid=1366565621 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jako96&diff=prev&oldid=1366566344.

Deserves an indefinite block. Jako96 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96: Sorry you had to experience that - I've indef blocked them after seeing a report at WP:AIV — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. (Personal attack removed) Jako96 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Multiple IP abuser + POV pusher

See [75] Long term IP abuser, spawns every week with another IP. Because it's not an account, it's hard to keep a track of the person's edits. Beshogur (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing ~2026-41923-24 on viwiki is also them? msk 21:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at /32 for their IP, ~2026-40943-85 and ~2026-40398-87 are probably them as well. msk 21:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced birth year changes by Dhas kthkp

• Dhas kthkp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alambadi (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shujaat Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talib Jauhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Qazi Wajid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user appears to continuously change the year of birth on these articles, and could potentially do the same on other South Asia biographies, and either not provide a source, or claim a family relative told them this information. This has continued despite multiple templated warnings and a source provided by @Fylindfotberserk for Alambadi (politician) refuting the user's claims. See examples provided: [76], [77], [78], [79] In solidarity, Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah article

User @~2026-37661-30 has made repeated edits to the Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah article, adding unsourced claims about his Turkish ethnicity despite corrections on the Talk page.

Edits in question:

• [1] - Added claim citing Muazzam Hussain Khan without quotation
• [[2]] - Re-added same claim after Talk page discussion

Sources reviewed show no ethnic attribution: - Cambridge History of India Vol. III: describes him only as "chief armour-bearer" - Ishwari Prasad's History of the Qaraunah Turks: same, no ethnic designation

This violates WP:VERIFIABILITY & WP:NOR. User has not addressed sourcing concerns on the Talk page. Requesting administrative guidance on next steps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrakib11 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Kintrob ladio adding "citations"

Kintrob ladio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding footnotes to pre-existing references in the article that don't actually cover the content in question. For example Van Halen, hunger strike and Renée Taylor, none of which are correct. I've attempted to discuss this with them on their talk page, but I'm less than impressed with their responses to date. FDW777 (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)