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 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 [1] [2] 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)

  They're globally locked now, idk if any admin fancies G5ing their creations? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:55, 29 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)

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: [3], [4]. 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 [5]. 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 [6]. 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)

Unblock him now, or you may be restricted from having Internet ~2026-42057-50 (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Watching a temporary account threaten an Admin with removing their internet access is truly astonishing. Idacticus (talk) 20:40, 29 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)

That definitely seems to be the case. Idacticus (talk) 21:00, 29 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)

Andy Burnham, soon to be burnt ham ~2026-42057-50 (talk) 19:17, 29 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)

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". [7] or "Seriously?..." [8]), 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

worded

notice. Morwen (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a complete misread of WP:NOTMANDATORY. They are not required to give more effort to the extent that they are not disrupting the project. Not engaging in feedback while continuing to edit is very much not okay. Northern Moonlight 21:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey, so they edited a page today so I looked at the history of the page [9] - scroll down! Are you seeing the same thing I'm seeing? Morwen (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like they edit the same pages: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Avengers350&users=LiveIsle2022&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:40, 29 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)

  Absolutely. This is a typical pseudomathematics crank advancing a dogmatic and inconsistent version of finitism. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

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.

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

• [10] — substantial rewrite and removal of material.
• [11] — subsequent restoration.
• [12] — further edits after the matter was noted on the talk page.
• [13] — 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

[14] removal and alteration of existing material. [15] 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 [16]. 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)

no, you got it right the first time. indefed RI for block evasion after the latest set of aspersions. Morwen (talk) 11:16, 29 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, [17][18] yet they persisted in their behavior; [19][20][21] even after they responded, I explained the situation again in minute detail, [22] but they continued to commit violations. [23][24] Kajmer05 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The user is continuing despite the warnings. [25][26] Pinging @Rosguill Kajmer05 (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week for ECR violations, which also include WP:CT/IMH at Mughal-related war articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:49, 29 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 [27][28] 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 [29] 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 [30] 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 [31]. 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)

Zach is correct, Predditor ~2026-42057-50 (talk) 18:50, 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)

This is a misunderstanding due to two different personalities. Zackmann08 does an extraordinary amount of technical fixing. I used to monitor three tracking categories which would average a dozen errors each per week (sometimes a hundred) but I rarely bother looking now because Z fixes them. On the other hand, Artemis Andromeda focuses on content. For example, AA created Memorial to the Heroes of January '71. Within an hour of that, Z fixed a minor issue (parameter language=pl occurred twice in a citation template). Z also put a "September 2025" message (diff) on AA's talk. The message was polite but officious and I can see that someone who took the trouble to create a referenced article would find such a template unwelcome. AA is mistaken in thinking they are being harassed—Z does that for everyone because alerting people to an issue provides assistance for the future. AA is mistaken about what's going on, but correct about the effect—Z's persistent warnings are unwelcome. My recommendation would be that Z keep a private list of editors who do not want these kind of messages. Zackmann08 might like to fix issues in AA's articles, but stop posting on AA's talk. Also, if AA edits an article, it would be a good idea if Z were to wait for six hours before fixing issues in that article. Fixing problems is important, but maintaining a happy community is also vital and we need to accept that people are different and some of them regard constant monitoring as intrusive. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Reading over all of this, the one thing I'd add is that it does seem like @TParis's conversation with Zachmann08 above does hold some water when it comes to Zachman blanket reverting edits. If someone incorrectly uses a template or has any other issue in a larger edit, that is not an excuse to blanket revert the entire edit. Normally we're expected to just make the fix, or if it's really messy, use the revert "easy button" then immediately re-add the good edits.

Even if Zachman was just following up on tracking categories, how they approached aspects after that like reverts does come across as WP:HOUNDING. Now there were issues with AA's edits and continuing to make small but problematic edits (that are hashed out pretty well already that I don't need to repeat), but I can see how Zachmann's approach escalated issues as well and would have led to someone like AA to just shut down or become agitated if the editor kept coming back to their talk page. I'm not impressed with the combativeness of I'm seeing with Zachmann towards TParis here (who I believe is uninvovled?), so I do have some concern that Zachmann isn't taking in advice about their own behavior very well. In the end, I'd say both need a WP:TROUT for different reasons and hopefully that's all that's needed for behavior change. KoA (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Zackmann08 needs to take a step back from warnings. I have pointed out now twice at AN/I (March 2026, May 2026) that Zackmann08's approach to warnings was bitey and aggressive, with warnings coming often minutes after an editor makes a mistake that do not leave time for the good-faith assumption that an editor will fix their error. Failure to PREVIEW is not "disruptive editing". Moreover, the kind of parameter mismatches Zackmann warns about do not "break the template", they simply cause the parameter not to appear. (Not to mention that many of these parameter mismatches happen precisely because Zackmann is constantly revising infobox templates, in at least one case unilaterally without consensus). That a user's mistake in an infobox (which is already a fiddly template) generates an error message internally to Wikipedia editors but does not display an error to readers is not something that warrants being dragged to AN/I over disruptive editing, as Zackmann has done on multiple occasions (see my diffs above, plus more: diff, diff, diff, diff). In this case, Artemis started the AN/I out of obvious frustration, a frustration I've personally experienced with multiple warnings from Zackmann within minutes for things I would have fixed after completing a batch of image additions (and, in at least one case, for an error I didn't even make). They continued to leave templated messages after I asked them to stop. Artemis does not have WP:CLEANHANDS in their report, but I think Zackmann's continued use of escalating, rapidly templated warnings and AN/I filings over issues that are not disruptive editing has itself become disruptive. If Zackmann cannot pledge to reform their use of warnings, which I think is generating a non-collegial editing environment, the community should consider a remedy that would improve the situation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Seeing that this has been a trend now after reading this (that I wouldn't have known to look for as someone uninvolved), it might be beneficial for the close to mention this has been a recurring thing just so others are aware. KoA (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is how I recommend responding to Zackmann's templates. DuncanHill (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, and once Zackmann decided not to honour my request not to receive them, I simply ignore them and let them archive. The problem is that, as I've documented above, when users ignore Zackmann's warnings, they eventually take the user to AN/I under the guise of "failure to engage." Frivolous AN/I filings and non-collegial warnings over non-problems are an ongoing problem. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree that Zackmann needs to cool it on tone with warnings. Too bitey. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It's the combination of bite and teaching your grandmother to suck eggs that got to me. That and not explaining the specific problem, and directing questions to the Help Desk instead of to himself. If he doesn't want people questioning him about his warnings, he shouldn't make them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

And whole reverts for simple correctable mistakes embedded within entire good faith edits.--v/r - TP 17:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion on User_talk:Zackmann08#Please_retain_the_maps_and_locations_in_the_earthquake_articles where someone is complaining about mass unrelated changes made along with a deprecated parameter removal. examples: [32] [33] [34] - these other changes are not mentioned in the edit summary. Morwen (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yikes, You need to understand I am doing a mass cleanup is not a productive way to talk to volunteer colleagues in this project. It appears that there are many editors who have had a negative experience of Zackmann08's approach to communication. We can appreciate the cleanup work to fix broken parameters (although in the case of the earthquake infobox it appears to have been made necessary by more unilateral infobox changes by Zackmann), but communicating in repeated templated messages and centering one's own work over others' is uncollaborative. I have been assuming that Zackmann's infobox maintenance is mostly uncontroversial, but perhaps it needs a closer look. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What is wrong with templated messages? Surely they are there to be used? If the language in the templates is curt, that's hardly Zackmann08's fault. This whole ANI seems extremely petty, to my mind. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

They are not the standard warning templates in Twinkle; they are Zackmann's custom-written templates (see User:Zackmann08/uw/Unknown-params-warning, User:Zackmann08/uw/Unknown-params-warning-2, User:Zackmann08/uw/Communication-Required). The curt language in them is Zackmann's own choice. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. They don't seem any better or worse than the standard templates which escalate warnings to me. I recall some have about six levels and by the end are screaming 'STOP' and threatening bans. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Except for the mandatory templates (such as an AN/I notice), templated warnings can be perceived as disrespectful, especially to longtime editors (WP:DTTR). The curt language of the templates isn't helping how they're received, but the bigger problem (identified above) is that Zackmann is (1) using templated messages over non-violations of policy (such as failing to use Preview) that imply the recipient is violating some kind of policy, (2) templating those who have asked not to receive the messages, and (3) taking users to AN/I for not responding to the curt templated messages. (Diffs for all this linked above.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Well the first template warning there is merely a suggestion and is assuming good faith: that the editor inadvertently introduced an error and therefore suggests that 'it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit'. The second is a warning about disruptive editing, which is policy. Again, 'the need to use preview to check your edits' is surely assuming good faith that the editor has merely made a mistake rather than maliciously introduced errors. And the third there is about communicating. And if an editor is banned from communicating with an editor, what we are really saying is that Zackmann should have escalated to ANI or similar without ever having engaged or forewarned said editor.

If, as a project, we have a problem with templating, that is a policy discussion to be had. I don't think it should all be put on one editor. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Zackmann's custom second-level warning is patently untrue. It says that continu[ing] to introduce unknown parameters into articles is disruptive, which is not supported by any policy and is Zackmann's personal interpretation of WP:DE. In fact, the governing policy is that "perfection is not required". Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

templated warnings can be perceived as disrespectful, especially to longtime editors That is the thing though. Artemis Andromeda issue wasn't with template warnings, but with the messages themselves. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding that last sentence: This is the third time that Artemis Andromeda has been a party to a discussion at AN or a related noticeboard in just over four months, so the direction this went in has caught me off-guard. I will say that I am satisfied that Artemis Andromeda did admit that she need to do better in the future with their interactions, so that part has been resolved. (The part where she wants Zackmann08 to be partially blocked from her talk is a bit concerning as I don't recall that being a remedy to a dispute, but I have given her advice on what she should do and I hope she adopts it.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I will add here though that if once again calls anyone a moron or their actions moronic again, that we need to do something about it. She has done significant good here with her notable article creation statistics, but there is a reason that one of the five pillars is to treat others with respect and civility. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Artemis Andromeda, Borgenland, ChompyTheGogoat, Dclemens1971, Dgp4004, DuncanHill, Fram, Grapesurgeon, Helpful Raccoon, Johnuniq, KoA, Morwen, Rsjaffe, Staraction, Strugglehouse, Super Goku V, and TParis: Pinging all users (I hope) who have commented above. I've been offline all day and just now getting back. I am not going to go point through all that has been said since I last logged on and individually respond to each user comment as I don’t think this is productive. Suffice it to say I have read each comment. If there is a specific comment that needs further explanation or response from me, please let me know and I will try to respond but also want to avoid WP:WALLOFTEXT. Here are a few thoughts.

1. I need to take a good look at how and when I use templates. The purpose of these templates was always to educate. Often we get new users who genuinely don’t understand that you cannot just enter any param you want into a infobox and expect it to show up. Daily I get a pleasant response from those editors who appreciate the education. However, lately my use of the template has gotten to be too routine, using it every-time when it may not be necessary. Comments that my efforts are in good faith but lack communication skills are valid criticisms and this point is worth further thought by me.
2. Don’t template the regulars is an essay and NOT an established policy. You are free to take offense to being templated, but personally this is something I will never, ever understand. If the roles were reversed and I made a mistake. Then a user took the time to both fix my mistake AND to come to my user page and leave me a message, I am not about to get upset with them because they used a templated message to convey the necessary information instead of ALSO writing a customly tailored message to my experience level. Now I will confess when I come across an username I am familiar with due to past interactions and I know they are more experienced, in those cases I tend to simply tag them in the Diff. (Johnuniq comes to mind, as having once upon a time made a typo). But the idea that for every person I leave a message for I must first check their contributions/edit count and determine if they are a regular who should not be templated? Not going to happen. If you are offended that someone fixed your mistake and took the time to let you know you made a mistake, that is an issue you need to sort out.
3. The reverting of non-breaking edits. I think we must all understand that there are different definitions of breaking a page. When I have used that term I have usually meant it in the terms of causing an error message and placing the page in a maintenance category requiring cleanup. I can understand how that may not line up with everyone else’s definition of a broken page but I want to be clear this has never been an attempt to mislead. It was simply a good faith difference of understanding in word choice. Moving forward I will strive to use better language regarding what I mean by broken. I will also be taking a good hard look at my use of the revert button (I think a refresher on WP:REVERT policy is ahead for this evening) to make sure I am only using the easy solution when necessary. I understand I need to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater as it were.
4. I genuinely am trying my best and appreciate the feedback. I think if any one of you were to take a look through my talk page history, you will find a lengthy history of me responding very gratefully to feedback, both complimentary AND constructive criticism. You will also certainly find a few examples of me responding when I wasn't at my best. We aren't any of us perfect and I will be the first to admit I have at times hit the reply button when I should have taken a breath before responding...

Now I obviously am a very active editor but I also have made my fair share of mistakes. I try to always learn from those mistakes and do better the next time. To each editor who has commented on this thread, whether you were defending my actions, accusing me of wrongdoing or something in between (for lack of better words) please know I have read your comments and I appreciate your feedback.

If there is anything further requiring a response from me, please let me know. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

After concerns were raised by multiple editors about your behaviour in an AN/I discussion you initiated in March, you promised to re-examine your process. The fact that so many editors have found your approach to warning and communicating unproductive, and that these concerns persisted after you said you would do better, is troubling. This long comment strikes me as an effort to head off any potential community sanction while the discussion is still happening. If we are to avoid community action, I for one would like to see a concrete commitment from you (for example: you could agree to issue one warning and then not continue warning or taking people to AN/I for making errors in infoboxes). You like cleaning up infoboxes, and that's great; that work can be done without giving repeated warnings. I'm not asking you to WP:DTTR; I'm asking you to read the room and see that many people find your current approach to templated messages unproductive. But given the past discussions, I'd like to see a concrete commitment, not a general promise to do better as a way of getting out of this AN/I thread. I really don't want to see other users, especially newbies, continue to get the bitey treatment documented above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking it all in. I dont expect you to capitulate on every point but it's clear you considered every point.--v/r - TP 00:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Echoing like all of dclemens' points. Socializing is a two way street; if other (reasonable and well intentioned) people are pretty consistently telling you that you're rubbing them the wrong way, you should probably listen, even if you weren't intentionally being unpleasant. Also you've gone beyond simple templating in terms of tone; I've seen some overt unpleasantness from you. "We all make mistakes" is not a very strong excuse; the mistakes are a bit much and you should urgently address them.

Toxicity drives away productive people. Even if you're being productive, you may drive others off the site. Many many complain about the site's community; we cannot make the problem worse. grapesurgeon (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think if you looked around a bit beyond just the examples given here you would find plenty of examples of my encouraging and welcoming newcomers. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not saying you've never been pleasant. But we don't sum good + bad together; we want to minimize bad. grapesurgeon (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Grapesurgeon, kindly provide examples of Zackmann08's behaviour that substantiate the following claims from your post:

• I've seen some overt unpleasantness from you
• …the mistakes are a bit much and you should urgently address them
• Toxicity drives away productive people

Thanks and regards, Alexanderino (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Examples already been linked in thread grapesurgeon (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I've searched this page for your posts. You have made four under this topic, none of which contain your examples, which is what I'd like to know.

To reiterate: what are your examples of Zackmann08's behaviour that you regard as overtly unpleasant, contain mistakes pertaining to the discussion at hand, and/or are toxic?

Regards, Alexanderino (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean others' examples; do I really need to relist all of them? And by "mistakes" I meant what Zackmann is referring to when they said "we all make mistakes" grapesurgeon (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Others' examples need not be your examples. They cannot think or speak on your behalf — you alone can authentically identify and own your thoughts and positions.

Given that, would you mind identifying examples — even others' examples — of Zackmann08's behaviour that you regard as overtly unpleasant and/or are toxic? Alexanderino (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Tbh I would rather not; I've said my piece. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I will point out it is rather telling that you threw out multiple accusations and then when asked 3 separate times to produce any form of evidence for said accusations, you couldn't produce a thing.... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

That seems perfectly satisfactory to me, thanks Zackmann. Although I would not try to appease everybody. If 'templating' is a problem, that is something that needs to be tightened up as policy, it's not on you. Dgp4004 (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Sidetrack

@Grapesurgeon Given I'm in the WP:discord and was watching the conversations in the English Wikipedia channel last night, could you please disclose the context by which you saw this AN/I thread? Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian I didn't participate in this thread because of the Discord, nor did it influence my opinions, so it is not worth disclosing. I've been participating on and off in ANI for the last few weeks; you can scroll through my edit history to verify. I also participated in other active threads in ANI. grapesurgeon (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I know you somewhat regularly participate in AN/I -- I'm asking you how you came to be aware of this thread in particular. So, yes or no -- did you see this thread because of (now deleted) messages in the discord serve last night? And, if it didn't impact your thinking, why not disclose to avoid the appearance of being stealth canvassed? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Did I not already say no? Bewildered why there's an inquisitor vibe rn. In the Discord I literally pushed them not to canvass and told them to delete their messages about the thread; what part of that suggests to you that I'm interested in violating rules here?

Please, please, please let's make this the last message about this; if you're still concerned just directly file a separate ANI thread about this. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

No, you didn't say no, you said it is not worth disclosing (how you saw the thread). Have I misunderstood your intent behind that sentence? If so, I do apologize, but I hope you'll agree with me that it's reasonable to avoid interpreting saying something was not worth disclosing as a denial.

And, no, speaking in generalities, I'm not going to file an AN/I thread over one instance of (what I perceive) to be some slightly unpleasantly-toned canvassing. I am going to ask the editor(s) who appears been canvassed or who have done the canvassing what's going on, in hopes that they'll be more careful with their actions in the future. Especially if I believe that the person isn't trying to break any rules. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't participate in this thread because of the Discord, nor did it influence my opinions

This was not an instance of canvassing. I would have seen the thread anyway and I chose to apply my own judgment. I even privately disagree with how Artemis handled this and told them to stop canvassing in the Discord.

The way you're wording this despite me telling you otherwise is approaching casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You seriously still think I was canvassed? Am I prohibited in participating in any discussion ever mentioned on Discord even if I would have seen it anyway? Do you have any reason to doubt I'm telling the truth about my intentions?

To be clear, you're welcome to question me about canvassing, but after my first response you handled this poorly. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon, choosing to warn me for ASPERSIONS on a comment thread which I only got involved with after you declined to provide diffs supporting accusations you made towards another editor (see: Tbh I would rather not) is.... well. It's something. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Because, as I've said multiple times before, the links others had provided above I felt were sufficient for justifying my responses. Let's stop this exchange, really not productive. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

You're the one who came to my talkpage, Grapesurgeon. Typically, when I want to stop an exchange, I do not a) ask the other person follow up questions or b)start the conversation in a new venue. Is that weird? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 09:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

GENUINE question here for those who object to my talk notices. Setting aside the templating of regulars issue (which I am addressing) I would like to continue to use these notice for new users to help educate them. It sounds like there are those who regard them as too bitey. While I may disagree, I would love suggestions on ways that I can improve the language of User:Zackmann08/uw/Unknown-params-warning & User:Zackmann08/uw/Unknown-params-warning-2. Again, the focus here is on educating and helping so if there is feedback on how to improve these to come across in a better way, I would be all ears (eyes?) on that feedback as well. Happy to take that discussion outside of ANI if preferred... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

(I only looked at the first one). I guess less "you-messaging" might be helpful (e.g. replace "Just because you specify" with "Specifying"). See also I-message. Bold text is probably not necessary. Replacing "must" with "should" or another less officious phrasing might come across as friendlier. I dunno, maybe it's also worth taking the extra time of writing a short but not template-like explanation, custom-written for the occasion. Right now, time is being lost because, apparently, a lot of editors don't appreciate what look like templated messages. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

You've repeatedly said you don't want to check a user's number of edits every time before you leave a template. Why not enable XTools in your preferences under gadgets, and then their edit count will be displayed at the top of their talk page under the page title.--v/r - TP 18:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but to me an editor continuously making the same mistakes after it being brought to their attention shows a lack of care when editing. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 09:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lavalizard101: That depends. People's brains all work differently. Zackmann might have a mind of technical application of LuaScript and templates. While Artemis Andromeda might have a mind for prose and language. You might have a mind for consistency. A fourth stranger might have a mind for style and the MOS. Do you expect all of them to be experts at every domain and to never make mistakes in any of them? This is a collaborative project, we accept people's flaws if they are overall a net positive to the project.--v/r - TP 18:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• A classic case of two editors who both do good work but who are both prone to irritating other editors ... irritating each other. Both seem to have got the point, so this can be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 30 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: [35], [36]). 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)

Yeah I was thinking this too. It's pretty much synonymous with telling someone "kys". Wouldn't call it a death threat, but it's obviously still a serious personal attack, which is unacceptable. It's a moot point now though. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Also lost in this is their upload File:WhatChrisBrownDidToRihanna.webp (which includes a RFP for Legal issues of Chris Brown due to several revert wars throughout the last week after HumanxAnthro's addition of the image to the article), which is very obviously a copyvio from TMZ (the webp is a red flag alone because there are surely PNGs without watermarks in better quality), but also contains an incredible POV violation in the F-UR under other information which an low-edit account Destro7 (talk · contribs) took issue with; even though they were later checkuser blocked by Ponyo and have been socking to remove it to initiate the RFP, I agree with them that there is no purpose to having that image anywhere in an article outside of shock value and the F-UR is completely non-neutral, nor was their explanation that it was HUMOR and not public-facing acceptable at all; any space, you remain neutral, even if you disagree with the subject. The RFP on the linked page I have no opinion on, just of the questionable fair use and rationale. Nathannah • 📮 00:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Chris Brown's history of beating woman, which he has done repeatedly in the decade-and-a-half after the incident is surely massive POV pushing and not at all a neutral description, or relevant. Also, Fuck Chris Brown. Like, I agree, but this is Wikipedia, we don't care and don't need to know. Removed. jolielover♥talk 06:04, 30 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).

[37]

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.

[38][39]

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 [40],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.

[41]

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.

[42]

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).

[43][44]

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 [45], and that the edit which added the claim about alt accounting User:Rod57 [46] 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."[47].

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"[48]. 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" [49] 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 [50] 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. [51] my edit at Talk:15.ai was removing random nonsense [52] my edits at 15.ai were reverting WP:CRYSTALBALL [53][54] and my other alleged crimes of tagbombing/removing sources on 15 (Software Engineer) were ultimately endorsed by other editors [55][56][57] 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 [58] 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 [59]. 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 [60] 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 [61] and [62] 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)

@AP 499D25: especially if it's a person that doesn't have a past record of jumping accounts Well, in this case, the person being accused does have an extensive record of jumping accounts. I've updated the SPI with a comprehensive analysis of similarities in word choices and behavior between the accused account and the socks. I'm just surprised that I have to go all this length because I thought what I had posted would have been enough for a relatively quick block. Frankly, the retaliatory SPI doesn't even contain any evidence. That "accusation" relies on a fabricated lie and a flimsy word choice argument that doesn't hold up; I address it directly at the bottom of the comprehensive analysis. –GM 10:49, 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.

Also [63] & [64].~2026-42057-37 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Multiple IP abuser + POV pusher

See [65] 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)

First off, establish how Im a POV-Pusher, Im willing to debate this. Secondly establish how editing with an IP adresse is forbidden, as If It was wikipedia wouldnt have that option, and thirdly, apologise for your comment towards me saying „rv little pov pusher“. ~2026-42029-79 (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Message towards @Beshogur ~2026-42029-79 (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Long term POV pusher removal / replacement of Azerbaijani / Turkish related stuff. Beshogur (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• IP addresses on mobiles do change frequently so I think we can AGF on that one. As for the POV issues, has anyone tried discussing the disputed content on the article talk pages? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  See edit history systematic removal of Azerbaijani related stuff. Also personal attacks:

  learn some basic reading comprehension; Before acting, think etc. not GF. Because it's not an account, user thinks he can do whatever he wants with swapping every time another IP, in which you lose its track. Beshogur (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Is this user violating the WP:CT/A-A ECR? Morwen (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  It would appear that is the case. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  You said :Rv Little POV Pusher: to me when u reverted my edit. Thats vumgar as well, u cant stylise yourself as a victim here. I responded to you trying to accuse me of something while I was tryna show you how I didnt say that I found some edit of you from 4 years back, but saw a talk page topic which adressed a mistake you made from 4 years ago. Also how is saying „Before acting, think“ bad? I think a comment adressing me dieectly and trying to belittle me would be worse! How about you debate me on what you disagree with instead of talking to others and refusing to resolve the issue you have with me. ~2026-42029-79 (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  You say :User thinks he can do whatever he wants:, or maybe based on the place Im at my IPs just are different coordinates! Once I loose my temporary ip account, I cant access It anymore! How about instead of acting offended or something, you try to debate me on wheter what i remove or add is justified! ~2026-42029-79 (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  The only one trying to push and maintain his POV of wikipedia pages is you and you cant defend your pov in a debate, so you resort to accusing someone of being a pov pusher while you have no basis to claim that! Not a single argument Ive seen about this yet! An accusation without argumentation, thats as bad faith as it gets! ~2026-42029-79 (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Not to mention that this IP is quite aggressive and seems to know a lot about wikipedia as well. These IPs are recent. Suspicions of banned user. Beshogur (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Kurdish Urd (talk · contribs) also Christinuli (talk · contribs)

  same tone of edits and same topics.

  ~2026-41662-20: [66] There are two distinct languages making up the Azerbaijani

  Christinuli: [67] Azerbaijani can be divided into South and North Azerbaijani, since they are so different that ISO considers them seperate languages

  found it. Beshogur (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Opened SPI. Beshogur (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  You don't have to inform about it, even preferable that you do not. ~2026-42312-97 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  all ive seen from u is doing ad hominems and not even being able to defend your points at Aq Qoyunlu. We need that debate to be reviewed unless you actually wanna try to answer any of the points Ive raised.

  It cant be that you try to hold your pov of the page while not even being able to defend it. ~2026-42029-79 (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is insane. Still discussing while sockpuppetry is so clear? Beshogur (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• establish how editing with an IP adresse is forbidden, @~2026-42029-79: If you are editing on the topics of Armenia and Azeribaijan, please see WP:GS/A-A. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 30 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: [68], [69], [70], [71] In solidarity, Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@JalenBarks: Thanks for the ping. A groups of TAs/legacy IPs (possibly the same person) have been randomly changing birth/death years for quite some time now. If they are the same people, this is one of the rare occasions when they chose to create an ID. Just yesterday, a set of TAs did the same in various South Asian articles I patrol. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

And this user is still going despite the report. [72] [73] In solidarity, Jalen Barks (Woof) 18:34, 30 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)

(merged in the following content from another thread on this noticeboard; it's the same issue with the same people --Hammersoft (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC))

User:Alrakib11 has repeatedly removed properly cited academic content from this article. The removed material was sourced to: "A History of the Qaraunah TURKS in India" by historian Dr. Ishwari Prasad - a scholarly work on the Turkic rulers of the Indian subcontinent. "The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans" - an academic work covering the Turkic and Afghan rulers of medieval India.

Both sources are reliable per WP:RS and directly support the content that was removed. Their repeated removal raises concerns under WP:VERIFIABILITY and if unsourced material has been substituted in its place, this may also involve WP:NOR. Requested action: I'm requesting that an admin/moderator review the diffs and take appropriate action whether a formal warning, page protection or a block if the pattern continues. ~2026-37661-30 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

You're right about the citations. I checked the sources, and the sources do support Fakhr-al-Din as Turkish and Qaraunah. But discussing the issue instead of edit warring should be preferred. Jako96 (talk) 20:55, 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)

There's nothing to act on here. You raised the issue with Kintrob ladio, who stopped the behavior and engaged in conversation with you. I agree the answers are less than illuminating, but the negative behavior had stopped. Until such time as the negative behavior resumes, there's nothing for administrators to do. @Kintrob ladio: please comment here. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Hammersoft, I have discussed with FDW777. I have apologized too and have stopped adding citation too. I asked FDW777 what I can do inorder not to complicate things more? I am ready to do so. But no response for that. I will appreciate it if you can help me out here. Is there anything I can do to remedy this situation? Kintrob ladio (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

You just need to make sure going forward that when you add a citation, the text or claim it supports is actually in the reference you are adding. I’ve gone through your history and reverted a few such miscitations. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Tbank you so much @Celjski Grad. I am grateful for this. I won't forget your advice in a hurry. Kintrob ladio (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Celjski Grad. I am grateful for this. I won't forget your advice in a hurry. Kintrob ladio (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Garkeith

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

User:Garkeith relies upon LLM to enable their huge, AI-sounding edits, and is frustrated by those who want them to stop. This is disruptive.

• Here - A lengthy discussion about poor sourcing at Clarksburg, West Virginia, however, it was probably just AI-generated text that was poorly sourced.
• [74] - User:Gnomingstuff cautioned them about using LLM.
• [75] - Admitted using LLM, telling User:glman:

I use it for spelling, grammar, and organization, but I was adding great information to the page and guiding it with my writing. I have been creating and editing pages on Wikipedia since it started, so it is not like I have no history of being able to write. I am just going to leave Wikipedia alone because it is frustrating to do good work and make major improvements to a page just to be reverted by assholes who think they are on some quest to judge everyone else's work. So you win. I am out. People like you will be far overruled soon. Most of your AI hunting is just a guess or suspicion, and you will not be able to do it much longer as they continue to improve.

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

to clarify, the "just a guess" defense is incredibly hollow given that at least one of their edits has :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10} all over the place Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

He definitely does use a lot of AI. For example, GPTZero says the Merchants National Bank Building (Clarksburg, West Virginia), which he created, as a WHOLE is %100 AI (obiously, aside from WP:AISIGNS). I tagged it for SD.

In my opinion, unless he continues, doing nothing seems okay, unless there are even more cases that he used AI. Jako96 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It is fine, I am done editing. thank you for all the extra attention. I thought I was doing good work and did not really realize how much hate existed for AI. I understand if i were out there tearing up articles but I thought I was making very good updates. Nothing I did was 100% Ai so your tool was wrong there. Now that I see what a big deal this is to you all, I will not do it. I think I just need a break from Wikipedia. Thank you. Garkeith (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

What tool? ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

They're talking about the GPTZero. Jako96 (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, it could also be a mix (the tool isn't %100 accurate), and we don't know which parts. It should still be removed.

Also, to clarify, %100 there means that GPTZero thinks that the probability that the whole text is AI is %100. It could also say %100 mixed, for example. And, just as a reminder, the GPTZero's result was not the whole reason that we think those edits were AI. Jako96 (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It is against WP:LLM. Jako96 (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

People like you will be far overruled soon. Most of your AI hunting is just a guess or suspicion, and you will not be able to do it much longer as they continue to improve. By far my favourite type of AI user on Wikipedia are the ones who when caught and shown the door decide to go out twirling their moustache and cackling like a cartoon villain about how "you won't catch me next time, AI Patrol! Nyeheheheheh!" Athanelar (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Requesting admins attention

I want to request administrators attention regarding an issue I am facing at Civilna Zaštita AfD discussion - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Civilna_Za%C5%A1tita)

My issue is not about this person's opinion on the article or whether they support in keeping it or deleting it. The issue is that they repeatedly provide source claims that are not properly accessible to verify, this is not once but twice when I even asked for direct links. When I asked for the sources he's referring to, he again replied without links but then again spoke about the articles and reports. Some links or references did not even match the sources like how he's presenting it. Now when this happens, it is hard to check if what he is telling is actually supported by sources. I understand that everyone may have their own way of presenting things, but when a deletion discussion depends on whether sources meet WP, the references should be easy for others to verify. They also make very confident statements about policies and sources, but when asked for direct links, it won't be there.

I am bringing this here because I do not see this as just a disagreement about the deletion discussion. The issue is that unclear and potential incorrect sources are being given which makes it hard for me and even others to properly evaluate the arguments.

Please let me know if I am posting this at a wrong place.

Their replies I was referring to: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Civilna_Zaštita#c-Боки-20260726002100-Civilna_Zaštita 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Civilna_Zaštita#c-Боки-20260726114200-Wikipicked-20260726030000 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Civilna_Zaštita#c-Боки-20260729053000-Wikipicked-20260726144400 Wikipicked (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This notice is an escalation of a straightforward, good-faith content dispute over WP:GNG. I strongly reject any implication of providing "incorrect sources." The sources I cited are real, highly reliable academic and journalistic pieces that explicitly cover Civilna Zaštita.

The issue here has been purely technical, not policy defiance. My initial responses contained layout errors and formatting mismatches when trying to use complex citation templates, which unfortunately obscured the raw URLs. Once the user pointed out that they could only see root domains, I immediately followed up in my very next reply by providing the absolute, unformatted, and direct raw text URLs to the specific documents, completely removing the broken wiki-markup.

Under WP:V, offline or hard-to-access sources are fully permitted as long as they exist and can be verified. I did not rely on offline access; I provided the specific texts, pages, and eventually the raw URLs to help the user. Taking a formatting struggle to an administrative board while a deletion discussion is actively running looks like an attempt to bypass the AfD process itself. I have acted in complete good faith to defend an article with significant coverage, and the specific URLs are now fully available above and on the AfD log. — Боки 💬 📝 12:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I respectfully disagree with your statement "looks like an attempt to bypass the AfD process itself". I participate in AfDs regularly and fully understand that questions of notability and source weight belong in afds. My concern was never about the outcome of the AfD or another editor's opinion. If you read my post correctly here, my issue is about being able to access and verify what you provided. Wikipicked (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I completely understand your position now, and I apologize if my previous comment sounded defensive. It was certainly not my intention to make verifiability difficult for you or any other editor. Navigating broken wiki-markup and URL parameters during an active debate can be frustrating on both ends, and I appreciate your patience as we cleared up the technical errors.

Now that the exact, deep links and specific page numbers are fully available and fixed on the AfD page, I am glad we can ensure transparent verification for everyone. Let's head back to the AfD log to finish evaluating the structural weight of the sources itself. I welcome any further thoughts you have on the article there. — Боки 💬 📝 12:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Boki. Is it ok if I call you Boki? I could call you Боки instead, but I have to paste that in. Anyway, I would like you answer this question for me. Did you use an AI, LLMs, or machine translation to generate or assist with the comments you posted on the AFD in any way? You will not get in trouble for responding truthfully, whether the answer is yes or no. Morwen (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Morwen, yes, you can absolutely call me Boki. To answer your question directly and honestly: yes, I did use an LLM tool to assist me with these comments.

English is not my native language, and when I was trying to participate in the AfD debate, I was struggling heavily with formatting complex Wikipedia citation templates ( (Report). {{cite report}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) and {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help)), which kept throwing red system errors on my screen. I used the tool to help me translate my arguments into clear, fluent English and to help me clean up and debug the raw URLs so that they would format correctly within the wiki-markup.

The arguments themselves, the specific page numbers from the monographs, and the selection of the sources are entirely my own based on my actual research of the topic. However, the text structure and phrasing were polished with the assistance of an LLM to bridge my language and technical formatting gaps. I apologize if this caused any lack of clarity in how the references initially appeared, and I am glad the raw, direct links are now completely transparent for everyone to verify. — Боки 💬 📝 13:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty. Going forward, please stop using LLMs in this way. According to our guidelines WP:AITALK, people are entitled to collapse and disregard any comments that are generated using LLMs, so you might as well not be posting. Morwen (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that guideline, Morwen. I was not fully aware of the specific policy regarding WP:AITALK and how it applies to discussions. I completely understand and will stop using LLM assistance for generating my comments going forward. I will write my own replies directly to ensure everything complies with community standards. Thank you for your guidance and for resolving this neutrally. — Боки 💬 📝 13:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. Did you hand-write that one? Morwen (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I did — Боки 💬 📝 14:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Well in that case I don't see that you have a problem writing "clean, fluent English", as your LLM put it. Morwen (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose I better ask this for balance as well. @Wikipicked:, did you use an AI, LLMs, or machine translation to generate or assist with the comments you posted on the AFD of here in any way? You will not get in trouble for responding truthfully, whether the answer is yes or no. Morwen (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Morwen Just typed it directly into the edit box. Thanks again for checking in and for the advice. — Боки 💬 📝 14:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you replying to here? Morwen (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were asking me :) — Боки 💬 📝 14:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Morwen

Nope. In AfD and here I wrote the comments myself. Wikipicked (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Morwen: WP:AITALK clearly states that only fully-generated responses may be collapsed. Refined responses are fine if they use AI. This user is using AI to refine their English. That's wholly allowed.--v/r - TP 16:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

TheTruthMattersUK

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

---

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

TheTruthMattersUK is an account that is currently interested in inserting right wing POV and in particular in whitewashing Great British PAC (diff). They have persisted despite a final warning (diff and diff). Their username suggests a group or organisation as well as raising a suspicion of WP:RGW which their POV edits bear out. As this is not quite blatant enough for AIV, I am bringing it here. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Indefed for WP:NOTHERE. Morwen (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

looks like User:ElmhurstBlack has shown up and is suddenly making very similar changes to the same page? IAmNetx (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I've reported that at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheTruthMattersUK. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

awesome, just thought I would mention since it does look like a duck to me IAmNetx (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a very blocked duck now. Morwen (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Welcome messages spam etc

Kumaoni Painter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Spam with a welcome messages, direct vandalism [76], [77], intentionally nonsense userpage.

I thought it better fit AIV due to obvious spam, but they're proposed it back here. ~2026-41901-01 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Their behaviour is very strange. Some of this suggests a WP:CIR problem but that over-elaborate user page makes me think that this is intentionally disruptive, possibly from somebody who has been here before. The speed with which they are welcoming also makes me wonder whether there is some automation or AI use here. Whatever it is, it's not good. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I just failed to timely find a likely previous account of them for SPI (it is clearly remind about somebody relatively recently brought up here), and have no time to do so thoroughly now, so was sure somebody else would recognize them easily.

Many thanks for the fix, Morwen, messed it up while copying from AIV. ~2026-41901-01 (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I do it myself; there is no use for artificial intelligence. "I just welcome and revert issue welcomes to them," I said. "Spam welcomes." It's just a nice gesture toward other people; you can also see the other contributions I've made. I, too, revert edits that are considered vandalism. Scroll all the way down.

Additionally, the phenomenon that you are referring to as "vandalism" This entry can be found at

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Har_Swarup&diff=prev&oldid=1366638883

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamon_(swordsmithing)&diff=prev&oldid=1366639246

is where I study English; it's just a simple correction of grammar. And if you think that this is incorrect, just go revert it and let me know.

Last words if you are pointing to my "Spam welcome" so better look here too

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_of_large_numbers&diff=prev&oldid=1365444962

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Tang&diff=prev&oldid=1365444500

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hardik_Patel&diff=prev&oldid=1365443294

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Nash&diff=prev&oldid=1365443259

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_empires&diff=prev&oldid=1365441864

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birthplace_of_Ali&diff=prev&oldid=1365440944

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giorgos_Karadimos&diff=prev&oldid=1365440131

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jat_Regiment&diff=prev&oldid=1365439506

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PAF_Base_Nur_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=1365437692

And 100+ more vandalism-preventing edits, I reported over 8 people for vandalizm, and 6 of them got banned; if you are suspicious, go ahead and start an investigation and ban me, :) but there is no bot or AI stuff.

If you are going to restrict me because I am open to other people, but there is no point in doing so. Have a wonderful day, and I will not be providing any further responses; the decision to ban or leave me is up to the administrators; I am concerned about their kind opinion. Kumaoni Painter ^talk 04:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

One of the edits you cite as a good edit [78] - seems mostly to consist of changes to make quotation marks violate our manual of style. Morwen (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry from my heart Kumaoni Painter ^talk 12:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

DanielRigal, does your userpage built using a some common accessible template? Their userpage looks like as if it was copied from your, and then edited after. Unusual design with "figures" is the same, infobox is the same, even userboxes are the same and in the same order (except "service award" missed and article count differ). It is mostly explainable if it is a some well used template of course (except a nearly perfect match in userboxes). ~2026-42312-97 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't remember exactly how I made it. I think I remember seeing somebody else using it, wanting to get my own one, copying the blank example from Template:Infobox Wikipedia user and filling that in. I did wonder if he had copied one or two of my jokes but I couldn't remember if I had copied any of them from anybody else. I did consider mentioning it but the rest of the page is quite different and it doesn't matter that much anyway. It's not like he is impersonating me. Looking at it again, I see your point about the userboxes. Those are not part of the template example so I'd say that is pretty definitely copied from mine. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Obviously it's not an impersonation attempt, but if all that is not a something that could be trivially generated this very way from some template, including userboxes and their order, it likely points to some interaction with you prior. ~2026-42312-97 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Coming straight to ANI over this seems like a wild overreaction. I'm no great fan of mass welcoming, but we have a wikiproject devoted to it and several templates for the purpose. It's an accepted practice. The two edits that the TA cites as vandalism both mix genuine improvements with the introduction of errors, but the errors I see in those look easily explainable as good faith (e.g. changing straight to curly quotation marks violates our manual of style, but unless someone is deeply familiar with the MoS it is easy to see why they might in good faith think it's an improvement; the couple of spelling errors introduced could easily be typos). Kumaoni should be more careful in future, but I don't see that we need an ANI thread here! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm no great fan of mass welcoming, but ... It's an accepted practice.

It's not even about that unpleasant bot-like practice in general, it's about the literal spam here. [79], [80] & [81], [82], [83], [84] are examples merely from the top of the list, I went no further. Those are the entire editing histories (the time I write this) of the users that they're noticed and wanted to welcome in result of their actions. You could give them a benefit of doubt, that they're simply doing it in a some "automated" approach, not checking an actual contribution done — but then it's a literal spam. Or, alternatively, they're checked those examples, and approved them enough to provide a welcome message instead of other actions.

both mix genuine improvements with the introduction of errors, but the errors I see in those look easily explainable as good faith

Yes, it's a very common strategy, and a working one, that can be seen from your message. Things taken separately do pass as explainable; they do not taken together. You seem to ignore mention about their userpage, had you seen it (it make all of it way less explainable in good faith)?

And no, initially I thought it's a trivial issue for AIV; but they're proposed this one as a better place instead. ~2026-42312-97 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Things taken separately do pass as explainable; they do not taken together. If you are gonna take someone to ANI based on two diffs like this, you need to make it really clear in your report what the problem is because frankly I'm still not seeing it. Sure, maybe it's a "strategy" to do plausibly deniable vandalism, but it's still not obvious to me why you think that's a better explanation than well-meaning error from an enthusiastic new contributor. Your original report cites exactly two diffs, of which one is this, which you describe as "direct vandalism". Would that all our vandals were making edits like this!

You seem to ignore mention about their userpage, had you seen it (it make all of it way less explainable in good faith)? I've looked at it, and I don't see that there's anything sanctionable in it. What are we meant to be taking from this userpage? Being silly on a userpage is hardly a high crime. Bringing it up as an issue here really makes it look like this report is just throwing spaghetti at the wall in the hopes that something sticks. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I took it to ANI by an AIV's admin proposal, exactly because I initially thought it's not worthy this place, being merely an obvious spam case, and spam had to go to AIV. Those "two diffs" are merely addition to the spam problem, to show that there are also additional problems to a spam. And userpage show that it isn't somebody, who are doing it due to a lack of experience, but like to engage in a frivolous editing. Taken alone both suspicious edits and userpage not warrant anything; taken together with a spamming, they're show that problem do exist and it's not some accident. Being silly on a userpage is hardly a high crime, definitely; being silly on a userpage while spamming make a real difference, and being silly on a userpage while spamming and making a not really constructive edits not matching a summaries make even more difference.

Would that all our vandals were making edits like this!

So you'd prefer vandals doing some pointless, some grammatical errors introduced, and no actual grammar corrections passing to stay as a Grammar correction, instead of some blatant, so immediatedly noticeable vandalism?~2026-42312-97 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

new user making poor changes to many articles today

~2026-42069-88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• a brand new user ~2026-42069-88 is making dozens of changes in the last hour to major articles about European kings. User is deleting religious code in the info box. Makes little use of talk page. Policy is that religion should be included only if it was a major part of the person's role. That criteria was met by kings of France--they were in charge of the established Catholic church, selected bishops, and dealt with the Vatican, User seems unaware of this kingly role. I think the deleted coding was proper. Rjensen (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I notice this user's talk page link is red? There are some other TAs from the IP whose talk page links are also red. Maybe try talking to them? Morwen (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not notable for some royalty (e.g. Orthodoxy or Catholic) per MOS:INFOBOXRELIGION. Unlike this user Illini11 (talk · contribs) who continuous massively removed |religion= parameter from {{Infobox royalty}} from 26 July to present. ~2026-42069-88 (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rjensen, this is a content dispute. As Morwen mentions above, you have not made any attempt to talk to this user, on their talk page or otherwise. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that I had no knowledge on the other posters’ actions. As for why I did my edits, it was because MOS:INFOBOXREL states “The Wikipedia community has decided at this RfC not to allow the use of a |religion= parameter in general biography infoboxes. Such a parameter should only appear in infoboxes that pertain to classes of persons for whom religion is integral to their notability, e.g., {{Infobox clergy}}.” I admit I also decided to do so after seeing this talk page section on User talk:Celia Homeford#Religion of princess, which also linked to the aforementioned section. Note that while I avoided removing it from monarchs who have an official role in a church, like the Danish monarchs, who are the Supreme Authority of the Church of Denmark. I admit that with the aforementioned French monarchs, there’s a bit of a grey area, in that their notability comes from them being heads of state, which isn’t necessarily correlated with their religion. So it can be debated if they pass the “religion is integral to their notability” criteria. I’ll admit that the most of my removals were related to non-reigning members of royal families, and for cases of monarchs, I removed them in cases where they don’t seem to have had an official role in their religion. Unofficial influence, perhaps, but it’s less clear how that applies to their integral notability. I also left it alone in cases where they were canonized, like with the last Romanovs. I admit that based on the aforementioned talk page and RFC, I interpreted the criteria as applying to theologians and clergy. If I have erred and my edits were misconstrued as a reasoning for the other poster to do what they did, I apologize. Illini11 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for this discussion, but I'm going to opine anyway. I looked at one of these removals - this one - and I find it to be inappropriate. The third sentence of the lead starts as follows: As Empress, she used her influence to champion "authoritarian and clerical policies...". If her championing (is that a word?) of clerical policies deserves such a prominent mention, it seems obvious that her religion would be worth noting in the infobox. More generally, I'd observe that in past centuries the religion of the monarch (and that of their spouse and heirs) has been of crucial political importance in many European countries, and numerous wars (civil and otherwise) have been fought over the matter. While religion is generally not something we need to see in the infobox of a person, I can see why we would generally consider it relevant for historic European royalty - it isn't the reason for their notability, but it's often a crucial detail to understand about them. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't one of my edits, so I have no opinion on that one. Maybe this might be a discussion for another RFC? Illini11 (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

~2026-42260-37

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

---

~2026-42260-37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

violating BLP after final warning, and making personal attacks on their talk page IAmNetx (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

31 hour BLP block, because that was the default the template had. bloody hell, it's lively today isn't it. it must be the heat. Morwen (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

and here I was hoping most of the heat this year was over... IAmNetx (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

RothschildMay80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Legal threat following a refusal to add original research about a relative. (diff)... — Raihanur (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked per NLT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

And again, on his talk page. (diff).. — Raihanur (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Access revoked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

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

• Talk about WP:DONTYOUKNOWWHOIAM. Should the name given in the diffs be redacted, given I honestly doubt it is actually the name of the editor in question? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think so. Funny shit. Jako96 (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I love that even government employees have had to take on two jobs. Both the CIA and the DoJ. Times are hard. Canterbury Tail talk 13:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looks like it wasn't that impossible after all tho. He is also seemingly an actor too, by the way.

  Insane stuff. Jako96 (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Redaction performed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm glad. Jako96 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. I saw that, but wasn't sure if it should be redacted. Glad you went ahead and took care of it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:BIG DADDY Dunkleosteus

• BIG DADDY Dunkleosteus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:BIG DADDY Dunkleosteus has been going around various topics on Wikipedia which involve the Russian language and has been inserting incorrect Romanizations or otherwise altering perfectly fine Romanizations. To name a few of these pages:

• The Red Army Is the Strongest
• Tri Tankista
• Air March
• White movement
• Russian Civil War
• League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class
• Russian Social Democratic Labour Party
• Mensheviks
• Bolsheviks
• Hymn of the Bolshevik Party
• Worker's Marseillaise
• The Internationale
• Moya Moskva
• Let the Thunder of Victory Rumble! (anthem)
• Main building of Moscow State University
• Seven Sisters (Moscow)
• Stalinist architecture
• Moscow State University
• Anthem of Saint Petersburg
• State Anthem of the Sakha Republic

This user seems to be citing bogus claims of their preferred Romanization scheme being "correct" while others being incorrect, while claiming letters with hačeks are "Croatian" (they are not).

I also would like to bring their WP:COMPETENCE into question. This user seems to write messages like a child; see Talk:Worker's Marseillaise#Fix Russian transliteration!, where this user interestingly has an affinity for spamming in all caps, asking a temporary user's nationality over a user happening to use British English, then calling users "stupid" and accusing them of "ruining" text, as well as generally having a poor command of the English language across the board. Ironically enough, this user also seems to frequently get into edit disputes about English language variants. This behavior has seemed to stretch across the year and hasn't ceased. ~2026-42027-30 (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I have not checked all the linked edits, but their changes I spot checked seem to be in line with Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian. (On a personal level, I think я → ja is an affront to readability and actively misleading, but I am aware this is a matter on which reasonable people may differ.) Rusalkii (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

That being said, @BIG DADDY Dunkleosteus, please do not be rude to other users. Calling anyone stupid or whatever was going on at User talk:~2026-19748-10 is neither polite nor helpful.

On the other hand, neither writing like a child nor actually being a child is a problem unless it impedes communication. Rusalkii (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion going sideways due to canvassing allegations

The discussion Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Places_in_Vietnam is attempting to establish new naming standards following the 2025 Vietnamese administrative reforms, where the district-level subdivisions and commune-level towns were eliminated, a new commune-level type of subdivision called a special zone was introduced, and other subdivisions were heavily condensed.

It has gone off the rails because Greenknight dv (talk · contribs) alleges that Henrydat (talk · contribs) is canvassing users on other pages and using sockpuppets. In addition, a large portion of the discussion was struck through for reasons that are unclear. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Henrydat claimed that the discussion was closed by them on July 9, but they did not use the archive wrapper, and the implementation was contested. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Contest with who? You. You not take part in. Henrydat (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

And I didn't invite Greenknight dv. Henrydat (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Henrydat: please take the time to read WP:NACINV. It's only a couple short paragraphs. – wbm1058 (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I learned, edited, moved, requested moved and improved throughout that time. That's my hard work. Henrydat (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I have update with link clearly and what's "archive wrapper"? Henrydat (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The templates {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think everyone knows I've updated it in main space a long time after. Please follow the policies for my efforts. Henrydat (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Please let uninvolved people speak. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you have a prejudice against me. You didn't support for the block of Viettic, noone agee with you. Henrydat (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussions almost were ended, "canvassing"? or with you? I was just explaining and complaining. Henrydat (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I know them before but not discuss with them through the time. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam about "didn't invite". Maybe they were angry and I didn't explain about revert undiscuss move two times, I want to explain so they won't be angry anymore. And there are 2 or even 3 the similar discussions, I just mentioned you. Henrydat (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I and Kynguyenvuonminh are friends, we came from wikidata, a talk there is "related", you understand? We had an argument and they're not here anymore, I'm very sad, "sockppupet"? Henrydat (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This dispute is quite difficult to comprehend due to the strange structure of the discussion, the fact it apparently spans multiple different pages and projects (apparently there was at least one discussion on Wikidata?) without clearly stating where discussions are taking place and the limited English proficiencies of some of the editors involved. With all due respect to those editors, as learning English when your first language isn't an Indo-European one is difficult.

I will attempt to sort out some kind of a timeline for the discussion because otherwise uninvolved editors are not going to be able to take a look at this. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Just "update", not edit everything. Henrydat (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It happened when I was tired, and nothing happened afterward. Henrydat (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Henry, I have no doubt that you are here in good faith and that you are trying your best to explain the situation, but it's not helping. So with all due respect to you, please let other editors discuss this among themselves. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

OK. Henrydat (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather Looking at the past few months of article title discussions related to Vietnamese place names I get the impression you might be able to help us out here. What do you make of this? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Not really as I couldn't figure out how the participants wanted to change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Vietnam which followed the format for most other places. It has since been changed to this while Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Places in Vietnam is still ongoing. Henrydat has been blocked from that page by wbm1058 and I reverted the page until discussion is concluded. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 15:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Because I always revise it until we reach a consensus with 3 proposals. You came back with one proposal after with no concencus. Henrydat (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This exemplifies the difficulties faced here. I do not understand what this comment means, nor what it is meant as a reply to (indentation suggests the original post, but Henry has already replied to that, and it doesn't make sense as a reply to me because I haven't been involved with Vietnamese place names at all, other than possibly relisting and closing discussions as part of my regular work at WP:RM). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh. I just wanted to say if you want to know more. Henrydat (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment. Thank you for filing this report. I was too tired of being dragged into this issue. Henrydat's closure of the discussion and deletion of multiple comments were highly disruptive.
On a related note, new evidence has emerged. Henrydat had long known that Kynguyenvuonminh was a sockpuppet of the long term sockmaster ChanComThemPho (see my SPI report), but did not report the account. Henrydat urged Kynguyenvuonminh to "Try to finish VIETPLACE soon!". All these patterns of canvassing and disrupting discussions are inappropriate. Greenknight dv (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Please follow the policies if you want others to do that. Henrydat (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Clearly some sort of CIR block is needed for Henrydat, as no one has any idea what they're saying. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I suspect User:Henrydat does not have sufficient command of English to be editing a guidance page on the English Wikipedia.

• In [85], User:Greenknight dv indicated that Henrydat had admitted to having a "hidden consensus" with other users.
• User:LaundryPizza03 responded [86], Then you should report that to WP:ANI.
• Henrydat responded to LaundryPizza03's comment [87], Everyone knows this., which seemed to confirm Greenknight dv's report.
• Henrydat then made a second response to Greenknight dv [88], And this is the purpose of this discussion.
• Finding this exchange to be confusing, I then asked Henrydat [89] three questions:
• :::*Are you communicating with other Wikipedia editors about this topic outside of Wikipedia?
• :::*Are you coordinating your edits on Wikipedia with other editors outside of Wikipedia?
• :::*Are you trying to enforce a consensus that you and other editors have reached while communicating outside of Wikipedia?
• Henrydat responded [90], No, this is Wikipedia. I explaned about my revert no discussion of them in Vietnamese and complained in User talk:LaundryPizza03. Please tell me if I do anything wrong.
• When LaundryPizza03 asked [91] Henrydat, Can you summarize those comments in English?, Henrydat responded [92], See above, reason of not add ward, the primary topic and everything about Saigon. We had been talking for a long time, and this is why we had a disagreement and I didn't invite them to here.
• In my opinion, Henrydat does not exhibit the competency required to be editing a guidance page in the English Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 18:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

IBAN request

Can I request an IBAN from him? He harassed me during discussions. He reported me when I reported Vietic2. Henrydat (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

can I suggest that a subsection of the conversation already in progress at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion_going_sideways_due_to_canvassing_allegations might be a better place for this? You should also present some evidence, if you're accusing someone of harassing you. Morwen (talk)

Yes, they're always already. Henrydat (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I have literally no idea what you mean by that. Morwen (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

You said "evidence". Henrydat (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I did. Are you going to provide some? By evidence I mean, for example, specific diffs. Morwen (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm busy now, but first the two events happened only about half an hour apart, but the other events happened last night, you should check it now. Henrydat (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a spot for fishing expeditions. If you have actual evidence of being harassed, then provide it, or retract your accusation. I see nothing from LaundryPizza in your linked discussion that is even in the same galaxy as harassment, or even impolite. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

comment for clarity the him this relates to is User:LaundryPizza03 from the original header (see this). KylieTastic (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Self-admitted sock

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#c-Douglas_Conquistador-20260730142000-Sean.hoyland-20260701060200

Says they're a sock of @Blackbombchu. InfernoHues (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Speedy delete tag removal Alex Goryachev

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

Please take a look at this article. It was deleted after a community consensus, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Goryachev and should be speedy deleted per WP:G4. Article creator appears to be a COI editor and continously trying to remove speedy deletion tag. Thank you. ~2026-42227-44 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Repeated removal of sourced Egyptian inventors by MrOllie

User MrOllie has repeatedly reverted my addition of Egyptian inventors to Category:Egyptian inventors.

Examples: 1. Mohamed Sanad - Article states "Egyptian electrical engineer" and lists 16 patents. 2. Gamal Refai-Ahmed - Article states "Egyptian-Canadian-American" and has a "Publications and patents" section.

Per category definition, it is for "inventors from Egypt". Both meet nationality + inventor criteria.

The category has only 5 entries and hasn't been updated since 2024. I have stopped reverting to avoid an edit war.

Request: Can an admin review if "patents + Egyptian origin" qualifies for this category, and advise MrOllie accordingly?

Thank you.ن ~2026-42101-88 (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

No, that would not be enough. Patent listings are primary sources; you need secondary sources that someone is known for being an inventor or X or Y or Z. This is a content issue, not a conduct issue. You should not be forcing through a change. After the first reversion, you should have started discussing it, not forcing the edit. Also, you need to notify MrOllie, as you're instructed to when you started this thread. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Besides the sourcing problems, several of these category tag additions are redundant with categories already on these articles, and they're being added up in the lead sections of the articles - as I already explained to the TA on their talk page, to no response. MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I have stopped reverting as advised.

However I believe this is a conduct issue, not just content.

The reason: selective removal.

Examples:

1. MrOllie removed Mohamed Sanad and Gamal Refai-Ahmed from Category:Egyptian inventors for "primary source patents".

2. At the same time, Category:Israeli inventors has 100+ entries with the same type of sourcing and was not touched.

Additionally, he removed Mohamed Hashish, who is described as "the inventor of the water jet cutter" in multiple secondary sources like BBC and NYT. This suggests the removals are targeted.

This looks like WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS.

I am notifying MrOllie of this thread now as required.

Can an admin please review if this pattern is acceptable? Ahmed200829 (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Just because somewhere else has a problem does not mean it's okay to repeat that problem somewhere else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

If primary source patents are not allowed, then they should be removed from all nationality categories, not just Egyptian ones.

Kind regards Ahmed200829 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you drop this. You got the category tagging wrong, it happens. MrOllie corrected it. You may not like that, but IMO there's nothing to be gained from pursuing this further, this should never have been brought to ANI in the first place. (And no, it's not SYSTEMIC BIAS.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Source falsification, quote manipulation, tendentious editing and Civil POV pushing

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

---

I would like to request the attention of the administrators regarding a situation that I consider deeply problematic. I recently submitted a complaint that was dismissed because I used AI to draft it (I apologize to everyone, I was completely unaware of this recent rule). Therefore, I have personally written this report to expose the case of a user who, under the guise of being a rigorous and knowledgeable Wikipedia editor, carries out a systematic pattern of source falsification, quote manipulation, and tendentious editing (WP:NOENG, WP:TEND). This is the case of User:Brat Forelli. This behavior goes beyond a simple content dispute (WP:DR). The user strictly practices what is known on Wikipedia as Civil POV Pushing (WP:Civil POV pushing). This means that they deliberately misrepresent quotes, cut out parts of the source code to hide evidence, use journalistic sarcasm as if it were academic data, and deploy massive walls of false or redundant citations assuming that other editors will not verify the primary sources. Their tactic of attrition is designed to ensure that any user who tries to debate their edits ends up getting frustrated and abandoning the discussion.

In the article about the polish Prosperity and Peace Movement, they label the party as "Communist" using a single source from a Polish newspaper of dubious reliability that, paradoxically, explicitly differentiates the party from communism. This constitutes a direct violation of WP:RS, original synthesis (WP:SYNTH), and the inclusion of unsupported extraordinary claims (WP:REDFLAG).

In the argentinian guerrilla group Montoneros, the user stacks out-of-context quotes about the teenage past of some founders and their Catholic roots to conclude that this leftist-Peronist guerrilla group was a "Falangist" organization. They go so far as to cite a book by historian Donald C. Hodges to justify this supposed fascism, hiding the fact that in that very same book, the author clarifies that it is WRONG to conclude that revolutionary Peronism had a fascist inspiration [93][94][95]. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, and WP:CHERRYPICKING.

In the case of the polish Zmiana, they label this pro-Russian party as "national-communist" using a source that applies that term solely to its leader (and ambiguously so). Furthermore, they attribute to it the ideology of "socialist patriotism" based on a simple opinion blog recounting a personal conversation in a prison. It is a distortion that violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.

In the argentinian Homeland Force, they systematically manipulate sources to caricature the entire coalition as a far-left, Chavista, and pro-Russian option. Forelli claims that the coalition declares the IMF a 'national enemy', but he cherry-picks an isolated phrase from the article mentioning that the coalition labeled the IMF a 'public enemy' in its campaign rhetoric. However, they deliberately conceals that the author details how the coalition's presidential candidate and Minister of Economy (Sergio Massa) was proactively negotiating an agreement with the IMF and portraying himself as a successful negotiator before the organization. They crops out half of his own source to present a caricature of the party, committing a violation of WP:BALANCE. They claim the coalition rejects UN reports on human rights violations in Venezuela and Nicaragua, which is factually false: the government of that coalition voted in favor of the Bachelet report. Likewise, they maintain that the coalition rejected a statement against Maduro's electoral fraud, but they hide the fact that their own source points out that the coalition demanded the publication of the voting records. They label the entire coalition as Chavista, ignoring that key figures within the space (such as Sergio Massa) have positioned themselves completely against the Venezuelan regime. On the other hand, they claim the coalition seeks to maintain "normal relations" with Russia based on an official link about a routine meeting of the "Parliamentary Friendship Group with Russia" .Elevating a protocol meeting—which parliaments in many countries hold—to an "official stance" and hiding the fact that the coalition's foreign minister officially condemned the invasion of Ukraine at the UN is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH. Finally, they assert that the coalition tried to impeach the president for declaring Iran a national enemy, based on a complaint by a single deputy from a marginal sector (WP:UNDUE), and they use an isolated statement by Jorge Taiana to pin a Chavista stance on an entire multi-class coalition (WP:COATRACK).

In the polish Law and Justice, they have fabricated a false consensus to label the party solely as "right-wing," omitting the numerous academic articles that classify it as far-right. On the talk page (See talk page under the "Far-right" and "Zictor's edits" sections.), when presented with irrefutable sources (Routledge Handbooks), the user ignores them, demands unrealistic levels of absolute consensus, and saturates the page with massive walls of text to exhaust others, preventing any collaborative resolution (WP:BLUDGEON).

And in the argentinian Renewal Front, they deliberately impose the "center-left" label through the use of duplicate sources and citation bombing (WP:CITEOVERKILL), despite the fact that none of the sources actually states what they are trying to support. It is a direct falsification (WP:VERIFIABILITY).

This complaint is not a simple whim. I am demonstrating a pattern of biased editing and source falsification by a user who aims to distort Wikipedia's content and is fully aware of their actions. These are not rookie mistakes; they are deliberate policy violations. I request a proper review of the situation, as these types of profiles—who edit maliciously but under an appearance of formality—represent one of the greatest dangers to the integrity of this encyclopedia. ~2026-41143-74 (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

<< Incoming LLM warnings >> ~2026-42312-97 (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

OK this text wall is a bit difficult to parse so I just started with one of the first claims: this article is cited to claim this group is communist. I don't speak Polish so I had to read a translated version but the translation did not contain anything that remotely suggested the group is communist. @Brat Forelli would you please be so kind as to explain how this article supports that assertion? Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It does also appear that the Falangism reference in this diff is WP:SYNTH though the rest of the edit seems fine. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand this edit uses multiple citations that, if quoted accurately, do support the claim. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

That is not true. None of the sources refer to the party as communist, and a critic's opinion is completely unreliable. ~2026-41143-74 (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

And this edit likewise is well-supported. TA, I'd suggest you be more parsimonious with your complaint rather than throwing a plate of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. There are a few items here, on the polish side, that seem dubiously sourced. However these issues seem far more isolated with the Argentinian material. I'll note that while I cannot read Polish, Spanish is my fourth language and I can muddle through news articles and brief quotes in papers in Spanish without machine translation assistance so, if anything, I'm more confident in the Spanish material than the Polish. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

While removing 'syncretism' is justified, adding 'center-left' is not, as there is no reliable source to back it up. Not a single source categorizes the party that way; they only superficially apply that label to Sergio Massa. There are no academic articles supporting this, only news pieces ~2026-41143-74 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'd suggest you re-read the sources there. Several sources referred to the party as centre-left. I read them myself. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not wish to question your track record as an editor of this encyclopedia, but if you believe these sources are reliable, I don't know what else to say. None of the sources support the centre-left label, they only describe Sergio Massa as a centre-left politician. ~2026-41143-74 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not the only claim I have made; I have documented the same pattern of biased edits across 5 wikepedia articles. Have you been able to review them all? ~2026-41143-74 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

You're managed to read the whole article? It's paywalled for me, only a short preview available. ~2026-42312-97 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not a very challenging paywall to deal with so, yes, I did read the whole article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It is a secret know-how involved? It doesn't solved at least by trivial ways (page source or archive), is it possible to read somewhere how to deal with more challenging blocks like this one? Ignore if inappropriate, please. ~2026-42312-97 (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be a repeat of an ANI thread made yesterday by this user, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Systemic source falsification, WP:NONENG violations, and disruptive editing. They were asked to, if they would like, to re-file this report in their own words and with proper evidence, but instead this is another AI-generated text that repeats the same accusations made before. I was also again failed to be informed that there is a report that involves me. ANI notice, please.

Firstly, I want to ask - why does the author feel the need to make an ANI? There was never a thread on talk page on Zmiana, Prosperity and Peace Movement, Montoneros, and so on that questions my edits. Neither has anyone sought to contact me about this on my talk page.

As for the articles and my edits discussed here, I will make a collapsible briefly explaining myself:

Extended content

Prosperity and Peace Movement: I disagree that Polityka can be considered of dubious. The reason why I used this article is because, apart from Polityka being a mainstream Polish newspaper, it includes a mention that a party activist has complained that the party is called communist. Thus I do take it as evidence for such characterization of the party. I do not consider this an extraordinary claim given that the party's founder and leader made a couple of communist statements that are detailled in the Ideology section.

Montoneros: A simple point I would like to make - I do describe Donald C. Hodges's views on Montoneros, including his disagreement with characterizing them as fascist, in the ideology section, especially at Montoneros#Right-wing influences. I do consider it helpful, however, to include both the views of Hodges and the proponents of the opposite whom he cites, which is what I did. If the complaint is that including "Falanism" in the infobox is WP:UNDUE, I am willing to have a discussion about this, but I want to highlight that there are other sources that connect Montoneros to Falangism which, again, I included in the Ideology section.

Zmiana: Plenty of sources that call the party communist, anti-capitalist, and far-left, as included in the article. I have nothing else to say.

Homeland Force: By no means did I mean to 'caricature' the organisation as anything. I have added (admittedly, a bit too many, but given this accusation now, seemingly justifiably so) numerous sources that call the alliance centre-left & left-wing. As for the accusations, such as "they claim the coalition rejects UN reports on human rights violations in Venezuela and Nicaragua", this is a sourced statement (with a quote included) and not my own claim. I also do not see how I portrayed the party as a "pro-Russian option". It appears to be neutral on this matter.

Law and Justice: I stand by the statements I made to Zictor, apart from the fact I regret getting too heated or WP:BATTLEGROUNDy during such discussions. That being said, I produced, both in the discussion and in the article itself, numerous sources which describe the party as centre-right instead, and sources that explicitly argue that the party is not far-right. These sources are also used in Far-right politics#Poland.

Renewal Front: I do not understand the accusation. Have I duplicated the sources? If so, have I done so deliberately? What is meant by "citation-bombing"? How do the sources for centre-left not support the claim? If the issue is that they mostly refer to Massa rather than directly to the party, this is also the case for the sources for centre and centre-right as well (an example, Argentina: End of the Kirchner era?", which simply states "Politicians like centre-right Sergio Massa now appeal to middle-class families who feel disillusioned with the government's handling of the economy.") I will add that, I believe, none of the sources for centre-right were added by me.

Lastly, I want to add that throghout 2024 and 2025, I have been harassed by a blocked Argentine user who made whack-a-mole sockpuppets and took a couple of range IP blocks to deal with. The whole saga is detailled on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Holiptholipt/Archive. Is this a continuation of it? I don't know, only a sockpuppet check could confirm that, but these cannot be performed on IP users (only on registered users, I believe). What I find questionable, again, is that this AI-generated ANI report is created instead of seeking any kind of dialogue with me first. Brat Forelli🦊 19:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks, or it doesn't get read. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Temporary user - you need to put a blank line between your paragraphs for them to come up as paragraphs, not just a line single linebreak. Morwen (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

References

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