Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, (un)deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{subst:RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice|thread=}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	117	0	117
TfD	0	1	12	0	13
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	6	10	10	0	26
RfD	0	0	130	0	130
AfD	0	0	8	0	8

• 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 14 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 9 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 sockpuppet investigations
• 18 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 26 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 23 requested closures
• 49 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 6 Copyright problems

Disruptive collapse of RFC via inaccurate AI detectors on Talk:Reform UK

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

---

An RFC I started regarding the infobox's political position parameter on Talk:Reform UK was unilaterally collapsed by an editor based entirely on a false accusation of using LLMs. The editor who closed it appears to have acted out of impatience because I didnt reply to their question immediately, completely bypassing the usual 30 day minimum timeline for rfcs. They claimed my source were "fictitious" and "hallucinated", right off the bat personal attacks, the sources I sent were all real, he picked out one titled "Reform UK: Populist Radical Right on TikTok" published & hosted by the Barcelona Institute of International Studies (IBEI) through Mas Poder Local. Clicking the link literally downloads the research PDF, his whole accusation was triggered entirely by a small formatting which I've since fixed and even then you could still click on the link and download the pdf despite the formatting error! Another editor (Finfixer) has already engaged with the RFC and noted that a "speedy close is premature", I asked the Sirfurboy to uncollapse it, he ignored me and it remains collapsed, using flawed third party AI detectors to falsely accuse me and aggressively close a policy discussion because of I took a while to respond violates WP:TALK. Basically what I'm asking is for an admin to review the sources validity and uncollapse the RFC so the community can discuss WP:NPOV & WP:LABEL on their actual merits. Thanks Magapetro (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Magapetro, you are required to notify Sirfurboy of this discussion. I have done so for you. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Magapetro First of all, your comment was collapsed but the RfC is still active and open.

Secondly, tbe RfC should be closed, because it only rehashes points that were already addressed in the RfC which already established the use of the term to begin with. I know, becauss I closed it. Not to mention somebody else made an RfC about the exact same topic just a few days ago which was also closed. Athanelar (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This refers to . I only added the first hatting. It doesn't require administrator action to revert my hatting of what, to me, is clearly AI assisted text in a malformed RfC from an editor who did not respond to questions, both about sources, and about whether an LLM was used. The LLM use is not a matter for here as it is already an arbitration enforcement request . I used Pangram only as confirmation of my existing suspicion this was AI assisted text. The lack of sourcing, the non-specificity, the red linked page and other issues led me to believe it is LLM generated, and this especially as it followed hot on the heels of a previous such LLM attempt on the same question. The RfC, being unworkshopped, is unhelpful as it is asking the wrong question. But if anyone thinks that may not be LLM generated text they need only revert the hatting. I would not edit war it back. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Magapetro, if you're not using an LLM can you explain why you've been unable to support the claims you've made? The last RFC closed at the beginning of March 2026 having been opened in January. You stated "Well, the current infobox descriptor was established during a previous RFC based on the balance of sources available at that time, since then significant shifts in academic & editorial discourse by major public service broadcasters so there needs to be a review of this label". You later provided 5 sources to support this claim. Two of them are dated 2024. One of them is dated 2025. And I'd note quite a few 2025 sources were used in the RfC. One seems to be for the term 24/25 and isn't even an RS anyway (BSc dissertation). The only source which was sort of after the RfC is this one and even that is dated January 2026 so most likely was available before the RFC closed. So I don't see where you've provided any evidence for significant shifts in academic & editorial discourse by major public service broadcasters since early March 2026. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

As you can see on the journal's cover, the paper "Populist Radical Right Communication on TikTok: The Case of Reform UK" by Ivan Sanchez Maranon (IBEI) was accepted and published in January 2026 through mas poder local and because the last RFC was in January 2026 and closed in March 2026 this peer reviewed source was impossible to comprehensively factor into the last consensus. Also, you're correct actually, the Bristol source is an undergraduate student source, I concede on there, I'm striking it as soon as I click send on this response but it doesnt diminish the validity of the LSE studies and my broader arguments. My reference to LSE also uses analysis by Professor Tim Bale titled "It's a mistake to call Reform UK 'far-right'" even though it's in blog format it meets WP:RS/WP:BLOG as its the from an established expert in British politics, and its further reinforced with the August 2025 LSE iq podcast ("How is the far right shaping our future?"), the transcript says "Nigel Farage leads Reform UK - a populist radical right party". Anyways where am I going with this because I've said alot, all these publication timestamps, audio transcripts, authors, institutional affiliations and me voluntary removing a non-RS source proves the "hallucination" narritive attempting to be created is wrong. Now since Sirfurboy has said that he wont edit war over the hatting and that others may revert it, Ill uncollapse it. Not sure if anyone else in the reform uk talk page is reading this but I would ask the community to focus on the January 2026 IBEI source. Thanks Magapetro (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If the source significantly changed things it likely would have factored into the RFC. There's no reason to think it would not have. It didn't because a single source would not when there are so many other ones. So you've presented no evidence of this massive change that you're alleging happened. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This user is currently at WP:AE#Magapetro, and they've been using LLMs to write articles as well. from Sep 2025 has markdown. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You're completely misinterpretating the diff, that edit is an example of a raw manual copy paste of a biography/CV's text into the article, an LLM generating a wiki article is gonna write a standard, flowing encyclopedic prose under sections, it doesnt format an entire life history as a rigid list of bullet points starting with manual asterisks and it doesnt dump raw & unformatted external URLs & contact data into the article. That layout is the result of a me when I just started out, copying text from a profile and pasting it directly into the article. Trying to weaponize a normal unformatted data paste from a year ago as "proof" of llm use is completely baseless and a bad faith attempt to influence my unrelated AE case Magapetro (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Your reply makes almost no sense. What you're talking about has nothing to do with what's shown in the diff. If you're not using LLMs a competence block is likely required because you keep saying stuff which makes no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd add that if you were posting some random profile from somewhere this is even more serious since it would almost definitely be COPYVIO. Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

i'd appreciate it if you could assume good faith & stop the hostile escalation, when I said I was copying from a profile when I first started out, Im referring to compiling a list of raw, non-copyrightable biographical facts (like educational dates, employment titles & public contact information) from a public cv, it wasnt a verbatim copy paste of creative prose or protected sources so its not WP:COPYVIO. As a brand new editor back in September 2025 I formatting dumped those raw notes directly into the article with the intent to clean them up later. It was an editing mistake I made back then while learning wiki, its got absolutely nothing to do with llms Magapetro (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Again this is nonsense. Anyone looking at the diff can see that's not what is shown. If you were just using LLMs you could just stop but since you are not doing so but are instead just talking nonsense yourself I don't see any hope but for an indef block or community site ban. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If that it took to dig up almost a year back for a proof of a usage, it could be read as if they're stopped it already. ~2026-42875-09 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

As said, if they're not using LLMs now this is far worse since it means they're now just talking nonsense by themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Obvy WP:BOOMERANG User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Magapetro (talk · contribs) indefinitely for LLM misuse and for denying the full extent of their LLM misuse when the issue was raised. See also the AI noticeboard discussion and the AE noticeboard request. — Newslinger talk 01:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

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

User:BHARATHP2001 repeatedly editing with misleading edit summary

BHARATHP2001 (talk · contribs) have a history of leaving edits with very misleading edit summary. The last one is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sadie_Sink&oldid=1367146191, where they re-inserted an AI upscaled image, contravening Wikipedia's policy against AI upscaled image in the mainspace.

Other edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Pugh&diff=prev&oldid=1367146324
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zendaya&diff=prev&oldid=1367145880

I've had a look at the history, and while they have been warned before, the user keeps adding edits, such as changing the infobox images, with "fixing typo" edit summary. The user has been blocked before. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked them for two weeks with a warning that if they resume this pattern they'll be indefinitely blocked. Fences&Windows 22:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep a close eye on this as their talk pages have been littered with level 4 warnings. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

His Wikimedia Commons talk page is also littered with numerous copyright violation notices, culminating in a block around 2 weeks ago. Alexanderino (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Block Review, Edittttor

I have just blocked Edittttor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (hereafter, Ed to avoid typos) for two months and am bringing this here for several reasons:

• the user and I have a mild history as I was the one who removed their EC status.
• I think two months might be too lenient, but they've only been blocked once for one month.
• There is indication of a COI, which I have reported to COI/VRT queue.

On the block. For a relatively new editor in terms of edit count, Ed has spent some time in the weeds of complex and contentious topics for which they have been sanctioned:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive366#Edittttor
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive370

Our core responsibility as admins is to living people about whom we write. Ed appears to be unable to neutrally edit about living people without allowing their agendas to be present.

• They are advocating for and promoting (as in visibility via GA, not necessarily promotion-although I see that too) Abdul El-Sayed] while editing in a way that detracts from Stevens, El - Sayed's opponent. This is something @RoySmith brought up at Template:Did you know nominations/Abdul El-Sayed citing NPOV.
• This follows a similar pattern of editing with respect to Donavan_McKinney and their opponent, Shri Thanedar.

Immediately upon the conclusion of their block, Ed reinstated an edit on Melissa DeRosa about which they'd been edit warring and warned.

Please let me know if anything else is needed. While I feel confident in my block, I am always open to more POVs. If a reduced block comes into play I believe at minimum they should be topic banned from American politics and or BLPs. Star Mississippi 00:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Looking at those contributions, any unblock would need a tban from US politics, BLPs, and Israel/Palestine. And re-revoke ECP. But... has anyone else noticed how we block people much harder when they add sources and quote policy? If he was a run of the mill vandal, a two month block would be seen as extraordinarily harsh. But yes this is certainly someone with a political agenda who hasn't learned from lesser sanctions so yes I do think they should be blocked.—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remember that a block is not supposed to be a punishment. The reason we have escalating blocks is to give editors the time they need to reflect, and to avoid disruption. If we can "get through" to Ed, then the block is no longer required. Since they have done well with referencing and other matters this should not be beyond them. If it is, appropriate sanctions (possibly per S Marshall above), will be required. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC).
  
• While the pattern you point out is problematic, a two-month block out of the blue seems overboard absent an actual COI. Maybe you have proof that Ed is actually connected to these candidates in some way, but to me he appears a overzealous editor and that can be addressed in other ways like a topic ban. Jessintime (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

There is also several more instances as well.

Pennsylvania-3:

Chris Rabb (progressive): [14]

Ala Stanford: [15][16]

Sharif Street: [17]

Texas 30:

Frederick Haynes III (progressive): [21] [22]

Barbara Mallory Caraway: [23]

Illinois 9

Laura Fine: Talk:Laura Fine is easier to just link

Daniel Biss: [24]

Kat Abugazaleh (Most progressive): [25]

After returning from their block, Edittttor continued the pattern with William Lawrence (activist) (DSA, Edittttor created article) and Bridget Brink (Lawrence's primary opponent).

Edittttor edits to the Brink article changed her stance about Ukraine to be the "U.S. State Department's Stance on Ukraine", downplayed her responsibilities as ambassador, added information about Brink owning several million dollar houses outside the district, and removed that part of her reason for resigning as ambassador was disagreement with Trump, specifically only emphasizing tensions with Ukraine. .

The most glaring issue was that the lead had been changed so that appointed by Donald Trump was mentioned before any of her ambassador titles. I changed the lead to be more neutral ], and was reverted. , saying that Ambassadors to Ukraine usually had the appointing president listed. I reverted back , saying that None of your examples lists the appointing president before the position. The lead I wrote for Brink is similar to that of other ambassadors in both the Trump/Biden admins, before listing some examples. Eventually, the outcome was that Edittttor still had the appointing President information in the lead, but not before the position itself.

Meanwhile, for William Lawrence, he received criticism for a remark he made on a podcast, which Edittttor changed to "received news coverage". .

As for Melissa DeRosa, they reinserted 3500 bytes with the following edit summary: re-added info to provide WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE since this article was recently whitewashed.

The whitewashing allegations were first made back in April. Edittttor had added a 4,000 byte "Criticism section", which another user later removed for violating WP:NPOV . [A few days later, regarding a different section of the article, another user added a brief mention of a report, with that user saying that not mentioning it was whitewashing . Edittttor, combining that one specific example from that article, along with a talk page message from an IP 4 years ago , re-added their 4,000 byte criticism section, and wrote that Several editors have commented on the white washing on this page, so please post specific issues to Talk page before reverting again ). EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I came across Edittttor's work at DYK and I agree fully with Star's and EaglesFan37's assessments. Whether there's a conflict of interest or not, Edittttor's editing is entirely slanted toward highlighting positive elements and minimizing negative elements about candidates on one side of a political divide, and minimizing positive elements and highlighting negative elements about candidates on the other side. Edittttor is clearly engaged in WP:ADVOCACY, whether a COI is present or now. In the context of ongoing, high-profile primary and general elections, a two-month block is preventive by minimizing the disruption to the project. However, a topic ban on U.S. politics, BLPs and I/P, appealable after six months, would likely have the same preventive effect while allowing Edittttor to rebuild the community's trust in other areas of the project. Their edits are fine from a technical point of view and I believe they can be an asset to the project if they can stay away from areas where they cannot edit neutrally. If they can't stay away from those with a topic ban, then an indef would be in order. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

On seeing evidence of Ed's multiple failures of source/text integrity and deeply incorrect citation of ABOUTSELF, I need to correct my comment about their edits being “technically fine” and say I think an indef is appropriate to protect the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Endorse block. While a series of topic bans could similarly curtail disruption, the sanction would be so limiting and labyrinth that a block is almost a lesser sanction. their reply on their talk page here only convinces me that a sanction is necessary. Specifically the line here:

Shri Thanedar: Criticism by state senator Darrin Camilleri sourced solely to a tweet. Yes, and it is properly attributed in the article "State Senator State Senator Darrin Camilleri posted on his official Twitter account...".' This is in line with WP:ABOUTSELF. What's the problem?

makes it clear that this editor does not have the understanding to comply with WP:BLP (or WP:RS for that matter) or the will to. In either case, a sanction is necessary to prevent further damage to the project. Katzrockso (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

New details, indef block review

Because of my specific background, I regularly read some of the pages involved and was already familiar with this user but never paid much attention. After spending time analyzing many of Edittttor’s edits and checking the accuracy of their citations, I found several useful clues and insights that may contribute to this discussion. Robert Granieri — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1341154663, 1 March 2026. A new section, still live:

• 1. "Granieri's backing allowed the men to purchase Stinger missiles, grenade launchers, machine guns, and more than 3.5 millions [sic] rounds of ammunition." No weapons were ever acquired — the sellers were undercover federal agents. The source cited beside the sentence, Sudans Post, says the two men "attempted to illicitly purchase" them. The Justice Department's 2024 charging announcement says they "sought to illegally purchase weapons … from undercover law enforcement agents", and its February 2026 announcement quotes the U.S. Attorney saying "the plot was thwarted". Both men pleaded guilty only to conspiracy counts.
  2. "In 2024, the two men were sentenced to 3.5 years in prison." Sudans Post gives 46 months for Peter Biar Ajak in February 2026 and 41 months for Abraham Chol Keech in December 2025. 2024 is the year of arrest.
  3. "Since 2023, Granieri has donated more than $5 million to Super PACs …, most to pro-Israel groups such as United Democracy Project." Only $250,000 of the $4,455,000 on the cited OpenSecrets page went to United Democracy Project, the only group the sentence names — 5.6%, or 6.7% adding $50,000 to the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund. The rest went to Congressional Leadership Fund, House Majority PAC, Women Vote! and similar committees.

Shri Thanedar — three, all still live in the "Public image" section:

• 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1344821013. The footnote reads, in full: In a message endorsing Thanedar's primary challenger in 2024, Jocelyn Benson said "I think Shri has a very big heart. But this is about the work." The cited HuffPost article attributes no words to Benson and names her once, as one of Adam Hollier's supporters; the quotation appears in a passage whose only attributed speaker is former Rep. Brenda Lawrence. The footnote carries no citation of its own.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1344867506. Criticism by state senator Darrin Camilleri sourced solely to a tweet. Every other critic in that sentence who is cited at all is cited to independent reporting — Rashida Tlaib to Business Insider, and Brenda Lawrence, Adam Hollier and Warren Evans to HuffPost.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1344827131 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1344839495, ninety minutes apart. He wrote "About 170 dogs and monkeys were rescued", then returned and inserted "55", producing "About 170 dogs and 55 monkeys". HuffPost gives about 170 as the combined total; the sources beside it give 118 dogs and 55 monkeys. The edit raises and changes the figure the sentence states from about 170 to about 225, where the sources support 173. All three are in one edit, all three are still in the article while two of them do the same

negative influence — his money "purchased" weapons that were never acquired, and 6% of his donations became "most".

Bridget Brink has been mentioned above for how her resignation was framed; this is a different edit. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1363212575 Edittttor added the clause "This led to Zelenskyy pressuring for her to resign" to the paragraph about her translation of a Rubio message. The CNN report he cites — "Pressures from Kyiv and Washington led to US ambassador's resignation, sources say" — attributes the Kyiv-side pressure to Zelensky's office and to his chief of staff Andriy Yermak, nowhere says Zelenskyy sought her resignation, and dates the friction earlier, to Biden-era weapons decisions and her anti-corruption work. It is still there, and sits inside the passage Edittttor rewrote three days later — the edit EaglesFan37 cites above — whose opening sentence is a fragment with the typo "cricism".

Darializa Avila Chevalier — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1356771193, 29 May 2026, where Edittttor wrote "Abdikadir Mohamed Felt, a Somali immigrant caught up in President Trump's 'Muslim ban'". The cited Intercept piece very precisely rules the ban out as the reason he was detained: he "had received his U.S. visa before the measure had come into effect …" and was flagged, after clearing immigration, by CBP's Tactical Terrorism Response Team. The same sentence turned a verb into a surname — the source opens "Abdikadir Mohamed felt nervous as he approached the customs desk". Another editor later softened "caught up in" to "affected by", so the article now reads "Abdikadir Mohamed Felt, a Somali immigrant affected by President Donald Trump's 'Muslim ban'". The madeup surname was kept and it untouched, and now remains there in a paragraph about "Abdikadir Mohamed's encounter".

Waleed Shahid — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1353472905, still live: "In 2016, Shahid became the communications director for Justice Democrats, an organization formed in 2018." Here we have 1 sentence, 2 incompatible dates. Justice Democrats launched in January 2017, and the New Yorker mag Editttor cites one sentence earlier places his arrival at the merger in August of 2017.

Barbara Mallory Caraway - this diff - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1339335372. The source reads "he had actually called the police chief because, he explained, his wife was chasing him with a kitchen knife". The attribution was dropped on purpose I guess, so the husband's account of why he called the police now reads like an established fact about her.

Varshini Prakash — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1352374537 : "Prakash edited the book written by Girgenti", where the Publishers Weekly citation in the same sentence reads "Edited by Varshini Prakash and Guido Girgenti".

Shenise Turner-Sloss — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1303406898. The Dayton Daily News says "She said they were responsible for getting the city to approve its first-ever housing policy framework" — she and fellow commissioner Darryl Fairchild. He changed it to "She was also responsible". The same edit dates a March 2024 levy to 2025 and calls it "eventually successful".

These two are not from American politics, and they are not recent. Both are from October 2022. The White Terror (Spain) was the mass killing of civilians by Franco's forces during and after the Spanish Civil War. Saying that a bishop helped drive it is a serious charge. At Isidro Gomá y Tomás (Special:Diff/1115431184) Editttor added the words "and contributed to the fervor of White Terror" to a sentence about a speech Gomá gave in Budapest in 1938. The only source on that sentence is a page from spainthenandnow.com. That page does discuss atrocities by Nationalist forces, but I cannot find the phrase "White Terror" and it never says Gomá contributed to any of it. The charge is the editor's own conclusion, written as though the source had made it. It is still in the article. During that same day, at Manuel Arce y Ochotorena (Special:Diff/1115433299), he added the only Spanish Civil War material that article has. It is an anonymous account, introduced as "A witness to Ochotorena's actions during the White Terror". The witness is then quoted with such citations: "Many priests acted very badly. The bishop of Zamora in 1936 was more or less an assassin – I don't remember his name." The witness says plainly that he cannot name the bishop. The sentence around the quote names him anyway. The source does not name the bishop, it's SYNTH. This is still in the article too for nearly four years. Whatever is going on, it is not limited to American politics.

Why I think this needs more than another timed block? Each of these edits looks perfect, carrying a real, correctly formatted citation, so nothing looks wrong on the page until you check every source or citation. And there we find mistakes, manipulations, etc. Over revealed mistakes like made up surname or facts manipulatins or original research are still live. The user in question was formally warned at AE in February to stay out of WP:CT/PIA until extended-confirmed, had extended-confirmed removed a fortnight later for what the removing administrator logged as "potential gaming, DE"; was blocked one month in June under arbitration enforcement for repeated ECR violations; and was blocked two months on 28 July for disruptive editing.

Based on all the evidence, I would support an indefinite block. I also think, if the community chose a topic ban on Edittttor, it should prohibit them from editing any content related to politics or biographies of living persons worldwide. Pathtrodder (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What is the original account you edited under? Katzrockso (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a fairly damning assessment of a routine lack of source-to-text integrity, though Pathtrodder obviously being an undisclosed sock account isn't great. Fences&Windows 14:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

+1, not the best look for Pathtrodder but the case for multiple TBANs at minimum (if not an indef) is a strong one. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Even without Pathtrodder’s comment, the repeated WP:Advocacy and making false claims/making misrepresentations (see ECR/GA dispute on their talk page) in their unblock request should be enough for an indef at this point. EaglesFan37 (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a violation of WP:PROJSOCK and should be struck out and discarded from consensus. Katzrockso (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Fuzheado LLM articles in mainspace

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

---

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

While Fuzheado is an admin, my issue is not with abuse of admin tools but with editor actions and abuse of autopatrolled. This was raised at WP:AINB#Fuzheado; I summarize here but encourage readers to look at the whole thread.

Fuzheado admitted creating at least 10 articles, 8 in mainspace, using a custom LLM tool . Three more were found in mainspace later . Most disclosed LLM use in the edit summary but at least one, Aid Refugee Chinese Intellectuals, did not .

Fuzheado responded to the AINB case with: the new NOLLM page is a guideline and not firm policy. As such, we should have latitude for experiments from users with a deep track record who steer clear of poor-quality copy/pasted LLM-generated hallucinations. However, there were malformed sources and source/text mismatches in every article examined .

Fuzheado then said I take the blame and will delete the articles or resolve them individually. The writing and fact checking done by a combo of a custom Gemini AI LLM and deterministic code (python) shows promise in notability determination but even with my oversight they fall short of being ready for article production. He published articles which he knew, or should have known, were both violations of WP:NOLLM (WP:NEWLLM for older articles) and too flawed for mainspace.

Once the non-disclosed article was discovered, Fuzheado was asked to disclose and userfy any remaining LLM articles on June 23 , repeated June 25, repeated on his Talk page July 11, July 28. There has been no response. While all affected articles may now be userfied, confirmation is needed. I understand he was busy with Wikimania but this request has been pending for over a month, and he has edited enWiki during that time.

I ask for three actions:

(1) Fuzheado's autopatrolled status to be revoked.

(2) Fuzheado to provide a list of all his LLM generated articles, or clearly state that there are no more.

(3) Fuzheado to be given a clear public warning that use of LLM to create articles is unacceptable to the community and further violations will lead to sanctions. If he believes Wikipedia's guidelines are wrong, he can undertake to change them in the usual ways.

M kuhner (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Looking at the page creations it seems only Networked geothermal is an LLM assisted creation, and it is now a redirect. I don't expect this user would now create additional LLM articles without community endorsement. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 06:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC).
  

  The creations identified as LLM-generated were userfied despite no response from them re helping with cleanup (see and User talk:Fuzheado#AINB), but there's very likely more (the first revision of Walk for Peace USA had several AISIGNS) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  When confronted, Fuzheado used the words "curtail" and "pause" but notably not "stop."

  I would have expected this user would not create any LLM articles in mainspace without community endorsement. That expectation was wrong. And I do not see a clear agreement to stop, rather than "pause." I rather expect another round when he feels the tools have improved sufficiently: to me that is a straightforward reading of the AINB thread. M kuhner (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Fuzheado was at least open about his custom LLM experimentation. I would oppose removing autopatrolled provided Fuzheado agrees not to use LLM output any further on Wikipedia outside the limits in WP:NOLLM. Unilaterally regarding himself an exception to this guideline isn't going to end well. Fences&Windows 13:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Reluctantly oppose (1), strong support (2). (1) for the simple reason that all of our eyes are on him now, and if he pulls this again I expect the pitchforks will follow extremely quickly. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive, and pulling autopatrol accomplishes nothing in my opinion. I am reluctant with this logic because I acknowledge it is treating an established editor very differently from how we treat a newbie. However, we don't do things on Wikipedia to send messages. (2) because communication is required, especially of an admin, and I would hope and expect that Fuzheado truly acknowledges that he made a mistake which wasted community time (and my tokens) instead of behaving like "sorry I got caught", which I must admit it is feeling increasingly like. Fermiboson (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with experimenting with LLMs. If you're going to do that, though, don't do it in mainspace. Do it in your own userspace, in draftspace, or off-site. By definition, I would consider LLM-written articles to require human overview. That seems inconsistent with autopatrolled to me. But if the article languishes in draftspace until someone gets around to checking it, that's fine. Who cares. If anyone finds the job of checking LLM-written articles to be boring, they can simply not do it. It's not a burden on the system. Eventually, we might reach the stage where editors can post LLM-written articles without the LLMs glitching out and people subsequently freaking out, but I don't think we're there yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Agreed with F&W, Fermiboson, and to some extent with NRP; I would only support (2) from the above. Fuzheado has already agreed not to use LLMs outside the narrow exceptions specified in the guidelines. I don't really see a need to ban him from using LLMs even for translation and for copyediting his own work. Though I will say that he shouldn't be using LLMs to draft content, not even in draftspace, due to the myriad of actual policy problems (e.g. WP:V) that this creates.
  If Fuzheado continues to use LLMs outside these exceptions, his autopatrolled right can be removed (either voluntarily or not). But we should give him some slack given that (a) he has acknowledged the issue and (b) I trust that he, as a long-term admin, can keep his word, in the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Support. Support. A sound proposal, given the facts of the matter. I appreciate that this is a celebrity Wikipedian who has performed meritorious service to the movement, but we are talking about stepping across a pretty clear red line with disturbingly little reflection. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Carrite here: Support x 3. Just to reiterate the quote above, the new NOLLM page is a guideline and not firm policy. As such, we should have latitude for experiments from users with a deep track record who steer clear of poor-quality copy/pasted LLM-generated hallucinations is extremely troubling. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support all three. With regards to Sanctions are preventative, not punitive, I should note that given they [stepped] across a pretty clear red line with disturbingly little reflection once already, and have not given an indication that they will not step over it again, these are all entirely preventative. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  What I meant is that the purpose of pulling autopatrol is that someone will take a look at the article, and I am very confident every single article creation by Fuzheado in the near future will be examined under a microscope, autopatrol or no. Fermiboson (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support all three. Fuzheado needs to show evidence of actually accepting the same rules that apply to the rest of us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support the proposals. This is an editor who thought that their status and experience gave them "latitude for experiments" outside of our policies and guidelines which were not supported by consensus. The fact that no attempt was even made to gain consensus for these "experiments" is evidence, I think, that they knew full well that they were not acting within the scope of the guideline. Wikipedia is not a laboratory, there are ways to do "experiments" and this is not the way. Athanelar (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I think you should notify the user on their user talk page with a link back here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  Fuzheado was already notified of this thread, see . Some1 (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support all 3 Admins shouldn't be treated differently than non-admins when it comes to using AI/LLMs on this project. Some1 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• I'm surprised that anyone is invoking WP:NOTPUNITIVE as a reason not to remove autopatrolled – yanking autopatrolled is just about the least punitive "sanction" possible. Unlike a block or a topic ban, or removing any other advanced permission, losing autopatrolled doesn't prevent an editor from doing anything at all; it just means that one more set of eyes will be on their article creations. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think the issue is, that he already said he would conform with the guideline now after we had gotten his attention (and he would not object to deletion of the articles) and it was not some breaching experiment, it was a continuation of his workflow that existed before the guideline existed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  Given that the articles produced by said workflows violated multiple other core content policies, LLM or no, I do not believe the second clause is of relevance. Fermiboson (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  And as M kuhner has already pointed out, there hasn't been a clear commitment to stop (just ambiguously saying that they will "curtail article creation" and "have paused"). ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support all three. Fuzheado intentially disregarded a content-related PAG that was passed with overwhelming community support. They have not been fully collaborative since this was discovered, so I believe all three suggested actions are constructive NicheSports (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support all three. The fact that we independently discovered more articles that had not been disclosed as failing NOLLM does not inspire confidence. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Comment - While the discussion has closed and I take no issue with the final result (as it is consistent with what I have previously stated that I will abide by the guideline and will fix any of the problematic artifacts), I don't want to give the impression I was ignoring the proceedings. The entire month of July was spent traveling and fully engaged in Wikimania planning and execution, as can be seen by my minimal on-wiki activity. As a member of the Wikimania steering committee, real-life event planning and post-mortem for the Paris conference took all my time and energy in July. I only returned to giving on-wiki activities any bandwidth this past week. Expecting immediate action during the summer/Wikimania period was not the best timing, but I am assuming good faith that it was an unfortunate misalignment of real-life schedules, as I was not averse to discussing the issues. Thanks for allowing me to add this coda. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that I have !voted above to keep your autopatrol, I hope you will take this as intended as a piece of advice rather than an attack - this reply, while factually true, would have been much better received had it been accompanied by compliance with item 1 in the closure. Fermiboson (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate we're all busy and we all have other priorities in life. However, Fuzheado, you have been asked since 23 June for the list mentioned in item 1 of the close. If your next edit is anything other than that list or assurance there are no such articles, I am prepared to enforce it with a block. If you say there are no such articles, and evidence of LLM use is discovered later, that can also be enforced by a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Jack and the Beanstalk

User (Gawaon) is misleadingly claiming this story to be "about cannibalism" (humans consuming other humans) despite the fact that "giants" are considered to be fictional monsters (like trolls, ogres etc.), not human beings. User in question cannot even prove their own argument to be true and is using utter speculation ("it may be a human") and lacks any serious Wikipedia credentials. ~2026-40617-46 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and thus not a matter for administrators. Please continue to discuss it on the talk page, but try to be less rude and combative. Do not edit war over it on the article. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 13:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

They are adding unsourced material. Fence127 (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed Fence127 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed? You did nothing except post a template for newbies to the talk page of someone who has been here since the Spring of 2023 when you yourself have been here for less than a month. Do not do that again. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 16:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Fence127 (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting for the record that the TA is now ~2026-42635-29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and continues to be rude and combative with their fellow editors. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 18:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@A Frantic Turtle, that TA's IP geolocates to a different continent than the OP's IP. It may be a joe-jobber. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, although judging by their recent replies to others they would be no huge loss to Wikipedia if they were also disinvited from editing here. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 00:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. I don't have time to review that user's situation fully, but if another admin wants to step in, they can feel free. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Can some admin block this battleground, not here IP? Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring on The Ecclesbourne School and related disruption on other pages. Another admin can modify the block if they feel this isn't enough, but they have clearly broken WP:3RR at least twice over on that page. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Please can we increase this to an indef? They are engaged in antisemitic (diff) and transphobic (diff) vandalism. Given previous edits like this and this, I think they have wasted far too much of our time already. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Definitely. Reverting it on their talkpage while keeping an access to it just make it looks better than it is in fact. ~2026-43504-59 (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for deleting redirect pages Fridwulfa

Hello, everyone... Please delete redirect pages Fridwulfa because it can't be fixing these double redirect issues until today. Thanks. ~2026-42424-42 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the protection as it's been 18 years and I don't see the need for it to be admin-protected. You are free to send this redirect to WP:RfD or update the double redirect. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

My Talk Page

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

---

Lately, someone has been writing strange things on my talk page; most recently, the person I believe to be the same individual hurled insults at me in Turkish. In English, it translates to: "you fucking traitorous motherfucker, you traitorous bastard." I don't even know this person. BEFOR01 (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi BEFOR01, both TA (~2026-42826-47) and User82826272762 blocked as block evasion and abuse. Bizarre behaviour as both editing Draft:Perso-Turkic war of (569–571) which I assume was the target of the messages but you have not edited that so why they started messaging you it odd. KylieTastic (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Urgent u

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

---

CSSD8183 if someone hacked me this is my username but not having my self access please check what done with this and please kindly connect to me do be project 400sst using my self and my accounts please give me reasonable answer about the matter and check CSSD8183 this still available and from where it running on H ~2026-42693-40 (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be CSSD8183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was indeff'd a few days ago for posting this type of incoherent stuff. That's why you can't edit under your account, TA-40: you've been blocked. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 15:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Request to unsalt Draft:Kisan Swaraj Sangathan

I would like to request that Draft:Kisan Swaraj Sangathan be unsalted so I can prepare a new draft.

The previous draft was rejected because the title had previously been deleted and salted. Since then, there has been substantial new independent coverage of the organisation in reliable sources, including BBC Hindi, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, ANI, NDTV, Zee News, The New Indian Express, Moneycontrol, Dainik Bhaskar and others.

I intend to create a completely new draft based only on independent reliable sources and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.

Thank you. MIT&boys (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You should appeal the salting at WP:DRV. But I would be prepared to show the best WP:THREE sources that demonstrate notability. Katzrockso (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Request to unprotect User: Spencer

OP sock blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User: Spencer fully protected his user page: 20:31, 2 September 2015 Spencer talk contribs m 9,139 bytes 0 Protected "User:Spencer" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) for absolutely no reason, but there are no edit warring, vandalism and disruptive editing, they committed wheel war, Please unprotect the user page. Ashantsey (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Why didn't you ask Spencer first? Also, why are you accusing Spencer of wheel warring? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, you haven't notified Spencer of this discussion, as is required per the instructions on this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, Spencer did not wheel war, They did not wheel war, I'm confusing with meaning of wheel war, it means administrator A protected page, Administrator B disagree and unprotect page, administrator A got angry, delete controversial page, administrator B undelete it and now, after that, two administrator were desysopped for wheel waring, so spencer did not wheel war. Ashantsey (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also the fact that you just created a link from Spencer to User:Spencer makes it puzzling to find a good-faith intent here. Morwen (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

May need perhaps a collaborate closure on this RfC discussion

I already requested a closure at WP:CR, but I'm re-requesting a closure (hopefully a collaborative one) on the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Non-free pre-death photos of deceased individual low-profile victims in articles about primarily their own deaths. Id est I think I might need probably at least two closers, especially to speed up request fulfillment. Sure, a collaborative closure has been normally used for tougher discussions, but awaiting a solo closure is much longer, IMO. George Ho (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Collaborative closures actually take longer than solo ones, as it requires finding multiple willing uninvolved editors, all of whom have to read the whole discussion and form their own preliminary opinions, then they have to present their opinions to each other and, unless they are all in agreement on every point all of them make (and don't make) they need to discuss the differences until they are in agreement. All this discussion takes time that isn't required for a single-editor close, even more so when the closing panel are in different time zones or are active at different times of day. I've expressed my opinions in the discussion so will not opine on whether a panel closure would be beneficial for other reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess we'll agree to disagree, huh? Awaiting for an uninvolved higher experienced editor to competently perform a solo closure may take days more than closure performance itself. I'd rather await lesser experienced ones performing collaborative closure, actually. George Ho (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

An RfC that may be of interest to this page

There is a new RfC that may be of interest to this page: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposing a 24-hour blackout in response to WMF actions. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

IP blocked unfairly and without any valid reason by one user citing totally false reason

IP blocked unfairly and without any valid reason by one user citing totally false reason of harassment. Give proof of harassment, it is wrong and malicious to randomly block other/new users by giving false reason. this misusing wiki by the user, such actions and motives behind it should be fairly investigated to prevent such bullying in future ~2026-42947-98 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, your temporary account (TA) is not blocked. No TA associated with this one is blocked. Presumably this is about is the three-month /32 IPV6 partial block (from article space) which affects your TA, but I'm not allowed to associate your TA with an IP. Pinging user:Sohom Datta, who made the block. Meters (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Meters, I'm going to decline to unblock here, for context on why the block was made, I would suggest reading through the block logs and associated SPI history of other TAs on this range, especially those blocked by other admins. For what it's worth, I think this TA is also a sock from the same sock farm who is trolling us. Sohom (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't advocating an unblock, just letting you know. Meters (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Request to delete redirect pages User:Cinaroot, User:Cinaroot/common.js and User:7thSon o7

Hello everyone. Please delete redirect pages User:Cinaroot, User:Cinaroot/common.js and User:7thSon o7 because all of these are fulfilling the G8 criterias. Thanks. ~2026-42424-42 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

NomanPK44 ban appeal

NomanPK44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Copied from User talk:NomanPK44#Indefinite block:

I am appealing my community ban under WP:3X and requesting consideration for an unban per WP:UNBAN / WP:SO. I accept the responsibility of what I did. I was originally topic-banned from the WP:ARBIPA area for disruptive editing and POV-pushing, I violated that ban, and after being blocked I evaded the block repeatedly using approximately 5–7 sockpuppet accounts. When that stopped working I continued evading the block through IP editing. I also want to directly address my May 2024 appeal, which was declined because I had claimed 1.5 years of no editing that was not accurate. That claim was wrong and I regret making it, I understand it damaged my credibility and gave the reviewing admin good reason to distrust anything else I said. I'm not going to repeat that mistake here. To the best of my memory my last IP edit was around mid-February 2024. I don't remember the exact date since it has been quite a while but I am sure that after that I did not engage in any editing, sockpuppetry or IP. I understand why this happened. I have had a long time away from this site to recognize that this was the wrong response. If unbanned I do not expect or ask for the ARBIPA topic ban to be lifted. I am willing to continue observing it and I'm open to any additional restrictions or what the community feels is appropriate to confirm I can edit constructively before any broader trust is restored. NomanPK44 (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support with a complete topic ban from WP:CT/SA. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support with the topic ban from WP:CT/SA and also a single-account restriction, including no logged-out editing. I think that almost goes without saying, but because of this user's abuse of multiple accounts, I think it's worth being clear. --Yamla (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm unarchiving this thread that was automatically archived. We need more voices on this than just two people. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support so long as there's a full topic ban from WP:CT/SA and only after an admin believes that NomanPK44 understands the scope of WP:CT/SA. Back when NomanPK44 was editing, they kept trying to interpret the restriction/topic ban in the most limited way possible, so there was an iterative "I didn't know that _______ applied" process. If NomanPK44 returns, we should not have to go through that whole rigamarole again. It has to be clear that dipping a pinky toe on the edge of this topic ban is a thing that will only happen a maximum of exactly one time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support In summary, this includes all the countries commonly accepted as part of South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) and everything related to those countries, "including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• @NomanPK44: could you give us an idea of what edits you would make/which areas you'd edit within if you were unblocked? --bonadea contributions talk 06:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Response, copied from NomanPK44's talk page:
  

  I will stay well away from the WP:CT/SA area as I plan to avoid any controversial topics or areas. Instead, my focus would be on general maintenance like copyediting, fixing broken/dead links, adding citations where they're missing, and general cleanup on articles unrelated to any contentious topic area. I plan to rebuild trust by doing low-key, uncontroversial work before doing anything more involved. NomanPK44 (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support with a topic ban from WP:CT/SA. --bonadea contributions talk 16:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of my revision

Please can an administrator delete my revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappearance_of_Leah_Roberts&diff=1367639169&oldid=1363230983 ? Darrelljon (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you give a reason why this should be suppressed, other than being factually wrong and unsourced? • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 20:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I read the family have requested privacy. Darrelljon (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

A reminder that Wikipedia is not censored. If the family (of either Roberts or Jose-Reyes) wishes privacy, they can contact the WMF; in the absense of that, we don't redact information simply based on something we read somewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia oversight declined by email to apply. Darrelljon (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~Jay1982theCentaur~ - NOTHERE

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

---

Could an admin please take a look at user:~Jay1982theCentaur~. The most charitable interpretation is that they're fooling around with templates. The least charitable interpretation they're wasting reviewer time on jokes. Either way, while they haven't crossed into outright vandalism, as far as I can tell, literally none of their contributions have been constructive. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You make me comments on Wikimedia’s commons not Wikipedia ~Jay1982theCentaur~ (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

"haven't crossed into outright vandalism" is rather generous of you. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see they had broken into the mainspace. Yeah, the first one is very clearly vandalism. The second, too, if that's something they made up. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• indeffed by Asilvering. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Request for deleting redirect pages Fang (Harry Potter)

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

---

Hello, everyone... Please delete redirect pages Fang (Harry Potter) because it can't be fixing these double redirect issues until today. Thanks. ~2026-42424-42 (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Note this redirect is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 August 1#Fang (Harry Potter). It is not a double redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Request to temporarily suspend!

Please keep an eye on User:12www. They have continued making fan-driven and unsourced edits despite being warned multiple times, and their editing pattern remains unchanged. Tenshi Uisu (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them from their target article for two weeks. Fences&Windows 23:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Request to reclaim old account and merge it with this one

Hello! I used to edit Wikipedia as user:Mgllama, but I couldn't seem to get into that account after not using it for a while earlier this summer. So I requested and started this new account as user:Mgllama2.

My assigned mentor, user:UtherSRG, suggested asking here if it's possible to reclaim and merge the accounts. Thanks! Mgllama2 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I am assuming you did not put an email address on your first account to recover the password, or doing so did not work for some reason. I believe that is the only way you can regain access to an account.

It is not possible to merge accounts; the closest thing you can do is post a message on both user pages stating that you lost access to the first account. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I did put an email address on the first account, but I have not been able to recover it. Mgllama2 (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Bot-generated user accounts?

Looking for some advice: I was looking at the User Creation Log and noticed that there are what appear to be bot-created accounts of the format xxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxx where x is a digit or letter. There's only 8 in the recent log, but it seems concerning. Should this be forwarded to WMF or someone else? Or is it nothing to worry about? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you give an example? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Here's the current list:

• Kesdew-sosdu5-qyvZuc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MypziM-tujhit-zijty4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BuvHyd-sezsiv-9kagmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GetrIg-bixfat-9zuqma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sirdyc-1badso-zUggez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xudme6-rakwos-pitqaN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kaqtyq-cokfyt-bErjo9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xybhi6-pavSys-mexfif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wajsuw-zuCcuc-cudhy9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That looks like bot generated YouTube account names. I don't think bots are doing this here.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 19:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@KEmel49 These are all accounts created in the last hour here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Weirdly, they don't appear to be bots. So if anyone has any fun ideas about where this person came up with this weird idea, I'm all ears. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Reminds me of this SPI. Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That does look very similar. Pinging @Ponyo: who took care of that case EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I think maybe RoySmith is taking a crack out this new batch.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I suspect there more where those came from. RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith, appears that another was created today:

• Xycnyk-nitpow-7qikQe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Don't see any others though. FlammablePizza (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If you could file an SPI report, that would make it easier to process, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

SPA, repeated opening of discussions after closing

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

I am involved as a participant of one of the many discussions this editor has opened. This is procedural, as unfortunately attempts to inform this editor of how WP:CONSENSUS works have failed.

@RKF opened a discussion on 22 June at WT:VG/S requesting assessment of the Russian site Kanobu. Much of the discussion was spent arguing the merits of whether reliability on the Russian project extends to here (which was made clear multiple times that it does not). That discussion began to loop and was formally closed as unreliable, which I feel the need to state is not common at VG/S.

Following this, another discussion was opened on 22 July, which was quickly closed. Followed by yet another on 6 August, then closed and collapsed by former admin @ferret. This should have made the message absolutely clear that the discussion was over. After a formal warning from myself today and an exchange with @Rhain. They opened a new discussion on a different site, Console Crusade, which @Vrxces pointed out lists the same game. Which immediately flagged to be as an attempt to add Nier to List of video games listed among the best, the talk page of which they've also opened numerous discussions not dissimilar to those at WT:VG/S.

This is frankly ridiculous and a waste of editor time. With only 70 or so edits, I think WP:SPA is met, alongside WP:IDHT. I propose a temporary block from Wikipedia and talk space.

I will inform @RKF of this discussion immediately after posting. As this is for the attention of admins specifically, with pretty clear evidence, I chose AN over AN/I. I have no issues with this being transferred, but I should make clear I don't intend to reply here at length as I think this is a pretty straightforward case. Thanks. 11WB 💬 15:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

how long will the block be? (I'm very sorry, it has absolutely nothing to do with Nier). RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment Another involved editor here. Looking at their edit log, they are interested in contributing to 'best of' lists for games and other media, and ask editors at WP:VG/S to support the use of the lists they have found. Some sources they have suggested have not been dismissed entirely (here and here). However, the user is generally not able to understand or apply policy and generally ignores disagreement or warnings, profusely apologises and continues the behaviour. This behavior must be viewed in context of their contributions as two temp accounts (here and here). Whilst some efforts are helpful and appreciated, this editor's activity is disruptive and time-consuming to address.

Forgiving that I don't know what is most relevant to AN, my key concerns about the behavior include:

• This user fabricated quotes that a site had an editorial policy. When asked to provide a source for several quotes I was unable to find on the site, they were unable to reproduce a link to what they said they had found.

• The user has nominated or continued to advocate for a list's inclusion and stated that's because they would like to see games such as Nier: Automata or Bayonetta 2 on the List of video games listed among the best (here and here). Unfortunately, whether intentional or not, many of the lists they have proposed or raised threads about, including Kanobu, Dexerto, Digitec Galaxus and Console Crusade, have included these games and they have dismissed later instances of this as a "coincidence". (). Whether the case or not, this creates a strong appearance the editor's motivation in this space is to platform sites that can get those games on the list.

• The user represented that their new account, which had virtually the same activity as their temp account, was their WP:BROTHER in the same discussion. This made the discussion very difficult to follow. They have since not made contributions from the temp accounts. It is highly unlikely that a new user's brother in the same thread has the exact same interest in a niche area of Wikipedia policy.

• The user tends to misrepresent or not understand how consensus works from WP:VG/S to the Talk:List of video games listed among the best. This has the appearance of attempting to force an outcome. This occurred mostly for Kanobu (we came to a consensus that Kanobu is a reliable source, Kanobu is semi-reliable and in many other places) but has also occurred for Punished Backlog (it was deemed to be situational). The user seems to recognise what they did was fabrication: I'm sorry for fabricating the Kanobu consensus.

• The user has opened and re-opened a significant number of conversations on Kanobu long after closure and settled positions from other editors. I count seven discussions (). Several efforts to warn the editor directly in these threads to discontinue this line of inquiry have fallen on deaf ears.

• The user has a pattern of opening a large number of discussions in WP:VG/S without any suggested approach expecting editors to check for them, and has been told they need to provide a view or evidence about the site. (please do some research into this website to find if it's a reliable source, i need someone to...find if the source is reliable or not, i want someone to check the reliability of the website [to determine if it's reliable at first glance], i need someone to discuss the source's reliability, i need someone to check this list).

• Despite being told not to do so twice (here and here, the editor seems to track others' contributions to pressure a reply across venues or seek to recruit other editors to participate in closed discussions: Hey Rhain, how many Simpsons episodes are you going to edit before you answer me about messaging Phediuk?, Should I go message Phediuk about this?, Can I message Phediuk?, Wait, Phediuk has come back, I might ask them about the source's reliability. This can be seen here and here, particularly on Rhain's talk page.

Whilst I recognise they have made occasional sound contributions that may suggest the editor is trying beyond a WP:SPA, I think this editor has engaged in WP:DE to these pages. I would suggest a restriction on opening new threads on WP:VG/S and Talk:List of video games listed among the best for a while, or unless they can demonstrate a pattern of constructive contributions that support discussions around source reliability in future. VRXCES (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for advice/help about problems with a user

Goodday everyone. I'm an extendedconfirmed user from Italy, my username is Junghiano. I have no choice but to edit as an anonymous user right now because, in this vacation time, I have no access to my usual device, where my password is saved, but as soon as I get back I'll immediately restart using it, this specification was owed before anything else. The reason why I'm writing in the Administrators' noticeboard is that I'm having problems with another user, Emanuele6, who's been correctly notified about this discussion and warned 3 times before I finally decided to open it. I'm not here to tell you that he's a vandal or a troll and that he needs to be blocked, absolutely not. I'm here to ask you admins if some of his actions, which I'm going to describe, are legitimate or not and, if they aren't, to suggest me what to do or, if necessary, to take direct action. I'm going to explain the background and then to list the actions which I consider illegitimate.

• Background: I deal with incorrect or improper Italian phonetic transcriptions, my edits are mainly corrections of phonetic transcriptions. Emanuele6 had never dealt with this matter before February 2026, when he started modifying a few phonetic transcriptions in a way which I don't consider correct, or at least proper. The present discussion isn't about our different points of view about this matter, so I'm not illustrating it here. Well, when I came across a pair of phonetic transcriptions edited by him, I restored the previous (stable, consensual) versions of both pages. His response was to revert these edits of mine and to scroll my contributions to find similar edits to revert massively. When I noticed that, I restored my edits. Then he wrote a message in English in my talk page to ask for an explanation. I sent him 2 emails by using the function "Email this user" because we're both Italians and I preferred to speak in our language than in English (on each Wikipedia it's advisable to avoid using different languages than the language used in that Wikipedia in talk pages). I thought he read my emails, but after a few days he reverted again all my edits claiming that he didn't receive any comment. Instead of restoring the previous versions again, I wrote in his talk page and pasted the text of my last email, inviting him to revert his edits himself. Instead, he started a discussion in Help talk:IPA/Italian entitled "On User:Junghiano's bizarre transcriptions of heterosyllabic consonant clusters (+more)" which is ongoing. This is the background, now I'll ask my questions about the attitude which Emanuele6 has been manifesting towards me since the beginning.
• Question 1: is "On User:Junghiano's bizarre transcriptions of heterosyllabic consonant clusters (+more)" an acceptable title? I don't think so, because not only he claimed that certain edits of mine are "bizarre" in the title of a discussion, but also he named "me" as if I were the only user who makes such edits while most users dealing with Italian phonetic transcriptions do (or there wouldn't be a precentage close to 99% of pages containing the phonetic transcription which he considers erroneous). I tried changing the title to a more neutral (NPOV) "On transcriptions of heterosyllabic consonant clusters (+more)" (diff) and corrected the link in the Teahouse where he added a topic to point out the discussion (diff), but he reverted me. Actually, the most proper title would be "On transcriptions of [sC] clusters (+more)" because the discussion isn't about "heterosyllabic consonant clusters" but about how to consider [sC] clusters, either heterosyllabic or tautosyllabic: inserting "heterosyllabic" in the title of a discussion created to establish if the consonants are heterosyllabic "or" tautosyllabic isn't neutral (POV). He was also invited by an autoreviewer, Marchjuly, to change the title because of WP:TALKHEADPOV ("Don't criticize in headings", "Don't address other users in a heading", "Never use headings to attack other users") in order not to risk WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PERSONALATTACK, but he didn't listen to him. So, is it possible to change the title of this discussion?
• Question 2: since the beginning, he threatened to "report" me and my edits. Well, I think that I know Wikipedia enough to say that my actions didn't break any rules unlike his. It's "he" who started modifying phonetic transcriptions and then went on reverting my edits when I restored the previous versions. If a new edit by a user is challenged by another user, the correct way to proceed is starting a discussion "while the last stable and consensual version is kept", isn't it? In this case, instead, "I" am the user who stopped restoring the previous versions, while "he" is the user who went on reverting my edits to keep "his" new version even if the discussion about the phonetic transcriptions to choose is ongoing. A pair of examples here: , , ; , , . My second question is: shouldn't the stable consensual versions previous to his edits be the right versions to keep, for the moment? Isn't "he" the user who should be reverted because his edits to stable consensual versions were challenged? So, am I allowed to restore again the versions which he edited according to his point of view about this issue?
• Question 3: it's years that I've being a Wikipedian, I've never ever had problems with any other users, even when some of my edits have been modified or even reverted, even when I discussed with them both in talk pages and via email. What's happening to me in this days is something I'd have never thought that I could experience on Wikipedia. Since I started dealing with Emanuele6 (a compatriot!), I've undergone: threats of report each time I did something he doesn't agree with (even for following the consensus diagramme); personal attacks starting with the title of a discussion opened by him (which he refuses to change and which he doesn't allow me to change, but I don't think he'd have been happy if "I" had started a discussion entitling it "On User:Emanuele6's bizarre transcriptions of tautosyllabic consonant clusters (+more)"); bad faith accusation despite WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH (here: I have sent emails "not" to speak with another Italian like me in our language but "not to be seen by administrators" (but, you know, the text is pasted on his talk page) and suchlike; I have manually reverted his edits "not" because I'm used to edit phonetic transcriptions manually (as I've "always" done, as anybody can verify) but specifically to keep "him" in the dark about these reverts; I have made a new edit in the way he doesn't agree with "not" because I found a series of wrong phonetic trasncriptions by another user among which a case of [sC] and corrected all of them including this (as I wrote on 5th August) but because I was monitoring new cases of [sC] in order to edit them (as he wrote the next day); I have not told him about a previous and thinly attended discussion where there was "1" more vote agreeing with his point of view than mine (closed with the recommendation not to start massive edits based on such a poor result, which is exactly what he's been doing) "not" because in my 1st message about our issue I thought that a long answer to his short question would be enough but again to "hide things" (including the recommendation not to start massive edits by the closing admin, which is exactly what he's been doing); and, new entry, he's not sure that I'm not the only user in Wikipedia with this opinion about the phonetic transcription of [sC] clusters (even if in the old discussion there was another user with my opinion and I wrote just "3" lines in total) because I might use multiple accounts or even edit anonymously)... Is a user allowed to talk like this, over and over again, to another user, ignoring deliberately the said "AGF"? This is my last question.

I know that this text is long, but I wanted to add as much information as possible to allow you admins to have a 360° view, and also not to be accused by Emanuele6 to have omitted something, even if I can't honestly say that I didn't forget something (or that he won't find anyways something else to accuse me). ~2026-43644-72 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is reading all of this. Try less than 200 words. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You may read only the 3 questions. ~2026-43644-72 (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

That is 883 words. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You may read the short version in the next section. ~2026-43644-72 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You could have pinged Emanuele6, in this way they will get a notification regarding this discussion. I am linking your account Junghiano for ease of navigation.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 19:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I notified him about this discussion in his talk page. ~2026-43644-72 (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Q1) The way the talk heading at Help talk:IPA/Italian#On User:Junghiano's bizarre transcriptions of heterosyllabic consonant clusters (+more) mentioned you specifically is a clear violation of WP:TALKHEADPOV. But you should look after the main matter that was brought up by Emanuele6 rather than going to edit war.

• Q2A) "Well, I think that I know Wikipedia enough to say that my actions didn't break any rules unlike his" is infact a very bold statement. Your disagreement with Emanuele6 has expanded to talk page discussion of article to user talk. you both should come out and find a middle ground. You cannot say at any point that you know more cause you are a senior editor, it's not always true.
• Q2B) This discussion is not the only discussion ongoing regarding this, you should consider prioritize that ipa talk page discussion which will make a consensus regarding your matter, till then you should keep yourself away from reverting anything to affected articles.
• Q3) That depends on intention and feeling personal attack from your POV is different from person to person.

P.S.: There is another discussion initiated by Emanuele6 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Seemingly unjustified reverts of Italian IPA transcriptions.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 19:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

1: thank you for confirming that the title is a clear violation. I'm not doing an edit war, I tried changing the title when I added my 1st reply in the discussion and then 1 just more time by explaining why in the edit summary, nothing more than this. You confirmed it's a violation, so I'm asking you if it's possible to change it to "On transcriptions of [sC] clusters (+more)".

2A: but I didn't mean that I'm more expert because I'm older or something else. I said that he doesn't know as well as me the rules of Wikipedia, in fact he broke some of them while accusing me to be the one who breaks rules. I've tried since the beginning to show a cooperative attitude, give explanations, listen to his requests about edits. He acted like I've illustrated, instead.

2B: while we wait for an explicit consensus to arrive in the discussion about Italian phonetic transcriptions, the challenged edits should be restored to the last stable version. If it isn't like that tell me.

3: that's why I'm here. I've made a list of his accusations of bad faith towards me. You admins are able to evaluate users' actions and words, so I'm counting on you for a correct judgement. As far as I can see about "assuming good faith", I think that I can say that he broke this rule more than once.

P.S.: I've replied to that discussion, just let me say that he anticipated me by opening that useless topic because there's no incident and that I made an error by assuming good faith towards him instead of opening the present topic immediately. ~2026-43644-72 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Request in short

I'm reassuming the 3 questions in this section using less than 200 words in total.

1. Is it possible to change the title chosen by Emanuele6 for a discussion "On User:Junghiano's bizarre transcriptions of heterosyllabic consonant clusters (+more)" to "On transcriptions of [sC] clusters (+more)" because of the rule "Keep headings neutral"?
2. Emanuele6 reverted a series of old edits of mine and opened that discussion about phonetic transcriptions concerning my edits: shouldn't we restore the previous, consensual and stable versions of those pages as long as the discussion in ongoing and unless an explicit consensus to keep those edits is reached? Should I restore the previous versions myself, what would happen? Should Emanuele6 revert my restorations again, what would happen?
3. Is it allowed on Wikipedia that a user is continuously subjected to threatens, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith by another user? I don't think so, but that's the attitude which Emanuele6 showed to me since the beginning (more details in the full request in the previous paragraph). Is there anything I can do to make him stop?

There, less than 190 words, I did it. ~2026-43746-11 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

User rights removal and user page protection for deceased user AussieLegend

I'm sorry to confirm that AussieLegend has passed away. Please remove his user rights and protect his user page, per the guidelines for deceased Wikipedians, like the subject line says. Condolences can go on his talk page. Graham87 (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Rights and protection is handled. Condolences. CMD (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)