Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1225

Vijay fan won't stop disruption

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

User:FactCheckerBharath has repeatedly added POVish quotation to the lead of this political article 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election despite me repeatedly telling them that cherry-picking one quote from a specific publication and refusing to paraphrase it as well is not something we do on an article's lead. The lead already summarises the commentary from all publications in a comprehensive way. But they want to add a specific BBC quotation like it's a food review. I tried getting to the root of this in the article's talk page and they refused to answer any of the questiona raised. Instead, they are only commenting on me and their viewpoint of how edit resolution "must" be achieved. Need an admin's intervention here.

Please view 1, 2 and 3 where they clearly do not address the questions I'm raising about the topic and instead stick to their assessment of me personally. Their responses include passive aggressive remarks like "You are really confused, my friend". They never explain why they want to add this flash-news-headline-y promotional quotation.

The only time they even attempt to address the actual issue is here 4, where they don't explain why they want to add that specific BBC quotation but instead stack a bunch of other citations from other publications unrelated to contentious prose in the lead.

I also asked them to go through WP:BURDEN and adviced them not to re-add the contentious prose without a consensus but they've resorted to simply restoring that prose multiple times. ℛonherry☘ 01:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Also want to add that, before this episode, User:Jeraxmoira had informed them about minimising quotations and more paraphrasing here and unreasonable reverts here, to which they responded affirmatively. ℛonherry☘ 01:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I can say you asked them, and I also think you may want to reread WP:BURDEN, which is about demonstrating verifiability and has nothing to do with resolving content disputes. Please be patient and civil with other contributors, and discuss on the talk page. They are correct that you need to work towards consensus when there is a dispute. You have not been doing that. As it happens, other editors have since agreed with your position on the talk page, so if they continue to put the quote back in, that would now be a problem. But that has only happened after you started this thread. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Asilvering for your understanding.

User @Ronherry has, from the beginning onward, made personal attacks against me by calling me “blindly sourced,” referring to my responses as “essays,” and labeling me a “political fanatic” and now “fanboy” in ANI itself. I believe this violates WP:PA and is insulting towards editor.

On 14 May, I provided substantial secondary sources from around 10 independent sources on my talk page, as requested per WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. However, instead of responding to the sources, he ignored them and stated that he was not going to respond. He then shifted to other reasons such as issues with the lead and NPOV, which I also addressed.

Again, on 24 May, he started a fresh discussion on the article talk page but ignored my previous responses and once again asked, “Where are the consequences?” and “Where is the discussion?” I reminded him of the earlier events, but as usual, he ignored my points and continued demanding responses from me without engaging with my replies.

As of today, he is still not engaging with the actual content and instead keeps moving on to new topics, making it difficult for us to reach any meaningful dispute resolution. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Please provide a diff for where you were called “fanboy” in ANI itself, because I don't see any statement of such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger, In the heading of this thread, as ‘Vijay fan.’ FactCheckerBharath (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@FactCheckerBharath: you're the one that's been trying to add WP:UNDUE content to the lead and has been showcasing the WP:BRD behavior. Something you have still not addressed in any of the talk page threads. Vestrian24Bio 10:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Vestrian24Bio, additional sources already provided on my talk page to substantiate the quote per WP:DEW. Please let me know if you have any questions. Talk page FactCheckerBharath (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@FactCheckerBharath, these conversations should be taking place on the article talk page, not yours, so that other editors interested in the article can weigh in. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Noted and updated. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@FactCheckerBharath "...additional sources already provided on my talk page to substantiate the quote". Sources need to go in the article to justify what the article is claiming. David10244 (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@FactCheckerBharath: That is not "fanboy". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger, Agreed, but still says Vijay fan. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Which is perhaps less than optimal, but (1) not a personal attack and (2) not "fanboy", which would be - and which you explicitly stated you were called. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not true. You never provided any justification to include that quotation ever. Not once. You wrote endless replies beating around the bush but never directly addressed the actual issue as shown in the diffs. ℛonherry☘ 18:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Those "substantial secondary sources from 10 independent sources" have nothing to do with the quotation that you are trying to quote directly, nor do they explain why BBC gains such special status amongst all the publications to receive such an exclusive name-drop in the lead. ℛonherry☘ 18:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

How do you came up those 10 are nothing to do with quotes, I asked you to explain it from 20 May, however you have not provided one. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What should I have to explain? I'm ready to, but it wasn't me who added the contentious prose. It was you. ℛonherry☘ 17:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ronherry, you're not going to get anywhere if you keep trying to focus your editorial dispute onto a single person. Please remember to focus on content, not contributors, and to discuss on the talk page of the article in question. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I have dropped the stick on that. I wish to keep this discussion focused entirely on the contended prose and why it shouldn't be on the article. ℛonherry☘ 18:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

ANI is not for discussion of content, it's for administrator attention to conduct. Schazjmd (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I am aware. ℛonherry☘ 22:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I tried my best to engage in a fair discussion, but they constantly dodged my questions and and that frustrated me and I could have lost my patience. My apologies. But I suggest you go through their edit history and see how they've been testing the patience of other editors as well, mostly in Vijay (actor)-related articles. This was a genuine observation of mine. It's not a personal attack when I honestly suspect an editor of being unfairly biased towards a celebrity. It's okay to be a fan, but it's not okay to let that affect your Wikipedia edits. I had reworked the article's lead to reflect a nonpartisan tone and a paragraph of journalistic commentary was also included in a summary style without name-dropping any publication, before FactCheckerBharath attempted to insert a peacock-y quotation without any paraphrasing whatsoever, alongside singling-out one publication out of a 100 publications that are cited within the article. ℛonherry☘ 18:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you give examples of they've been testing the patience of other editors as well? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Jeraxmoira - 1st notice, 2nd
• Anbarasan - 1st, 2nd, 3rd - a subsequent ANI topic, 4th

ℛonherry☘ 18:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ronherry, these are just notices on their talk page. One of them was even the contentious topic notice, which has nothing to do with an editor's conduct at all. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not fair. Again, you are calling me a fan by stating, ‘It’s okay to be a fan,’ after @Asilvering advised to remain patient and civil. I really appreciate your contribution to the article however, my concluding point is that the quote we are discussing should be included so readers can understand how social media was influenced by a party and worked towards victory. I provided a total of 12 sources, including BBC, all discussing the same topic of social media influence in the election, which had never happened before. If the editors want to make some edits to the quote, I am happy to discuss. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

BBC's comment is already incorporated, hyperlinked, and attributed in the very same paragraph, alongside other analyses from othe media outlets, comprehensively. "Political critics and journalists stated that [...] TVK's well-funded and highly organized digital campaign [...] fueled Vijay's success." A social media campaign is a digital campaign. A sensationalist quotation or an explicit mention of a certain publication are unwarranted. ℛonherry☘ 18:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Suspected compromised account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently, Orkhano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been behaving in a suspicious manner. Between 2008 and 2018 (example edit from 2018), @Orkhano has exclusively used terse edit summaries, usually in a foreign language of some kind, and most of the mainspace edits have been very small changes.

Around this time, @Orkhano went inactive. Eight years later, the same account returned to the English Wikipedia with this edit, written in fluent English with an edit summary in once-again fluent English (Create article on the Baku Flames festival, cited to independent sources. COI disclosed on user page.). A couple days later, @Orkhano began making apparently-LLM-generated edits like this contested deletion notice, this deletion review, and this conflict-of-interest notice.

Would someone with CheckUser privileges please check and make sure that @Orkhano's account isn't compromised? GrinningIodize (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

In progress. --Yamla (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

No signs of compromise. I can't rule it out, of course, but I don't think this is a compromised account. I suspect instead they are simply focused on editing about their festival, as per their WP:COI declaration on User:Orkhano. --Yamla (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Good; thanks for the check @Yamla! GrinningIodize (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The change in English proficiency/terseness is probably just due to LLM usage; a problem in itself. That edit summary 100% sounds LLM to me. Athanelar (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I concur. Also per google translate, the 2018 edit summaries were in Turkish. We might want to point them over to trwiki if they aren't competent in English. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 23:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just someone who discovered LLMs before coming back to enwiki. The checkuser findings don't surprise me and I don't think that this is a compromised anccount, but I can understand where that idea came from. Either the user needs to be convinced to stop using LLMs or gently steered to trwiki. Their 2018 edits seem to have been a net positive on the project. --gurkubondinn 00:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Duly reached out, I'll keep an eye on things to see if/when we get a response. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 03:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Good news is that they responded, bad news is they likely responded with AI. They've agreed to stop editing & I've directed them to Turkish Wikipedia. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 14:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, as long as they're not compromised and their mainspace disruptions have ended, I suppose the problem is pretty-much solved; would someone please close this discussion as such? GrinningIodize (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jamesedmondsmith7 and competence is required Issues.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jamesedmondsmith7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Almost the entire brief editing history of this new contributor (only signed up today) appears to me to fall firmly into Wikipedia:Competence is required territory. I suspect they are well-meaning, but they appear neither to understand the purpose of Wikipedia or the requirements for content, nor to be capable of communicating in any manner approaching the necessary level of comprehensibility. A few examples:

An edit to the template at the top of Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, adding text regarding something that appears to be an attempt to supply a source for some unexplained edit. The text added did nothing useful in that regard, and instead messed up the template.

An attempt to ask an entirely off-topic question regarding the UK space program on Talk:Henry, Prince of Wales

An essentially incomprehensible post to what appears to be a random contributor's talk page. .

Nonsense posted to Talk:Darwin's fox, apparently under the misapprehension that a word can only have one meaning.

Jamesedmondsmith7 has now moved on to editing articles, making a complete mess of our articles on Slash_(punctuation) and Backslash. There was also an entirely inappropriate edit (one I'd have dismissed as vandalism without the context) to an article made by a TA very shortly before Jamesedmondsmith7 signed up which I'm almost certain was by them, since it appears to relate to the edit at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, and gives the same name: I tried to encourage Jamesedmondsmith7 to cease their disruption, but since they are now disrupting articles and not just talk space, and appear unlikely to be worth further effort given their clear lack of understanding, I suggest that they are indef blocked per WP:CIR before they can do more damage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Jamesedmondsmith7 has now posted a misplaced response at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. I'll leave it for others to decide whether an apparent inability to see that they are posting in the wrong place is further evidence of the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

More talk page gibberish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I've gone through some of their edits to try and understand what's going on. They do not comprehend the contents of the articles. For example, this about Darwin's Fox is thinking that the Spanish name for the fox (zorro chilote) is instead a reference to the book on Zorro. This on Firestone station of the LA Metro Line confuses it with the non-existent city of Firestone, California. And it goes on, along with incomprehensible stuff referring to some document the user has. Indeffed for disruptive editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it gets better. Now he's claiming to be racially profiled, apparently presuming that we're psychic enough to know that he was black well before he said that he was. Ravenswing 00:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that the communication issues here are being exacerbated by the use of speech-to-text, based on their claim of being profiled on the basis of their being Jewish complaining of being called a "kite" instead of the actual slur, and would also explain the persistent use of "backsplash" in place of "backslash" and the tendency of their comments to only have punctuation at the very end. ~2026-32341-29 (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I doubt speech to text is being used: see Special:Diff/1356961233, which would be well-nigh impossible with STT. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

There have been several references to past comments and being blocked "before", which might explain things... Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 01:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AI use by User:Daniel G Rego

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Daniel G Rego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#User:Daniel G Rego. Continued infractions after warning, denies wrongdoing despite leaving an LLM response in the content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

To save reader's time, the most damning evidence - an AI's response to a prompt that was left in the original edit - has still not been explained by Daniel G Rego despite this being the first post in the thread.

Instead, we had a non-specific denial thanking Fermiboson ...for the flagging, and thanks for creating the bot to check for suspicious edit summaries.

This wasn't an edit summary and no bot was mentioned - no mention of that specific edit at all. It reads like he is using AI/LLM but feels that's ok because he's checking the output - as usual with AI-use, we never get an explicit confirmation or denial of use.

A previous concern was also not-quite-denied at the bottom of the page here, but I note that he does admit to using some sort of "bot".

These only tell us that Daniel checks his edits prior to submission and "takes responsibility" for the work - which is interesting since his phrasing is very similar to the old guidance for AI-generated editing prior to WP:NEWLLM coming into force. There is no clarity on the original source of the work.

I'm also confused by this comment, which almost reads as though he is using AI/LLM and is confirming a list of checks performed on the output?

He quotes the current guidelines on AI-use, then writes: Therefore, after the work is performed, using assistance such as: I need a final pass, line by line of my revision to this article against the latest English Wikipedia guidance, including... then gives a really long list of different policies and guidelines - switching from "I" to "you" in several places throughout the post.

Then later, another inference that AI/LLM is being used: Therefore, the article’s content, sourcing, organization, and final wording are my full responsibility.

It's all very vague and inconsistent, we're not getting a straight answer from Daniel and that's concerning. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 02:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm also confused by this comment

I think that is a prompt for a chatbot, which would also explain the switching between indicative first person and second person imperative moods. --gurkubondinn 10:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Blatant LLM + blatant lying ought to be equal a block until at least the actual human discusses this here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Twicebefore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has been making offensive, harassing, and profane all-caps attacks toward me and other editors in this AfD and on his Talk page found here. In the comments found there, he's admitted to paid editing, yet he has no COI statement on his profile. He also implied he's been blocked from Wikipedia before as well. His page Morris Monye should fall under Speedy Delete for criteria G4, G5, and G11. Thank you. -- HungryHighway🛣️ 10:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The homophobic comments here and here warrant a block on their own imho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for those comments alone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, page deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Any editor that takes issue with the fact that we have articles on LGBTQ subjects is better off not editing here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TankForeverFan and vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TankForeverFan (talk · contribs) has been warned and blocked for blanking/vandalizing in the past. They do not appear to have learned from this experience, as they have just now blanked Pretty Bitch Music, replacing it with the text This shit ain't coming out before then removing the discography section of Saweetie . I'm not sure what remedy is needed, but a past final warning and block have proved insufficient. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

They claimed they were hacked. I’ve blocked them as a compromised account and left instructions on how to reclaim access. A checkuser might be able to verify that it was compromised (or may not be able to, depending upon the timeline for the “hacking”). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Checkuser not needed yet, though. Not enough information to determine anything pending response to a Blue-Sonnet information request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

They now acknowledge that they lied about being hacked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

They've also written two AI-generated appeals, denied they're AI and started using rather offensive emojis (I'm surprised they work on here). I've told them to rewrite their appeal and knock it off, but I don't think they have the maturity to work here right now. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 14:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Needs TPA revoke as TankForeverFan is doing improper use of the user talk page while blocked. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 14:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter now, as the user is now locked ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 14:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The lock is because of the possible compromised account, but I don't think they've got any prospect of being unblocked anyway. They need to wait at least a few years before returning to Wikipedia. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 15:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup, I thought there might have been at least a miniscule chance that this editor could be turned around, but there's clearly none right now. I doubt they're even in high school yet. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep I thought that too - we were nearly there (until we weren't). Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 15:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sultan Abdul sultan's restoring of article at Orwell and I against consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Orwell and I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sultan Abdul sultan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page Orwell and I was redirected to Zulfikar Ghose as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orwell and I. A couple days later, Sultan Abdul sultan restored the article, which I reverted. This lead to a discussion on my talk page, at User talk:45dogs/Archive 1#Don't redirect Orwell and I. I assumed with my last comment they would understand what the proper procedure to dispute the result was, but they have now restored the page a third time. I do not wish to extensively edit war, so could an admin please consider partially blocking them from the page? Thanks, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I now understand. Feel free to revert it. I just saw your last comment on talk page. I have to follow proper procedure as you mentioned. Thanks for your cooperating. Sultan Abdul sultan (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That's good, but I have an other concern. Sultan Abdul sultan, are you using LLMs/AI in your editing on Wikipedia? The wording used here is a dead ringer for a LLM-generated request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

No, not at all. Sultan Abdul sultan (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

But I am worried that beginner readers of the topic will face ambiguity. Since this essay has now been included in the curriculum of many South Asian Universities as a major essay in studying English literature, it needs to be clearer for them. Sultan Abdul sultan (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Making 'things clearer' for university students is the university's responsibility. Wikipedia isn't a platform for rectifying the failures of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

As Andy said, universities are responsible for teaching their students, Wikipedia is not. The whole point of a university is to teach - if their students need to come to Wikipedia to fill in gaps in their knowledge, then the university has no business calling itself a university.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can read.

We don't prioritise articles because the subject is taught at university, they are all treated equally according to our policies and guidelines. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 02:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

if their students need to come to Wikipedia to fill in gaps in their knowledge, then the university has no business calling itself a university seems insupportable on all levels to me; maybe there’s a valid point here not being literally conveyed by the sentence? ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

If there is a valid point, rather than a mere assertion as Sultan Abdul sultan has given us, it needs to be explained. What exactly are South Asian university students missing that they need to get from Wikipedia, rather than their university? The deleted article is nothing but a summary of the essay. I would hope that if the essay was a significant part of their studies, they would be expected to read the essay itself. Why do they need a summary at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I agree but there’s no reason to be hyperbolic about that. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see it as hyperbolic if their current argument is that Wikipedia should base its work on what university's teach and that we're somehow responsible for the education of their students - university is expensive for a reason, because it goes far above and beyond anything that an online encyclopedia can (or should) do.

I stand by the point that a university who's students need to come to an online encyclopedia to gain a complete understanding of a subject they're currently being taught is not a good university. This isn't meant a slight against university education, it's validation of it.

I'll also point out that my comment was written after they reiterated the same argument several hours after Andy's response above.Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 12:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

What is "hyperbolic" about a clear statement that making life easy for some university's students is not Wikipedia's remit? I would much rather see clear statements than wishy-washy ones massaged and couched in ambiguities to spare hypothetical feelings. Ravenswing 00:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consistently adding poor sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The temp user ~2026-31930-73, has consistently added unreliable sources. (, , , ) I've already warned them four times on their talk page. (, , ) Most of the sources added are either WP:CIRCULAR violations, or they link to homepages that don't provide the relevant information added to the page. The edits don't appear to be malicious but they ignored the multiple warnings of improperly citing and added more improper citations to the page East Champaran district, the titles of the citations are also deceitful as they added a citation to the Google Maps homepage but titled it "Mehsi Location and Connectivity Data". Streetr4 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I can see many linked TA's who've edited the same articles and appear to be the same editor behaviourally, the accounts with prior warnings are:

• Special:Contributions/~2026-29580-51
• Special:Contributions/~2026-31935-85

TA-51 is the oldest, so it looks like this is unfortunately a long-standing issue - I can't see any engagement on Talk pages or with other editors either. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 02:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Considering that they were given level 4 warnings on two accounts, I think at least a temporary block should be given. Streetr4 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Handled. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverting good-faith corrections to preserve deletion rationale — Kob Fardod

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 the creator of Kob Fardod, currently under AfD and a contested CSD G15 speedy deletion request. User:Gurkubondinn cited undefined references as a deletion ground. I corrected those references twice. Both times Gurkubondinn reverted my corrections within minutes, restoring the broken references. User:Jumpytoo then filed a CSD G15 tag citing the broken references that Gurkubondinn had restored. This sequence — citing a problem, having it corrected, reverting the correction, then using the restored problem as grounds for speedy deletion — is not good faith editing under WP:GOODFAITH. I have contested the speedy deletion on the talk page with full reasoning. I am requesting administrator review of this editing pattern before the speedy deletion is actioned. The article contains verifiable citations to Burgett, Charles L. Gazetteer of Somalia (US Board on Geographic Names, 1982) — a US federal government geographic authority. XKeyse (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Additional concern: I am also raising a concern about possible canvassing. The timeline is as follows: 14:14 — User:Gurkubondinn files AfD nomination 14:38 — User:Shellwood appears and adds Somalia delsort tag — 24 minutes later 14:53 — Gurkubondinn and Shellwood exchange pleasantries about delsort categories 17:01 — User:Jumpytoo appears and files CSD G15 speedy deletion tag — a third editor joining within three hours of the original nomination Three editors from the same topic area appearing in rapid succession on a new article by a new editor, each escalating the deletion machinery one step further, warrants administrator scrutiny under WP:CANVASS and WP:TAGTEAM. None of the three has offered a single source disputing the article's geographic claims.

XKeyse (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Both times Gurkubondinn reverted my corrections within minutes, restoring the broken references. Please provide the link to these edits, 'cos they certainly aren't showing up in the edit history for me. Morwen (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Morwen You are correct. After reviewing the edit history I cannot confirm Gurkubondinn personally reverted my corrections. I withdraw that specific claim.

The issue here should be simple — providing correct cited information about Kob Fardod, a historical village that was the cradle of the Somali Dervish movement. I provided well researched citations with solid references spanning history and geography, from well known Italian and British sources who both documented the village, further substantiated by Sadler's 1899 dispatch as British representative during the rise of the Dervish movement. More sources are available if disputed.

There is no dispute on substance. My interest is to inform and to dispel ambiguity about where Kob Fardod was located between 1891 and 1901. Gurkubondinn's interest is puzzling by contrast — he had no involvement with this topic before my article. Two stubs sat untouched for years adding nothing about the whereabouts of this community. When a properly sourced article was created his response was not to correct or improve it but to remove it entirely.

It is a waste of time arguing deletion with someone who contributed nothing to the article and finds its existence bothersome. If Wikipedia is better served by deletions than by fixing and improving articles then so be it.

The Burgett Gazetteer of Somalia (US Board on Geographic Names, 1982) places Qoob Fardood at 8°58′N 46°18′E. That citation has not been disputed by anyone in this discussion. XKeyse (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The incoherent mess currently being discussed at AfD makes no mention whatsoever of it being 'the cradle of the Somali Dervish movement'. Instead it consists entirely of statements concerning its location, with almost nothing to indicate what exactly is being discussed. A collection of sources concerning the location of something-or-other is desperately poor grounds to build notability around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

XKeyse, please don't use an AI/LLM to file ANI reports. Please speak with your own words. Thanks, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Additional evidence of pattern behavior: On 31 May 2026 alone,

User:Gurkubondinn targeted three separate Somalia-related articles: Haji Sudi (restored to pre-LLM version at 13:23), Kob Fardod (AI tag at 14:10, AfD nomination at 14:14), and Wilson Hasda (AfD nomination at 15:08). All three actions occurred within two hours using identical AI-generation accusations. This pattern of targeting multiple articles by the same editor in rapid succession warrants administrator scrutiny under WP:SPA and WP:TAGTEAM. XKeyse (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@XKeyse, please provide diffs for your accusations. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Can a WP:BOOMERANG done here please? This editors contributions since 21:05, 16 May 2026 have all been AI slop. Examples: The Coordinate Confirmation The article reproduces Swayne's 1891 reconnaissance coordinates including at , G15 level user communication in , and the LLM comments here & at AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 20:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Tempblocked for LLM use. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm now aware of this thread, and will do my best to respond to any questions directed at me but will otherwise stay out of the discussion. I'll also refrain from making any edits to articles that the filer is involved with while this ANI is ongoing. --gurkubondinn 21:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

he flagged me for vandalism but i only translated [CLM] page in italian — Preceding unsigned comment added by AALoverM1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the Italian Wikipedia though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@AALoverM1, please do translations into Italian on the Italian Wikipedia, not here. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Differences between editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the past couple of days, Editor @Zefr has reacted to my edit on the Flavan-3-ol page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1356414063) by first initiating a Sock Puppet Investigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ggux) within hours of the edit and, after this had been closed, with a notice on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&section=24#User_Ggck2,_flavan-3-ol_article,_and_funding_by_Mars,_Inc.).

Without any discussion, @Zefr has decided that I must no longer edit specific articles and that I must provide a COI box. @Zefr bases this decision on the behaviour of @Ggux whom they believe to be identical with me due to the fact of similar research interests and that my account opened after @Ggux left Wikipedia (this was the main reason to raise the Sock Puppet Investigation).

Background: My edit introduced a mentioning of a large clinical trial that - in my opinion, but also the opinion of the majority of the flavanol research community - is important and noteworthy due to its scale; not many nutrition studies are conducted with more than 20,000 participants. The statement was neutral ("a study happened") and included a link to a Wikipedia page that already mentioned the study (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_Initiative#COcoa_Supplement_and_Multivitamin_Outcomes_Study_(COSMOS)).

@Zefr removed the statement as "unencyclopedic" and initiated the sock puppet investigation. I appreciate that one can have different opinions about including the study and started a WP:3O, especially as there are precedents for both - inclusion and not inclusion, on Wikipedia. So far, only @Zefr commented with a note of the Conflict of Interest noticeboard.

The disagreement - as far as I can see - is, that I believe that as researcher with interest in flavanols, I am a Subject Matter Expert as per the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy and am permitted to edit. @Zefr alleges that because I have received research funding from Mars, I fall directly or indirectly category of financial conflicts of interest. The accusation made on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard:

"It seems natural to wonder if Ggck2 is looking for the favor of further Mars funding by giving the Mars-sponsored COSMOS study publicity on Wikipedia."

I appreciate that @Zefr intends to prevent Wikipedia to be used for misleading claims, and that it is important to do so. I am also happy to follow all relevant rules and decisions to ensure the integrity of the relevant articles. However, I believe that @Zefr is biased in their assessment of my edits and my intentions, and would welcome a third party arbitration. Ggck2 (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me regardless of whether you Ggux, you clearly have a COI and should refrain from editing those articles directly. Nil Einne (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Ggck2 for disruptive editing, specifically conflict of interest editing without proper disclosure. Any unblock should be contingent on a full and frank COI disclosure on the editor's userpage, an honest explanation of any connection with User: Ggux, and pageblocks from all articles where a COI exists. Subject matter experts can edit only if they fully comply with restrictions on conflict of interest editing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ggck2 and @Ggux are most definitely the same person, based on the ORCID provided here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we know well who Ggck2 is since they've provided their full name etc. The questions is whether we know who Ggux is. Unlike with the current Ggck2, Ggux never seems to have revealed an IRL identity unless I've missed something. From what I see they have very similar interests and the account creation times also makes it seem very likely, personally enough for me. Even the SPI basically seemed to conclude something like 'they're probably the same person but since there's no simple violation it's not something for SPI'. Still I don't think there's a smoking gun unless there's something I missed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Such issues can be discussed thoroughly in an unblock request, if the editor chooses to appeal. Cullen328 (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abductive behavior: ICANTHEARYOU, BUILDWP, CAUTIOUS, BOTREQUIRE, etc

I'm reporting User:Abductive for improper behavior. They are an industrious editor with over 136,000 edits - many of them copy edits, often performed with semi-automated tools. I'm sure 99% of the edits are fine, but sometimes they damage articles. The damaging edits are not themselves fatal – after all, we all make mistakes. The problem is that they refuse to admit of any ill effects; they dig their heels in and deny any sort of error. My discussions with them are in two locations:

1. User_talk:Abductive#Questions_on_changes_to_Nile_article - Mostly here
2. Talk:Nile#Response_to_a_user_question - A little bit here

I tried to explain, repeatedly, to them how their edits are impacting articles. I expected some sort of reply as "Ah yes, I see. I'll fix it. Sorry about the inconvenience." Nope. This user refuses to engage in productive dialog or even answer simple questions (see link #1 above). The specific behavioral guidelines involved are:

• WP:BOTREQUIRE - Requires all tool/bot edits to be "harmless"
• WP:CAUTIOUS and WP:ASSISTED - Requires consulting with other editors (e.g. on Talk pages) to obtain consensus before making significant changes
• WP:ICANTHEARYOU - They fail to answer simple questions in Talk page discussions, even when the questions are aimed at moving the discussion forward and come to a resolution.
• WP:UNRESPONSIVE - Requires edit summaries to be informative & accurate. Their summaries are vague; and some edits contain scores of changes of several different kinds.
• [I'm not sure what WP guideline says this:] - Abductive fails to validate tool edits (to ensure they are harmless) before publishing them
• WP:Here to build an encyclopedia - Abductive is very defensive and in denial about any criticisms of their edits.

Again, the issue here is not the damaging edits (we all make mistakes sometimes) it is the refusal to acknowledge the mistakes, which results in time-wasting dialogs with other editors. I first noticed damaging edits in the Nile article here:

• In this edit the edit summary was a vague "WP:MOS stuff. See WP:RIVERS for guidance." That edit contained scores of various changes. In one change, they mistakenly thought a lat/long coordinate with 3 meter precision was pointing to a vaguely located source of a big river, so they rounded the coordinate to about 30 meters precision. Normally, that would be correct, based on WP:OPCOORD. However, this particular coordinate was pointing to a small 2m x 2m monument. I had to take time to point out the mistake. They were argumentative, but after I spent a lot of time, they finally fixed it.

They suggested that they have rounded thousands of lat/long coordinates. I was curious how many times they improperly rounded the coordinate of small objects that benefit from a high precision (say, 2m to 10m). I realize that 99% of all lat/long coordinates in WP point to large objects (lakes, forests, cities, etc), so the rounding Abductive was doing would normally be okay. But after randomly reviewing only five of their edits from 2026 (that mentioned WP:OPCOORD in the edit summary) I found another damaging lat/long edit:

• The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier article: In this edit rounded a lat/long coordinate from 3m precision to 30m precision. Apparently they thought it was a large building? But a quick glance at the article plainly says it is a "... small cottage, less than 15 m² in area...". This 3m x 5m shack is Cabanon de vacances. Then they apparently looked at their rounded coordinate in a map app, and saw that it was not pointing at any building. So they then made a second edit that moved the coordinate 31 meters onto a nearby building. The problem is that they chose the wrong building. The correct building is 24 meters southeast from the building where they placed the coordinate. That error is still there today.

The error rate in my tiny sample set was 1 in 5, or 20%. It is clear that Abductive is rounding coordinates very hastily without carefully examining the article and the sources to verify that high precision is not beneficial. Again, the errors are not the problem. It is that this editor is highly defensive, and refuses to admit any possibility of improvement. How many high-precision coordinates have they improperly rounded? We'll never know, because they are so defensive that it is impossible to collaborate and investigate.

Turning to the other damaging type of edit I observed: I craft my citation templates very carefully, using multi-line layouts, so future editors can easily read and update the WP markup. The multi-line approach is rather rare: I'm sure fewer than 1% of editors use it (but I highly recommend it!). Abductive ran a tool that collapsed the full citation into a single line, losing all the formatting work I had done. No big deal; but after I undid the change and politely pointed out how it was not a beneficial edit (as is required for all tool-based edits) they again went into defensive/denial mode, writing "How can choosing "tidy" on a widely available tool ... be considered "damaging"? ... Most of the time that I and many other editors improve (our opinion) the formatting from "crammed" or "vertical" to "tidy", nobody complains. So no disruption occurred." [boldface emphasis added]. Here again, the edit is not the issue, it is the total and complete failure to listen to another editor and arrogantly dismiss valid concerns. Note the blatant falsehoods: they wrote "nobody complains" (even after I complained); and wrote "no disruption occurred" (even tho I explained how much time it took me to track down the issue and remedy it).

I realize that – in the grand scheme of ANI – this behaviorial issue ranks as a 2 on a scale of 10. But I think we need to hold experienced editors (17 years, 136,000 edits) to a high standard of cooperation and civility. Noleander (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, so a one sentence summary of the problem is: ____________________________________________________________ ?

And a one sentence summary of your proposed solution is: ____________________________________________________________ ?

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 04:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I have tightened up the coordinates of the cottage mentioned above. As to the other issues, I responded to the user's concerns, and at no time did I revert the formatting of the citations once they said that they wanted vertical formatting. I fail to see how I "damaged" the Nile article. When I happened by the article on 17 April 2026, somebody had removed most of the coordinates, so I tried to fix it. Abductive (reasoning) 06:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Shirt58: Problem: User Abductive makes damaging edits to articles, and when asked about the edits, they get defensive and deny that the edits were damaging, making it difficult to determine how many articles have been impacted.

Proposed solution: Abductive should be reminded that guidelines prohibit running semi-automated tools that are harmful to articles, that they should be more cooperative in discussions about their damaging edits, and that they should productively engage in efforts to evaluate the magnitude of the damages. Noleander (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

This and your comment on the talk page where you say "Can you provide some edits here where you changed coordinates in other articles? Maybe I can glance at those and get some assurance that you are not damaging lat/long values for well-defined objects." concern me. It feels like you're expecting them to provide evidence against themselves and then putting forward the charge that they're being insufficiently enthusiastic in doing so. Morwen (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Morwen - You might be taking that comment out of context. At that point, I had discovered that the editor was (apparently) rounding lat/long coordinates in a robotic manner, sometimes deleting valid data. I spent several hours of my time trying to explain the issue to them, but was met with denial and stonewalling. It was like pulling teeth.

I figured looking at some other edits would be useful, but I'm busy IRL and didn't know how to find OPCOORD type changes in a history of 136,000 changes, so I asked them to point me to some of those changes. They refused. So I spent more of my own time looking, and found some edit summaries included "OPCOORD". I looked at five and found that 1 of the 5 also had the damaging round-off problem.

If the editor has made 1,000 coordinate roundings, and if, say, 5% are improper, that is 50 articles that have been damaged. I'm not planning on spending any more of my time trying to track them down. But at least I've raised the issue. We are at ANI because a cooperative, civil editor would willingly help other editors understand the history and nature of their edits. Noleander (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• How come you, Noleander, tell us why you think that ludicrous over-precision in the coordinates was not an issue that needed fixing? No prior permission was needed for this edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger - What "ludicrous over-precision" are you referring to? The Nile article or the The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier article? The Nile edit rounded the latitude of a 2m x 2m monument from 3.915146 degrees to 3.9151 degrees (degraded 0.3 meter precision to 30 m). The Corbusier edit rounded the longitude of a 3m x 5m shack from 48.2 seconds to 48 seconds (degraded 2.2 meters precision to 22 meters). The prior values were not "ludicrous", but rather were appropriate for the size of the object. Those edits do contain other lat/long values that were over-precise (0.001 meters, etc) and there is no issue with rounding those.

  The problem is that the rounding the precision of small objects (that have a valid precision around 1m to 5m) to 20m or 30m precision is damaging to the article for readers and future editors, because it removes valid data. Note that WP:OPCOORD explicitly provides for precisions of 1m to 5m: "In the case of objects such as fountains or statues, it may be necessary to use d°m's.s" or d.ddddd°.

  Your write "No prior permission was needed for this edit." I'm not sure what you are saying. I never said that prior permission was required for applying OPCOORD to articles: I said that when asked about the changes, the editor was defensive, combative, and refused to engage in productive discussion about the issue.

  However, the changes to the citation template markup were done by a semi-automated tool, and the editor does have a responsibility to ensure that those edits are not harmful before they publish the changes. The editor failed to take those steps. For example, I would expect the editor to (a) First examine the article and see if the cites use multi-line layout; if so, do not collapse to single line. Or (b) Post a note on the article Talk page proposing to collapse the citations, and asking if anyone minds, etc. Noleander (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yuor own post to Abductive's talk page says that he changed 0.3598541896 to 0.3598. That might not be ideal, but it is a distinct improvement. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger - In both the Featured articles/lists that Abductive damaged, the single edit under discussion changed several lat/long coords. Many of those coords were for large objects 100m in size or greater, and rounding to 30 meters is fine. But in both of the articles, there was one small object that was 2 to 5 meters in size and they improperly rounded to about 30 meters. Those small objects are the important ones. Per WP:OPCOORD "In the case of objects such as fountains or statues, it may be necessary to use d°m's.s" or d.ddddd°.

  The comment by me that you quote above: " ... 0.3598541896 to 0.3598." was early in my analysis of what was going on, and I was trying to understand the purpose of the edits. After it became clear that they generally round all coordinates, I then realized that some small objects were also rounded, and from that point forward, the discussion focused on the small objects .. they were 2m to 5m in size, yet the precision was degraded to 20 to 30m. I agree that rounding to 30m is appropriate for large objects. Noleander (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Who is the intended audience of people for whom we should include lat/long coordinates to an accuracy of 0.3m in an encyclopedia article? --JBL (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  @JayBeeEll - I never said that any WP locations should have 0.3m precision. You perhaps got that value from my note above: "[they] rounded the latitude of a 2m x 2m monument from 3.915146 degrees to 3.9151 degrees (degraded 0.3 meter precision to 30 m). In that comment I did not intend to suggest that 0.3m precision was ideal or correct; my point was that 30m was wrong. Abductive should have rounded that coord to 3.91514 (about 2 to 3m precision).

  Articles discussing small objects (under about 10m in size) should use a precision of roughly 1m to 5m (provided that sources support such a precision). That is endorsed by WP:OPCOORD which says "In the case of objects such as fountains or statues, it may be necessary to use d°m's.s" or d.ddddd°.

  Wikignomes that want to enforce WP:OPCOORD are obligated to spend time studying (a) the size of the object; and (b) the associated sources before they round the coordinate value to a precision larger than, say, 1 meter. If they are not doing that research, they should not make the change. Noleander (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Who is the intended audience of people for whom we should include lat/long coordinates to an accuracy of 3m in an encyclopedia article? --JBL (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  @JayBeeEll: - The 3 meter value originates in WP:OPCOORD which says "To specify a particular point in the city, such as a building, generally requires precision down to degrees-minutes-seconds or d.dddd° if decimal degrees are used. In the case of objects such as fountains or statues, it may be necessary to use d°m's.s" or d.ddddd°. Higher precisions should be avoided, as they greatly exceed the accuracy of civilian GPS and online mapping services. (Using 4 m accuracy as an estimate for civilian GPS...". That guideline endorses 1/10 arc second ( d°m's.s) which is about 3 meters of latitude; or 1 to 3 meters of longitude). And it endorse 0.00001 degree (d.ddddd) which is about 1 meter latitude, under 1 meter longitude. And it mentions 4 meters.

  I do not know what the authors of that guideline were thinking when they specified a range of roughly 1 to 4 meters. They mention fountains and statues: maybe they were thinking of a tourists or explorers who read an encyclopedia and wanted to find an object, such a small headstone in a crowded cemetery? or an object hidden in a dense forest or jungle? Or a small shack in a neighborhood crowded with shacks?

  Or maybe they were not thinking of an encyclopedia reader at all, and were basing it on the best current GPS capabilities (" ... they greatly exceed the accuracy of civilian GPS ..." ), in which case if GPS or its descendants get more accurate, WP:OPCOORD may be updated to recommend even smaller precisions?

  Or maybe the authors of WP:OPCOORD were simply trying to include normal geographic facts that any curious encyclopedia reader may want, such as readers who want to know the elevation of a mountain top they will never visit?

  As I say, I have no idea what the authors of WP:OPCOORD were thinking. Should we post a query on that Talk page and inquire? Noleander (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Probably the same people that would like to see Mount Fuji is 3,776 m (12,388 ft) and not find it rounded to 3,780 m (12,400 ft), 3,800 m (12,500 ft), or 4,000 m (13,000 ft). CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 06:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Er, people who want precise, correct information? What do you try to achieve with that question? If you disagree that we should have that kind of precision for small, precisely locatable objects, then perhaps say so instead of using passive-agressive fake questions? Why wouldn't we want to give the exact coordinates for something? To take an example not included in the current dispute, why wouldn't you give a 3m precise coordinate for the Peter Pan statue? What is actually gained by reducing this to 30m? Fram (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I do not find it burdensome to read one or two or three extra digits. It is not as if I remember the extra or even entire coordinates. For that I use an encyclopedia. Oh, right. Scratch that. At the least, Wikipedia, by nature of its prominence, ought require the greatest useful precision accuracy supports. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC) —

  At the end of the day, there's not actually a real problem with overly precise coordinates, especially not for small objects. Coordinates on Wikipedia and sister sites are not scientific data where excessive precision could be different from the real value. If an object spans from 12.00010 to 12.00100 degrees, values of 12.0005, 12.00051, and 12.00051238 will all place the user inside its boundaries - but rounding to 12.001 will be on the edge of the object, and 12.000 outside it entirely.

  If the display of >5 decimal digits is objectionable, it should be possible to modify {{coord}} to only display a maximum of 5 digits. But Abductive's personal crusade to reduce the number of digits stored in the wikitext has resulted in degraded accuracy, no benefit to users, and numerous conflicts with others (including myself). He has attempted to unilaterally change guidance to suit his preferences. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  Abductive's response further down conflicts with this reasoning in a way that makes sense to me. If more precise coordinates are not accurate to the object being located and there is discrepancy between sources it would be more helpful to have a less precise value than a more precise value that misses the mark. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes: as a for-instance, if it would be reasonable on size grounds to give the co-ordinates to five decimal places, but the sources all give different values for place four and five, it would be reasonable to trim to 3. I would say, however, that it would also be reasonable to make very clear that this was happening in the edit, via the summary and (ideally) through a hidden comment giving the rationale for the level of (im)precision used. Noleander, what do you make of this? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist - Of course, all information in WP needs to be supported by Reliable sources. For coordinates, if a book/journal source is not available, then Google Maps may be used, per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which (at WP:GOOGLEMAPS) states: "Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates".

  The accuracy of google maps varies from around 2m to 20m (depending on a wide variety of factors). For small objects that are lucky enough to be in the 2m accuracy region, the WP precision should be d°m's.s or d.ddddd (5 dec digits). For objects in 20m accuracy regions of the world, precision can be d°m's or d.dddd (4 dec digits). Unfortunately, there is no way to know if the object is in a 2m or 20m region.

  To take a concrete example from this discussion: Cabanon de vacances is a 3x5 meter shack nestled amongst several other small buildings. Using 2m precision points readers to the exact shack. Using 20m accuracy will point the reader the wrong building.

  Conclusion: When user Abductive assumes that Google Maps is never at 2m accuracy and rounds all coordinates to 20m, they often deprive readers of very useful information. There is no harm in presuming 2m accuracy of Google Maps (absent evidence it is wrong). Therefore, WP coordinates extracted from Google Maps generally should use 2m precision. Noleander (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  .... and don't forget the the coordinate issue is only half the behavioral problems reported in this ANI. The other half is running semi-automated tools that damage articles (e.g. removing wiki markup formatting). Noleander (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist and @Reconrabbit, while I get your reasoning behind rounding the coordinates, this doesn't work in practice, as rounding to three decimal places implicitly means that any decimal places after that are, by default, zero. It'd be better to take the midpoint of the disputed coordinates if the coordinates were really in dispute. For example, suppose two sources gave New York City Hall's coordinates as "40.71271, -74.00591" and "40.71269, -74.00589". Rounding this to "40.712, -74.005" would in reality result in a coordinate location of "40.71200, -74.00500", even though the midpoint of these would be "40.7127, -74.0059".

  This is, of course, tangential to the discussion at hand; I just wanted to clarify that this is an instance where rounding to a less precise value might make the situation worse. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's a good point that I missed. I can see that precise imprecision being a problem. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  As you say, this is a bit tangential -- in general I'd agree with you, though I'm a little wary of WP:SYNTH in giving a number that isn't actually supported by any of the sources. In practice I suspect we'd say, in your specific example, that it's clearly sensible regardless of the rules. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Fram: What do you try to achieve with that question? I try to achieve an understanding of an issue that is relevant to this dispute but not well addressed in the original post, IMO. (If only there were a guideline relevant to this situation.) --JBL (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Still no idea what you actually tried to achieve though. Do you really wanted to know who the audience is that wants accurate information? Perhaps you can enlighten us to why we shouldn´t provide accurate coordinates when possible and relevant? What audience would we serve with less precise coordinates then? Fram (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Let me point you again, explicitly, to WP:AGF. N wrote a complaint about A's behavior; I personally did not find it clear from the complaint exactly why the behavior was supposed to be problematic, and so I asked a question about it. I then asked again because the first answer didn't help me with my point of confusion. You have now written three quite aggressive messages about this, including the bizarre accusation that I have engaged in "bashing" anyone. It is certainly true that this thread is going off-topic, but it seems to me that this is being driven by your demand that I justify asking a straightforward question in a community forum. Maybe you have read something into my message that wasn't there; if so, I invite you to simply stop extending this line of discussion. If you want separately to write me a message of the form "Hey sorry that got so heated; I think what set me off about your questions was [whatever goes here]. I am acutally curious about [one question]", you are welcome on my talk-page for further discussion. --JBL (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I share Fram's concerns: your questions were confusing and not helpful, from my point of view. I also feel that it is time to return to the important question of how to resolve the top-level issues of this ANI, rather than belaboring the 0.3 vs 3 vs 30 meter question. Noleander (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  At ANI, points not in the originating post arise. Of various magnitudes. Some of the points may help the subject editor's insight. Precision requirements ought to be explicit. And in this case could be dispositive as part a decision here. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  You replied to a post where they clearly explained the issue (e.g. "The Corbusier edit rounded the longitude of a 3m x 5m shack from 48.2 seconds to 48 seconds (degraded 2.2 meters precision to 22 meters). The prior values were not "ludicrous", but rather were appropriate for the size of the object. ") so I have a hard time believing that you "did not find it clear from the complaint exactly why the behavior was supposed to be problematic". AGF is not a get-out-of-jail card you can use to ask non-productive questions. I am completely baffled that you claim to be in good faith asking who the encyclopedia audience is that may want 3m precision for the location of a 3m object. What audience would really object to have this precision and would prefer less precise coordinates? It's not as if we are discussing lengthy paragraphs of minutiae, this is about actively removing digits from coords to make them less precise for small objects, which benefits no good faith reader at all. Fram (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Christ what an asshole. I rescind my offer to discuss this with you politely; please never interact with me again unless required to do so by Wikipedia policy. --JBL (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NPA. ~2026-31043-68 (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. I'm often amazed what kind of stuff admins let pass on the admin noticeboard. If they don't even react when it happens this blatantly here, how can we expect anything to happen elsewhere? Fram (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm clearly not an admin, but I felt this warranted a warning notice at least. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 19:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I do not find it burdensome to read one or two or three extra digits. It is not as if I remember the extra or even entire coordinates. For that I use an encyclopedia. Oh, right. Scratch that. At the least, Wikipedia, by nature of its prominence, ought require the greatest useful precision accuracy supports. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 18:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC) —

Can we get back to the actual problem instead of the bashing of the OP by people who apparently actively want less correct information for no good reason at all? The way this ANI section has been handled really is rather terrible. Fram (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Abductive has been criticized in the past for careless handling of Citation bot. See User talk:Citation bot passim, User talk:Citation_bot/Archive_44#Blocked; huge number of bad work= additions, User talk:Citation bot/Archive 43 passim, last year on ANI, and also User talk:Folly Mox#Citation bot (from 2023). The opening lines of this section made me think it would be about that. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those additional examples. In this ANI here, I'm reporting two kinds of damage to articles: (1) semi-automated edits to citations using User:Mesidast/Tidy citations.js; and (2) manual edits to lat/long coordinates. Damage type (1) is comparable to the examples you identified above involving User talk:Citation bot (Abductive runs the tool, then publishes the results without first verifying that the changes are harmless). Noleander (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• False precision is a problem, but I cannot see that the edits under discussion here represent sound efforts to address it -- it seems more that Abductive is (at best) not aware of the appropriate degree of precision for these co-ordinates, and (more importantly) is unable or unwilling to take on feedback, including being directed to clear and good-sense guidelines like WP:OPCOORD to correct themselves when they make edits out of that misguided understanding. As Noleander notes above, this is particularly a problem (and against community consensus) when such edits are automated or botlike in nature. If all that is as it appears, this might be a good case for a topic ban, but I would encourage them to commit voluntarily to a change of behaviour (for example, not rounding any coordinate beyond the level of precision recommended by OPCOORD) as a means of rendering that unnecessary. However, I would like to hear their own perspective on the matter, in the hope that they will prove some of that impression wrong. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have done tens of thousands of such edits, and check every single one. First, I check to make sure that they hit the target. At present, about 1/3 of all coordinates on Wikipedia miss the target, sometimes by miles. About another 1/3 have high false precision formatting. (Some have both errors, so about half of all coordinates on Wikipedia are manifestly incorrect.) Second, I check Google Maps and OSM, and sometime Bing Maps, Apple Maps, and Yandex Maps, to see where they point and look for a consensus. In the case of mountains I check peakbagger.com and Mapper.com's Topo too. Then I use either D°M'S" or D.dddd° for most objects, per WP:OPCOORD. For larger objects such as islands I use D°M' or D.dd°, maybe D.ddd° to get to the center of an island. For small objects such as statues I use D°M'S.s". In the case of the Nile River, the coordinates for the sources almost certainly miss the true sources by many tens of meters. One can see this by checking what the various mapping services show, and how far apart their points are. Why then should an editor add precision? One can see this for any coordinates at all. Take for example the Garden Grove chemical leak. Google, OSM, Bing, Apple, and Yandex Maps all point to slightly different places, and no one set of coordinates will work for all of them. Nevertheless, the coordinates that I improved, with the edit summary, Over-rounded coordinates missed the tanks by over 280 meters. in that article point to the tanks, within 2 m. Higher precision will not improve the discrepancies between the mapping services, and lower precision will miss the tanks entirely. Abductive (reasoning) 20:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• I am rather concerned by the talk page discussion linked in the initial post. Noleander raises what seem at face value to be legitimate concerns, and remains polite, though one can tell that they are increasingly frustrated. Editors are required by policy (and common courtesy) to explain their edits, yet Abductive's responses are curt and don't fully answer the questions posed. Quotes like As for my editing methods, editors are not supposed to make non-cosmetic changes without making substantive edits at the same time. So I combine them. and Most of the time that I and many other editors improve (our opinion) the formatting from "crammed" or "vertical" to "tidy", nobody complains. So no disruption occurred. speak for themselves. The latter did not come in response to any suggestion that the citation formatting was disruptive, but rather that a failure to engage in consensus-building is disruptive; that their reply completely failed to address the point illustrates the problem. This behavior needs to improve. Toadspike [Talk] 01:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• I made the edit at 08:30 on 17 April 2026. User Noleander put the source formatting back to vertical at 22:17 on 11 May 2026, after having edited the article 43 times, and then complained on my talk page. At no time did I revert or attempt to exert WP:OWNERSHIP over the article. So I may have failed to understand the reason for the user's concern. Given that we are all human and are not free of errors, I will continue to endeavor to abide by Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines. Abductive (reasoning) 08:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Abductive: when Toadspike talks about "the problem" above and says "this behaviour needs to improve", what problem and behaviour do you think they mean? It's difficult to tell from your reply. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

If one peruses my edits to talk pages and to articles, one will note that my writing is terse. It is unfortunate that some users perceive this as a problem. I will make an effect to be less terse should a situation such as this one ever arise again. Abductive (reasoning) 20:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Abductive, that is indeed the main point I was getting at. I think this thread has served its purpose, as a reminder or warning of sorts, and I believe it can be closed now. Toadspike [Talk] 20:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Continuously breaking pages with no regard for warnings.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sheila1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been warned on five separate occasions, by me alone, of the need to PREVIEW their edits:

• User_talk:Sheila1988#c-Zackmann08-20260314181200-March_2026
• User_talk:Sheila1988#c-Zackmann08-20260318031700-March_2026
• User_talk:Sheila1988#c-Zackmann08-20260503194000-May_2026
• User_talk:Sheila1988#c-Zackmann08-20260528210400-May_2026
• User_talk:Sheila1988#c-Zackmann08-20260530215600-May_2026

Despite all these warnings, Sheila continues to make no attempt to check their work and continues to break pages by inserting bad code. Their most recent error (here) once agin inserted code that a simple use of WP:PREVIEW would have caught right away. I understand there are those who disagree that these minor typos are problematic but they make it harder to keep pages working and catch vandalism when users continously and with no attempt to correct their mistakes populate error categories. Sheila has been warned 5 times and has made no attempt to improve. At this point I think admin intervention is needed. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat excessive. The Black Pirate error I noticed immediately and fixed the next minute. The jour de fete error was putting in 'editor' instead of 'editing'. I am using the split-screen feature at the moment to check pages as I edit. Sheila1988 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm confused - how does a split screen allow you to preview your edit before submission? Can you explain your current editing process a little more, so we can make sure you won't run into any further issues going forwards? Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 04:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think Sheila is referring to the split screen mode of Source Editor, in which you see the code on the left, and the preview of the page on the right. There's a screenshot of it at commons:File:How to edit a page Edit box - 2025 with preview and syntax highlight (cropped).png. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I use the split screen mode, and I can confirm it is sufficient to verify edits and preview before saving. I think if Shelia can commit to using this consistently in future to double-check the wiki code before pressing save, then no further intervention is required at this time. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

As the reporting party, I am more than happy to see this resolved with a commitment from Shelia as MolecularPilot suggests above. But I would like that to be stated by an admin (which again, I am not) so that if there are further issues this warning has come from an admin. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

That's interesting, I've learned something new today - thanks both! Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 12:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Work copied and pasted without credit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey, this individual copied almost my entire draft of Draft:Shabang_(song) and inserted it into Shabang_(song). You can see that in an edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shabang_%28song%29&diff=1356912175&oldid=1355530815 where user User:~2026-32172-23 directly copy and pasted my content with minimal paraphrases.

For example: (My Draft):

The music video for "Shabang" was released alongside 18 music videos for the album on May 15, 2026.Mazaratti, Johnny (May 15, 2026). "ICEMAN: Drake Floods YouTube with 14 New Music Videos". HipHopCanada. Retrieved 26 May 2026. The video is on a large controlled explosion and shortly features Drake's silhouette; the explosives' footage was a majority of the runtime.

The explosion was filmed on the evening of April 16, 2026, at Downsview Park in North York, Toronto.Spurr, Ben (April 23, 2026). "Drake music video's shock-and-awe explosion rattles residents, leads to Toronto councillor's motion". Toronto Star. Retrieved 26 May 2026. The production was permitted by the City of Toronto under the name "Project Bot", a Special Effects (SPFX) permit was issued; Toronto Fire Services and Toronto Police Service were involved in advance of the shoot."City confirms explosion at Downsview Park was part of Drake video shoot". CTV News. April 17, 2026. Retrieved May 23, 2026.Dev, Prisha (April 17, 2026). "Explosion during film shoot at Downsview Park rattles Toronto residents". Global News. Retrieved 26 May 2026. Downsview Park had posted a notice on both its website and social media, warning the planned pyrotechnic effects taking place during the week of April 13, advising that residents may notice loud noises, flashes of light, and smoke in the area.

You can see how the references are the exact same, how the content is the exact same in the same format as I wrote it, but they just switched around a few sentences with other ones and some words; as if they used a paraphraser tool.

I wouldn't care for this, although, not being given any notice and my draft submission still being up when I independently learned about this really infuriates me, as they're practically taking my research and writing as their credit.

TL;DR?

This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shabang_%28song%29&diff=1356912175&oldid=1355530815 shows where individual User:~2026-32172-23 copied almost my entire Draft:Shabang_(song)#Music_video section which at the time was submitted using AfC-submit-wizard. No credit, no heads-up, just fully stole my research.

Please, do something about this. Cheromaniii (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Cheromaniii

Hi @Cheromaniii, the notice at the top of the page and when posting explains that you must notify the other party when reporting - I've done this for you. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 03:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Forgot, sorry. Thank you @Blue-Sonnet Cheromaniii (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem! I hope it's ok that I've minimised your evidence so it doesn't take up as much room, it's all still visible if you click on the banner. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 04:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks @Blue-Sonnet ! Cheromaniii (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The instructions at ANI also say to discuss issues with editors before starting a thread here. I have left a message on the TA's talk page regarding providing proper attribution before copying content to another page. Anyone can copy within Wikipedia so long as they follow attribution rules. Please see WP:OWN. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I've also merged the draft history into the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Valid, although, he did take that information from an unapproved draft waiting to be accepted/declined, then he put it into a redirect page without permission (to my knowledge) taking away the redirect page and fully bypassing the draft system.

Is that allowed? Cheromaniii (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. There is no rule against copying content from draftspace into mainspace. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clearing it all up.

Cheromaniii (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV pushing, bias, removal of sourced content and edit warring without reason from user Lucy Iwuala

The user @Lucy Iwuala refuses to take caution even when I went to her page politely to caution her. She makes edits close to vandalism on several pages like Gele, Ogiri in which she has an ethnic POV angle where as she cannot accept certain facts so just blanks it or removes it with no discussion or validity. She seems dedicated to start and maintain an edit war from her tone and stance. She was hell bent on blaiming me for what I didn't do, but on what she is actually doing. There is obviously canvassing and sockpuppetry going on and she is hawkish in "owning" and "defending" what she feels are "igbo pages". She has been doing this for at least a month since a sockring emerged here that was spotted.

Recent instances : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gele_(headdress)&diff=prev&oldid=1356172190 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ogiri&diff=prev&oldid=1350487486

Example of her canvassing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ogiri#c-Lucy_Iwuala-20260418030600-Day_Creature-20260331141800

She has crossed over to edit warring while this just report just started.

Dolpina (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dolpina You must provide diffs showing examples of the behaviour you're complaining about; and be very cautious about WP:ASPERSIONS like There is obviously canvassing and sockpuppetry going on and she has an ethnic POV angle unless you have good evidence to support those claims.

You must also notify this user of the ANI thread you've opened against them; since you neglected to do so, I'll do so for you now. Athanelar (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay thank you, I'll mind my phrasing. I'm not the best at reports. I'm adding some diffs links how I can. Dolpina (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

P.s., I see now you've added a 'recent instance'. I see there, though, that you sourced a claim that "Igbo women in general now wear the Gele" to around 15 pages of a paper titled The Development of Credit Associations in the Changing Economy of the Afikpo IGBO. Now, granted, I haven"t actually checked the source, but I struggle to believe based on the title anything in that source has absolutely anything to do with Igbo womens' headdressing practices; or at least that it would spend 15 pages discussing it. I'm not suggesting as Lucy Iwuala did that you are intentionally misrepresenting the contents of that source, but perhaps you could provide a relevant quote from the source which supports the information you attached to it? Athanelar (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this is a cross wiki conflict about the headdress "gele" / "ichafu". It appears to be the same (or very similar headdress) but different languages obviously have different names for it. I remember that the person who argues in favor of "ichafu" had provided a book which indeed calls the headdress "ichafu" but the other party in this dispute still insists on calling it "gele" and renaming files on Commons based on the claim that there's no headdress called "ichafu". Nakonana (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

um, no that's not how it is. Gele is Gele, a distinct and well documented cultural headdress of the Yoruba. Ichafu is an igbo loan word from English or French (idk which one right now) refering to a piece of cloth tied on the head or neck. Ichafu is not a Gele nor is it "the same cultural garb". Anything can be an ichafu, including when an igbo wears a xxhosa cultural headdress r a russian babuska. Just like scarf in Yoruba is Ibori, so anything can be a scarf, as ibori isn't a distinct cultural headdress, Gele is. Anything can be an ibori or "ichafu", Gele is Gele. Gele has been documented to have been adopted by Igbo, hausa who can sometimes were it for their events.

The wikicommons pictures issues started sometime this year march or so when a sockpuppetry ring flooded here woth vandalism and took that to commons and wikitionary, posting unsourced images and labelling them ichafu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolpina (talk • contribs) 13:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The Ichafu slop page the canvassing/ sock group created here was deleted and salted for a reason. They moved to wikicommons and wikitionary were ot is less strict and much more slow to spot vandalism. I'll post the sockpuppetry investigations link of which some users canvassing have been banned. Dolpina (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Dolpina (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dolpina This is not the place to relitigate your content dispute. You have made specific behavioural complaints against this user (canvassing, sockpuppetry etc) which is what this board is for; but I would suggest you quickly find some evidence for those claims or else this thread will swiftly be closed and/or you're liable to catch a WP:BOOMERANG. Athanelar (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, please, I made a report on the behaviour of a user across pages, with an edit war being started by her, not content dispute. I just replied you constructively when you asked for me to specify with the quotes, which I did. My talk of possible canvassing, meatpuppetry was specifically related to the fact that this series of behaviour across these specific pages began at the time a VERIFIED meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry group emerged and was spotted here across these pages, as posted by another user in this comment thread. I shouldn't be liable to catch anything because I'm just pointing out the obvious pattern, not throwing accusations. Didn't say she is a sockpuppet, just bringing attention to the fact of found meat/sockpuppet activity on these pages and similar patterns across post. But if I shouldn't bring that up, fine. Maybe we should focus on the edit warring of this user and removal of sourced content. Dolpina (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, here is an example of Lucy Iwuala canvassing :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ogiri#c-Lucy_Iwuala-20260418030600-Day_Creature-20260331141800

She tagged several specific accounts to pile on me. Dolpina (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Well it is here. Straightforward:

These women (afikpo Igbo) wore Yoruba cloths as well as the Yoruba head-tie. They considered themselves more 'civilized' than other Afikpo women."

- Improvement Associations among the Afikpo Ibo (1955) https://www.jstor.org/stable/1156893?seq=23Dolpina (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea this comment didn't go through.

Here is the direct quote source

"These women (afikpo Igbo) wore Yoruba cloths as well as the Yoruba head-tie. They considered themselves more 'civilized' than other Afikpo women."

- Improvement Associations among the Afikpo Ibo (1955)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1156893?seq=23Dolpina (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dolpina Thank you for bringing this discussion forward for objective review by administrators and uninvolved editors.

Firstly, I want state that your allegations of POV pushing, canvassing, and sockpuppetry are unfounded the Wiki space very open to check everyone's edit history - please allow the admins to weigh in on that. I want to categorically state that all my edits have been based on source discussion and content concerns, all from a neutral point of view and giving no room for misinformation.

Secondly, now the issue of bias and source interpretation have now been raised publicly, I would also welcome administrators reviewing of your editing patterns more broadly across English Wikipedia, English Wiktionary, and Commons and mine as well, where they can independently assess the repeated disputes regarding source interpretation, removal of sourced material without any improvement, and POV concerns from all sides.

Finally, I also note that there is an ongoing discussion where I tagged you for clarification on specific sourcing and content issues, which has still not been addressed directly. I believe it would be more productive to focus on those substantive points and allow uninvolved administrators to evaluate the matter objectively. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Non admin comment:

While this thread was open, they have had another conflict (Ogiri,I think). I've already spoken to Lucy about this, but I would advise both of you to avoid each other aside from here. Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 13:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Well she keeps blanking edits, POv pushing, removing sources and avoiding the talk page. Dolpina (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar @Nakonana@Wikipedian12512(alt) and any other Admin or editor, I would like to invite you to review this @Dolpina broader editing pattern across related pages and mine as well. I am increasingly concerned by a recurring pattern of removing or blanking sourced contributions without adequate discussion, clear policy-based reasoning, or attempts at collaborative resolution.

Going through @Dolpina recent edit as in here and here (which I reverted in good faith as she made no edit but a revert), none of it substantially improve the content but instead result in a big chunk removal of material contributed by other editors. This pattern is becoming disruptive and exhausting for collaborative editing.

I would appreciate an objective review of the diffs and editing history involved so that uninvolved administrators can determine whether the removals, reversions, and conduct on these pages align with Wikipedia’s expectations for consensus-building and constructive editing.

I believe that the Wikipedia articles should be improved rather than reducing it to nothing. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll run these ideas by you:

Interaction ban from each other

Topic ban of one of you from Igbo related articles

A "no revert rule" when interacting.

Any of these sound good? I'll keep an eye on both of you when I can, but one of these really is easier and possibly more effective. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wikipedian12512(alt) thanks for the suggestions and for offering to keep an eye on our contributions.

Based on the options presented, I will go with A "no revert rule" when interacting as I have had a thought about it and since Wikipedia is an open collaborative space, every editor should be able to contribute, so far discussions remain within the confine of the guiding policy, sources, and consensus. Notwithstanding, I will respect whatever decision the administrators consider most appropriate. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

No matter what they decide, you could always decide between you to not revert. @Dolpina: Would you be okay with this? If so, I hope we can avoid any more issues. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 23:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you using AI for your comments here, such as this one? If so, that isn't allowed here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think that was LLM. Maybe I was mistaken. @Lucy Iwuala? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 11:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff No, I'm not. I know much better than to use LLM in this kind of conversation. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Wikipedian12512(alt) No. I know better. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Great. I didn't think so, but I'm too trusting. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 11:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Was referring to stuff like I would appreciate an objective review of the diffs and editing history involved so that uninvolved administrators can determine whether the removals, reversions, and conduct on these pages align with Wikipedia’s expectations for consensus-building and constructive editing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Think that's just being polite. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 12:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that's just showing she knows policies. If someone gives you a list of policies they think you're breaking, then you want to show that you know policies. Unfortunately, this is the method taken by LLMs, so anybody doing such an approach gets reprimanded.

I'd want @Lucy Iwuala's answer though. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 13:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Wikipedian12512(alt) yes, that's the intent. In my interactions that involves administrators, I'm very keen in clarity and specificity about what I am requesting as I would not want to be misunderstood. I also know better than using LLMs in this discussion. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Great. @Dolpina: Would you agree to avoid reverting each other in all circumstances? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 14:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I'll frankly tell you that I'm not comfortable with this. Not trying to be account "ageist" or anything like that, but you joined 3 months ago, March, also the same month as the whole sockpuppetry debacle, and you interact with her a bit, as well as on her talk page. I'm not sure about this.

I rather she follows the rules which everyone should follow. No POV pushing, canvassing, open to co-operation, using the talk page, constructive edits and avoiding edit wars. Also it's not even mainly my edit she's reverting, she's reverting stable versions to POV push which I just revert back than make more edits. Even just found out that the revert I made of another user, she reverted,idk if she's tracking my page. So odd.Dolpina (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

All this would mean is that you are both expected to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but you would leave the responsibility of reverting those edits to any other editor who sees them.

There are hundreds of thousands of editors and neither of you are responsible for policing the other - I think it would do you both a tremendous amount of good to be able to go "oh, that's not my problem so I'll do something else instead". Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 22:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that the comment had been placed, but I wanted to continue. You put it much more succinctly. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh I understand this explanation better. Thanks. Im scratching my head on this but it could be a good approach. Okay, fine... Dolpina (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Should we combine the two? No reverts, unless you come to a consensus on a talk page? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 23:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I have a few questions here. I'm sorry if any of these sound rude; it's harder for me to communicate without facial differences:

1. Are you claiming I'm a sockpuppet? That's what I'm getting from "also the same month as the whole sockpuppetry debacle," and I do not take well to random attacks like that.

2. "I rather she follows the rules which everyone should follow." We all agree there. What we are trying to do is to find a way to avoid conflict between you, in addition to the rules.

3. What you put there gives the impression that you are having your content deleted. If that's the case, then the "no-revert" rule would just mean that things like that wouldn't happen in the first place.

4. "You interact with her a bit... on her talk page." So do you, as I can see. If you're claiming I seem more supportive, that's because I am. I don't have any actionable objections, save for what has already been displayed, to call her on.

5. What would you propose? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't claim you are anything actually, just letting you know why I'm not comfortable. I don't know anyone here and I assume the best of all users. I will just prefer if an older user or an admin looks into it, there is no rush. I assume good faith with everyone and I'm sure you have the best intentions, but preharps a more experienced user could look into this, than for me to agree to what I don't quite understand.

Maybe we can all agree to use the talk page first when there is edit conflict and deviation from the stable versions? Let's agree and disagree there and reach middle ground, and 3rd party if needed. Following Wikipedia rules. I agree to that and initiated that again in one of her automatic edit war esque reverts from the stable version I reverted it back to, 3 days ago, today. Handshake on talk page usage? Yes? Thanks. Dolpina (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Lucy Iwuala? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Wikipedian12512(alt) I like I said earlier, I agree to non-revert of each other's edit and while we are at it, it will be ok we put that into action as I see the user is bent on reverting.

I see no reason for reverting this article if there is no element of POV. Perhaps you can have a look at its diffs Lucy Iwuala (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

What I think they like most is that you cannot revert each other. Period. However, one of you could ping the other to the talk page, and could collaborate to find sources. To quote someone,

"If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce." _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 23:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You have no source for your ichafu claim while insisting that the picture of women in Gele is ichafu. I said leave it in its stable version or keave it blank. The ichafu page got deleted and salted for a reason but seems like an hill you want to be on. Where are your sources? That, ichafu is not a term borrowed into igbo refering to a scarf, that it is a distinct cultural garment that looks identical to Sego Gele / damask Gele for a reason. Preharps before you point out diffs, tell us why yoi are stuck on this salted and deleted topic with no peer reviewed / non self published sources? That's original research. Dolpina (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's what you should do if you hope to ever get to a version you agree on:

@Dolpina and @Lucy Iwuala, you should work together to find an acceptable source. You should be working together in the first place! You have similar interests. If you keep arguing, there is a chance that both of you get blocked for civility. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I've agreed with her on the talk page, to use the description on the image and just that. Middleground. Dolpina (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A middleground is fine, I guess. The ideal thing would be to satisfy both of you- you want a source, she wants her information to be included, one of you should just find a source. As long as you both agree, and it makes sense, it's fine. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Wikipedian12512(alt) reached our first consensus. Lucy Iwuala (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Nice! If you need help finding a compromise in the future, I'd be happy to help.

Congratulations! _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Well done both of you, that's great news! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

And sorry for thinking you were claiming I was a sockpuppet. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem. It's all good. Dolpina (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff Due to the issue in question and recurring editing pattern, which I keep track of through diffs and editing history before any of my revert, and also due to the our previous engagement which involved other admins and editors in other Wikis, I know very well that I have to be specific in what I am requesting for, hence; my calling on "uninvolved administrators [who] can determine whether the removals, reversions, and conduct on these pages align with Wikipedia’s expectations for consensus-building and constructive editing." Lucy Iwuala (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that there has been a previous thread on the same topic that is now archived:

Editors engaged in Proxying and Meatpuppetry to circumvent deleted article ~2026-21916-69 (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the link! This started with that meatpuppetry same period. Also looking for the meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry investigations page. Dolpina (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The claim These women (afikpo Igbo) wore Yoruba cloths as well as the Yoruba head-tie. is obviously not the same as the claim you used it to prove, which was Igbo women in general have adopted the Gele, and they wear it by its original name,

Particularly and they wear it by its original name is obviously not substantiated considering the source uses the term Yoruba head-tie, and it is anyway a strange thing to specify except for someone trying to make a point in an edit war. Athanelar (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The point is that it refers to Gele and she just blanked it. There is also another source, which I think was there and removed. I didn't make the initial edit in question,

Sohvyan did, but a semantic issue doesn't mean source removal and blanking, no? Here is the other source that direct-ish statement is likely from :

Originally from the Yoruba tribe, it has now spread its charm throughout the continent. A proud symbol of femininity, the Gele is gracefully worn by women during festivities and joyous celebrations. Though the wearing of Gele is commonplace for women in the Nigerian culture, the two cultures that are especially noted for wearing the Gele in both its casual and sophisticated form are the Yoruba and Igbo cultures."

Fashion designer Ify Ubby speaks on the Gele’s history and its evolving significance (2023) Vogue.sg Dolpina (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Please properly format your comments and maybe use Template:Quote Template:Talk quote inline like Athnaelar did ~2026-21916-69 (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'm not so great at this. Dolpina (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Rosemeyer2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User: Rosemeyer2022 (talk · contribs)

User Rosemeyer2022 is violating Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, is Wikipedia:Edit warring, is violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and making disruptive edits.

Rosemeyer has been trying to remove well-sourced information at the article for the Racial Equality Proposal during the Treaty of Versaillies, which was an effort by Japan to propose racial equality. Academics point out that Japan's proposal was hypocritical, and Rosemeyer is suspected of trying to remove this information in 2025 given that this IP makes the exact same edit they made in the past.

Rosemeyer has made multiple attempts to remove this well-sourced information and have engaged in edit warring, such as in April 2026 which was reverted by User:Peaceray. They reverted my attempt to restore the content in May 17, 2026, as well as reverting another editor who also tried to restore the content. They are near the edge of the Three revert rule with their most recent reverts.

Beyond the edit warring, I tried to talk to them on the talk page, warning them (they had been warned before by other users) Not to mention, they have made reverts and claimed it was compromise attempts before even letting me reply.

There is unfortunately a serious POV pushing and violations of NPOV as well as lack of reliable sources. I explained in detail that they had removed well-sourced information, which they claimed "contains propaganda from Japanese soldiers who were brainwashed in prisoner-of-war camps in China...whose contradictory testimonies have been pointed out by historical societies as fabricated), and lacks historical basis." Their views unfortunately seriously indicate far-right, ultra-nationalist bias. They doubled down and said the source "contains clear fabrications by the Chinese government...In recent years, China and Russia have been engaging in a recognition war in Japan..."

Their most recent edits say things like very conspiratorial statements as well as claiming that English-speaking academic institutes are under the influence of China: "Many of the documents you cite are laundered versions of information disseminated by the Chinese government or experts under its influence, using secondary citations in academic papers... American universities are simply reprinting it without any historical criticism, and it should be noted that no academic verification has been conducted." This info is from the Chinese Government (specifically Xinhua, a state news agency, which got the source from Jillin Province) and which I am somewhat skeptical of, but it was verified by Santa Clara University of San Jose, California. They essentially are making very serious POV statements.

As for sourcing, they said: "Various counterarguments have been made from Japan, but have you actually read them?...first carefully read the counterarguments in Japanese and reconsider your own claims." Now, I am open to engaging in dialogue but you can see through the entire discussion they've never once provided an actual source despite me requesting it multiple times now. Their newest reply, does not even address my points, nor provide sources, and they just say that Wikipedia admin should decide this.

This is a significant reason why I am filing the ANI, as it is impossible to have a discussion with Rosemeyer when they POV push and refuse to cite sources, they repeatedly accuse China of spreading propaganda, China of brainwashing POWs to spread propaganda, China/Russia fueling division in Japan, China is influencing American institutions/academics, essentially bludgeoning the point by saying that the sources are all influenced by China. Now personally, I do not identify as a fan of the Chinese government + I dislike nationalism; their bias is so significant that I really can't engage in dialogue when almost every discussion post the user makes to try to refute my points is about the modern Chinese government's infilitration of American academica on a topic about Japanese racism towards non-Japanese people in the 1910s.

I will be a bit busy tomorrow but will be free to reply to any questions admin has within 24 hours of 304 UTC, 19 May.

Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You should consider editing this to between 1/2 and 1/4 of its current length. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Cutting 3/4ths might be too much, but i will take your recommendation and cut this down a lil bit, appreciate the advice. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It appears to me that Rosemeyer is pushing a specific POV in violation of NPOV, and is using fringe or incorrect reasons for some of the edits. The following recounts all of their article edits, as over the past 4 years they have 27 edits. I am listing this here as I am not an expert in these areas, so without corroboration that these are fringe/POV edits, I won't be taking administrative action myself.

Japanese carpentry

Special:Diff/1214623337/1214641591 Remove mentions of Chinese influence

Special:Diff/1329504198/1330723643 Remove mentions of Chinese influence

Special:Diff/1334354614/1335758262 Reduce importance of Chinese influence

Manila Cathedral

Special:Diff/1329502622 Changed so that US, not Japanese, responsible for destruction

Special:Diff/1329619675 Changed so that US, not Japanese, responsible for destruction

Racial Equality Proposal

Edit warred to remove mention of Japanese hypocrisy (e.g., Special:Diff/1351616339)

Ben Bruce Blakeney

Special:Diff/1328284271/1351761556 Inserted statement that record of discussion of potential war crimes by US against Japan was partially suppressed during the Tokyo war crimes trials.

Biological warfare

Special:Diff/1354579762 Picture removed. Edit summary "A photograph taken on January 7, 1940, of an employee of the Health Bureau of the Manchukuo Ministry of Health conducting plague "epidemic prevention" activities in Nong'an County, Jilin Province in November 1940, was mistakenly used and has been removed." Picture is of Unit 731 victim.

Japanese war crimes

Removed same picture as above (twice): Special:Diff/1354601990 Special:Diff/1354834116

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Rsjaffe for your input, I had not examined their older edits which you have pointed out as I was focused on their newer ones, but after looking over it I agree with you that Rosemeyer is definitely pushing a POV and violating NPOV by using fringe reaosns (with no citations to back it up either) in even their earlier edits.

The biggest takeaway and evidence that these are POV edits is that they've never once really inserted new information from academics (even POV pushers often try to weasel by using new sources) but here they keep repeatedly removing information, and deleting well-cited information. Also NOTE: I left them an ANI notice on their page, and they were recently active but they are not replying on this ANI and have kept to their talk page. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

User is still making very POV/biased statements in their talk page, now they're saying "...a firm response is necessary against acts of history fabrication by entire nations, like in China, and Japan is also undergoing a generational shift" which is an incredibly incendiary statement. Beyond that they say arguing with other editors is "a waste of time" and they say they plan to request Wikipedia admin take action...even though they had the opportunity to talk here for days now.

Requesting admin assistance with this user. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Since I can post here as well, I will raise my concerns again. Regarding this photo album and its caption, published in the 1940s and owned by the Jilin Provincial Archives, please provide any physical evidence or verification papers that prove it is incorrect. I have requested this many times, but I have not received a single response. I do not wish to quote it because it lacks neutrality, but even in this Chinese media article

http://dangshi.people.com.cn/n/2014/0113/c138900-24103649-14.html

It is clearly stated that the photo was taken during epidemic prevention activities. The article also mentions Unit 731, but please note that this is unrelated to the photo's caption. It is against Wikipedia rules to assign a file name to a photograph and caption whose source is clearly known, without providing any evidence of relevance. Furthermore, despite repeatedly pointing this out and requesting primary sources, you have not responded at all, and instead, you have reverted the article based on a Chinese media article and blocked the IP address, which I believe goes against the spirit of Wiki, which respects consensus building through discussion. Wiki is not a scrapbook of web pages. The correct procedure is to verify and discuss any new sources presented and update any errors in the article. I would appreciate hearing the opinions of many people, as well as any counterarguments to the primary sources.Thank you. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Rosemeyer, you haven't really addressed almost any of the points being raised here. I can put it in short, concise points all the issues right now.

1) You have not addressed your complete lack of sources, whether they are Japanese, English, secondary or primary, on the Racial Equality Proposal article (especially your claims that China is influencing the sources present in the article), and why you are trying to delete historian Bryan Riggs work off when you havent provided citations or sources suggesting any form of bias from him (as well as why you have been deleting well-cited information off that.)

2) You have not addressed administrator Rsjaffe's very concise and well-done research on the history of your edits, they said in this very discussion that you on four other pages since 2024 focused on removing content that either suggests Chinese influence on ancient Japanese culture or on Japanese war crimes. Rsjaffe themselves said you are pushing a "specific POV in violation of NPOV, and is using fringe or incorrect reasons for some of the edits.

3) Your most recent response is the first time you have given us an actual source on anything, which you could and should have been doing since when the discussion first started. I already provided the Santa Clara University source. Also your own source labels the article "Evidence of Japanese Crimes During the Invasion of China Resurfaces: Forced Recruitment of Comfort Women and Laborers; Germ Warfare" and puts that same photo as "This is a reproduced photograph of personnel from the Health Care Department of the Manchukuo Ministry of National Health participating in a plague "epidemic prevention" activity in Nong'an County, Jilin Province in November 1940 (taken on January 7)." with " " for epidemic prevention which suggests it is criticizing the actual nature of it versus what it was.

Please do not accuse me on "failing to respond", I gave you an ANI notice on May 19. Did you not notice the notification and link you were given because I posted it on your talk page? And its very hypocritical of you to claim I am not providing sources when I have provided and defended multiple sources, such as "Language Conflict and Language Rights: The Ainu, Ryūkyūans, and Koreans in Japan." by Stanley Dubinsky (University of South Carolina) and William D. Davies (University of Iowa) by two American scholars based in the US. Another source, the "Introduction: Race and Empire in Meiji Japan" is written by Israeli scholar Ayelet Zohar as well as Bryan Riggs (even if I am not a fan of his work) as well as Santa Clara University. I provided/defended these sources whilst you only now have introduced a single source. Not to mention, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources per its policy. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Sunnyediting99, I have answered your questions many times. Please do not make me repeat the same things over and over. Nevertheless, I also do not want to stoop to the level of someone who refuses to engage in discussion, I will answer the issues you have raised once again.

1. The Racial Equality Proposal Article

First of all, I apologize for initially editing the article regarding the Racial Equality Proposal without providing a solid explanation. However, during the discussion you subsequently proposed, I offered you a correction draft that kept the well-founded citations intact. You rejected it, completely reverted the article, and reported my edits to an admin. If you have no intention of even discussing the matter, please say so from the beginning.

There is no need for me to explain Bryan Rigg's work. It is modestly criticized in the English Wikipedia article and its Talk page, but please refer to the Japanese Wikipedia for details. The citations and sources suggesting bias that you are looking for—including various sources from historians and journalists criticizing its preposterous content—are all there. If you have any doubts about those sources, please discuss them there.

2. Administrator Rsjaffe's Remarks

Regarding the point made by Admin Rsjaffe, my past edits have been made by providing sources for each respective article. I have corrected clearly incorrect information written on a private individual's blog, to the official information from the Japanese government. Furthermore, I have tracked down the English literature that serves as the source for content written on the Japanese Wikipedia, cited it, and reflected it in the English Wikipedia.

I do not understand Admin Rsjaffe's true intentions in characterizing this as pushing a specific point of view, but I respect their decision stating, "So without corroboration that these are fringe/POV edits, I won't be taking administrative action myself." This is because presenting more reliable sources, exhausting discussion, and reaching a consensus aligns with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. It is a far more reasonable approach than that of someone who refuses to listen to explanations from the start and is fixated solely on maintaining the article's status quo.

3. Citations from Chinese Media and Other Sources

It is exactly as I expected, and truly makes me laugh, that you pointed out the article states, "Evidence of Japanese Crimes During the Invasion of China Resurfaces: Forced Recruitment of Comfort Women and Laborers; Germ Warfare" in response to a Chinese media article I only cited after explicitly stating I did not want to because it lacks neutrality.

Fabricated Content: From the perspective of someone who can read Japanese, Chinese propaganda is nothing but preposterous fabrication. Try pointing out the captions of the other photos in that article as well. I can clearly prove that they are completely different from the actual text of the documents shown in the photos. They are simply lining up plausible-looking photos for a domestic Chinese audience that cannot understand Japanese, writing sensationalist articles that are entirely irrelevant and baseless. That is why I have told you many times that citations from Chinese media cannot be trusted.

Epidemic Prevention: You wrote, "for epidemic prevention which suggests it is criticizing the actual nature of it versus what it was." but that is nothing more than your personal impression. Therefore, to avoid increasing the number of victims of Chinese propaganda like yourself, I do not want to cite Chinese media.

Ignored Edit Proposals: Regarding the citations of Stanley Dubinsky, William D. Davies, and Ayelet Zohar, I actually proposed an edit to you that left them intact. You did not respond to this at all and instead reverted everything—including the citation of Bryan Rigg, whom even you claim not to be a fan of. Correct?

Santa Clara University Photo: Furthermore, regarding the photo sourced from Santa Clara University: you claimed this is a secondary source and previously argued that Wikipedia's policy prioritizes secondary sources. I will repeat my answer to that once more. A secondary source that Wikipedia considers reliable is one written by scholars, published by an academic publisher, and carefully scrutinized for quality control. The Santa Clara University page you cite lacks any scholarly verification or annotation whatsoever; it merely reprints captions from Chinese media with the caveat, "According to Xinhua Press"

I completely fail to understand why you all obsess over a file name with clearly incorrect content citing a Chinese media article, going so far as to IP-block me and block my article editing on Wikimedia. To me, it simply looks like an act that damages Wikipedia's credibility. I have seen many times how people who blindly believe that caption make a fuss on social media based on this photo, only to run away when confronted with the actual primary sources. It is truly pitiable to watch you remain completely unaware that you are a victim of Chinese propaganda.

Historical recognition is a delicate issue in any country, and while I believe complete agreement will never be reached, but I still think we should maintain respect for one another. Unilaterally labeling your opponent and demanding the exact same explanations over and over is not respectable behavior. I look forward to a meaningful discussion that involves consideration for the other party.

Finally, thank you very much for taking the time to read this message.

Let us both strive to deepen our knowledge and cultivate the intellectual refinement necessary to find common ground. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This is getting incredibly repetitive, you have not really answered any of my points except the second one. Again, you are repeating the same things PRECISELY because you are not answering anything.

1) Give me a source, an academic source, from any author, Japanese, American, Korean, Russian, British, any academic source. You cannot genuinely tell me to look at Bryan Riggs Wikipedia page or Japanese Wikipedia, those are not acceptable answers. If you cannot actually find a single source and instead just direct me to wikipedia pages or Japanese wikipedia that is not a proper way to present citations. It is not my responsibility to find those sources that you are presenting your argument for, you have to actually cite them here, like you have for the Unit 731 photo.

2) Rsjaffe responded already so I will let them deal with your response, but admin is clearly not convinced by your arguments especially in light of how much content you deleted just to make Japan look good. As multiple editors pointed out, your editing strongly suggests you have a pro-Japan bias, specifically the revisionist type.

3) I see Rsjaffe and others are already talking about the Santa Clara stuff/sourcing so I don't want to make it redundant, but they clearly agree with my position that you are just abusing primary sources by uncritically accepting Japanese narratives while dismissing secondary sources from American institutes. Also, where have I IP-blocked you? Can you please tell me where in the talk page or here on the Admin noticeboard where I IP-blocked you (or asked admin to block you)? You are making claims that don't make any sense at all.

Also, you are now making personal attacks towards me which violates Wikipedia policy, here you have twice now personally attacked, you have said I am a "victim of Chinese propaganda" even though I am not pro-China/pro-PRC and now you say I am an "opponent." Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

First of all, can we please stop discussing this on this forum? I think we're causing a lot of trouble for those around us.

What kind of proof are you asking for regarding Bryan Riggs? His book isn't a peer-reviewed academic paper or anything like that, so there's no academic literature to prove that its contents aren't reliable. Similarly, there are no papers to prove that its contents are reliable. There are criticisms and reviews of the book, but those are topics for discussion in the Bryan Riggs article.

I'm not blaming you for the IP block. I was simply stating the fact that I've been blocked on Wikimedia Commons and raising concerns about how I'm being treated. I apologize if calling you a "victim of Chinese propaganda" offended you. However, your statement that my edits are "historical revisionist" also feels like an insult to me. Revisionists don't even engage in discussion; they act on the premise that the other party is unilaterally wrong. I always seek discussion and want to acknowledge and correct my own mistakes. I believe that unilaterally deciding on the other person's "principles" and proceeding with the discussion based on that premise is completely unconstructive. Also, I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't know the exact meaning of "opponent" in English-speaking countries, but I'm using it in the sense of a debate partner.

To reiterate, you were the one who first raised the issue of my editing on the admin forum. However, the discussion has devolved into a mere exchange of arguments about individual articles, causing considerable inconvenience. You claim to want to "exclude" me from discussions about Japanese history, but if that's your purpose for making this discussion public, then I don't want to cause any more trouble for everyone, so I'd like to quietly return to editing my articles. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the appropriate forum as admin can track our conversation, and if the Topic Ban passes you won't be allowed to edit Japan-topic articles anyhow.

You say his stuff isn't peer reviewed, or that his stuff isn't reliable. That would easily meant certain historians or journalists would have had to have written about him, particularly negatively on this topic. We have numerous cases of this, like how I said that Kobori Keiichiro is a far-right revisionist. Here's an example:

Example: I stand by the claim that your edits are POV pushing, especially since other editors have already pointed that out to. Here's a perfect comparsion, you have cited far-right historians like Kobori Keiichiro, which multiple sources say he's a revisionist or affiliated with revisionists or he says revisionist things. Georgetown University flat out says the society he's with is "pseudo-scholary." I made a point, I defended it with sources and quotes from reputable sources like his own words, DW (German news outlet secondary source), Georgetown University (secondary source, American academic institution). Nowhere did I just say things or tell editors to look at wikipedia pages, I give concise, targeted links so that you can easily click them and you know where I got this information from. Its indisputable that what you cite is from the far-right.

Contrast that with your claim, you said I am a "victim of Chinese propaganda" when I have shown time and again that I am not a fan of the Chinese government and don't hold great views of it. I outright asked other editors if a source like the Chinese media article should even be included as I said I was uncomfortable using a Chinese government source. I would have been open to discussing removing it, but you refused to respect me throughout this entire process. You offered compromises without letting me even accept or reject them.

I find it hard to believe the "opponent" mistranslation when let me quote EXACTLY the words you said to describe me: "Therefore, to avoid increasing the number of victims of Chinese propaganda like yourself, I do not want to cite Chinese media...It is truly pitiable to watch you remain completely unaware that you are a victim of Chinese propaganda." Translation issues can happen yes, but anyone can see that you had to have deliberately written that in Japanese to convey such spiteful comments.

As for the exclusion, I was not the one who even proposed it. I am merely agreeing to the proposal after multiple other editors decided your behavior towards me and others was so disrespectful (and because you showed significant POV pushing and bias in your edits). that they collectively started to agree upon it hours before I even edited today. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Brian Riggs, Professor Shiro Takahashi of Reitaku University and education scholar Shiro Takahashi have criticized the content, and journalist Toshihiro Yamada interviewed him and raised questions about the content. (I apologize that it is a paid article. Brian Riggs denies receiving funding from the Chinese government, but he admitted that he received assistance from a Chinese woman in organizing historical materials, and that her friend was the chief record keeper handling public documents in Nanjing. The article suggests that the writing style is intended to create buzz and increase sales.)

For recent Japanese perceptions of the Tokyo Trials, please read this article by Asahi Shimbun reporter Makino, for example. It's short. Incidentally, for recent actions by the Chinese government, you might find the Asahi Shimbun article by Dr. Dylan Plung of the University of Washington, who is also mentioned in that article above, the Jiji Press article, and the paper from the National Institute for Defense Studies of the Japanese Ministry of Defense helpful. You will understand why Japanese people are nervous about information from Chinese media such as Xinhua News Agency, including the photograph in question.

I offered a compromise precisely because I respected your opinion. However, as a result, my editing has been completely ignored. Is this the result of you showing me respect? The language barrier is truly frustrating. You unilaterally declared me a revisionist, shut down the discussion, and reported me as a user making disruptive edits on the administrator bulletin board.

I believe I have carefully responded to the many points raised by people here, but the discussion proceeded with a predetermined conclusion from the start, and I've even been subjected to a TBAN. Some people on Wikimedia have shown understanding for my explanation, but they are powerless against the authority of the administrators. In any case, I will continue to deepen my knowledge, correct what needs correcting, admit my mistakes, and strive for agreement and respect for historical understanding not only on Wikipedia but on various stages as well.

I'm getting tired, so that's all from me. Good night. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I call your edits showing revisionist intent precisely because you keep citing revisionists.

You cited Professor Shiro Takahasi about Bryan Riggs, well I looked him up. The Japan Forward (the English wing of the Sankei Shimbum a right wing-far right newspaper) notes his presence/writes about him multiple times and shows he is affiliated with far-right groups. That same person you cite, is highly reviewed by the far right "Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact" that I talked about. While I am not supportive of Bryan Riggs work, it is clear there is a collective, coordinated effort by far-right Japanese scholars to try to discredit him as the articles clearly indicate.

These other sources are all mostly just talking about Chinese efforts to discredit Japanese sovereignty and identity, which I personally (though I try to not let that affect my editing as editing should be objective and neutral) am against as I do believe that Chinese state actions towards Japan are malicious and that Japanese people have a right to self-determination as do all people. However, it is equally malicious to just support Japanese nationalism and war crime denials.

No, Rosemeyer you offered a compromise and didn't even let me comment on it before making it. That played a huge role in why I filed this ANI (which I must remind you, is the correct protocol for dealing with this as our conversations were going nowhere). And please stop accusing me of "not showing you respect' when you said: "Therefore, to avoid increasing the number of victims of Chinese propaganda like yourself, I do not want to cite Chinese media...It is truly pitiable to watch you remain completely unaware that you are a victim of Chinese propaganda." Given that I have not called u anything negative (for example I could be saying "Rosemeyer is a victim of Japanese nationalist ideology" but I have not)

Not to mention, other users like AndyTheGrump already said your edits show far-right/revisionist bias. There was no "predetermined conclusion" because you could shown me and other editors respect. Seeing as how you called admins on Wiki commons "vandals" its pretty clear why the proposal to TBAN you off Japanese history on English Wikipedia is getting traction. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The diffs on the racial equality proposal and the edit warring over the image are particularly alarming even notwithstanding the claims that academic sources are somehow Chinese propaganda. Unfortunately it's all too common for people to claim, on Wikipedia, that even a tangential connection to China is enough to question reliability. I think we need to start treating these POV assertions seriously, especially when they become obviously disruptive such as in the case above. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In reality, the confusion is arising precisely because no academic sources have been presented at all. If the act of presenting more reliable sources continues to be labeled as "disruptive behavior" moving forward, the number of people who question the reliability of Chinese media will only increase. Please seriously consider the fact that the very act of refusing discussion and labeling the opponent's proposals as "POV" solely to push one's own narrative is, in itself, a POV assertion. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I have literally never edited the same articles as you and you're calling me an opponent? I am literally an uninvolved third party. A locus of the disruption here is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Rosemeyer2022 is a very new editor though so I think a time-limited topic ban narrowly tailored on 20th century Japanese history is probably a reasonable remedy. That way they can learn a bit about appropriate comportment in other areas with minimal interference with their options to edit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not call you an opponent. I was simply explaining the situation I currently find myself in. However, even as a third party, if you show no respect for freedom of speech and propose further blocks under the guise that my demeanor is "inappropriate," then you are the one turning Wikipedia into a battleground. I ask that you respond to rational questions with rationality. Sincerely. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Free speech. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I proposed no blocks. About the only action that could arise out of this board milder than a narrowly-targeted and time-limited topic ban would be a formal warning. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. It's probably a problem with my English reading comprehension. I misread your suggestion as "reasonable remedy," so I mistakenly thought it was a remedy for me. I couldn't think of any reason why I needed a remedy. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a remedy that would be assigned to you. Actions taken at this board are non-punitive and are designed to prevent further disruption. The evidence provided by @Rsjaffe is quite clear that disruption has occurred. My remedy is designed to curtail that with minimal impact. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't received any explanation of the evidence from @Rsjaffe, and it was someone else who claimed I was causing confusion. I have absolutely no intention of causing confusion, and if my edits are clearly wrong, I will correct them immediately. That's what the Talk function is for. In any case, I don't believe I will be blocked without being allowed to discuss anything at all. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Which LLM-based software (translation tool, grammar checker, etc.) are you using to communicate here? --JBL (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You asked what my true intentions were in posting my concerns. I believe my posting expressed those, but to be clear, I'll explain more here. My posting was an invitation to others to examine the evidence and provide me and other administrators with better background on the nature and quality of the edits. Administrators try to avoid deciding content disputes. However, this is a concern about pushing fringe or biased information, in which case the content dispute is important for making the decision. I avoided making conclusions as I did not have access to enough sources to confirm my concerns: thus I simply objectively recounted your edits. However, I did make one conclusion: that the picture of the "plague victim" was indeed a unit 731 victim, as I could readily find multiple reliable sources about that image. Indeed, you misread the source you quote as that source clearly labels the image as a unit 731 victim, and just includes the Japanese justification of the image, which you improperly assumed was the correct description: the quotes around "plague victim" indeed emphasize that the Japanese description wsa deceptive. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, I wanted to follow up here with you. Thank you for verifying the image is true, that it unfortunately is a real human being and that the image is not doctored.

I am tagging @AndyTheGrump specifically for this next section because I wanted to tell you that you were correct in saying that Rosemeyer has a Japanese revisionist view of history and that Rsjaffe's concerns on their edits is spot on.

Following up on your comment on Rosemeyer's edits on "Ben Bruce Blakeney." I dug into this to see who Rosemeyer cited. The source they used has a far-right/revisionist bias, they cited here Kobori Keiichiro, who is an author/member for the "Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact."

DW, a German news outlet, and other outlets, call this Society a far-right/Japanese revisionist org saying it "promotes a narrative of Japan's actions during World War II that denies the atrocities that Japan committed."

You can also see here in this interview transcript that Rosemeyer's source/author Kobori Keiichiro straight up says the British/Americans conspired to wage war against Japan. Rosemeyer's author says the Huanggutun incident (for those unfamiliar, this was an attempt by the Japanese Empire to destabilize China) was actually a "secret Soviet operation" and you can check out all the other revisionist publications this society works on in their English website.]] Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The fact that the interpreter stopped midway through Blakeney's statement at the Tokyo Trials is corroborated by the "Transcripts of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East," published 1946-1948 by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and held by the National Diet Library of Japan. Although the record is in Japanese, I believe it can be read using AI. There are also videos of Blakeney's statements on YouTube, so please compare them to this for verification. Dr. Keiichiro Kobori is an emeritus professor at the University of Tokyo and, naturally, has published books based on thorough historical criticism and verification. If we do not consider this a reliable source, there will be almost no sources that can be cited on Wikipedia. I also agree with TBAN, so please continue the discussion in the Talk section of the relevant article. I do not want to cause trouble on the Admin Bulletin Board. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You are going into the territory of original research in Wikipedia which is frowned upon. Regardless of what happened with the interpreter, we cannot trust the source you are providing (Keiichiro Kobori) precisely because we have proof that their usage of facts are biased.

Also that completely ignores the point Im making, the basis of the source (Keiichiro Kobori) is far-right. We have proof of this, a German news outlet describes the society he works for as far-right. His own writings are entirely revisionist, "Dr" Keiichiro Kobori is claiming the British and Americans provoked Japan into WWII, they claim the Soviets did something the Japanese clearly did, I can go on and on about the sheer revisionism.

Also I believe you might be misinterpreting what a TBAN is, essentially the proposal would mean you are barred from editing or discussing on all and any Japanese history on this website and on all relevant articles (the duration of which is yet to be determined). This noticeboard on your specific case will close out. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Let me reiterate, can we stop arguing here? Let's discuss this on lawyer Blakeney's page.

I haven't conducted any independent research; I've simply presented alternative sources. I leave it up to you to interpret them as you see fit.

You are free to call Dr. Kobori a revisionist. However, it is also true that many experts acknowledge his research and support his claims. Ignoring that fact and lumping them all together as revisionists is a typical POV (point of view) statement.

Is TBAN a measure to block all editing related to Japanese history on the English Wikipedia? If that is implemented, it will cause a major stir among Wikipedia Japan editors, including Japanese administrators. I think it will no longer be a discussion between us here. Please make your decision carefully. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The proposed TBAN concerns you only. I see no reason whatsoever why administrators of the Japanese Wikipedia would wish to engage in an entirely inappropriate attempt to interfere. The projects are autonomous. Neither has any control over the other, per core WMF policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand that, of course. However, please also understand that many Japanese Wiki editors are working hard to reconcile articles across different countries. Wikipedia is not a platform for asserting differences in national perceptions. Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge. Wikipedia is not censored, but it does not provide a platform for all forms of human expression. I respect those words. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, thank you for your comment. I certainly respect your objective review of my editing, and I will try my best to understand the conclusions you have reached. You mentioned that you were able to easily find multiple reliable sources for the photograph in question, but if all of those sources ultimately trace back to articles published by the Jilin Provincial Archives and Xinhua News Agency, then they cannot be considered academically verified and clearly proven sources from a multifaceted perspective, including from Japan. Furthermore, I am not stating Japan's claims. I am simply faithfully translating the title and caption of the photograph as they appear on the cover of the album, which is the source. Anyone who can read Japanese cannot make a mistake in this description. Xinhua News Agency is claiming that Japan's explanation is deceptive, but I could not find any sources in which Japanese public organizations or researchers are explaining "this photograph." Therefore, I don't even know what the Chinese media is claiming is deceptive. I repeat, but could you please logically explain the justification for adopting claims made by Chinese media that have not been adequately verified or researched, and for using sources that merely reprint them, as reliable sources and drawing conclusions based on them? Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This is quite a presumption: "could you please logically explain the justification for adopting claims made by Chinese media that have not been adequately verified or researched, and for using sources that merely reprint them, as reliable sources and drawing conclusions based on them?

Why are you presuming they're Chinese media/based on Chinese media, when rsjaffe hasn't told you which sources he was looking at? You said that you've looked at Japanese sources, but that doesn't mean that every other source in existence is Chinese by default. You also don't know if they are primary or secondary sources.

Similarly, Japanese sources aren't necessarily any more reliable than those of other countries - if the concern is that Japan might not be a reliable source for something, then it's probably not a good idea to focus solely on Japanese sources - sources from independent/uninvolved countries may be preferable in that case.

All we know is that rsjaffe found other reliable sources, you can't make presumptions about their reliability without knowing what they are first. Blue-Sonnet 00:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Then, I would like to ask @rsjaffe to provide the source of the information, but this is not something that should be continued on this forum, so I would like to discuss it in the relevant Wikimedia Commons photo article. However, I am currently IP and editing blocked on Commons, and I do not even have the right to ask questions. My request to be unblocked was also denied, so there is nothing I can do. Please guide me to where I should continue the discussion. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You are blocked from Commons because you tried to change the photo of the Unit 731 victim to be about epidemic prevention.Your conversation about that photo on Commons has run its course, and your excessive pushing on that issue resulted in the block there. There is really no more that needs to be discussed about it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. When I edited the caption for this photo, the Talk was not closed, and the post requesting the source of the photo was still there, so I provided the newly discovered source and asked for the file name to be changed. I don't see the basis for the claim that the discussion is settled. In any case, I am blocked, so there is nothing I can do, and I will refrain from replying any further. Thank you for your advice. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. As stated in that link, Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge, and this is achieved through discussions from multiple perspectives. Therefore, the term POV should not be used lightly. We should all be careful not to reject opinions different from our own and to silence others. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not a platform for expressing our own opinions. As for 'multiple perspectives', it seems evident from the links provided by rsjaffe near the top of this thread that your actual editing practice has been to attempt to impose one (that of Japanese revisionist historiography), while removing sourced content which might support other perspectives on questionable grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules, which require citing sources to support the basis of such citations, center the editing process on compiling and publishing reliable verifications and research from others, rather than expressing one's own opinions. I have always strived to edit with reliable sources, rather than expressing my own principles or opinions, and sources serve as proof of this. However, if even this rule-following behavior is considered imposing one's will, then no one will be able to edit Wikipedia. If the sources I cited are incorrect, I would appreciate it if you could provide more reliable sources. Even if anyone speculate on my editing "tendencies," all I can say is that I corrected the error because it was stated that way in reliable sources. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Your edits to the articles on Japanese carpentry and on Manila Cathedral suggest otherwise, since they involved removal of what appears to be legitimately-sourced content. This isn't about correcting a single 'error'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is correcting incorrect information about Japanese carpentry techniques a problem? Regarding carpentry techniques, what you consider legitimately-sourced content is a personal blog, and its history was off by several centuries, so I simply corrected it based on a source from the Japan Tourism Agency. I didn't remove descriptions about Chinese influence, so I don't see the problem. I also corrected the description of Manila Cathedral, using Aluit, Alphonso J. (1994). By sword and fire: The Destruction of Manila in World War II. as the source, but even though I'm quoting the same book, the description of US naval bombardment in that book has been removed, and descriptions of Japanese war crimes have been added. Doesn't this constitute editing based on POV? I don't understand the criteria at all. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

In this edit (linked above) you removed content concerning Chinese influence on Japanese carpentry, which cited two sources. The first source isn't a blog, and it quotes a Japanese carpenter who explicitly supports the Chinese influence claim: At the end of the 12th century, fine woodworking skills and knowledge were brought into Japan from China. Even if the second source is a blog (it is offline), the first one supports the material you removed. As for the source you cited in the same edit, it isn't from the Japan Tourist Agency , and says absolutely nothing about Chinese influence. As such, it cannot possibly be used to justify the removal of the content.

As for Manila Cathedral, I think it has been well established that initially the Japanese set the building on fire. Certainly, it was further damaged during the subsequent US shelling, but your initial edit failed to mention Japanese actions at all. . Your later edit seems to have been a half-hearted attempt to correct this, but it is anything but clear. It shouldn't take a revert, and a request for a source, to get even this response.

In summary, I'd have to suggest that "editing based on POV" looks like a fair description of your own actions. In both cases, in support of a POV very much adjacent to a Japanese revisionist/nationalist perspective, even though on very different topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Do we think a TBAN from Japan and/or Japanese history would be a good solution? I was about to propose this and wanted your thoughts. Blue-Sonnet 16:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a TBAN as broad as "Japan". My original sense was 20th century Japanese history but, considering the carpentry edits perhaps "Japanese History" would be an appropriate ban without being too broad or too narrow. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Japanese history does seem fair in this case, agreed. Blue-Sonnet 20:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, Rosemeyer's claims here are not true at all. There were very legitimate sources (beyond what AndyTheGrump pointed out). Rosemeyer said "what you consider legitimately-sourced content is a personal blog" but thats outright false.

Here, they deleted this source published by Web.Japan.Org, which is operated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.

The Japanese MoFA says in the opening sentence on Japanese architecture: Historically, architecture in Japan was influenced by Chinese architecture, although the differences between the two are many. This is a very balanced and correct answer, and is well-sourced (I know its a government source, but I highly doubt the Japanese MOFA has an incentive to push a pro-Chinese bias). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, as basic general knowledge, do you know when the World Heritage site Horyu-ji Temple was founded? Or, when was Ise Shrine, a representative example of Japanese shrine architecture, founded, and do you understand its architectural style and how it differs from Chinese architecture? The first source you mentioned is an interview with a young Japanese carpenter, but 12th-century Japan was the late Heian period. It seems this carpenter is referring to the popularity of Song dynasty architecture in Japan, but even before that, Japan had already developed a unique architectural style called "Wayō," which evolved from Chinese architecture. Furthermore, Japanese architecture continued its unique evolution after the 12th century, and its structure and specifications differ significantly from Chinese architecture. Japan adopted the superior techniques and styles of Chinese architecture around the 7th century, but due to differences in climate and other environmental factors such as earthquakes, it evolved uniquely, such as Japanese-castle and Chashitsu , leading to its modern form. On the other hand, ancient Japanese architecture, predating Chinese influence, has also been passed down to the present day through shrine architecture and other forms. It's unlikely this young carpenter lacks such basic knowledge, so it's probably a misunderstanding on the part of the interviewer.

Regarding the Manila Cathedral article, I intended to maintain fairness by including both Japanese arson and US artillery fire based on reliable sources, but I don't understand why only the US portion was deleted. Arson alone wouldn't cause such a massive stone structure to collapse. However, how is it justified to unilaterally delete only the US portion without any discussion? Furthermore, what is the necessity of adding descriptions of Japanese war crimes to the Manila Cathedral article?

In both articles, I have tried to respect the content while editing based on more reliable sources to avoid making one-sided claims. Of course, I correct clearly incorrect sources, like in the young carpenter article, and I am open to discussion if an explanation is needed as to why they are incorrect. Again, please do not misuse the term "POV." If you believe someone else's editing is POV, ask for an explanation and engage in discussion. That's the rule of Wikipedia. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a simple demonstrable fact that this edit of yours removed all mention of Chinese influence from the article on Japanese carpentry. It is a simple demonstrable fact that this edit of yours removed all mention of Japanese arson from the article on Manila Cathedral. Your continue denial of obvious facts can only lead me to conclude that a topic ban is appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Shall we discuss this topic in the article in question?

I admit that I once removed the description of Chinese influence during the editing process, but I have since edited the article to include Chinese influence based on reliable sources, haven't I? The same applies to the description of Manila Cathedral. I always strive to edit based on sources. If there are errors in the current article, please point them out, provide the sources, and then edit it. Also, don't you have any opinions on the details of Japanese architectural history that I explained to you at length and in detail? I can't respond if you only criticize my past editing history. Please give your opinion on the current content of the article in the Talk section of that article. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey yall, i may be late to this but i saw that my edit to Manila Cathedral was mentioned.

I tried to include, in a concise way, information about both the US shelling and the Japanese attack on it (arson), but still rosemeyer claims i entirely removed the mention of US shelling (entirely false, just read the paragraph i modified, it was previously using pretty bad grammar and ommiting important information).

I dont want to get too involved in this but just thought id justify my edit, if someone wants to review it to make sure its correct feel free to do so btw.

MySalsa22 (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Considering the concerns raised by multiple editors above regarding the removal and misinterpretation of existing sources, consistent editing with a specific POV as well as the apparent misunderstanding of NPOV, plus the labelling of any dissenters as "opponents", I think it's time to discuss a topic ban on Japanese history (broadly construed). I want Rosemeyer2022 to continue editing at Wikipedia, but they need to avoid this topic as they're having difficulty remaining neutral when it comes to this area - the logical conclusion is a TBAN on the problematic area.

• Support as proposer. Blue-Sonnet 00:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I also understand that the current situation—where both sides of the argument are suffering from concerns such as the deletion or misinterpretation of existing sources, biased editing based on specific viewpoints, a clear misunderstanding of Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and labeling those with opposing views as "opponents"—is not constructive. These matters should inherently be discussed within each respective article. If actions such as reverting edits without discussion and reporting users to administrators are avoided, and if unilateral IP blocks or editing restrictions are not imposed without sufficient explanation under the guise of POV or vandalism, I am willing to agree to the TBAN. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This topic ban would be placed on you with the clear agreement of the community (multiple editors) and not one single person or administrator. This is intended to make things as fair as possible for you.

A topic ban would mean that you aren't allowed to write or talk about Japanese history at all on Wikipedia.

• If you don't write or talk about Japanese history, there will be nothing to revert.
• If you break the topic ban, your edits will probably be reverted because they shouldn't exist in the first place.
• If you are topic banned and try to write about Japanese history whilst logged out (under a temporary account instead of this one) then there will probably be further sanctions. This would be violating your topic ban and you could have your IP and/or this account blocked if it continued.

Blue-Sonnet 01:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support for Blue Sonnet's proposal to topic ban Rosemeyer off Japanese history. Follow up Edit: Support for Indef per Rsjaffe's comment and reasoning. (@Blue-Sonnet can you please clarify this, since Rosemeyer might be misunderstanding, even in their most recent reply, they're doing a "both sides" argument even though every single editor who has commented here has agreed Rosemeyer has shown significant bias and support towards far-right/revisionist interpretation of Japanese history. Its possible via their translation that they think "both sides are being topic banned" when its just them)

Though frankly I believe something harsher might be needed. They've called me a "victim of Chinese propaganda" and an "opponent" and these are personal attacks (especially the first one, which I find very condscending and insulting because they claim in their edits they wanted to "stop people from becoming victims of Chinese propaganda like you" to me). Really, its very frustrating to see them behave like this and mistreat other editors. Also I checked out what they meant by the "IP ban" I found they've been banned off commons just recently due to vandalism/they were pushing the exact same edits there as here. We might need a stronger and longer response. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Duly clarified - if they did break the topic ban then further sanctions would be warranted. I hope that they will at least try to edit other subjects, at least this way they will have been given the fairest chance that we can give them.

That said, this is concerning so IMO any violations should be given short shrift.

This TBAN is being proposed as a very short leash, so it's up to them whether they want to take this last chance that they've been offered or squander it.

I'm really hoping that it's the former, and they can edit productively in more neutral areas. Blue-Sonnet 01:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Yea...pretty aggressive stuff. Calling administrators "vandals" is very rude and uncalled for, especially given just how much the admins have to deal with (stuff like this for example).

Thank you for the further clarification you provided, hopefully they understand the TBAN is specifically for only them. Disagreeing or bludgeoning the point is one thing but the personal attacks they've made are really getting out of hand. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Not only is Rosemeyer2022 continuing to deny obvious facts concerning deletion of sourced material, they are now hinting at attempting to draw support from 'Japanese administrators'. I very much doubt that such admins would even consider interfering in an internal English-language Wikipedia issue, but this suggestion can only be seen as further grounds to keep Rosemeyer2022 away from a topic where their emotional involvement leads them to contemplate such improper behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, it looks like that's yet another misunderstanding of what a topic ban actually is - it looks like they thought everyone Japanese (or just everyone) would be banned from editing about Japanese history?

  I'm starting to get a strong suspicion that machine translation is being used, because there are far too many basic misunderstandings for someone using the level of English that we're seeing in their replies. Blue-Sonnet 16:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Just wanted to follow up on this Blue Sonnet/AndyTheGrump, yea you might be onto something its probably some kind of AI or machine translation being used. I still don't think Rosemeyer understands what a topic ban is, here's a brief collection of their statements indicating they don't know the TBAN applies only to them and it doesn't apply to every other editor. NOTE: Blue Sonnet clarified what the TBAN was on 01:27 23 May 2026, here are the examples after Blue Sonnet's comment (and other editors comments) that indicate Rosemeyer doesn't seem to understand:

  02:00, 23 May 2026: "First of all, can we please stop discussing this on this forum?... I'd like to quietly return to editing my articles." (Note: They were conversing with me. Every single edit Rosemeyer has made prior to the ANI has been on Japanese history topics)

  02:17 23 May 2026: "Let me reiterate, can we stop arguing here? Let's discuss this on lawyer Blakeney's page." (Blakeney is related to Japanese history) and then they asked how a TBAN applies. (Note: They were discussing this with me and admin Rsjaffe. Their edits suggest they think the TBAN is a topic ban for every editor).

  02:28, 23 May 2026: "Shall we discuss this topic in the article in question?" (Note: They were conversing with AndyTheGrump. Japanese Carpentry is the article in question, which is related to Japanese history)

  03:12, 23 May 2026: "I understand that, of course. However, please also understand that many Japanese Wiki editors are working hard to reconcile articles across different countries." (Note: They were discussing with AndyTheGrump. The first sentence suggests they understand but its contradicted by the immediate second sentence which indicates they think its a general topic ban for everyone because they say "many Japanese wiki editors are working hard...")

  04:53, 23 May 2026: "I believe I have carefully responded to the many points raised by people here, but the discussion proceeded with a predetermined conclusion from the start, and I've even been subjected to a TBAN." (Note: They were discussing with me. They seem to think the TBAN has already happened, when the vote hasn't even formally concluded yet.)

  Can anyone write in Kanji or know Japanese? I'm worried Rosemeyer will break the TBAN because they don't seem to understand what it actually is and they don't understand its specifically applied only to them. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Honestly speaking, if they choose to edit English Wikipedia then it's their responsibility to make sure they understand the language well enough to do so.

  If they're TBANned and subsequently violate the ban, an admin will likely fully block them.

  It might be an idea to translate the TBAN notice, but there will be wikilinks to policies/guidelines that explain things further - OFC those will be in English, so it's again their responsibility to make sure they understand them fully before continuing to edit English Wikipedia. Blue-Sonnet 23:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yea I do agree with you there, if its English wikipedia it is their responsibility to have a degree of competence in English. Also just cause im a bit unaware, how exactly would the vote be calculated for TBAN vs Indef (since it seems three or four people support an indef and a lot of people are giving answers supporting both). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support with 6 month time limit This editor is new and came in hot but NPOV is sometimes challenging even for well established editors who are operating entirely in good faith. The stuff at Commons isn't a good look but also isn't on En.Wp. Let's prevent disruption while avoiding WP:BITE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum. An indef would be acceptable as well. I already consider myself involved since I engaged in a disagreement with Rosemeyer2022 about content (the picture), so I might as well participate in the sanctions discussion. I suggest people review Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, which describes (to a large extent but not completely) the behavior exhibited here. The problem is that the user is pushing a fringe/extremist POV. For example, retitling the picture not only goes against the current assessment attached to the picture, but also endorses the fiction that was pushed about their activities that they were public health efforts, against the evidence that is available widely about the true activities there. If this person were editing about the Nazi atrocities in WWII, I'd expect to see large numbers of people rapidly shutting them down. But because it is about the Japanese atrocities, knowledge of which was partially suppressed at the time by the US in order to take advantage of the "science" contained in the experiments, there is a much more muted response. The other edits also push a strongly nationalist POV. Because of that, I believe that experience will not improve the situation, and giving the editor more time to learn would be fruitless. A topic ban would stop those edits. Why am I suggesting an indefinite block? Because this is a low volume editor with a singular agenda: I do not think that the potential benefit of edits by them in other areas outweighs the time and effort needed to enforce a half-measure like a topic ban. However, it is a decision that is up to the community. I am unable, as an involved editor, to make such a decision myself, though another admin could do so. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware of their problems at Commons when I proposed the TBAN, plus the ongoing language & communication difficulties are honestly beginning to concern me.

  I'm currently 50/50 between TBAN & indef, but since we've got the TBAN ball rolling right now I guess we'll see how it goes.

  If consensus moves to indef then I'll probably amend my support. Blue-Sonnet 00:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Personally I've come around to Rsjaffe's idea, I do think an Indef might be the correct solution. I'll amend my vote. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  So here's the problem I've got. Yes, this is a low-frequency editor who has previously shown a narrow set of interests. But they're also very new. If we go with a topic ban rather than a block then one of three things happen:

  1. they stop editing altogether - same as a block
  2. they edit something else and have a chance to become a productive user
  3. they violate the tban and get summarily blocked - same as a block

  So I do still prefer the topic ban. However I do want to say I entirely understand the locus of concern. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, although I wouldn't object to an indef. There are very few non-POV edits, and per a few editors, this may be a case of CIR. (PS. I do know a little Japanese, but nowhere near enough to clearly communicate the gravity of the situation.) MiasmaEternal☎ 22:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and if the conversation moves that way, I would support an indef as well. This editor has little insight into their POV-pushing, and I find POV-pushing in an ethno-nationalist sense to be far more dangerous than, say, POV-pushing for a particular brand of cola or whether you should use Thousand Island or Russian dressing on a Reuben (obviously Russian). The topic ban is the minimum required, I think, but I'm very concerned that the problem is their underlying belief in how Wikipedia works, and that's potentially problematic everywhere, not just Japanese-related topics. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support Rosemeyer doesn't seem to get it, and I'm starting to wonder if that's intentional. Hellbus (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support Per above. The editor appears to be stonewalling their stance and the constant insistence of moving it off of the ANI page strikes me as an attempt to get adminstrators eyes off of them rather than to engage collaboratively. Additionally, as mentioned above, I would be curious to know if the editor uses some form of LLM or Grammar Checker to assist in their writing. I ran some of their messages through GPTZero and while some are human responses others come back as AI Assisted. 🌻SunflowerWizard🌻 (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  They're probably using machine translation. Their statements read more like that than like AI generated responses. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Concur, with the proviso that most translators have begun to integrate AI/LLM's in their base model to some extent - this editor was very eloquent, yet misunderstood very basic statements. That would easily be explained through mistranslation, especially since many AI/LLM models will translate text on request. The AI misunderstands one part and "guesses" at the meaning, altering the context (and therefore mistranslating) the rest of the text. There are some AI tells too, such as em-dashes, random bolding and AI-specific phrasing.

  Either way, I'm 99% sure that there is some form of translation that's resulted in significant misunderstandings.

  They've unfortunately stopped editing four days ago, otherwise we could have asked them directly to try and clear this up. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 16:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Rosemeyer2022 can you please respond? Editors are requesting information from you. Are you utilizing LLM or Grammar Checker (or AI) in your responses on English Wikipedia. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Blue-Sonnet since you are the proposer, do we have enough input now? It seems we have universal support for a TBAN. Rosemeyer "agreed" to it but Im not entirely convinced they actually understood via translation what that entailed.

  The only actual division is Indef vs TBAN, I count two people who are opposed to that (MySalsa and Simonm223) and four who either support Indef (Rsjaffe, myself, CoffeeCrumbs, Hiobazard) and three who are slightly supportive but not firmly, since the responses I gauged were: open to Indef/are 50-50 on it/don't object to an Indef (Yourself, Acinonyxjuxbatusrex, MiasmaEternal). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not an admin, but one will be along soon to assess the consensus and place the appropriate sanction when they close this report. Since Rosemeyer2022 has stopped editing this won't be deemed as urgent as a lot of the other cases on here, but it will get actioned as soon as someone gets round to it. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 23:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ok thats great to hear, was just worried since I know sometimes these discussions can time out/expire (not sure the exact time that has to pass but I know if theres no further discussion an ANI can sometimes disappear) Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yup, if there are no replies for 72hrs. If that happens, you can just bring this discussion back from the archive - that's thankfully rare! Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 16:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've used the {{bump}} template to delay archiving. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  I actually did not know either of these (that you could bump a thread, or that it was specifically 72 hours but that you can bring it back from an archive). I guess one can always learn more despite being on the website for a few years! Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support For evasiveness, intransigence, and NPOV, but also for this slightly veiled threat: If that is implemented, it will cause a major stir among Wikipedia Japan editors, including Japanese administrators. I think it will no longer be a discussion between us here. Please make your decision carefully. I would also support an indef, actually. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 17:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support Per all above, user is constantly trying to push their own views into the articles by removing relevant and reliably-sourced information, in addition to the evasiveness and veiled threats mentioned above (trying to pull Japanese editors and admins into a dispute here). Also agree to the possibility of them using AI/LLM tools for translation, which could be a major obstacle for proper communication. I think a topic ban is enough for now, unless the user resumes the disruptive edits, though they appear to have agreed to the TBAN in this discussion previously. MySalsa22 (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and agree if that if POV-pushing continues, an indefinite ban should be considered. The attempts to remove a Unit 731 victim's photo from the Biological Warfare page and reframe said photo in Wikimedia Commons to be about "epidemic prevention" are extremely disturbing. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment to any administrator: It appears that Rosemeyer2022 is in a hole and is continuing digging. Closing this discussion while they are only in a topic ban hole may protect them from getting into a deeper site ban hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  While I desire expeditious closure, I don't see any recent activity by them. Am I missing something? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Bumping thread for 5 days. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus here (which I also support), and Rosemeyer2022 is evidently not going to respond further, so it would be great if an administrator could go ahead and action it. --JBL (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hu741f4 at Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem

Hu741f4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The discussion Talk:Fermat's_Last_Theorem#Recent_removal_of_sourced_content began with some low-level edit-warring and has descended into aggressive personal comments and general attempts to battle everyone else in the discussion. This is all very reminiscent of the 2023–4 discussions at Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system/Archive_2, Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system/Archive_3, and Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system#Disputed_content_on_Shang_numerals, which featured in a recent ArbCom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb. I request a clear warning from an administrator to Hu741f4 concerning broadly their WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, since Hu741f4 has made it clear that they will not otherwise recalibrate . --JBL (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This is WP:ASPERSIONS

• Those (Hindu arabic numeral examples) were content disputes. I didn't break any Wikipedia rule throughout the discussion. It was another user.
• This(Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb) has nothing to do with me. I am not involved in that.
• Please elaborate how asking an ip editor to keep their original research out of Wikipedia is WP:BATTLEGROUND. I didn't: 1)insult the user 2)make personal remarks 3)use offensive words.

As per WP:NPA, these constitute personal attacks

Extended quote from WP:NPA

* Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be, "You're a railfan so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. However, be aware that speculation regarding the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing. Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions. Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. Comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous people. (See also Godwin's law.) Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Threats, including, but not limited to: Threats of legal action Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats) Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by a government, their employer, or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why. Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor.

Which one of the above point did I violate that I am being accused of personal attacks???

Hu741f4 (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. That wasn't an "ip editor", that was me. As I explained, I was editing from a computer where I did not have my login details saved. I'm back now. And disparaging someone's point of view because they are an "ip editor", which you are doing here, is an ad hominem attack and uncivil behavior. (And EEng already explained why you're wrong about OR here.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

sorry for that but please explain how was that ad hominem. You need to prove the accusation. Hu741f4 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

By definition, an ad hominem attack denigrates the value of a statement based on who is saying it, which you did. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

denigrates the value of a statement based on who is saying it... but I cited WP:OR as the reason to reject that statement, not "who you are". Go through that edit again. Hu741f4 (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You took a hostile and confrontational tone before you cited WP:OR (erroneously, as EEng pointed out), and then in defending yourself here, on ANI, you augmented that with an ad hominem attack. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I haven't used any ad hominem here. Because there was no username, i used "Ip user". So you are saying that I should have addressed you by writing that given ip instead of "ip user"? Hu741f4 (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you should address other editors on Wikipedia politely and respectfully, in both the second and third person. --JBL (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

For the record, addressing oneself impolitely and disrespectfully in the first person is OK. I do it all time as a display of humility, hypocrite that I am. EEng 02:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Hu741f4, you missed the part after the bullet list: These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. Schazjmd (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

How did I insult or disparage that editor. Please elaborate. What was insulting? Hu741f4 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

"To my knowledge", keep your knowledge and your original research to yourself is unnecessarily aggressive and borderline insulting - I'm a little concerned that you don't see how this could come across to other people. The overall tone of this comment was belittling and disparaging; whether or not you meant it to be, doesn't change the fact that it is.

There were many, many better ways that you could (and should) have made this point.

Your later comments to try to defend this comment come across as though you think that a TA's statements are less worthwhile than named accounts. Not explicitly, but again it's the overall tone.

Again, I'm not saying that you intended any of that meaning, but please look at this with fresh eyes and consider what it could look like to the recipient, or an uninvolved outsider.

I realise it must be frustrating to have so many other editors disagree with you, but the fact that this is happening should give you pause.

The WP:1AM essay may help to give you some perspective on what to do in this sort of situation. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 22:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

thank you Hu741f4 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for accepting the feedback! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

This is frivolous report by @JBL for sure. He didn't provide any strong evidence for an explicit clear personal attack directed towards the user. Hu741f4 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

So you've changed your mind from our discussion above? I think it's clear that everyone else disagrees with you on this point. It's not explicit, but that doesn't mean it's not there. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Problematic and non-collaborative behavior of JMWt

Hi, I didn't want this situation to escalate like this, but the only place I can try to resolve this is here. If I'm in the wrong place, then someone please let me know. In the meantime, here this goes:

I'm coming on here to bring to light problematic and non-collaborative behavior from a user by the name of @JMWt, who had not fulfilled any of my requests for help with making correction edits and had made false accusations against me by making claims that I have used either AI or LLMs to translate the following articles from the French Wikipedia: Mouloud Achour and Patrick Cohen. To be clear, I do not use any of the such and sort to translate. Although I am still learning French and many other languages using Duolingo, which is a well-known language-learning app, I do not, in any way, use large-language models (LLMs) or artificial intelligence (AI) to translate anything.

But back to the situation. Even though I have said countless times to this person that I have not used any AI or LLMs to translate, especially when I'm still learning, and have asked countless times for help from them to fix these articles and correct what I had done wrong in any way (proof here, they reached out to me first: User talk:Jibblesnark86#Patrick Cohen), they had still nominated both of these articles for deletion without even answering my questions or trying to help me with anything. I even asked them if they were a new page reviewer or new page monitor to see if they were verified to help me pinpoint what I had done wrong (I also did this because their main page is intentionally blank and, thus, I couldn't even tell), and they never answered that question either.

Here are the deletion discussions for reference:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouloud Achour (French-Algerian journalist)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Cohen

This user then requested me to talk with them at these discussions instead, and during those discussions, while I had stated my position, proved points, tried to reassure them and reason with them, etc., they still ignored me, went back and forth with me, and still made these false accusations. Eventually, these discussions were closed without any deletions (Mouloud Achour reached no consensus but was stubified, and Patrick Cohen was kept as is), and other editors in these discussions even said there was no clear evidence of LLM use whatsoever, especially the usual clues that give it away, which was one of the exact things I was trying to tell this user. I also saw that they did the same thing to another user, who had messaged them on their talk page trying to reason with them, like I did.

I had asked them for help with these things again, in the most polite way possible, but they completely ignored my message, and they were even off of Wikipedia for ten straight days, seemingly on purpose, just to ignore me. So I left them alone and waited, and then after they eventually came back, I tried, once again, polite as ever, to ask them for help with all of this, and to pinpoint, exactly, every single thing I had done wrong. But they still didn't answer that, and instead told me to stop messaging them, and that if I messaged them again, I would be reported for harassment (proof: User_talk:Jibblesnark86#Stop).

Let me also make this clear as well: It has never, I repeat, never, been my intention to harass anyone on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the Web or in real life, because that is absolutely not me. I also do not condone harassment in any way, shape or form. So for them to say that to me, it really hurt my feelings and deterred my mental health. So, I then told them that I was sorry and I would stop messaging them, and afterwards, took a semi-wikibreak to get over all of this and to feel better mentally and feel encouraged to edit again. After I took that semi-wikibreak, I actually felt a whole lot better, and I therefore wanted to send a full, polite, sincere apology to this user and see if they could trust me again when it comes to getting help with editing and forgive me for everything I might have said and done wrong, especially if I actually did cause any harm in any way, which I know I did not, and to just resolve this and move on from this.

I wrote the apology and published it on their talk page, feeling very good about myself and hoping that they would respond better and see me in a different light. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, as they then proceeded to wipe their entire talk page, deleting every single subject, including my sincere apology (proof: User talk:JMWt), and thus leaving both their main and talk pages completely blank. Therefore, it stands to reason that I believe they are still ignoring me and won't even communicate with me, even when I'm opening up, being honest and sincere, making an apology to them, and asking for actual help with editing.

This behavior, in my opinion, is very suspiciously problematic and non-collaborative, and all of that brings me here to this noticeboard to hopefully discuss things further. By the time this is published, I've already notified this user about this discussion on their now-wiped talk page. I'm seriously hoping that this user can address all of these issues for real on this noticeboard, as well as other users, and that this user can probably at least apologize themselves for all of this.

I'm sorry that this might be excessive and long, but I really wanted to address this. As I said, if I'm in the wrong place to discuss matters like this, please let me know and I will go where I should instead to discuss this.

TL;DR: A user, @JMWt, has been non-collaborative when it comes to help with editing and has made false accusations that I use AI and LLMs to translate articles in other languages, which, even though I'm still learning, I absolutely do not. They have also done this to another editor, and when trying to reassure them and ask for help, they ignored and did not communicate further, and instead tried to report me. I've even apologized to them, sincerely, for any harm I might have caused, which I know I did not, but they still ignored my apology and wiped their talk page. I personally believe this is problematic and non-collaborative behavior, and it has to be addressed. I'm hoping that this user, along with other users, can discuss this matter on here to resolve these issues regarding the AI/LLM accusations, the fact that they went back and forth and tried to report me, and the fact that they are probably, intentionally, ignoring my messages for advice, help, resolution, etc. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jibblesnark86, I feel it's very important to point out that we are all volunteers and nobody is obligated to give you advice or help you.

They're allowed to be busy and offline for as long as they want to be away from Wikipedia. If they don't want to interact with you, they don't have to.

Editors are also allowed to wipe their Talk page, this is often confirmation that they have read your post.

Can I ask why you think that JMWt (or any other Wikipedia editor) is personally responsible for performing a full audit of your editing history and teaching you how Wikipedia works? Especially after they explicitly asked you to leave them alone?

Is it also reasonable to ask another volunteer to look through all the edits you gave ever made and tell you what mistakes you've made, as you ask in this report and on their Talk page.

Jibblesnark86, the only person who is responsible for your edits and learning how Wikipedia works is you. Other editors may help as and when they can, but absolutely nobody owes you their own personal time as a volunteer.

It's difficult to verify a lot of your claims as you haven't provided diffs for a lot of it. It looks like they did mistakenly thought that you used AI and nominated a couple of articles for deletion based on that misunderstanding - people make mistakes and I don't think this rises to the level of needing administrative sanctions, especially since they accepted your explanation as soon as you confirmed you weren't using it. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 22:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

For context, it appears that JMWt asked Jibblesnark86 to leave them alone after being messaged twice on 2 April and every day afterwards just to ask if they're a new page reviewer.

JMWt stopped editing until 15 April;

Jibblesnark86 saw JMWt had returned and immediately messaged them again, demanding an answer to their original question: (see "New page reviewer/monitor"? and the bottom thread).

It looks like Jibblesnark86 is under the impression that only NPP's can review or nominate articles for deletion, and challenged JMWt's authority to do any of this based on this presumption.

@Jibblesnark86, you don't have to answer any of my questions above, as they're questions I'd like you to please ask yourself.

I would, however, like you to please honour JMWt's request to leave them alone going forwards. If you see them in passing, move onto a different article or Talk page. Only leave warnings or notices when you absolutely have to do so, in order to comply with Wikipedia policies. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 23:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, I'm very hurt and disappointed by this response to all of this, although... I completely understand. Maybe even though I wasn't in the wrong edit-wise, I was certainly in the wrong in terms of handling situations like this. Maybe I'm primarily the one to blame in terms of that. I guess I did take things too far, and once again, I'm so deeply sorry. I just don't like to be misunderstood or thought of as "lazy" or "AI-prominent", because that's not how I edit Wikipedia, especially in another language.

I've been dedicated to this ever since October 2024, almost two years ago, and I have never been involved in anything like this since. But right now, while I'm apologizing now, all I want is for this user, whether they are an NPP or not as well, to please come forward and at least apologize for misunderstanding my edits and actions when editing, and maybe, just maybe, we can move on from this. That's really all I want. Otherwise, this feeling just won't go away.

I'm sorry if this seems or sounds depressing or anything like that, but this is the best way I can write this. But please know, I'm trying to not let this get to me that much, but this is all I ask right now. Once again, @Blue-Sonnet, I totally understand the questions you asked for me to ask myself, and everything else you've said as well. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are hurt by this as it wasn't my intention, I wanted to stress the fact that this probably had quite an impact on the other editor - especially since you were quite harsh towards turn in your report and I didn't see that reflected in the history that I looked at.

Please don't let any of this discourage you from editing, just be mindful that we're all doing this in our spare time because it's something we genuinely love doing.

We could be watching TV, spending time with our families or playing games, but we care about Wikipedia enough to edit whenever we have a spare moment and wish to do so.

If you need any help going forwards, there's always the Teahouse or you can speak to a mentor if you prefer.

Treat today as a fresh start, draw a line under what's happened and see this as the day you find a new appreciation of the efforts of your fellow volunteers.

Wikipedia has lasted for decades because we work together to make this the best online encyclopedia possible, so I want you to be a part of its future too. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 00:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this. I'm starting to feel better after reading what you said. I will not ever let this discourage me from editing - it's something I do in my spare time as well, whenever I'm free to do so. I just hope that, one day, this editor and I can exchange our apologies and express our remorse on both sides and hopefully forget this ever happened. But right now, like you said, this is a fresh start, and I have to come back stronger and better than ever. Thank you again for your support, words of wisdom, and understanding. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jibblesnark86: in addition to what Blue Sonnet has already said, I think that you should reflect on what effect your own behaviour has had on JMWt (who doesn't appear to have edited since). You don't seem to have acknowledged this, and your responses are only focusing on how someone has made you feel, not how you might have made someone feel. This is inherently a collaborative project (a phrase that a lot of people seem to start adopting almost as a mantra after spending some time around this place), so this is something that is worth thinking about. There was absolutely no need for you to be haranguing this editor about weather or not they had some specific userright assigned or not (especially since you can very easily check this yourself). I personally don't think that JMWt needs to apologise to you and while you have already apologised to them, I think that you should respect that they are clearly not interested in listening to your apology and just move on from this. When you bring someone to ANI, you are sticking your own neck out, and you should not take doing it lightly. It can be a genuinely stressful experience, both for yourself and the person that you are dragging to the dramaboard. I would suggest that you only do this as an absolute last resort, and only when your reasoning is about protecting the project. --gurkubondinn 13:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

You must not have seen what I wrote above in response to Blue Sonnet saying the same thing, but whether you did or not and are just reiterating and adding on to what they said, then I’ll reiterate what I said. I was mainly the one to blame in this situation and for that, I’m deeply sorry. I understand that this user might not have to or want to apologize back, but I still was the one to think to apologize anyway. I have since reflected on this, and I’m trying extremely hard not to let this get to me or get stuck on me, and just move on, as you said. Hope you understand now. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, the pre-stubbified versions of the article do not seem at all like they were translated with AI, and the rationale given is very weak. Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

User is harassing me on my talk page

Najwan Agusti Amorizta is harassing me on my talk page, simply because I reverted their edits. They consistently added names without any sources, and now they're assaulting me on my talk page. KingArti (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Warned them and redacted. KylieTastic (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  This editor has a previous warning for personal attacks (for this), but also many warnings for lack of sources over the past four years.

  They've also created Draft:Eun-Mee Ahn, which was moved from mainspace to draft for having no sources whatsoever. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

KingArti, you failed to leave the mandatory notification of this discussion on their talk page (which I have now added). KylieTastic (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

COI editor continues to edit his own article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Dezignr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tom Hardy (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User claims to be the article subject (see LLM-collapsed edit request on article talk page), the vast majority of this user's edits since 2016 have been to the biography, and this user is that article's almost sole contributor. I became aware of the situation after a slew of LLM slop edit requests where they (or rather, the LLM posing as them) vowed not to edit the article. I frankly got tired of dealing with this, but they've started to remove the maintenance templates on the page, claiming the issues have been resolved, when they most certainly have not. I welcome suggestions for the best way forward here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Tags removed again. I'm at my limit and cannot reinstate. Further assistance would be appreciated. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I took a quick look as I don't have time to do much more: did add {{connected contributor}} and note that XTools shows 88.9% of the article is authored by @Dezignr, and the next largest contributor is an IP that appears connected to them as well. Looking at their talk page they've danced around the issue in the past, but using only on-wiki evidence it is clearly Tom Hardy and they've now declared that in the article talk page comment you referred to. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from the article and will leave a longer note on their Talk. Star Mississippi 00:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

New account SumohKinet (talk · contribs) has been made for the sole purpose of following me to different pages and undoing edits I've made. All of their 8 edits do this, across different pages and different edits. Sometimes undoing spelling corrections , restoring unsourced content , or reverting WP:LLMPRV removals . Simple WP:NOTHERE behavior. Also requesting a checkuser have a look, as this is the behavior of an aggrieved editor, not a brand new one {{checkuser needed}}. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hm, given recent behavior I'd suggest crosschecking against this user. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I've made a NOTHERE block, those personalised threats were awful. Fences&Windows 00:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA as well. . Jfire (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

No need for CheckUser. PhilKnight (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we can agree this is a sock, and if it's the sock I linked then this is a pattern and TPA revocation should be added to the report, only a CU can tell either way.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. This does indeed appear to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oregoninmymind. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request topic ban on rugby for User:PeeJay

User:PeeJay has been editing bizarrely today. I am the most active editor on the Ulster Rugby season pages, and have made use of the Rugbybox callapsible2 template to include details of matches, including team lineups, in a way that can be collapsed so they don't overwhelm the page. This morning PeeJay unilaterally delated this field of the template, and has been deleting the information from the 2025-26 Ulster Rugby season article. He claimed in an edit summary that the template no longer allows them - "they don't show up any more" - pretending this was entirely incidental and nothing to do with him removing it this morning. He is attempting to get women's team results and 'A' team results removed from season pages, but he has at least opened a discussion about that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, although he has not responded to my attempts to discuss how best to cover Irish women's rugby. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment this user has history of strange editing patterns, lack of edit summaries and as shown here they have been blocked on numerous occasions before for a range of violations. An example of a strange large content removal with a vague edit summary from March can be seen here . When I posted a message on the users talk page, they did not respond and left the article alone. Seen here. If you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Scope of season articles you will see that the user has taken the comments as two or three users as consensus. I see Nicknack has request a topic ban but I would ask/suggest the user be blocked from the Wikipedia entirely (once again) as previous bans have obviously not changed their behaviour. I would expect a user with over 200,000 edits know better. TIA.

Louis (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean "lack of edit summaries"? I always provide edit summaries on mainspace edits. I would also suggest that a permanent ban would be overkill. Not sure where you get the idea that my conduct is "strange", just feels like a mischaracterisation because you disagree. I'm always happy to discuss this stuff, but not via edit summaries. – PeeJay 21:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant about edit summaries, I probably should have written that better. It's not that you never write one, it's that they're often not detailed enough for the size of the edit. If you're cutting out large chunks of content, a one-word summary in my view doesn't cut it. Other editors need to actually understand why you did what you did when they look at the diff. If something's "cruft", explain why it's cruft. On the ban, you've been banned multiple times and the same stuff keeps coming up. At some point you have to ask what any of those bans actually achieved. It's not about being vindictive, it's just looking at what's happened and drawing the obvious conclusion.

On the "strange conduct" thing, the issue is that you seem to be the only person who has a problem with most of the content you're removing. Other editors aren't flagging it, nobody's reverting it before you get there, nobody else is raising it as an issue. It's just you. I'm not dismissing that, but when you're consistently the only one out of step with everyone else, it's probably worth asking whether the edits are actually making things better or just reflecting what you personally don't like. Also if you remove content because "the women's team should have their own article if they satisfy notability" (here), at least do the decent thing and either start the new page or open a split discussion before removing content. Don't just remove it and move onto the next thing. And was this really necessary? Louis (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't really think it's on me to create an article I don't think should exist. I started a discussion and multiple editors have agreed with me that the Irish provinces' season articles shouldn't contain the info on the 'A' teams or the women's teams. I haven't removed the content relating to these teams, but I have asked in the thread I started whether we can proclaim a consensus as having been reached. The content I removed was unrelated to that discussion; I removed line-ups from the Ulster season article (from the senior men's team too, not just the 'A' team or the women's team) because I believe them to be statcruft. No other club season article would include this content, so I was applying consistency to the encyclopaedia. I also fixed a whole load of formatting errors, but Nicknack didn't think to mention that in this thread, did they? They just reverted my edit wholesale without looking at the entirety of what was actually changed because I had the temerity to mess with their pet article. There's been a whole load of bad faith assumed here, and I don't think that's fair, nor does it warrant the response either of you are seeking. – PeeJay 22:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Bad faith is not being assumed - it has been generously demonstrated. At the rugby union wikiproject you're arguing that the women's team material should be removed from the season articles because the women's teams should have their own articles. Here you're saying you're not going to create articles for the women's teams because you don't think they should exist. You use minor formatting issues (mostly curly quotes in link titles) as a trojan horse to remove large amounts of actual content without discussion. You are WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopedia, you're here to destroy one and spuriously rules-lawyering to do it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I don’t think the women’s content should be included at all, but as I said in my edit summary, if it must be included, it should be in its own article. As I said to you on my talk page, I fixed a variety of things in a single edit. I did this because I didn’t want to have to make multiple edits, not because I wanted to obfuscate some ulterior motive. That is where you’re assuming bad faith. – PeeJay 09:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

PeeJay, you're not following WP:BRD. You repeatedly reverted, yet Talk:2025–26 Ulster Rugby season is empty. "Cleanup" isn't an adequate description of removing 26 kb of rosters. You need to be collaborative, not evasive. Fences&Windows 11:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll post there and await Nicknack's explanation for why this content should be included. – PeeJay 12:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Vitorperrut555

Vitorperrut555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is currently making a mess on AfD putting up nominations for Burmese villages with the rationale Just a village in Burma, like any other village. I just found the mention of the village in Weather websites on Google., and one other nom mentioned it wasn't found on Grokipedia; past behavior of the editor suggests either a compromise or some oddball bad-handness going on. Nathannah • 📮 20:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm closing them as speedy keep (WP:SK3 – "No accurate deletion or merge rationale has been provided."), but I may not get around to them all today. I'd appreciate any help. Toadspike [Talk] 20:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I've gotten halfway and have to go now. Would appreciate if someone does the rest. I informed Vitorperrut555 of the correct procedure (WP:BUNDLE) for next time, though unfortunately it seems he has now placed a retired banner on his userpage. Toadspike [Talk] 20:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a good idea to quit Wikipedia. Or is this just my drama? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like they're all closed now. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 22:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

editor suggests either a compromise
My account is not hacked! I'm just a complete idiot to creating bundles on Twinkle.

I never give my password for someone. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that all should be speedy kept with no prejudice against being renominated if someone is able to provide a proper rationale and, preferably, indication of a WP:BEFORE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - These seem to be mass creations sourced only to maps and would be viable candidates for deletion if nothing pops up in the searches. The wording isn't the best but I'd still call it a valid deletion rationale since they don't meet WP:NPLACE nor do they have any useable sourcing to back up the claim that they're villages.

Frankly I was a bit surprised to see them speedy closed and I hope the nominator takes the time to do a bit of research and put together a proper bundle. –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment I was working through these stubs myself trying to fix them up. The fundamental problem with them is two fold, the original source didn't seem to distinguish between villages and other features, and it was also using old spellings of the names that would not turn up in modern sources.

So a lot of them are likely to be deleted for failing WP:V as villages, while the others need some work to find the modern spellings of the name and would likely end up being kept at AfD, its clear from a quick spot-check that in this case the work wasn't done to distinguish between these. Giulio 22:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A bundled nomination of those that fall on the wrong side of that line would be good. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relevant prior discussions: Maplandia as non-RS, ANI thread on the stubs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... That's interesting... VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Psephguru

Psephguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is some combination of three things: WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:RADAR, or WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU.

My interaction with them began when they reverted a section I made at Talk:2026 Mali offensives three times (after a TA did the same once). In my interpretation this is very clearly against WP:TPO—I restored my section three times, with explanation here (the first of those was reverting the TA). When that failed, I went to their talk page, and was met with radio silence. The editor's third revert was after I left the talk message (I didn't restore it again afterwards because A. I was hoping for some resolution without a pointless back and forth and B. it was just a courtesy notification that had already done its job). I left another message about the third revert on 30 April, and the user disappeared from a long and prolific editing streak until 3 May (user contribs). When I saw they returned on 3 May, I left another message on 4 May asking to confirm Do you get talk page notifications?; they then left until 26 May. That's what raises RADAR hackles. The editor has never edited their user talk, despite plenty of messages from other editors there (mostly notifications/warnings, which I can understand not responding to, but also another question from 8 March) but the editor has plenty of edits to other talk/project pages, including other user talks..

TLDR: Editor ignores or disruptively doesn't see messages at their talk page, over a span of months. They should commit to being responsive. Hopefully this is straightforward Placeholderer (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not that they can't see responses (they've used talk pages and even this board), it's that they felt you were using the talk page for chat and not improving the article. Their edit summary of "NOTHING to do with improving the page" makes that clear. I think a warning is sufficient: Psephguru, please re-read WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, especially "Your idea of what is off topic might differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution." Collapsing off-topic chat is an option rather than removing, and don't edit war to remove borderline comments/threads. If you continue such behaviour, you might be blocked. Fences&Windows 20:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they can see responses, they entirely failed to engage with them, which is disruptive. WP:Communication is required. I told them pretty much exactly what you've said here, but their (lack of) response was indistinguishable from ignoring Placeholderer (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

FOARP

Incivility an personal attack by FOARP here . See also response at TP . Cinderella157 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not sanctionable, but FOARP, the prior discussions you cited were one that was solely between you and Cinderella157 and the other was mostly you two. Editors are entitled to seek a higher level of consensus after prior discussions. I don't see anything tendentious about Cinderalla157 raising this issue (although, I would note that it does not appear that WP:RFCBEFORE was followed). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

See for RFCBEFORE. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Trystvr931 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Trystvr9313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alright, I'm not going into SPI yet, because neither of these accounts are blocked. However, I would like to bring attention to the recent unconstructive edits on KHGZ, because the exact same unconstructive edit done by Trystvr931 was done again under a fresh new account with a very similar username, Trystvr9313. Here's my question then. Would a Checkuser be necessary at the moment? The earlier account was only warned once, and neither are blocked, so I'm not sure what further action should be done about this. Thank you, SeaHaircutSoilReplace 21:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

SPI is where concerns about sockpuppetry are taken, regardless of the blocked-or-not status of accounts. That said, since we're here, this really does look like the user made their unconstructive edit, was cautioned about it by you, and responded by creating a new account in an attempt to evade scrutiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok got it. Should I then take this straight to SPI now? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 21:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

EDIT: Just added this case to SPI. If all goes well, I will close this discussion. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 23:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit reversion, no consent

Can anyone check my user contributions? I made credible contributions here on Wikipedia and a user reverted my edits withiut consent, which I never expected them to be reverted. I am just wanting to prove and know that I could be a good contributor to the immediate Wikipedia community. I emphasize maximal ethics. Thanks. --~2026-33190-89 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I would be happy if the user left me alone and someone reverted their edits to my version. ~2026-33190-89 (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw the reversion; what is constructive about putting 'dog' in the middle of a paragraph of unrelated text? One does not need the editing user's consent to make a reversion, especially when the edit in question is not constructive. — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You've apparently asked this (vague) question on several different article and User Talk pages, which is very confusing - please try to keep the discussion here and provide context. The notice when you post tells you to provide diffs and notify the other party, however you've done neither of these things. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33190-89 Please stop spamming the talk pages of random editors and talk to us here so we can get things cleared up for you. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33190-89 Reverting edits do not need consent of the author. Consider the following case: If I suppose that there was sentence A (example: « An apple is a car ») made by User B, who has left Wikipedia a long time ago, why will I have any motivation to politely ask User B to go back to Wikipedia, log in again, and « approve » the revert?

Being credible doesn't automatically mean your edits won't get reverted either. Look at the contributions tab of any editor who has above 500 or 1k+ edits with the mw-reverted, you are guaranteed to see results. For example, the tab for Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the person who has the most edits on Wikipedia, or even go look at my tab!). Everyone makes mistakes, everyone makes bad edits, everyone makes controversial ones, etc. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 07:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

And per your edits, you:

attempted to paraphrase with a completely different word

(my revert) used the wrong tense in a biography of a living person

used bad grammar

did not cite why Western American is « unrecognized »

used wrong grammar again nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 08:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobody WP:OWNs content, and checking a few of your reverted contributions indicates why they were reverted. At the time you opened this thread, you had had all of two edits reverted: one had a typo, and the other, frankly was vandalistic. Since then, these were unnecessary, this was indented for a reason, this is a grammatical trainwreck, unnecessary, incorrect. Most of the edits that you've had reverted appear to have been by the "user" that is our anti-vandalism bot. And this carries the strong implication that you are not new here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I have the same concerns, considering this was only their second edit. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

TA - block evasion, identical edits to TAs previously reported

~2026-33012-54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• By extension:
  • ~2026-28693-72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-29285-08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previously reported here , only two (~2026-30459-70 and ~2026-30119-59) of the four previously reported TAs on the same network were blocked indefinitely. This TA is new, on the same network as the others per TAIV, and making identical edits again, indicating that this is the same user and now engaging in block evasion. This user is WP:NOTHERE. I'd like to request evaluation and consideration of indefinite blocks applied to all TAs on the network still not blocked, and potentially a block on account creation to prevent this continuing (since the TA is demonstrating they will keep doing what they're doing). Thank you in advance for any help given. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 09:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Editor w/ multiple BLP vios, ignored warnings, edit-warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

re: Chancer Lastly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User notified:

Previously cautioned about editing in contentious areas: 3 March 2026 , 14 April 2025

Subsequent BLP vios:

— 3 May 2026: Added unsourced contentious descriptor to lead of Luke Harding ; warned

— 2 June 2026: Added unsourced contentious descriptor to lead of Nick Bilton ; warned

— 3 June 2026: Adds same unsourced contentious descriptor used & warned about on 2 June to Nellie Bowles

Should know better; most likely not a newbie. Only 46 edits total but first edit on Feb 11 2026 indicates familiarity w/ WP (correct use of pipelink, ref tags and cite web template): .

User then edit-warred over aforesaid first edit:

User seems to have WP confused w/ a place to grind axes & test limits. --Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 10:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC); added notification diff 10:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Warned after adding the unsourced phrase "propagandist" to a BLP on 2 June, and then promptly did the same to a different one 24 hours later. No thank you. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppeteering + vandalism from ~2026-32080-34

Hi there,

So this user "~2026-32080-34" has been vandalizing the Dinosaur Train episodes article. I repeatedly reverted his edits and gave him 3 warnings. However, he has been extremely persistent in resisting my warnings and reversions. I believe he created a sockpuppet, " ~2026-33053-93". I have reverted that one's edits. When I gave him a warning, the sockpuppet angrily replied, "I am not a sockpuppet!" which sounds like something a sockpuppet would say. Please ban the IP associated with both temporary accounts immediately. Also these accounts all trace back to what an original vandal, "~2026-31677-24" did. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the data, -34 and -24 are confirmed to each other, and -93 being the same person is likely. They rotate between different but similar IPs, so banning "the IP associated with both temporary accounts" is a bit more complex, but possible with 2 IPv6 /48 range blocks and some individual (/24) blocks for some IPv4 addresses, so it depends if an admin thinks that range is reasonable or not. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, nice. Let me know if it's possible to block all of those users and prevent them from committing these acts of vandalism again. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI If you come across any more obvious vandal-only accounts in future, the quickest way to get them sorted is to report to WP:AIV - if you have Twinkle installed then it's only a couple of clicks. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Good news, looks like it's sorted out and they're blocked. AIV just has a much quicker turnaround than ANI, so there's less to clear up afterwards - better for everyone! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! NarutoSan6000 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tamzin Should a block be placed on -24? They can be confirmed to each other. – LuniZunie_(talk) 15:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've broadened a rangeblock to include that IP. Someone can block the TA if they want, but it'll likely just set an autoblock redundant with the rangeblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

IP block is probably best here, cheers. – LuniZunie_(talk) 15:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Concerning TA

The user ~2026-32988-60 is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, they keep edit warring with other editors and repeatedly blank articles. Malgosha 17:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not true at all.

I raised the concern on the talk page of Indians in Japan.

It would be good if editors would keep the focus on the page. The article is about indians in Japan, not about indians in Malaysia, Singapore etc.

There's already another artcile about Japan-india relations.

India–Japan relations - Wikipedia

Everyhting about historical connections etc (if it doesn't concern migrants) should be on that page, not here.

An example of something which doesn't belong on this page as all follows here:

"Some scholars further argue that the sudden introduction of wet-rice agriculture and bronze metallurgy in Japan was catalyzed by these southern maritime routes, which moved technology from the Austroasiatic and Austronesian spheres of influence toward the Ryukyu Islands and Kyushu"

That is about a possible ancient trade route, involving Austroasiatic and Austronesians. Why it's on this page is a mystery. Please be careful not to go out of scope.

First, all unsourced content should be removed per wiki policy. That's not up for discussion even.

Second, The article has recently expanded beyond the scope without discussion at all. I mostlry removed things that doesn't even have anything to do with neither india nor Japan, for example parts about austronesia. Thsi doesn't even have to be discussed beforehand. And did you read that there's another article about the same topic?

So when did the scope of the article starting to encopmas eveyrthing from spread of buddshim to other south asian cusine. And austronesian trade routes?

~2026-32988-60 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems that users keep reverting the edits without reeading the explanations for the edits. ~2026-32988-60 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

They have clearly edit warred, but they are the only user to engage on the talk page, and their argument seems near-entirely correct. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't excuse the edit warring of course. @~2026-32988-60:, 8 reversions in an hour by you is not the way forward. What was your plan, 10 reversions? 20? 100? Where does it stop. Ok great you're starting discussions 1, 2, 3. That doesn't justify your mass edit warring. If you continue to edit war, you WILL be blocked. Enough is enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I will not edit war anymore.

But other editors will also have to respect consensuses on the talk pages in the future. Users that engage in discussions are great, but ones that don't, I don't have a feeling that they're here to improve the articles. ~2026-32988-60 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

sure... but where is the consensus on the talk page beyond the message you left unless you're referring to a hypothetical? you gave some loose reason for your edits, but made no reference to what you'd said on the talk page anyways. as Hammersoft said, good that youre discussing with people now but there was little interest to do that beforehand. im gonna keep saying it but it continues to be true, hash it out BEFORE the edit war so we can avoid situations like this. you and Malgosha both made mistakes in handling this imo. InRRainbows Lets chat! 17:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

to be honest im not entirely sure this warrants an ANI thread... at MOST an edit warring thread. but i digress... @Malgosha, i haven't seen any attempt from you to try and find some resolution prior to coming here. my opinion on the reason this edit war started isnt really important, and i understand why both sides are frustrated, but you can't just report someone to ANI after doing nothing but leaving templates on their page. if you check out the discussion i had with TA, it was not that difficult to have a chat about what could've been handled better. a reminder for all that even if you think you are justified in edit warring, it is still edit warring and it is not productive. to both parties, please find better avenues to discuss disagreements before escalating to revert wars. thank you. InRRainbows Lets chat! 17:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive commments! Just as everyone else, I just want to improve the pages!

And I'll be happy to talk with all users on the articles talk pages about how to improve the articles!

Have a great day everyone. ~2026-32988-60 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree. Sometimes just communicating with someone and explaining to them why edit warring is unproductive is much better than leaving several vague warning templates on someone's talk page. I'm glad to see this dispute has been resolved amicably. DarkHorse234 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Bogus G10 tags on Rodrigo Duterte-related topics

The user ~2026-31505-26 (talk · contribs) added bogus {{db-g10}} tags to Dutertism and Diehard Duterte Supporters . Normally, I'd have reported this to AIV, but it is unusual enough to mark down as a permanent record. Also check out their previous three edits at Dutertism, where they removed well-sourced content from the infobox: . All five edits accuse opponents of Rodrigo Duterte, the founder and namesake of Dutertism, of inventing the concept from thin air to attack his supporters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Delusional TA, considering that one of the “biased” sources mentioned is a leading pro-Duterte broadsheet. Borgenland (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Why hasn't this user been blocked yet? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

POV-pushing/erasive edits by TAs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ~2026-33163-92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-31073-21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-27858-07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-26374-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-25127-89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per TAIV, all TAs are on same network. All TAs have exclusively made edits targeting mentions of 'Bulgaria' and derivatives, proceeding either to remove them or replace them with 'Macedonian'. The first two accounts in the list have received 5 warnings between them. None of the TAs has made any effort to communicate via discussion or edit summary, and warnings have been ignored. ~2026-33163-92 has just been blocked for 1 week by Materialscientist. I am requesting an evaluation of the TAs collectively and consideration of an indefinite block applied to all, given the nature and persistence of the edits. I believe it likely they will simply create another TA and continue with the same editing and behaviour patterns. Thank you very much for any help given. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 07:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pikkupapupata next time use wp:spi (« sock-puppet investigations ») for cases of multiple accounts like this so that checkusers can check sockpuppet involvement first before admin action (actually you can close this and move it to spi instead but whatever) nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 07:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I came here first based on the response I got here from @Asilvering explaining some details about how TAs work that I previously didn't know. I did request TAIV after that, and these TAs look to be on the same network. I'm not sure this is sockpuppetry, it does seem to me to be what Asilvering described. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 08:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@.nhals8 SPI is just for sockpuppetry; it's a rather complex process that takes time and has a backlog so I'd avoid using it unless you have a decent suspicion that it's a sock.

TA's expire and change over time since that's how they're designed to work, there's no block evasion that I can see so this doesn't appear to be a case of socking. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Zemen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user has doxxed me twice, here for the second time, despite being warned the first time after falsely accusing me of sock puppetry and publishing personal information without my consent. épine _♬ 20:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Because the information in the edit here has been oversighted, non-oversighters can't see it, and can't evaluate it. I recommend emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org, as they can view the information and address the potential issue.

2. While conduct off of en-wiki is generally not relevant, it would be relevant if Zemen were warned for doxxing previously, but I cannot see that in the link you provided. Where is the discussion about doxxing?

3. You should also read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. You need to disclose when you are connected in some way to something you are writing about, though you don't need to be specific about identifying yourself. It appears there are some connections that are not acknowledged, and your user page would be the best place for that.

Discussing conflicts of interest on Wikipedia is difficult as we must not post personal information that is not provided by the user themself on-wiki, either directly or though a link they have included on wiki (e.g., a link to their LinkedIn page posted on their user page). By clearly documenting on your userpage those conflicts you are required to disclose, you can provide enough information that such discussions are unnecessary, and reduce the doxxing risk. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe view the full discussion here. On all pages with COI risk, I have declared connections in the talk pages. I have encountered harassment cross-wiki from the user, I also talked about it in that discussion in commons. épine _♬ 21:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

How would arbcom help resolve this issue if I may ask? épine _♬ 21:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It's probably best explained in the third paragraph of WP:DWH. They can see things that editors and the majority of administrators cannot, and specifically deal with this sort of situation.

Administrators cannot deal with edits that they can't see due to restrictions - Arbcom can see it and act accordingly. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 22:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is correct, although in the narrow case of this incident I also don't think there's much for ARBCOM to do, as having seen that diff prior to its OSing (I reported it myself), I can confirm that all it did was assert that épine was the author of a linked tweet. That is of course a violation of WP:OUTING and would be sanctionable if it happens again. However, I don't see how the discussion identified as "the first time" in the original post amounts to outing/doxing (having read the discussion at Commons, I see Zemen speculating that social media posts may have followed the creation of the image; I don't immediately spot an assertion there that any of the posts in question were actually made by épine themselves.)_signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill I will not restate the exact phrasing for obvious reasons. Setting the release of personal information aside, it is baffling to me if the other plathera of behavioral issues noted in these discussions are simply ignored. Sock puppetry accusations, direct insults and provocations, assuming bad faith and lack of collaborative spirit–these are all concerning behaviors that should be addressed rather than tolerated. And by the way, restating what he had said here completely defeats the point of reporting it to oversight in the first place. épine _♬ 23:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you think there's something there that comprises further doxxing and (reasonably) don't wish to draw further attention here, take it up with ARBCOM or VRT. If there's evidence of OUTING after Zemen had been warned about it, they should be facing a block. As for the concerns about civility/harassment, Zemen's comments at Commons are subpar, although that's not exactly a sanctionable concern here. The accusation of cross-wiki harassment between ckb and Commons is quite concerning, but it's also necessarily outside of the jurisdiction and expertise of anyone here, and would be something worth raising at meta wiki for investigation as cross-wiki abuse.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request spam-blocklisting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please consider adding Thimbletoys(dot)com to the spam-blocklist, considering bot activities like Pferdeappfelhorter1 _{(and similar bots that I've seen recently but didn't remember the names)}. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 08:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: I meant in the edit-filter. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 08:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

This should be requested at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist not here ~2026-32233-31 (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Please close this thread. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 10:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An Se-young

• Flyingspurspur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• An Se-young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flyingspurspur continues to edit war with several editors, including with an administrator and myself. The first revert by him says - Don't change without my permission, indicating that he assumes ownership of an article and then he continues disruption by using random IPs to instate his version of the page. zglph^•talk• 14:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

C.Fred has already warned them about edit-warring after that edit. The subsequent temporary account edits cannot be definitively linked to them but as it appears likely a case of using logged out editing to persist I have warned the TA regards sockpuppetry.

Zglph you did not leave them the mandatory notice (see the top of the page) - I have left one but please note for future. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Asdx49

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Asdx49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Personal attacks by WP:SPA:

• "You are annoying, emotional, and whiny editor who keeps rejecting reality. The world will see who is right."
• "I understand some of you might be defensive over this due to emotions, but as Tercer said, the page needs to reflect reality "
• "You ignore reality because that's easier than facing it."

Behavioral evidence ("It's time for this page to reflect that reality.") suggests that ~2026-33225-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Asdx49 are the same account. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

least ambiguous WP:NPA block. they have also disengaged from civil dispute resolution in Talk:X Window System and began throwing personal attacks as provided above. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 06:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, isn't this fellow a charmer. SPA with three articlespace edits, sounds ready for a trout slap at the bare minimum. Ravenswing 07:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Whatever the decision is, I hope that it involves this "reality" thing they keep talking about. Our page on Reality was no help at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

User Asdx49 was renamed by User:AccountVanishRequests and globally locked from all Wikipedia projects. I will refrain from linking to the new name per meta:Account vanishing.

Awww. they seemed so nice. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

At least they has the decency to vanish on their own, I presume. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 11:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, he beat you to the exit. I vanished him. AccountVanishRequests follows along behind the renamers, globally locks the vanished accounts and makes sure the accounts are absolutely non-recoverable. Cabayi (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

They are playing games with you.

• Asdx50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-33225-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;

And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,

or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;

'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."

--The Boxer, by Simon & Garfunkel

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. They're also asking for a second vanishing.... Cabayi (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Asdx50, etc. --Yamla (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Since Asdx49 has returned, and broken the terms of their courtesy vanishing, I have renamed them back to their original username, though the account remains globally locked. Asdx49 has been locally blocked for sockpuppetry. Cabayi (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

They immediately came back as ~2026-33341-38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), got blocked for sockpuppetry, and the page they keep coming back to was protected. In case anyone wonders why they were yammering on about "probonopd", that isn't anyone on Wikipedia and have nothing to do with us. See --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

~2026-33212-28

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin please revoke TPA for ~2026-33212-28 (talk · contribs) and upgrade their block to indefinite for making PAs while blocked? Malgosha 17:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TylerBurden: NPA, TALKNO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm requesting administrator attention regarding repeated personal attacks and battleground conduct by User:TylerBurden. This is not a content dispute. The issue is the editor's repeated personalization of disagreements, including accusations of bad faith, tendentious editing, and pushing a "Russian POV" or "Russian state narratives", both on article talk pages and in edit summaries.

Examples:

• At Talk:2026 Starobilsk strike, TylerBurden wrote that I was "pushing Russian state narratives", said that I had "proven beyond doubt", and told me "Don't talk as if you're in charge here, because you're not".
• In the same discussion, after I asked them to stop labeling editors, they continued by saying that my account had a "repeated pattern" of inserting WP:UNDUE or "WP:NPOV violating content", "representing some kind of Russian POV", and that this was "in line with the rest of [my] WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior on other articles".
• Special:Diff/1357094407 In an edit summary at 2026 Starobilsk strike, TylerBurden wrote: "The editor who has consistenly been violating WP should not be determining what is neutral in the lead..." - violation of WP:SUMMARYNO
• Special:Diff/1357103289 In an edit summary at Russian shadow fleet, TylerBurden wrote: "Removed editorialized scare quotes inserted by AlexeyKhrulev" - violation of WP:SUMMARYNO
• Special:Diff/1353157484 TylerBurden accused me of "bad faith assumptions and mental gymnastics" and claimed that I was trying to "cherry pick" content based on "what Russian government officials/state media say is the truth".
• Special:Diff/1349333761 TylerBurden brought my editing history into an AfD discussion and wrote that I have "a habit of copying Russian content regardless of basic policies like WP:DUE", despite saying that they were "not talking nor voting about this article".
• Special:Diff/1343301616 TylerBurden wrote that I was "inventing Wikipedia policy interpretations on the spot", said that "apparently you can't understand WP" , and added that "our issue here might more be with basic logic than tendentious editing". The same comment again accused me of having "previously violated WP:NPOV" and characterized my editing as "disruptive editing".
• Special:Diff/1354022622 In an edit summary TylerBurden wrote "if AlexeyKhrulev thinks that including a quote from them is violating WP:WEIGHT, while themselves adding full Putin quotes to articles like Russian shadow fleet..." - violation of WP:SUMMARYNO
• At Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_122#BLP-related_content_dispute, TylerBurden wrote that I had been "shut down for WP:BLUDGEONING", accused me of "constant efforts" to seek editors "to insert [my] content", said I was "eager to edit war", and told me to "start following Wikipedia policy" and stop "overstep [my] boundariesin a WP:CTOP area". In the same discussion, TylerBurden later wrote that I was "pretending to be a careful beginner". In the same discussion, another editor explicitly warned TylerBurden: "Also, please refrain from personal attacks which is a direct violation of WP:CIVIL policy". TylerBurden was therefore already put on notice that this conduct was viewed as a civility problem, yet the same pattern has continued in later disputes.

These comments are not limited to the content being discussed. They repeatedly target the contributor, cast aspersions about motive and POV, and turn ordinary source/weight disputes into accusations about my conduct and supposed political agenda. This is contrary to WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

There is also an edit-warring aspect. From the last example, at 2026 Starobilsk strike TylerBurden reverted disputed lead/infobox-related material while the dispute was active, instead of using the talk page to seek consensus. WP:WAR says that when disagreement becomes apparent, editors should cease reverting and discuss the issue or seek dispute resolution.

I'm asking administrators to review this pattern and issue an appropriate warning or restriction requiring TylerBurden to stop personalizing disputes, stop using edit summaries to attack other editors, and focus on content rather than contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexeyKhrulev (talk • contribs)

HI! When you open a complaint on this board, you need to sign your message so we know who wrote it. I have done this for you now. Thank you. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, it feels a bit bad to say this, but I just wanted to double-check if you used any AI tools (this includes not just chatbots like ChatGPT or Claude or Gemini, but also tools like Grammarly) to write or refine the text in your post, as it contains some WP:AISIGNS and reads a bit like it to me. Studies have shown that sometimes ESL writing can sound a bit AI as well (even to detector algorithms), so it might also be that too, and if it is, sorry for the confusion. Absolutely no worries if it's not AI, I just wanted to confirm that you were aware of our policies that prohibit AI use (as we want to hear from you, as a person). - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

As a third party, I've seen a pattern of the requestor (AlexeyKhrulev) doing large scale content removals with questionable reasons given. Often the reasons seem AI generated, or simply made up, ignoring context within an ongoing conversation. The requestor has some egregious deletes - all specifically related to broader Russo Ukrainian War such as erasing testimony of child abduction in Ukraine, strikes on civilians, or even on the Putin page itself. Would absolutely note to any admins to take above admin notice with grain of salt - or even as a preemptive move before their actions go to WP:AE or similar. User will often cite some bogus reason for large scale removal, and then turn around and justify similar reasons to add on a page that suits their view. FWIW - I think above comments by TylerBurden are mostly factual, and if anything think AlexeyKhrulev should be subject to topic ban on Russo Ukrainian War for disruptive edit practices. Lacanic (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Lacanic first of all, this is not the place to discuss my contribution. If that's what you want, then you can create a separate topic for consideration. Secondly, all my edits, which you have given in the examples, are correct, as indicated by their preservation in the articles. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This is absolutely the place. There's no requirement or even an expectation that only the target of a discussion starter will be discussed in a particular discussion and it's pretty common to also investigate the filer's conduct as well. Otherwise, disputes would be a race to ANI to get the first filer advantage. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, then I should note that I previously asked TylerBurden to be more restrained and less nitpicky, as he promised in a recent arbitration request. The outcome of that appeal was as follows:

"I consider it possible to close this matter without any further action provided that such behavior does not happen again. Otherwise, TB will likely be blocked from this topic".

Unfortunately, I see that TylerBurden's aggressive behavior has not changed and only creates a negative atmosphere. I'm always open to productive dialogue and seeking consensus, but other participants must do the same. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not usually the biggest fan of Tyler Burden's AGF comportment but in this case in particular their comportment seems somewhat justified. Especially when an account is created in 2011 and then makes its first edit in 2024 it makes me wonder if a checkuser investigation might be appropriate for @AlexeyKhrulev. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

account is created in 2011 and then makes its first edit in 2024 it makes me wonder if a checkuser investigation might be appropriate — not sure about that. They may have not been active on enwiki, but they were active on ruwiki in 2008, 2012, 2017 etc.. Nakonana (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

OK I didn't look farther than EN.WP. Will strike if deemed appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Curiously enough, according to a source in there was the same, if not worse, pattern. ~2026-32571-30 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Quotations above are selective, e.g. regarding Special:Diff/1343301616, AlexeyKhrulev complains "TylerBurden wrote that I was "inventing Wikipedia policy interpretations on the spot","; TB wrote "It seems like you're once again inventing Wikipedia policy interpretations on the spot, because you have no right restoring an image that has been disputed per WP:ONUS". AK complains TB "said that "apparently you can't understand WP" , and added that "our issue here might more be with basic logic than tendentious editing""; TB wrote "apparently you can't understand that adding more content about something is giving it more coverage, an image is content, so it seems our issue here might more be with basic logic than tendentious editing". AK complains "The same comment again accused me of having "previously violated WP:NPOV" and characterized my editing as "disruptive editing"; TB wrote "you've previously violated WP:NPOV by copy-translating content from the Russian Wikipedia which contained POV issues" and "I haven't committed to stop opposing disruptive editing". NebY (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting here that the filer was TBanned in ruwiki for the same conduct:

Topic ban

Because of systemic POV-pushing of fringe viewpoints (egregious WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE violation, attempts to make the lead of one of the most important articles about Russian invasion of Ukraine violate NPOV, attempts to remove information with one of the most reliable human rights organization as a source with original research as a reason) and edit-warring (see the long list of reverted reverts in topics above) you are now topic banned from editing and discussing pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian war contentious topic: a. you are forbidden from editing articles related to this contentious topic; b. you are forbidden from editing sections of other articles related to this contentious topic; c. you are forbidden from discussing articles and other pages related to this contentious topic. Topic ban will expire after 6 months.

Original text

В связи с систематическим проталкиванием маргинальной точки зрения (грубое нарушение ВЕС и МАРГ, попытки привести преамбулу одной из ключевых статей о вторжении в нарушающий НТЗ вид, попытки убрать информацию, опирающуюся на данные одной из ведущих правозащитных организаций с приведением в качестве обоснования собственных измышлений) и ведением войн правок (см. длинный список отмен отмены в темах выше) в отношении участника применяется экзопедический и метапедический топик-бан на редактирование страниц в сфере, относящейся к компетенции посредничества ru:ВП:УКР: а) участнику запрещается редактировать статьи, относящиеся к компетенции ВП:УКР; б) участнику запрещается редактировать относящиеся к тематике посредничества ВП:УКР фрагменты иных статей; в) участнику запрещается участвовать в обсуждениях статей, относящихся к компетенции ВП:УКР, а также в обсуждении иных вопросов, сопряжённых с редактированием данных статей. Срок топик-бана — 6 месяцев.

This topic ban was later confirmed by an arbcom decision:

3.1. AlexeyKhrulev

3.1.1. Topic ban remains in effect.

3.1.2 Arbcom forbids AlexeyKhrulev from disputing administrative sanctions against him while the topic ban is in effect. Other editors can dispute these sanctions if they want, but AlexeyKhrulev can't participate in such discussions.

3.1.3. Topic ban is now indefinite. After 6 months since it came in effect, AlexeyKhrulev can start a topic on administrators' noticeboard to request removing or softening the topic ban. If there is a consensus among adminisrators that AlexeyKhrulev understands the contentious topic's guidelines and is willing to abide by them, then the restrictions can be removed or softened, whatever administrators' consensus is. Next such topic can be started by AlexeyKhrulev no sooner than 6 months after the previous topic was closed or archived without result.

Original text

3.1. По участнику AlexeyKhrulev 3.1.1. Арбитражный комитет оставляет в силе введённый посредником топик-бан. 3.1.2. Арбитражный комитет на время действия топик-бана запрещает участнику оспаривать любые административные действия в отношении себя. Другие участники могут оспорить такие действия, если пожелают, но в таком случае сам AlexeyKhrulev в этой дискуссии участвовать не должен. 3.1.3. Топик-бан для участника становится бессрочным. По истечении 6 месяцев с момента наложения топик-бана участник получает право открыть тему на Форуме Администраторов о снятии или смягчении своего топик-бана. Если среди администраторов будет консенсус о том, что участник демонстрирует понимание правил посредничества и готов им следовать в полной мере, тогда ограничения могут быть ослаблены или сняты, исходя из консенсусного мнения администраторов. Следующую такую тему участник может открыть не ранее, чем через 6 месяцев после подведения итога в предыдущей аналогичной теме или же ухода обсуждения в Архив без подведения итога.

Seems like they're here to continue this modus operandi. — ~2026-32459-58 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Pinging User:Biathlon as the admin who first imposed the topic ban, and User:Carn, User:Kmorozov, User:Swarrel, User:Venzz as arbcom members who later confirmed it. — ~2026-32459-58 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I quoted only the excerpts relevant to the behavioral issue. Of course, administrators can review the full diffs.

What is being raised here is not a content dispute and not a referendum on every Russia–Ukraine edit I have made. The issue is TylerBurden’s repeated use of personalized accusations: “pushing Russian state narratives”, “WP:TENDENTIOUS editor”, “basic logic”, “bad faith assumptions and mental gymnastics”, and edit summaries stating that I have “consistenly been violating WP:NPOV”. These are accusations about the contributor, not comments on content.

The references to my ruWiki history don’t answer this complaint. If someone believes there is a separate enWiki conduct issue involving me, they may file it with specific enWiki diffs. But an off-wiki/other-project history cannot make personal attacks, aspersions, or hostile edit summaries acceptable on enWiki. The conduct complained of remains contrary to WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SUMMARYNO.

I’m not asking administrators to decide the underlying content disputes here. I’m asking them to address the repeated personalization of those disputes. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

To be sanctioned on the ruwiki for being too pro-Russian is a noticeable achievement on its own. ~2026-32817-95 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ruwiki is actively fighting any pro-Kremlin propaganda. Well very well (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That's why I've gotten pinged there twice to remove a flag map featuring Ukraine in its 1991 borders from my userpage. They've even made up a rule to justify such a thing. Does it really hurt THAT much? Super Ψ Dro 13:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

(involved in some of the disputes) From my experience, the pattern is almost always roughly the same; AlexeyKhrulev will add/remove material while misrepresenting a source or violating NPOV in a way that is (coincidentally or not) favorable to Russia, TylerBurden will revert it with comments about tendentious editing/etc., and any subsequent talk page discussion will devolve into (and usually start as) a personal discussion.

On your fifth example at 2026 Tuapse environmental disaster, which I was involved in, this was in response to your comment accusing them of WP:CHERRYPICKING and adding material simply because the topic seems "interesting". As I pointed out in that thread, they never said anything about including it because it was interesting, that appears entirely made up, the reasoning was that it was reported in RS. So, yes, "bad faith assumptions" seems like a reasonable response to bad faith assumptions on a talk page. As for "cherry pick", that is literally what you said to them; I am not sure why you can say that, but not them, particularly when they gave an actual valid argument for it.

For another example not included here which I think is quite illustrative, on Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the dispute was over a block quote from a RS. AlexeyKhrulev decided to remove the block quote and paraphrase it, adding "non-military" (despite the source saying the opposite), changing "control" to "influence", changing "power" to "influence", changing "eradicate Ukraine's statehood" to "undermining Ukrainian statehood", and changing "destroy NATO" to "weakening NATO". It is difficult to paraphrase, but in every single one of the five cases, the paraphrase was changed in a way that was more favorable to Russia; in particular changing it from the RS saying that Russia invaded in 2022 only after years of military and other efforts to control Ukraine had failed (something in line with the vast majority of RS) to saying that Russia invaded only after years of non-military efforts to influence Ukraine had failed (something more in line with Russian propaganda sources). I was busy and corrected only what I saw as the worst parts, then TylerBurden reverted the whole thing with the usual comments about tendentious editing, and then AlexeyKhrulev made a talk page thread about TylerBurden's "weak arguments", personal comments, etc.

I was less involved/unaware of the other cases, but most seem quite similar. LordCollaboration (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:BOOMERANG t-ban for Alexey

Here are a few diffs of edits made by AlexeyKhrulev, all similar to his RU topic ban conclusion that he acts on the most contentious pages in the Russia-Ukraine topic area:

• Special:Diff/1351387041 – Deletion of an 11-year-old's testimony from Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian war, sourced to Amnesty International. Edit summary: "there's no point in that child quote."
• Special:Diff/1357197235 – Deletion of an entire section on a Russian drone striking a NATO apartment block in Romania (Reuters, two BBC articles), on the basis that it may have been "a deviation from the course."
• Special:Diff/1345157882 – Deletion of 2,400 words documenting over 40 athletes banned from the 2016 Olympics from the Russian Athletics Federation article, while simultaneously adding that 2026 sanctions had been lifted.
• Special:Diff/1353942075 – Deletion of majority of the assessments section on the Vladimir Putin article (Freedom House, Borshchevskaya), citing WP:WEIGHT.
• Special:Diff/1356753460 – Deletion of an ISW assessment from 2026 Starobilsk strike (an article AlexeyKhrulev created), along with tons of broad deletion and "warnings" to anyone who you don't agree with
• Special:Diff/1356861267 — Deletion of a well sourced table of 24 sanctioned vessels from Russian shadow fleet, removing approximately 1,500–2,000 words of sanctioned ship names, owners, and flags (IOC, NYT sources). Edit summary: "WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE."

I would strongly support topic ban on EN. Lacanic (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I reviewed these diffs and the rest of Alexey's recent editing history, and I am not impressed with what I am seeing, for mainly the same reasons you raise. Actions like these make me questions Alexey's ability to edit appropriately in the area. On top of that, several of their comments on other pages, as well as written article text, seem like AI (in contravention of WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMTALK), and while there could be an innocent explanation, when I tried to ask them nicely above, they completely dodged and avoided the question, which makes me quite suspicious, as this is a common pattern of behaviour by AI (mis)users. Combined with previous history of this behaviour (that was considered too much for even the Russian Wikipedia) and a refusal to reform, I therefore support a WP:BOOMERANG and indefinite topic ban from Russia-Ukraine war, broadly constructed, for Alexey. – In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that I have now moved my comment, and Lacanic's comment (proposing a topic ban) to a seperate section, to make navigation easier. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Now you point it out, I'm seeing AI signs even here – this comment has 'Rule-of-three' and 'Not X but Y" several times in the one comment.

The OP report has this as well, plus it switches between first- and third-person in the middle.

There's also:

• WP:ORCC Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-AlexeyKhrulev-20260601143600-CoffeeCrumbs-20260601140800
• WP:LETSFOCUSON Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-AlexeyKhrulev-20260601131600-Lacanic-20260601105600
• WP:AIWL Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-AlexeyKhrulev-20260601204200-~2026-32459-58-20260601191400

Dodging the question of AI-use is another classic AI-sign. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that this comment was edited by AlexeyKhrulev to change the links - I've not changed then back since they still lead to the same place, but this was done without my permission. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't edit anything. This was done by an autoformatter - Special:Diff/1357459458. I don't understand why you give this so much weight. And why are you writing about it here and then duplicating it here Special:Diff/1357461716? The reason? AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

My vote is in the bolded section, this is just a comment - what do you mean by autoformatter?

I edit on mobile so I'm not aware of anything on Wikipedia that would change other people's comments that's within the Wikimedia website software, but if there is I'm more then willing to strike those aspects of my comments. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah I've seen your link below - that seems to be a German Wikipedia autoformatter that doesn't follow the policies and guidelines for English Wikipedia.

I suggest you disable it and read Wikipedia:NCCREFACTOR for what's permitted. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I hope the situation has cleared up now (I didn't edit anything on purpose), so please delete (or strike) your comments that you left - Special:Diff/1357461716 (how LordCollaboration did it with his comment). You also indicated that this influenced the revision of your decision, it turns out that this decision also needs to be rolled back - I'm also not happy that mine and other editors comments were edited without our consent" Special:Diff/1357461312. Thanks. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Given their recent additions and disruptive behaviour in this discussion, I concur with Blue-Sonnet and would also support an sitewide INDEF and/or CBAN for disruptive editing, including misuse of ANI, bludgeoning with AI, and refusing to listen. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

that was considered too much for even the Russian Wikipedia
Please see my comment above. Most of us at Russian Wikipedia are actively anti-Russian government and definitely the war, so this phrasing looks a bit discorteous. Well very well (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on AlexeyKhrulev from the Russia-Ukraine war and Russia-Ukraine relations, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would prefer that expanded wording as well. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from Russia-Ukraine war and Russia-Ukraine relations, broadly construed. I'd also like to clear up whether they are using AI/LLM since the more I look into it, the more I suspect it's being used. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Update: My preference is now an indef in view of the bludgeoning, refusal to listen to feedback retaliatory filing and likely AI-use during this discussion. I'm also not happy that mine and other editors comments were edited without our consent. I don't think this editor is compatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. If the indef doesn't pass, my second choice is the aforementioned TBAN. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• I had seen this user focus on civilian attacks of apparent Ukrainian responsability. That is important, as those should be written about too. But it did made me think, such focus is interesting when 99.9% of all civilian attacks and war crimes in the war have been from the other party. If we add to that the context from Russian Wikipedia and edits removing child testimonies in an article dealing with child abductions (not paraphrasing as is the case with other examples below, but outright removal), it might reveal intentions that may be incompatible with remaining an editor in English Wikipedia.

The editor in any case seems cordial and amenable to discussing and reaching agreements. At the very least, they should receive a warning against anything like the child abductions quote again (there is no other quote in the article by the way, I see no WP:WEIGHT issue, I can't see any problem with quoting directly one or two testimonies in such an article; please someone restore that quote). I personally recommend them to first propose in the talk page potentially controversial paraphrasings (I agree with LordCollaboration that in the disinformation article, it strikes as downplaying or whitewashing). And also not to attempt to defend or justify the edits just mentioned as they briedly did below or it might clarify users' minds on potential !votes. Super Ψ Dro 10:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Support topic ban. A lot of stuff has come out since I left my comment above (notably the comments from Russian Wikipedia users regarding their experience with this user), but the canvassing convinces me definitively. No opinion on an indef block yet, bludgeoning is inappropriate but sort of expected, and indeed common, from an experienced user in a situation like this. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban based on arguments provided by others, broadly construed topic ban on any topics related to Russian foreign policies. Geokrieg (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Russian Wikipedia Arbitration Committee rulings (ru:АК:1317 and ru:АК:1351) confirms that AlexeyKhrulev is executing the exact same disruptive playbook on en.wiki that got him completely banned on ru.wiki.
  His credo:

• Systemic Pro-Kremlin Sanitization: Over 90% of his ru.wiki activity was weaponized against Ukraine-related topics. He specialized in aggressively rewriting article leads to strip out facts critical of the Russian government while inserting pro-Kremlin military narratives.
• Weaponizing Policies: He repeatedly weaponized niche guidelines, engaged in heavy edit-warring (including "bot-like" automated revert patterns), and utilized original synthesis to insert pro-Russian framing.
• Toxic Communication: When called out, he routinely launched bad-faith, unethical attacks against opposing editors while selectively twisting policy text to feign innocence.
• Total Refusal to Reform: After being hit with an indefinite Ukraine topic ban, he continuously tried to game the system and sneak around restrictions. The ru.wiki ArbCom explicitly cited his "scandalous modus operandi" and ultimately issued an indefinite, total block because technical restrictions alone couldn't stop his disruptive behavior.

The en.wiki community’s move to issue an indefinite Boomerang topic ban isn't a misunderstanding: it’s the logical conclusion to a multi-year, cross-wiki pattern of state-narrative pushing and disruptive gaming with the rules. ·Carn·!? 12:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Carn: Did you use AI to write this comment? In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I would say that it's a very accurate summary of the situation anyway. Biathlon (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me not answer your question right away, but rather find out why you're interested. For context, English isn't my native language; above – this is a summary of decisions on ArbCom applications, in one of which I participated in as an arbiter. After the LLM, I always check and edit the text, even if it's just Google Translate. So if you want to belittle the content of my comment, or put me in the same league as Khrulyov, who can use LLM not for summarizing, but to conduct a dialogue for him, then I'm afraid you won't succeed. ·Carn·!? 09:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is obvious AI slop. If it was not, and you actually used AI just for summarizing, then it wouldn't be full of AI signs, so yes, you're no better than AK in this regard. this is a summary of decisions on ArbCom applications - if you want to summarize ruwiki's arbcom decision, then first summarize it in Russian using your own brain, and then translate the result into English, again using your own brain.

I've collapsed the comment. — ~2026-33111-83 (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Do not touch other peoples stuff.·Carn·!? 15:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I can assume that the text was written by AI, because what is written is accurate on the facts, but in terms of substance completely off the mark. Over 90% of his ru.wiki activity was weaponized against Ukraine-related topics - this is an absolute lie, and it can be easily verified through edit history. On ruWiki, I created many articles and made many useful edits, which was repeatedly noted by other editors, and the Ukrainian topic was secondary, just more conflict-prone. So why are you writing this lie? including "bot-like" automated revert patterns - I have no idea what this is referring to (this is definitely not AI text?). he continuously tried to game the system and sneak around restrictions - this is also a lie, as I have tried to convey to you and other participants many times. The terms of the topic ban were written in such a way that any action led to violations. Write better rules, then ambiguous situations won't arise. I'll note that you were one of those who decided to make my topic ban indefinite because you didn't like how I commented on problematic aspects of the arbitration text decision. I also repeatedly asked you and other participants to provide the arbitration discussion logs in order to assess the transparency of the actions, but nothing has been done for two years (even though the practice of publishing logs exists, and the next stage of disclosure is currently underway). Note that your colleagues have achieved great success on ruWiki by pushing out of the project everyone they don't like for political/ideological reasons (many editors have noted the openly pro-Ukrainian bias of the administrators). It's no wonder that comments occasionally arise asking why things are so bad on ruWiki and where the editors have gone. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The terms of the topic ban were written in such a way that any action led to violations. and Write better rules, then ambiguous situations won't arise. are quite terrible things to say in this situation, even if referring to another project. Super Ψ Dro 17:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking as a ruwiki sysop and former arbitrator who has watched AlexeyKhrulev's editing on the Russian Wikipedia for months and was involved in reviewing several conflicts with his participation: he was also under a topic ban there covering Ukraine-related articles. He kept probing its boundaries, crossing them often, and wikilawyering at length over each individual case (one of examples).
If a topic ban is imposed, a repetition of this pattern here in enwiki looks likely to me. That isn't an argument against the topic ban itself, just a heads-up for the community that the ban on its own may not be enough, and some ongoing monitoring will probably be needed after it goes into effect. Rampion (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I think discussing a topic ban would been reasonable in case it would been a case initially raised against AK by somebody else. Given the actual circumstances of a case (them being an accuser), other data regarding it revealed in process, and the way of conduct, that is shown to be persistent, I think discussing merely a topic ban is an understatement, putting it lightly.

(Why broke my message to make way to a table?) ~2026-32571-30 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Answers for LordCollaboration

On your fifth example at 2026 Tuapse environmental disaster, which I was involved in, this was in response to your comment accusing them of WP:CHERRYPICKING and adding material simply because the topic seems "interesting"

You forgot to mention that the original edit (Special:Diff/1352678163) did not include the information about the fake interview, as described by the source itself. So TylerBurden was clearly engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING. Later, on the talk page (as is proper when seeking consensus or are you against that approach?), a correct wording was worked out, which is ultimately what's currently in the article (mind you, I'm not trying to remove it).

For another example not included here which I think is quite illustrative, on Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the dispute was over a block quote from a RS.[49]

This is about this edit: Special:Diff/1353961830. Your complaints boil down solely to the quality/style of the paraphrasing. You then made some improvements (Special:Diff/1353967939) — I had no objections to those. That's a perfectly normal working situation. What other issues do you have? If you have much more substantial topics to discuss — go ahead, I'm ready to go through them. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Answers for Lacanic

Special:Diff/1351387041 – Deletion of an 11-year-old's testimony from "Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian war," sourced to Amnesty International. Edit summary: "there's no point in that child quote."

I don't know whether you did this on purpose or not, but the full edit summary reads: "there's no point in that child quote. See WP:WEIGHT" – and this edit fully complies with that policy. Any questions? You're welcome to take them to the talk page.

Special:Diff/1357197235 – Deletion of an entire section on a Russian drone striking a NATO apartment block in Romania (Reuters, two BBC articles), on the grounds that it may have been "a deviation from the course."

Again, you're welcome to take this to the talk page. I've left a detailed comment there. Right now, this just looks like you disagree.

Special:Diff/1345157882 – Deletion of 2,400 words documenting over 40 athletes banned from the 2016 Olympics from the "Russian Athletics Federation" article, while simultaneously adding that 2026 sanctions had been lifted.

Excuse me, but weren't those sanctions actually lifted in 2026? It's strange to even argue about this. The list of athletes was removed per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE, given that this information carries no notability, and also because no reliable sources were provided for it.

Special:Diff/1353942075 – Deletion of most of the assessments section on the "Vladimir Putin" article (Freedom House, Borshchevskaya), citing WP:WEIGHT.

What's the violation here? This edit fully complies with that policy, as well as with WP:QUOTE (a lengthy quote was rewritten while preserving attribution). Any questions? You're welcome to take them to the talk page.

Special:Diff/1356753460 – Deletion of an ISW assessment from the "2026 Starobilsk strike" article (an article AlexeyKhrulev created), along with tons of broad deletion and "warnings" to anyone you don't agree with.

What exactly is the violation here? Super Dromaeosaurus made an edit (Special:Diff/1356751398) with the comment: "either we exclude this WP:FALSEBALANCE short phrase from the article, or we insert due weight. this won't remain into the article with further explanation, so choose." After that, I implemented the proposed option. The warnings about WP:WAR are fully in line with the rules – use the talk page.

Special:Diff/1356861267 – Deletion of a well-sourced table of 24 sanctioned vessels from the Russian shadow fleet, removing approximately 1,500–2,000 words of sanctioned ship names, owners, and flags (IOC, NYT sources). Edit summary: "WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE."

Again, what's the violation here? This is a classic case of WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE, not to mention that this list is outdated and hasn't been maintained. And if you were to maintain it, wouldn't you have to add another 1,000+ sanctioned vessels?

@MolecularPilot instead of just saying "I am not impressed", you need to provide a breakdown with examples. For instance, I went through Lacanic's list point by point. Did you do that? It doesn't look like it. Otherwise you'd see that there are no violations. The same goes for @Cullen328 and @Blue-Sonnet – you can't just write "Support TBAN" without a detailed breakdown (an evidence-based analysis). Otherwise, your vote carries no weight whatsoever. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

We can !vote referring to the evidence of others if we wish, there is no requirement for us to create our own breakdowns of the evidence again. And you have again ignored and dodged the allegations of AI use, which again furthers to make me more even suspicious, particularly considering the exact signs Blue-Sonnet pointed out. Please explain exactly and specifically in response to this comment if and how you have used LLMs or any other form of AI or writing assistance tool, such as Grammarly, when writing article content or messages on talk pages or noticeboards (such as within this thread). Thank you. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how this works. If Lacanic points to unconvincing edits (which, on the merits, just look like cherry-picked context), and then you double down by adding "I am not impressed with what I am seeing", it looks like you don't actually want to understand what's going on here and you just taking the convenient line. In which case, your vote is worthless. As for your question about AI (how is that even relevant to the complaint about TylerBurden?) I use "Yandex Translate AI" in cases where the text and phrasing are more complex to construct and a regular translation wouldn't be able to handle it properly. And is it necessary to shift the focus of the discussion from TylerBurden? If you have any questions that are not related to this topic, you can visit my discussion page. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

In general, editors are allowed and encouraged to express their opinions and thoughts after reviewing the evidence. It is my opinion that your editing history (including the diffs highlighted by Lacanic) constitutes POV-pushing and should result in a topic ban, and I !voted that way, and other editors did too.

If you would like a specific response to the defence you posted, I guess I find the argument that editing is not disruptive or POV pushing because people can take questions to the talk page quite unconvincing, and I think the repeated reliance on just linking WP:WEIGHT when removing content, without actually explaining why you think the removed sections from reliable outlets are actually undue weight (which I don't really see why they are), is just a method to remove content that you don't like by masking it behind a policy, which isn't acceptable conduct to do systemically against a perspective you don't like, particularly in a contentious topic area. I feel similarly about the repeated linking of WP:NOTCATALOG, after reading that policy, I don't think it applies to the removed sections, which for the ships was a referenced and detailed encyclopaedic tables which added context to the article, not "Simple lists (such as lists of phone numbers) that do not include contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" as the policy you linked states. The argument because sanctions are no longer in effect, that we shouldn't document who they were applicable to (despite coverage in RS) is also unconvincing. For me, this repeated misuse of just linking policies where they don't apply, and not explaining why, as a cover to systemically remove content that goes against Russian perspectives, is a clear example of POV pushing and should be met with a topic ban.

And again, you are thinking that this section is just about TylerBurden's conduct, when, as has been explained multiple times, the conduct of all parties involved may be discussed at this board. The use of LLM language models in talk discussions (such as this one) is restricted by WP:LLMTALK, and banned within articles by WP:NOLLM, and if persistent, considered disruptive and deceptive editing that can result in blocks (see the many cases of this on this very page). Therefore, the potential usage of such banned tools definitely falls within conduct issues to be discussed. I am not too familiar with Yandex Translation AI, but research seems to suggest that it is an LLM tool, so please review these guidelines and ensure that any use of LLM tools is in compliance with them. In general, the community prefers people to try and talk themselves, even if the English isn't perfect, rather than get AI tools to create and alter text and phrasing, as reflected in the guidelines. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the repeated reliance on just linking WP:WEIGHT when removing content, without actually explaining

Sorry, but this just looks like nitpicking. Many editors leave links to policies in their edit summaries. If the meaning is clear enough, there's no need to spell out the reason in excessive detail. Especially when we're talking about experienced editors who know the policies perfectly well. And if anyone has questions, that's what the talk page is for, so your criticism here is unfounded. I hope you're also well aware that just because some information appears in a reliable source doesn't automatically mean all it can be included in the article (WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE).

The argument because sanctions are no longer in effect, that we shouldn't document who they were applicable to (despite coverage in RS) is also unconvincing

You misread my response. Lacanic emphasizes "while simultaneously adding that 2026 sanctions had been lifted" which can be interpreted as an accusation of unjustifiably adding information (that says more about Lacanic's tendentiousness). I assume you have no objection that the fact sanctions were lifted is important? As for the table you mentioned – note that it lacks reliable sources, which alone is grounds for removal. Second, it looks more like a data dump than a well-organized piece of content grounded in analytical sources that tie it to the article's topic. Why do I have to explain such basic things to you? And why, instead of relying on WP policies, do you read this as "Russian POV pushing"? By the way, I don't see any other editor having raised this on the talk page. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Many editors leave links to policies in their edit summaries
Yes, but they have to be relevant policies, and you have to be able to explain why they apply. Just linking to a policy doesn't mean an edit is OK, and I see those edits as not okay as the removal isn't really justified under WP:WEIGHT and they contribute to a long-term pattern of POV-pushing from you. For the example of the abduction quotes, I can't see how quoting briefly one or two testimonies in the article violates due weight in any way, and you have still not explained.
And if anyone has questions, that's what the talk page is for, so your criticism here is unfounded
As I said above, just because editors can discuss an edit they disagree on the talk page, it doesn't take away from the argument that the edits demonstrated conduct problems (in my opinion, misapplying policies to contribute to a pattern of POV pushing) which are sanctionable.
I hope you're also well aware that just because some information appears in a reliable source doesn't automatically mean it can be included
Of course, and I never said that, which makes this seem like strawman argument, not rebutting my actual point that the removals were not justified and do not meet the policy of WP:WEIGHT. It just implies that I am arguing the quotes should stay solely because it is mentioned in an RS (which is obviously wrong and easier to rebut than my actual argument), which I did not mention anywhere.

My actual argument, which you still haven't addressed and have instead gone around through these methods (well other people link polices too, there's a talk page....), is that the removals weren't justified under WP:WEIGHT and just demonstrate a pattern of hiding behind polices which don't apply to systemically remove content that you don't like.
an accusation of unjustifiably adding information [...] I assume you have no objection that the fact sanctions were lifted is important
Again, this is putting words into my mouth and addressing points I did not raise in order to weasel out of addressing my core argument. I never (and neither did Lacanic explicitly, only in your interpretation of their implications) say there is any issue with mentioning the sanctions were lifted.
table you mentioned – note that it lacks reliable sources
When I mentioned a table with reliable sources, I was talking about the one with the ships, which did contain many references to reliable sources. The list of sportspeople does not contain a heading, or data arranged into columns or anything of that form, so it is not in any way a table, it is list.

Yet, you removed this referenced table of ships anyway, continuing your pattern of behaviour where you cite polices (i.e. WP:NOTCATALOG in this case) to systemically remove content you don't like, where the polices do not match the content, as I explained for this case specifically in my previous comment.

With the list, an argument can be made about verifiability but this is not the argument you made in your original edit summary (Update info; remove unnecessary data). In the section I was replying to, your first and primary argument was Excuse me, but weren't those sanctions actually lifted in 2026? It's strange to even argue about this, which is what I was responding to with my comment that removal because the sanctions were lifted is unconvincing.

Regardless, the main and primary issue here is the completely unsupported removals and misquoted policy like of the table, and of the abudction quotes and other linked instances. You have still not fully responded to this besides trying to argue that because talk pages exist or other people quote polices, then you do not need to make sure the polices you quote accurately stand for what you are doing. I see this as completely wrong.

And why, instead of relying on WP policies, do you read this as "Russian POV pushing"?
Again, this does not address the actual substance of my argument. I do rely on (and quote) multiple Wikipedia polices above to support my belief that your removals are not actually in line with these policies. As you have shown a systemic pattern of removals where you quote policies that actually don't support the removal, only ever to remove content not favourable to Russia, I believe the constitutes sanctionable POV pushing. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can take a more detailed look at my contributions to see that I remove problematic content not only from the "Ukraine-Russia" topic area. So the assumption that "content about Russia" automatically means "pro-Russian POV-pushing" seems completely far-fetched (or that's just what you want to see). And if tomorrow I start removing content about China, does that automatically make me pro-China? Right? You interpret WP:WEIGHT one way, I interpret it another – that's normal, and that's exactly what WP:CONSENSUS is for when editors have objections. By your logic, any editor who doesn't fit your worldview should be removed. In any case, you're using just a couple of examples and very weak ones at that to push for very serious sanctions against an editor. I also don't break the WP:WAR (for some reason you persistently ignore this point on the part of TylerBurden and Lacanic), and in case it's not possible to quickly find a consensus, I create WP:RFC as required by the rules. If the editors are against my changes, I agree and don't try to push my point of view later. You are also ignoring this, and all because you have not studied the topic in detail, as I wrote earlier. Let me remind you of this arbitration request, where even far more serious violations marked by @Mellk and @Kelob2678) did not become a reason for imposing any sanctions to TylerBurden. Why you are so insistent on sanctions is an open question. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for AK. Their comportment in this thread alone is alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  first of all, this is not the place to discuss my contribution. If that's what you want, then you can create a separate topic for consideration.

  What is being raised here is not a content dispute and not a referendum on every Russia–Ukraine edit I have made.

  The references to my ruWiki history don’t answer this complaint. If someone believes there is a separate enWiki conduct issue involving me, they may file it with specific enWiki diffs.

  Any questions? You're welcome to take them to the talk page.

  instead of just saying "I am not impressed", you need to provide a breakdown with examples.

  you can't just write "Support TBAN" without a detailed breakdown (an evidence-based analysis). Otherwise, your vote carries no weight whatsoever.

  it looks like you don't actually want to understand what's going on here and you just taking the convenient line. In which case, your vote is worthless.

  If you have any questions that are not related to this topic, you can visit my discussion page.

  Sorry, but that's not how this works.

  The "confidently wrong" examples about "explaining" to others how the things are actually works (i.e. "stop or go some other place instead", according to them), continuing even after being corrected, would be comical, taking the place they're happening, but using more properly, it's an effective scare tactic that often works on less experienced people who are face it. The fact it is so ridiculously attempted even here numerous times even after rebutting shows that it is of so natural way of communication for them, that it goes unnoticed and not contained even in cases it definitely better would be. I think it goes way broader than the some narrow topic (no caps WP: list, I think anybody could trivially do so on their own in this case, but could try if needed).

  And bonus one.

  Please do not write in this discussion thread unless you are an administrator, so as not to create noise. ~2026-32571-30 (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  After seeing this diff in response to me cautioning AK about borderline canvassing I'm starting to be supportive of a full indef. I'm sorry but when you're in trouble at AN/I and go to one editor who you believe might be sympathetic asking them to weigh in and when another editor who has also previously expressed neutrality concerns about the handling of some topics related to the Russia / Ukraine war then warns you that you're borderline canvassing, to respond by arguing that actually what you're doing is just fine seems. Tendentious. Or possibly we're dealing with WP:CIR. I still support a topic ban if there isn't consensus for more. It's clear that AK is disruptive in this contentious space. But I am starting to think we're going to be dealing with a lot of kicking around the edges of a tban and tedious arguments about what they can and cannot do if we don't nip this in the bud. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Unfortunate. They canvassed the same user before on a different discussion, after which I and others warned them about canvassing, and they responded that they were not aware of WP:CANVASS. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I really don't understand why I can't notify some of the participants about the discussion that they will be interested in? Obviously, I'm not asking to come forward in my defense or any support (that's why I think your statement is incorrect). The WP:CANVAS rule does not prohibit, on the contrary, it allows you to do this: WP:CAN: "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus".

  Considering that an information campaign has been launched against me (see this), and many participants support the Ukrainian pro-pushin (they don't hide it and even openly declare it.) and don't even try to consider my comments (except for MolecularPilot), it is difficult to talk about any confidence in the decision as a whole. Therefore, it will be in the interests of this ANI to attract as many neutral participants as possible, who will not attach their political views and call out a participant just because they do not like him. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Listen: I've expressed neutrality concerns regarding the handling of Ukranian right-wing militias on several occasions and have had content disputes with Tyler Burden over those topics. It's part of why I don't edit in that topic area as much as other topic areas about far-right political movements. I'm about as neutral as you are likely to get here. And I'm telling you that your behaviour here is the problem, not theirs. Spurious AN/I filings, retaliatory sanction requests and canvassing are behavioral problems. I am not saying this out of any desire to remove an ideological opponent, I'm an uninvolved editor who is able to observe what's going on. I suggest you read WP:HOLES. Because you're in one and you just keep digging. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that my comments may be aggressive or excessive. This is due to the pain I feel when I see the situation unfolding. I already went through this in the ruWiki, when I was actually kicked out of the project. And what I mean now is clear to me in the principle - there’re an obvious number of pro-Ukrainian editors who don’t need any arguments, they just vote "support". I promise that I’ll not write about this ANI anymore. In fact, I'm already thinking about deleting my account and leaving the project (don't consider this an ultimatum, especially since my stay here was interesting only for me). AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  This was a poorly advised course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN from Russia-Ukraine war and Russia-Ukraine relations, broadly construed, per my (and others) comments above. LordCollaboration (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Given the refusal to get the point (with the continued disruptive behavior and the canvassing even when under scrutiny), I think a forced break would be helpful, so would support a CBAN. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN from Russia-Ukraine war and Russia-Ukraine relations, broadly construed. Support CBAN for disruptive editing including abuse of WP:ANI.

Their original complaint is seriously inflated, e.g. with three bolded complaints of "violation of WP:SUMMARYNO" (i.e. of a help page), and quotes selectively, inaccurately and misleadingly. They persist in using AI to create the walls of words here, or as they put it "in translating complex English phrases because English is not my native language", and their competence to engage with the community as themselves is doubtful. They seek to dictate to us how we discuss them, e.g. "this is not the place to discuss my contribution", "you can't just write "Support TBAN" without a detailed breakdown (an evidence-based analysis). Otherwise, your vote carries no weight whatsoever", "your vote is worthless" and even who can discuss them "Please do not write in this discussion thread unless you are an administrator, so as not to create noise", indicating contempt for the en.wiki community. The complaint and follow-up here are so disproportionate that they validate the underlying issue, that AK is unable or unwilling to understand and be governed by the community's policies such as WP:WEIGHT and pushes their POV interminably. NebY (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN, either Ukraine-Russia topics, or Russian international relations entirely. As for WP:AISIGNS, even if AI use is minimal, this editor's statements here are effectively just as useless as the repetitive and inaccurate products we see from ChatGPT, et. al. The statements of policy which are either inaccurate or wholly invented are not dissimilar to LLM hallucinations. Further, the WP:BLUDGEON behavior, manipulative actions, and the wikilawyering point to a bunker mentality focused on "winning," not on a collaborative project. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 14:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Support as outlined here by our peers at /ruMoxy🍁 16:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN, as restrictive as it could be. Being a user of Russian-language Wikipedia, I've seen this user's many attempts to go "on the thin ice" of his TBANs, and the retaliatory claims only show his pattern of behaviour more. Well very well (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think the "as restrictive as it could be" is not important here, the main difference in TBANs between en-wiki and ru-wiki is that en-wiki TBANs are "broadly construed", and even trying to test it can be grounds for an immediate sanction. Which is different to ru-wiki. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Statement by AlexeyKhrulev

I would like to make a statement regarding the proposed topic ban.

I understand that ANI may review the behavior of all parties, including the applicant. I don't mind the administrators checking my edits. Nevertheless, a topic ban is a serious sanction and should be based on specific differences, a clear explanation of which rules were violated, and the demonstrated nature of violations in enWiki. It should not be imposed on the basis of generalized statements, borrowed disputes from another project, or votes that simply say "I support" without analyzing the evidence. Moreover, I have no confidence in the reliability or sincerity of the participants who have left single comments here and with whom I have never interacted. Given the anonymous users who came to leave reports and completely ignore TylerBurden's behavior, shifting the focus onto me, and I'm concerned that some comments appear to be piling on without independently engaging with the evidence, but I leave it to administrators to assess that.

Yes, some of the comments here are largely based on my story on ruWiki, but sanctions against enWiki should be based on behavior in enWiki. My history at ruWiki can, at best, provide background information, but it cannot replace evidence that specific differences in enWiki violate specific enWiki policies. Since that previous dispute, I've made a conscious effort to be more careful about controversial topics, justifying policy edits, discussing controversial materials, and seeking consensus on discussion pages, requests for proposals, and talk pages. Carn's comment about the alleged continuing 'disruptive playbook' does not reflect reality. Such comments could lead to the mistaken assumption that I came to enWiki for that purpose, but of course that is not the case, and my editing history clearly demonstrates this. I don't know what Carn based his assumption on, but it was clearly not a detailed examination of the history. Apparently, he simply read the striking comments from Lecanik or other editors and decided that this is how it is. I understand that this is not an admission of violations within the framework of another project, but it is relevant to whether there is currently a system of sanctions in this case. If editors want to block a topic in enWiki, they should demonstrate the current failures in enWiki, and not just ask administrators to import the results of another project.

The objections submitted against me mainly relate to the usual content disputes: whether the material was inappropriate, whether the table/list was excessive in accordance with WP:NOTCATALOG / WP:NOTDATABASE, whether quotations should be paraphrased in accordance with WP:QUOTE, or whether the controversial material should be left out without approval in accordance with WP:ONUS. These may be disagreements about an editorial decision, but disagreeing with removal based on politics is not the same as destructive behavior or propaganda. In most cases, the material was discussed on the discussion pages, was changed or left in the article after a consensus-oriented discussion (an example of the fact that I'm open to seeking consensus and not escalating the situation – Special:Diff/1322145710). I also don't never break the WP:WAR (unlike TylerBurden and Lacanic), and in case it's not possible to quickly find a consensus, I create WP:RFC / WP:DNR as required WP rules. If finale the editors are against my changes, I agree and don't try to push my point of view later (it's easy to check my history).

I have not seen any examples from the editors that would clearly indicate violations that should be sanctioned. The Lacanic participant actively leaves comments against me, but at the same time he looks like POV pusher. This is why I used WP:BOOMERANG against him and it's not an revenge (for example, I did't used it to LordCollaboration). Therefore, I ask the administrators to evaluate his comments in the light of specific disagreements and underlying differences of content, rather than treating them as independent evidence of misconduct. The same can be said about TylerBurden, where serious violations on his part were highlighted in the latest arbitration request. In this ArF I described the problems I faced with him: I first encountered issues with his editing in the articles Tikhon Dzyadko and Ekaterina Kotrikadze, where I attempted to add well-sourced information that they had been designated as foreign agents in Russia. TylerBurden reverted these edits. This was followed by a prolonged discussion in which reliable sources were repeatedly provided, but TylerBurden chose to disregard them. Only after the matter was taken to WP:NPOVN was the issue resolved, and my edit was ultimately accepted. The entire process took more than than half a month. Given that TylerBurden is an experienced editor, it was surprising that such a relatively straightforward and policy-supported issue took so long to resolve, and that he actively obstructed its inclusion. More recently, I have repeatedly encountered him in articles related to Russian–Ukrainian relations, where his actions often lead to extended disputes and frequent allegations of policy violations, for example at Talk:Ukrainian attacks on the Russian shadow fleet. I am nevertheless glad to hear from TylerBurden here that he is willing to acknowledge concerns about his conduct and make adjustments. I hope this will help prevent similar issues going forward. However, the TylerBurden pattern has not changed and the conflict with him should have occurred sooner or later. However, unlike his aggressive behavior, I always try to adhere to the rules, which is why this ANI was submitted.

I also object to the wording according to which any removal of materials unfavorable to Russia should be "propaganda of pro-Russian views". This is not an argument based on evidence. Editors regularly delete or rewrite materials from reliable sources if they believe that they violate WP:DUE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:VNOT, WP:QUOTE or other content usage rules. The appropriate place to express disagreement about such edits is the article's discussion page, rather than a suggestion to ban the topic based on assumptions about motives. You can easily check my edits in other topics that are not related to "Ukraine-Russia" and see exactly the same changes. Apparently, it is easier for some tendentious editors to accuse others of "propaganda", because that is a very strong and striking statement, than to recognize the ordinary workflow of editing articles.

The initial problem remains the repeated personification of disputes by TylerBurden with the help of such accusations as "propaganda of narratives of the Russian state", "WP:TENDENTIOUS editor", "unfair assumptions and mental gymnastics", comments about "elementary logic" and hostile comments on edits accusing me of constantly violating NPOV. I ask administrators to distinguish between ordinary content disputes that can be resolved through discussion and consensus pages, and repeated personal accusations that are matters of conduct under WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SUMMARYNO.

In conclusion let me explain: I'm not asking administrators to ignore my behavior or my edit history. If there are specific differences in enWiki that, in the opinion of the editors indicate violations that warrant sanctions, I'm ready to consider them. However, I object to replacing this analysis with generalized statements about motives, selective references to ruWiki, or assumptions about writing style. The standard here should be specific differences, specific enWiki rules, and a clear explanation of how destructive the intended behavior is. Topic ban should not be based on broad characteristics such as "pro-Russian propaganda", except in cases where the differences actually demonstrate behavior that violates policy rather than the usual content disputes. I'm ready to accept the warning to be more careful with editing comments and use the discussion pages before deleting potentially controversial articles in the "Russia-Ukraine" section. Also note, if I had any real issues on enWiki, they would have been known long ago (blocks, issued warnings, etc.), but there is nothing like that. However, the proposed indefinite topic ban is not supported by clear evidence of destructive behavior in enWiki.

Regarding claims related to artificial intelligence: I use help in translating complex English phrases because English is not my native language. I'm responsible for what I post and check the content before publishing. If the administrators have any particular concerns about the text of a particular article, I'm ready to contact them. But arguments about writing style should not be a substitute for evidence that the content of the article violates the rules.

UPD: some editors point to my aggression and a large number of defense comments. I'm sorry if that's the case. This is my first request to ANI, and of course I did not expect the situation to turn out this way. Yes, I'm very upset, so some of the answers may seem rude. I apologize in advance. As for defending my position, I realized that it was a waste of time (trying to respond to every comment), so I created a table below where I listed the issues (the list is taken from the discussions). Hopefully, the summary table will show the real state of affairs.

UPD2: Also pay attention to the info agitation launched against me — Special:Diff/1357533243. Unfortunately, with such a campaign I cannot count on fairness. Now I understand where so many participants in this thread came from.

Analysis of issues

To avoid repeating the mistakes I made on ruWiki, where I defended myself by trying to respond to every comment, which led to a large number of posts, I have compiled all the problematic issues raised into a single table, which will provide a better overview. Please add any newly identified issues to the table so that I can respond to them.

For clarity, I've compiled the controversial issues to the table. If administrators find this useful, the last column ("Degree of severity") can indicate whether a particular issue is being considered a serious rule violation, a minor issue, or a common content dispute.

Minimising large table added by AlexeyKhrulev

# issues Who report What disputed Comment by AlexeyKhrulev Degree of severity 1 LordCollaboration On your fifth example at 2026 Tuapse environmental disaster, which I was involved in, this was in response to your comment accusing them of WP:CHERRYPICKING and adding material simply because the topic seems "interesting" This editor forgot to mention that the original edit (Special:Diff/1352678163) did not include the information about the fake interview, as described by the source itself. So that is why I raised WP:CHERRYPICKING as a concern. Later, on the talk page (as is proper when seeking consensus), a correct wording was worked out, which is ultimately what's currently in the article (mind you, I'm not trying to remove it). 2 LordCollaboration For another example not included here which I think is quite illustrative, on Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the dispute was over a block quote from a RS. This is about this edit: Special:Diff/1353961830. Your complaints boil down solely to the quality/style of the paraphrasing, although there was no malicious intent to misrepresent the quote from my side. You then made some improvements (Special:Diff/1353967939) — I had no objections to those. That's a perfectly normal working situation. I didn't change anything after that. 3 Lacanic Special:Diff/1351387041 – Deletion of an 11-year-old's testimony from "Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian war," sourced to Amnesty International. Edit summary: "there's no point in that child quote." The quoted edit summary is incomplete. The full edit summary was "there's no point in that child quote. See WP:WEIGHT" – and this edit in my opinion is fully complies with that policy. I deleted the long direct quote, rather than the main Amnesty material, because a long first-person quote gives disproportionate importance to a single testimony and adds emotional details rather than the necessary encyclopedic context. According to WP:DUE/UNDUE and WP:QUOTE, direct quotations should be used with caution if they add something that cannot be conveyed by paraphrasing. 4 Lacanic Special:Diff/1357197235 – Deletion of an entire section on a Russian drone striking a NATO apartment block in Romania (Reuters, two BBC articles), on the grounds that it may have been "a deviation from the course." This article concerns Russian attacks on civilians in the Russo-Ukrainian war, and its existing content is about attacks on civilians in Ukraine, including deliberate or indiscriminate attacks in populated areas. The Galați incident, as described by Romania’s own president, appears to have been a drone that was diverted after being shot down over Ukrainian territory and then changed trajectory toward Romania. That is a different type of incident: a spillover/cross-border airspace incident, not an attack on Romanian civilians. Including it here under a new "Romania" section would imply that Russia attacked civilians in Romania, which is not supported by the source. 5 Lacanic Special:Diff/1345157882 – Deletion of 2,400 words documenting over 40 athletes banned from the 2016 Olympics from the "Russian Athletics Federation" article, while simultaneously adding that 2026 sanctions had been lifted. The list of athletes was removed per WP:NOTCATALOG / WP:NOTDATABASE, given that this information carries no notability and no reliable sources were provided for it (it only concerned a specific year/event, while the article itself is not about this event). Information about the lifting of sanctions is based on RS. 6 Lacanic Special:Diff/1353942075 – Deletion of most of the assessments section on the "Vladimir Putin" article (Freedom House, Borshchevskaya), citing WP:WEIGHT. This edit complies with that policy, as well as with WP:QUOTE (a lengthy quote was rewritten while preserving attribution). So the info was not deleted, but only paraphrase. 7 Lacanic Special:Diff/1356753460 – Deletion of an ISW assessment from the "2026 Starobilsk strike" article (an article AlexeyKhrulev created), along with tons of broad deletion and "warnings" to anyone you don't agree with. Super Dromaeosaurus made an edit (Special:Diff/1356751398) with the comment: "either we exclude this WP:FALSEBALANCE short phrase from the article, or we insert due weight. this won't remain into the article with further explanation, so choose." After that, I implemented the proposed option. The warnings about WP:WAR are fully in line with the rules – use the talk page. 8 Lacanic Special:Diff/1356861267 – Deletion of a well-sourced table of 24 sanctioned vessels from the Russian shadow fleet, removing approximately 1,500–2,000 words of sanctioned ship names, owners, and flags (IOC, NYT sources). Edit summary: "WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE." I don't see how this amounts to punishable behavior. In my opinion, this is a classic case of WP:NOTCATALOG / WP:NOTDATABASE, not to mention that this list is outdated and hasn't been maintained. Maintaining such table can lead to turning an article into a database-style list, rather than a commensurate encyclopedic summary. I also have previously studied this article in interWiki and have not found a similar table there.

Please do not write in this discussion thread unless you are an administrator, so as not to create noise. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Any editor can (and if they have the knowledge and experience, arguably should) give their opinion on possible sanctions – Administrator noticeboards are where community bans and other sanctions are discussed by the community at large.

It doesn't say anywhere that only administrators are allowed to post here; in fact this would result in a less open and fair administrative process. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I am an administrator who is completely uninvolved in the Russia-Ukraine topic area. I made a brief comment supporting a topic ban on AlexeyKhrulev because I read all of the comments and evaluated the evidence and came to that conclusion. There is zero requirement that I need to have previously interacted with AlexeyKhrulev. I am also not required to recapitulate all of the reasons that I agree with the recommendation. The participation of previously uninvolved editors and adminstrators in this and similar discussions is a good thing, not a bad thing. AlexeyKhrulev's inclination to bludgeon the discussion with excessively long and repetitive comments is unwise. An argument does not become more persuasive by repeating it over and over again. All editors should heed that advice. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm also seeing a shedload more AI indicators in the above report, so it appears that the help in translating complex English phrases may indeed be AI.

If it's not, I would appreciate some clarification from OP. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Same. I could perhaps believe AI translation into English of AI-generated Russian text. NebY (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm very close to proposing an indef, the original report complained of bludgeoning and that's exactly what we're seeing here. It's almost impossible to form a true consensus when one person is domineering the discussion like this. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• The submitter has been indefblocked in the RuWiki for their disruptive behaviour and pro-Kremlin POV-pushing and I see no other option but to do the same here because there have been no positive changes since that. Biathlon (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• This table isn't helping. Morwen (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh hey, another thing on the WP:AISIGNS list. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems quite certain with all of the weird formatting changes of other people's comments in their diff. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Including mine, and I note that dashes were changed to em-dashes too. I've changed my vote to indef, things can't continue like this. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

You're complaining about my aggression, but you're making accusations yourself. Why do you expect a different reaction? For your info, "weird formatting changes" is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TMg/autoFormatter.js AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I retract that particular issue. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI This is a dewiki script that doesn't appear to follow enwiki policy, I've recommended that they uninstall/disable it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Nah, I've made changes exactly like that in the past, except for the hyphen-endash (or whatever that change was, I can't see the difference on my screen). Br to Br/ isn't needed, but it is more-correct HTML. Dropping the http: from the beginning of a link makes it agree with however the pages are being served. And replacing a unicode-gobbledygook URL with a proper Cyrillic wikilink is a public service. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion was posted on Reddit. (I'm not sure if this has been posted already; feel free to move if misplaced) Wracking ^talk! 05:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Before that post was made, nine editors had already supported the option of a topic ban . Just as a response to the user's suggestion that the users supporting it may have come from that post. Super Ψ Dro 13:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh it's that WillyNilly1997 guy again (the one who kept campaigning on reddit for the Estonia infobox debate, and for some other AN/I case, too). Nakonana (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

. Nakonana (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This today from AlexeyKhrulev at Talk:2026 Starobilsk strike indicates to me that they are not suited for a collaborative project like Wikipedia and will continue to (try to) disrupt the project until banned – my preference is for an indef CBAN:

@Lacanic please do not use the Talk page as a page for meaningless phrases like Yes! Can’t do just now but could a bit later or you could push it live. Ty or Good resolution for now, until more reporting at a later time.

NebY (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is increasingly looking like WP:CIR. It's pretty normal to agree tentatively to an edit pending additional sources or to suggest that slowing down and waiting for more information would be a good choice in the event of a breaking story. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This discussion has become so voluminous I would hesitate to close it but I think there's a clear consensus now for a topic ban at the very least. I think we may wish to consider going ahead with that now while we consider whether additional steps are required. Morwen (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I wouldn't want my preference for a cban to stand in the way. NebY (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is indeed really also about competence. One definitely shouldn't expect such kidding from the editor circa 2011 (or even 2008 (!)). No, I promise that I’ll not write about this ANI anymore. In fact, I'm already thinking about deleting my account and leaving the project is not done exactly that way (except maybe true about very latter part).

I'd try to emphasize on a discussion about topic ban. The problem is that disruptive behavior goes a really encompassing broad way, not restrained to any particular narrow topic. The fact it goes even way worse in comparison in some particular topic doesn't looks like good rationale to concentrate only on that narrow issue (in addition to it, there is a whole unsuccessful story of the exact attempt in the such approach is provided). ~2026-33233-96 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Whether you're Alexey or not, trolling from an anonymous address won't help him. ·Carn·!? 15:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That was the exact (in fact not; I didn't meant that them could be a somebody else) point I was tried to rise in that message. I even fixed the link to be more readable now (sorry, as a diff it was a mess indeed). Should also I read that was intended as a reply to me as well and answer it? ~2026-33233-96 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Was it you who tried to hide my message from the anonymous account above? ·Carn·!? 15:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Withdrawn. ~2026-33233-96 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably for the best, a few hours ago they were policing article Talk pages by quoting WP:NOTFORUM for Good resolution for now, until more reporting at a later time , then doubling-down when told that they're wrong, accusing the editor they asked for an opinion of using it as material for this ANI.

I wanted to be proven wrong on my indef/CBAN proposal, but I'm seeing the same problematic behaviour continue.

Regardless, I've spoken about this more than enough and this is a long thread already, so I'll leave this discussion alone unless I'm directly pinged. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:FOG ·Carn·!? 19:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Just noticed the user AlexeyKhrulev updated their talk page to say Retired . I'm not sure if this is binding or some attempt to get out of potential ANI enforcement. Lacanic (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:BOOMERANG for User:Lacanic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alright, since this is how things have turned out, I also want to highlight the behavior of User:Lacanic. Not long ago, this user had fewer than 500 edits, which meant they weren't allowed to edit protected articles (especially on the Ukraine-Russia topic). To reach the required edit count, he made a bunch of minor changes. Right after that, he immediately switched to editing articles within the Ukraine-Russia topic area.

That alone wouldn't be such a big deal if it weren't for the POV-pushing from this user. A clear example is the article "2026 Starobilsk strike":

• Special:Diff/1356573314 - an attempt to add information about VOIN with a violation of the source selection.

• Special:Diff/1356765727/1356837012 - another attempt to add the same information, violating WP:WAR. At this point, the user should have sought consensus on the article's talk page. I reverted it with the comment "WP:SYNTH. See also discussion on article Talk page." After that, they finally started a thread at Talk:2026_Starobilsk_strike#Voin_/Alleged/_Self_Stated_Military_Connection, where I explained the right way to proceed ("You must provide a strong reliable source that would link the strike on the Starobilsk building complex with the deployment of VOIN there. Otherwise, it will be WP:SYNTH, as I mentioned earlier").

• Special:Diff/1357185536/1357319533 - an attempt to revert back to his non-consensus version, complete with clear POV-pushing and multiple violations. For example: "Ruslan Leviev did not visit the site, but said that" — this is pure original research, not supported by the source. And that's not even mentioning that this edit itself is another attempt at WP:WAR, since they reverted a change made in Special:Diff/1357127996 and completely ignored the comment left on the talk page in Special:Diff/1357128927.

• Special:Diff/1357220361/1357316953 - an attempt to clean the talk page while the discussions are not over yet. A blatant violation. He claims he was "in a hurry" (Special:Diff/1356125686/1357320470) but he wasn't. He had no right to delete the discussions. Moreover, he was involved in some of the disputes.

I ask administrators to carefully study the pattern of Lacanic and issue a warning to him (note that I am not asking to impose a topic ban on him, because I always offer WP:AGF first).

Also, given Lacanic pattern of POV-pushing, I'd ask the administrators to go through his complaints (Special:Diff/1357324178) very carefully. Right now, it just looks like WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexeyKhrulev (talk • contribs)

Please do not remove someone else's comments from this thread without asking them as you did in , this is a violation of WP:TPO. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I felt that the notification about the missing signature (yet again) was redundant and cluttering the discussion (moreover, I have already given you the answer on my talk page). So I'm now asking you to delete my current message and your above in order to clean up the discussion thread. Thanks. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose any sanction for Lacanic.

1. Diffs show no problem that is urgent or intractable.
2. Claims of gaming EC are almost baseless. There was a slight burst of relatively minor edits late: 3/4 or less of edits number 450-500 by Lacanic were quite short; a sampling of them showed all to be in mainspace, meaningful, and useful to the project ...i.e., gnoming. Gnomes are OK.
3. The section is titled Tban, the request was for a warning.
4. Transparently retaliatory proposal is transparent.

Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 15:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose This looks clearly retaliatory. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Most of these are one-off and don't raise to the level of needing adminstrative intervention.

This is a retaliatory filing since it wouldn't have been made if things weren't going poorly for AlexeyKhrulev - they explicitly state this by writing Alright, since this is how things have turned out, I also want to highlight the behavior of User:Lacanic.

Hiobazard has already pointed out the many discrepancies & problems with this report - whilst I understand Alexey would prefer that each editor gave a full explanation of their reasoning, I don't feel this is necessary if I'm only repeating the points that others have already made. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose retaliatory filing, which reflects very poorly on AlexeyKhrulev. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, you are wrong. If this editor had not been so openly pushing his "grievances" (which are very weak in terms of argumentation), I could have turned a blind eye to his behavior as an editor and raised the issue of a warning in this ANI. I've provided convincing examples of POV pushing violations. And yes, it's strange to read comments from participants who pretend that no violations exist. I hope that more experienced participants will approach this issue in a more balanced manner. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  @AlexeyKhrulev Do not edit my (or others) comments without permission again. See Wikipedia:TALKNO. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improper RfC closures and personal attacks from Knightoftheswords281

Knightoftheswords281 has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks of a political and racial nature when engaging in debates surrounding how "slave names" are referred to in biographical articles of Black Americans (e.g. Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, etc). This behavior has included two improper RfC closures and an unwillingness to properly apologize for, or even cease, their personal attacks.

It is worth noting that these debates were first triggered by a video of online influencer zaydupree; upon being rightfully criticized for canvassing, zaydupree apologized, claiming to not have been aware of the policy. His latest video on the subject can be viewed here. This puts some of the comments made by Knightoftheswords281 in proper context. I should also acknowledge that I myself participated in these debates, however I had not heard of zaydupree's videos previously. My concerns rest only with Knightoftheswords281's conduct, not their positions.

As debate progressed, Knightoftheswords281 preemptively closed two RfCs, on the talk pages for Muhammad Ali and MOS:BIO respectively ( ). In the first closure, Knightoftheswords281 decried editors arguing in favor of changes to MOS:BIO as "slacktivists" and "race warriors," and condemned opposing viewpoints as "bordering on racism." In the second closure, Knightoftheswords281 repeated the above personal attacks, and further labeled other editors as "ignorant" and "a bunch of non-black editors feigning outrage on behalf of blacks for slacktivism points," and acting in "bad faith." Both closures also included personal attacks against zaydupree, decrying him as "deluded" and a "race hustler." These closures were reversed by AirshipJungleman29 and myself, and warnings were left on Knightoftheswords281's talk page (). I had accidentally left a second warning after AirshipJungleman29's, having not seen it.

Knightoftheswords281 responded to my warning on their talk page with further personal attacks. In their first response (), Knightoftheswords281 continued to decry fellow editors as "ignorant" and argue against proposed changes to MOS:BIO; they also continued to decry zaydupree as a "race warrior," and further compared him to Tommy Robinson and Chud the Builder. When I responded that my concern was with their conduct and personal attacks rather than their opinions (), Knightoftheswords281 engaged in further personal attacks (), defending their comments as only being against "obviously canvassed votes" and relying on the claimed racial identities of other participating editors to make their point; they further defended their position as "fact" across multiple paragraphs. Throughout this, Knightoftheswords281 mostly refused to accept that their conduct was inappropriate, only apologizing for the "slacktivism" comment and "perhaps for the MOSBIO closure," the latter of which struck me as non-committal.

From these and other comments and actions made by them, not only is it clear that Knightoftheswords281 performed improper RfC closures and engaged in personal attacks, against both fellow editors and off-platform persons, but it is also clear that they fundamentally do not understand why personal attacks are harmful to the Wikipedia community. I did not want to bring this up to WP:ANI, and made that clear to Knightoftheswords281 (); however, their continued defense of and engagement in personal attacks, as well as their inability to separate their position from their conduct, has left me no choice.

Along with this incident, it should be acknowledged that Knightoftheswords281 has previously been reprimanded for edit warring () earlier this month. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

There were no racial attacks on anyone. The basis for this is my suggestion that the discussed changes are seemingly only being advanced in part due what seems to be a nonwhite group of editors advancing it thinking that the subject at hand (the [false] narrative of "slave names") was not only a real thing (in the sense of names inherited from enslaved ancestors), but also of offense to black people as a group, ala deadnaming for trans people, when this (as a black man) isn't true. This is not only not an attack, but was even brought up in the referenced discussions by other editors. The descriptor of ignorance is not a PA, though it may have been taken that way; its on the same level of saying that whites are ignorant of why black people can be taken aback when some white guy calls them "boy".

The point that I keep reiterating is that people are ignorant that the term "slave name" as used by zaydrupee is bunkum; virtually no slaves were given surnames by their masters who dedignified them already. Examples like Nat Turner never actually had a surname; Turner was just his master's surname and was retroactively applied following his revolt. So when an obviously loaded and agenda-driven term like "slave name" is used, not only is important to note that its false, but its also crucial to highlight the obvious guilt-trippy nature of it, especially when several editors, some established on here, start using the term unironically, no quotation marks, no acknowledgement of even its controversy, let alone its just patent falsehood (no RS will use "slave name" to describe any Black American name post 1865), and after an influencer initially canvassed and made a big deal about it to his sizable following.

The only actual things you can say are attacks are against zaydrupee himself, which I standby, since I sincerely don't think that anyone who uses the term "slave name" unironically is not operating at a similar level of racial animus as a white guy who goes around in Tennessee yelling "stop chimping out" at black people, save for the possibility that they're ignorant of the contrived nature of the term (which given that zaydrupee is mainly known for being one of the TikTok linguistic guys, I doubt). Having been on this side of TikTok, the type of people to lap this content up are the same ones that run around starting race war drama with Arabs because "why should we support Palestine when Arabs didn't back Harris," as if Black and Arab Americans IRL actually give a damn about one another, so I don't assume a lot of good faith from them. I don't feel like I need to mince myself when talking about Twitter neo-nazis who are always race-IQ-posting, so I don't feel like I need to do so here.

Also, it once again brings up mentioning that even though zaydrupee apologized for the canvassing, the number of canvassers seems to be the main thing indicating that this "had enough support" to actually try and change, and we're still getting probable canvassers at places such as Talk:Muhammad Ali a week later, many of them helping RVT attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion against StefenTower (talk · contribs). I've already apologized for the uncivil closures and the political attack (calling other editors slacktivists), which were made out of early morning anger; this seems like this is an attempt to weasel (btw WP:WEASEL only applied to article content, and I find the description that my apology was non-committal in a case based on my views on the topic more broadly. — Knightoftheswords 23:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 This reply of yours only emphasized why exactly your behavior is being criticized. Using loaded words and accusations like "obviously loaded and agenda-driven term," "obvious guilt-trippy nature," "Twitter neo-nazis," and "I don't assume a lot of good faith from them" are all very clear personal attacks, and these are the ones you just included in your "defense." Whether it is right or wrong to argue about "slave names" is not relevant here; characterizing editors and other persons like how you have simply isn't acceptable, regardless of wider contexts. Any "apologies" that you claim to make are hard to trust from your continued engagement in personal attacks and general uncivil behavior.

This will be my last response to you for now; I'll let the admins here do their job, and you've just provided them plenty more material to make their decision from. My only thanks to you is correcting me on WP:WEASEL, although I obviously reject the notion that I myself am "weaseling" in this case. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Talking about controversial things ≠ PAs. I have no idea how simply mentioning "Twitter neo-nazis" is a PA on anyone, let alone editors, while its pretty obvious (as again, stated in the discussion at hand) that "slave name" is very clearly a loaded and at the very least controversial term that is not used by people not pushing a certain narrative. You keep saying now that "whether the use of it is wrong isn't relevant," but I've already retracted and apologized for my closure and actual PAs towards editors, so I'm not sure what is still the issue, aside from IG (AGF) my personal characterization of the TikToker at hand, which is nonsense, since I'm not going to rescind my belief that he's a best extremely ignorant and at worst a malicious race hustler. I know BLP and WP:ATP apply to the project space, but ATP doesn't apply, and the closest for the former is WP:BLPTALK, which doesn't seem to apply either IMO. I think if we were being canvassed by readers of The Grayzone or Evie magazine or whatever, we can make assessments about the type of people running those outlets and/or the most avid consumers and take that into consideration if people are responding to that by trying to change policy. — Knightoftheswords 02:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

BLPTALK definitely applies. We allow limited commentary on living persons when it comes to making content decisions, especially on whether what they published are reliable but this is none of that since no one is suggesting the TikTok or TikToker is a reliable source. You're welcome to your opinions on them, however there is zero need to spread them here. If you continue to do so, I see no choice but to propose or support a topic ban on you making any comment on living persons other than editors anywhere on Wikipedia. This is an extreme move which would severely limited your ability to edit here but if you make it necessary, so be it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne I would also second the possibility of a topic ban, if admins view that as necessary. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Realised I forgot to mention that it's also significant that AFAICT, the TikToker is not notable. There's no suggestion we create an article on them or even mention them anywhere, and so none of this seems to relate about what we should say in an article Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The user making videos about the issue online prompted these discussions. — Knightoftheswords 13:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

BTW you might have some good points. The place to make these points was to raise them in the existing discussions. It wasn't to close them. And you can also make these points without the need for any name calling or attacking anyone. It's fine to say the TikToker is wrong on XYZ, without needing to accuse them of stuff for which you seem to lack any real evidence and which is irrelevant anyway. I'd note that from what I can tell, most experienced editors participating in these discussions don't seem to feel it makes a big deal whether anyone was right or wrong about their reasons for disliking their former names. The discussion seems to be much more over whether we're being consistent in how we deal with people who have changed names and especially about cases where people have a clearly strong expressed preference for a new name over an old one for any reason (mostly regardless of whether we agree with that reason or whether they're 'right' about their reasons). Personally I still recommend you just withdraw from this whole area since I'm unconvinced you can contribute productively still if you wanted to take part again you're technically still free to do so, and if you did so properly you might have a chance of influencing stuff whereas you have no chance if you continue to do what you've done so far. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

just as a 3rd party review, "I don't assume a lot of good faith from them" does not seem to me like a PA. Not saying you're wrong. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If by your own admission this whole thing has made you do inappropriate things I suggest you voluntarily disengage from it going forward lest you do more stuff which leads to a block. So other than commenting here, do not participate in any further discussion over the issue. Also I'd remind you that BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia so you need to be mindful of comments you make about all living persons. BTW about your apology, you said "perhaps for the MOSBIO closure, which was prolly done in haste". There's no question even putting the wording aside your unilateral NAC closure was complete inappropriate and is not something you should ever have done. While the thread is fairly messy it has several established editors participating with several suggestions and proposals and so was not ripe for closure. And when we consider the wording where you were taking a personal side on the issues rather than anything else out definitely wasn't on. In other words no this is not "perhaps" or "prolly" and it's easy to see why you saying that is concerning. Nil Einne (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 "what seems to be a nonwhite group of editors advancing it" -- How do you know the race of other editors? David10244 (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Not really relevant given that I've already retracted the above decisions, but a few of the more active editors I knew weren't black from past experiences. — Knightoftheswords 04:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a note that AFAICT Knightoftheswords281 did not close any RFC on either of those pages. There is no RFC on Talk:Muhammad Ali as yet. There was one on MOSBIO but it was already closed by the initiator for being insufficiently workshopped before Knightoftheswords281 got involved. They closed ordinary discussions, part of which on MOSBIO looks like it might lead to an RFC, but they did not close any RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne Sorry, must have got the terminology wrong. Nevertheless, they were still improper closes of discussions. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Canvassing is disruptive, but in case it needs to be said by an additional person: these two closures were wildly inappropriate both as closures and as comments even if not as part of a closure. Let's not be closing things we have very strong opinions about (to the point that judgment is affected). As for whether it's a pattern of bad closures, well, we'd need more evidence. Absent that, I think we probably just need a "not good, plz don't do again" WP:TROUT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Those two closures are almost asking for a topic ban, IMO. They were really not a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a certain irony involved in using the phrase "Obvious WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX bordering on racism that shouldn't be entertained" to end a soapboxy rant. Ravenswing 18:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites If a topic ban would not be necessary, I think at least a formal warning/reprimand from an admin would be helpful. If my multiple warnings/explanations to Knightoftheswords281 on their talk page did not convey the message properly (which we can see from their responses above), then maybe an admin would be more convincing. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, both seem fair. The user has previously been involved in topics they have strong opinions in, and have a pattern of conduct issues in topics they have strong opinions about. A warning at least should be reasonable, and a topic ban could help prevent further disruptions in that conversation, as I don't see the issues ending with a simple warning. -- HungryHighway🛣️ 20:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@HungryHighway I agree with you there. While I would understand the hesitancy in regards to a topic ban, I personally would support it, at least as a temporary measure. But of course admins have the final say. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Are the pattern of conduct issues in topics they have strong opinions about in the room of us? Since it’s pretty mute basing off an attempted TBAN on something that’s nonexistent and hasn’t been proven at all. I’m perfectly capable of handling myself in contentious areas; the fact that I made one bundle of bad closures that I’ve already apologized for doesn’t somehow nullify that, or that I will remedy such behavior in the future. — Knightoftheswords 13:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi all,

I would like to bump up this thread with the fact that @Knightoftheswords281 violated the three revert rule against me today, contesting an NPOV template I had attempted to add to the slave name article, as can be seen in the page's history. Whether this counts as hounding I'll leave up to admin, but I would be lying if I said this didn't feel retributive following my incident report.

Given the user's behavior, both past and current, a topic ban may be necessary, as suggested by other users. I am also willing to refrain from editing relating to the topic myself if that would help cool things off. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The attempt to convey this as WP:HOUNDING or retributive is false and possibly disingenuous. I came across the {{unbalanced}} tag after browsing the article again after this situation and removed it since no explanation of any WP:NPOV issues were issued. You reverted saying that wasn't required despite the fact that drive-by-tagging of this template is recommended against. I reverted under this, and was again reverted under accusations of hounding and that a {{Refideas}} was going to be added to the talk page. This still did not satisfy the conditions for {{unbalanced}} since there still was no direct discussion on what was actually wrong with the section at hand, just links to discussions that may contest what was said in the section (I put "may" in italics since having gone over said sources, I don't think they say what you might have thought they said). Reminder that WP:NPOV doesn't mean we entertain every point equally, henceforth why we're not entertaining Trumpist "stop the steal" nonsense or Holocaust denial even though there are millions out there who believe in those stuff. Frankly, I'm not sure why a TBAN is being floated.

I should also note that I've only made three reverts to this page, which means that the central core claim of your argument above is definitionally bunkum since I haven't violated the WP:3RR. Considering that's a fairly basic thing to get wrong, it appears that far from it being me attempting to hound you, this may just be an attempt to build a case to enforce a TBAN or some form of retribution. — Knightoftheswords 04:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 WP:3RR isn't completely set in stone. Our editing can still be interpreted as edit warring. I feel embarrassed for falling for ragebait so easily by interacting with you.

I'm done. I'm going to do the mature thing and separate myself from this situation, as there seems to be no amicable resolution possible here. If admins think a warning/TBAN is necessary, as the kind editors above suggested, then they'll implement one. It's none of my business anymore. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems fine by me; there's no real reason to drag out this discussion any further than the above closures. — Knightoftheswords 14:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Those RfC closures were not a good look. At minimum a warning is needed - would also support a tban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'd just say close with a warning or TM:Whale for incivility and soapboxing, we're not here to debate culture war topics. Basically, discuss sources and WP:FOC (I know feck all about American history but FWIW scholars do use the term , and the sources at Slave name#United States are rubbish) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Suspected Wikihounding and Incivility by User:AirshipJungleman29

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 requesting administrator review of User:AirshipJungleman29 for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:HOUND. 1. Incivility and Personal Attacks On 4th June 2026, during the AfD for Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry, AirshipJungleman29 left a hostile comment directed at me. They stated: "A ten-year-old would be able to tell it was written by a Brighton fan" and accused me of using LLMs, calling my work "jargon salads." Diff: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry 2. Wikihounding Following my response asking them to observe WP:NPA, User:AirshipJungleman29 navigated to a completely unrelated page I had recently created (Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy) a few days ago. A link was made between (Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy) and Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry before they unilaterally moved it to Draftspace. Diff: Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy moved to draftspace Conclusion While moving a page to Draftspace is a normal process, doing so to an unrelated article immediately after a tense exchange on an AfD is a textbook example of WP:HOUND. The editor followed my contribution history to disrupt my work. Other editors have given thanks for creating (Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy) and it is sourced by reliable secondary sources as well as primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APDHistorian (talk • contribs)

Can you write this in your own words instead of using an LLM? Johnny Joeson (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@APDHistorian: Fire your LLM and rewrite this in your own words or risk this thread being shut down. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 02:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not a comment I ever expected to receive or send.

I am not AI. I am autistic. APDHistorian (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

So am I. Your post is quite blatantly raw LLM output. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 02:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That's cool. But we can all see that between 2024 and 2026 your understanding of grammar, capitalization, and wiki markup made a huge shift. A shift not seen in your recent comment. It is like one was an artisnal human comment, and the other some LLM output resulting from a low specificity prompt. A conclusion section? Cmon. Johnny Joeson (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

We're not saying you are AI, we're saying that we believe that you are using an AI, LLM or chatbot to write for you.

I'm not seeing anything that warrants an ANI thread here - there's no chronic, long-term behavioural issue that cannot be resolved by other means. ANI should be a last resort, not the first.

Stating that an editor is likely using AI isn't a personal attack, although in my experience many AI models think that it is. From the links provided, it looks like the offending statement was ...do us a favour and stop "enhancing" your comments with LLMs; jargon salads generally make a bad argument even worse. This isn't a personal attack but a comment on your editing style - personal attacks focus on the person and not their work.

I also need to counter the statement that moving one single article to draft after a "terse exchange" is a textbook example of WP:HOUND - the page doesn't say that at all. It says that hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.. Note the use of "multiple" and "repeatedly".

It also says that Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.

A clear policy-based reason was given for moving the article to draft, which is a lack of notability. The fact that you've received thanks from editors doesn't mean that the article doesn't have issues, and I note that you've not discussed that in your report.

Looking at the AfD, multiple editors agreed that the article was not appropriate for mainspace due to close paraphrasing, original research and many source verification issues (e.g inaccessible links, sources not matching the claim).

Since these issues (and several in this post) are often strong indicators of AI-use, can you please confirm whether you are currently using AI, LLM or chatbots to generate your writing here? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no way you wrote all that in less than eight minutes without using a LLM. At 02:14 I wrote my comment 'I am not AI. I am autistic' and you respond in less than eight minutes with all that text. It took me 45 minutes to write my original post. I dislike socialising but even then I tried to reach out in good faith by understanding the original editors reasons when they point out something I done wrong. The behaviour and mannerisms on this platform is awful. Bye APDHistorian (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

It's entirely possible she was writing it before you made that comment. Especially since she doesn't bring up your autist status. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 02:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I had spent quite a while writing it - an hour, actually. I started immediately after adding a template for your missing signature. By the time I was done there were many replies, so I copied the post and placed it at the bottom of the latest comment. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear I spent an hour on this because I wanted to be as fair as possible, look at all the available evidence and explain my own position as well as I could. That's why I've also presented direct quotes and links to the relevant policies & guidelines, so others can verify that I'm correct in what I've written. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

APDHistorian,

Many of us are. What you wrote above is obvious LLM output. Please cease as persistent use of LLMs is now grounds for admins to place blocks. TarnishedPath^talk 02:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You're not autistic. APDHistorian (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I strongly suggest abandoning this line of thought. It comes across as you trying to mask LLM use by using your autism, which is frankly disgusting. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 02:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you think this kind of behaviour is going to help your argument? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do listen to every other editor in this thread and stop using LLMs to communicate rather than your own words. V/R, LevisAquae (t/c) 02:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. An actual balance, kind and neutral reply for once. But I'm leaving, for good. I'm wasting my time being on here. APDHistorian (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Analysis – The formatting of the opening comment is deeply reminiscent of LLM output, however there are numerous grammatical and punctuation mistakes that appear to me unlikely to be generated by an LLM:

1) Other editors have given thanks for creating (Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy) – The article should not be presented in parentheses and the sentence is left as an incomplete fragment because of them. Observe that Other editors have given thanks for creating ... and it is sourced by reliable secondary sources as well as primary sources is missing an object and has a referential 'it' that cannot refer to anything. The second clause contains the preposition 'by' when it should have the preposition 'to'. These are indicative of human error.

2) In the preceding sentence we have The editor followed my contribution history to disrupt my work. You don't 'follow' a contribution history. You could say 'followed me via my contribution history' or some such, but not that your contribution history was followed. LLMs have no ability to comprehend actual meaning, but I still doubt this is output that an LLM would generate.

3) They stated: "A ten-year-old would be able to tell it was written by a Brighton fan" and accused me of using LLMs, calling my work "jargon salads." – This passage contains improper punctuation and formatting that an LLM typically won't produce. The colon use would be fine if a period immediately followed the quoted statement such as 'They stated: "A ten-year-old would be able to tell it was written by a Brighton fan".' However, it does not. There is extraneous content that should either be part of a new sentence or the colon should be removed and replaced with 'that'. This again looks like human error.

4) A link was made between (Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy) and Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry before they unilaterally moved it to Draftspace – Here again we have improper usage of parentheses. If you omit the parenthetical statement, then we again have an incomplete thought: A link was made between ... and Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry before they unilaterally moved it to Draftspace. This instance is definitely not raw LLM output. The error is too basic.

The comment may have been drafted using an LLM, though only the formatting style is indicative of it. Nothing in the language indicates to me LLM usage. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

To quickly clarify: I do not endorse any element of the complaint which should remain closed. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

~2026-33324-10

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ~2026-33324-10 (talk · contribs)
• On recently deceased Argentine musician Indio Solari.

I'd argue that a TA does not warrant attention from ANI and our community, but setting aside my sensitivity to homophobia, I think that inserting this (willing to translate) ... I think it warrants an indeff. Who can possibly believe this TA, and the risk of having it open is going to contribute positively? I believe it is actually impossible. CoryGlee 16:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yuk. Only one edit, but it's difficult to imagine that an editor making it might ever be productive. Narky Blert (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TPA needs Yoinked User_talk:Andy1647

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User is using talkpage to insult other editors after having been blocked. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Andy1647 (talk · contribs) is calling editors non-intelligent after being blocked for promoting their self-published blog. Malgosha 22:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Please stay off their page. As I've said before, don't feed the trolls, and don't interact with a blocked editor unless it is to provide advice on how to regain editing privileges. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

From now on, I'll just ignore the trolls to prevent feeding them. Malgosha 22:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The user isn't even trolling, It's run-of-the-mill grumbling post-block. They're 100% wrong, but it's still nowhere near requiring yoinkage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ImVeryStupid and problematic categorization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

User has an ongoing problem of adding categories to articles that do not reflect article content, particularly in regards race or gender and violence. While he has had the problem explained to him repeatedly (such as on his talk page here) and claims to have heard, he has nonetheless continued. He created Category:White Americans shot dead by law enforcement in the United States (currently en route to deletion) and proceeded to stock it primarily with examples in which no claim of "White" had been made in the article, in some cases adding it as an unsourced claim, in some cases not. He has added violence-against-men categories to articles after having being told repeatedly that such categories are only for the targeting of men as a group, and not just where victims happen to be men. He has been repeatedly adding racially-motivated crime categories to the Killing of Austin Metcalf despite there being no such claim that the killing was so motivated in the article.

User has repeatedly recently stated a desire to quit Wikipedia, in such discussions as User_talk:ImVeryStupid#May_2026_2 and User_talk:ImVeryStupid#May_2026_3. He has gone so far as to declare himself as blocked (although he did undo that addition.) As recently as March, he was WP:SELFBLOCKed, although he requested his way out of it.

Given all this, it may be best to grant him the block he seeks, and (in case he requests release of that block) ban him from adding categories to articles, to creating new categories, and to the discussion of such. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right. And to the best of my luck, I think it's time for me to just give up. I think it's time for me to have a permanent ban from Wikipedia forever for good, just to make you guys happy and make sure not for me to return to the site. I'm such a failure, a loser, a stupid asshole, and a complete jerk. So, I deserve the punishment as you finally take a big victory against myself. This will be my last goodbye to Wikipedia. ImVeryStupid (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@ImVeryStupid a lot of people don't realise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it can be very hard to edit it properly. Some people are good at it, others try really hard but find that it just doesn't gel with them.

It's very important that you understand that both of these situations are ok. Nobody is more or less worthwhile because they find something difficult, since there will be other things that they're good at.

Things have only really got this far because you didn't realise that Wikipedia editing isn't really for you, so it's good that you understand this now.

You can always keep reading Wikipedia, but I also think you should stop editing and use that time to find something that you're good at and enjoy doing.

If you carry on trying to edit Wikipedia when it isn't really your thing (especially since it's clearly upsetting you) you'll only waste your own time and the time is other volunteers who have to clean up your mistakes, which isn't really fair on them

It's better for everyone if you can decide to step back from Wikipedia editing entirely - if you can't do that on your own then perhaps an administrator should block you, as you've requested.

Go and learn what you're good at, something is out there waiting for you to find it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 22:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Listen, I'm about to terminate my account right now, and there's no stopping it. Nat Gertler is 100% right because I broke thousands and thousands of rules, and I'm support his message. I don't want to look at the positives of Wikipedia. I would rather rot myself in hell right now. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to edit Wikipedia - you can stop right this second. Disable any email notifications, sign out of your account and do anything else you like.

If you want to stop editing, just stop. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 22:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I'll just stop. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that's a really good idea. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 22:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I requested a self-block for you, and I want you to thank me for that. Its ready waiting for you. Thanks! ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Block on community consensus. I don't think a self-requested block is sufficient, as it can be undone at any time. I also see ImVeryStupid seemingly can't stop editing this thread, even after agreeing to stop editing entirely. --Yamla (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a self-requested block is 100% necessary. Because I won't stop editing threads and unnecessary categories nonstop. I tried giving up and its just all in my head. I would rather be permanently blocked than partially blocked because I don't want to edit another article nor create a page or category ever again. I did my last category today, and that's it, I'm done, final, and I quit. And I think self-requesting a block is a perfect idea. Because if you have an alt, you'll get permanently banned too. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Unnecessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:NatGertler: Here, take my cookies because you deserve it, before I plan to leave Wikipedia for good. Besides, I wish I don't exist on Wikipedia anyway. I know I kept breaking thousands of walls nonstop for many reasons, declaring edit wars and destroying other categories. I know that I've been doing that nonstop and I'm just so sorry. Tell you what, if you want to block me, excellent, and if you don't want to block me, then go block me or something. It's my fault for destroying Wikipedia and I deserve to receive a huge punishment from the Wikipedia community. I literally did destroy everything, and I should've been ashamed of myself. I'm not just stupid, but a huge failure to the entire website, a huge failure that nobody really likes, and a huge failure that my brain is a size of a pea. I'm extremely sorry for all the damages I've just done. It's all my fault. Everything I touch is all my fault. And worse of all, its my fault for writing this apology. I'm such a big failure to Wikipedia. I'm sorry Nat, and I'm not sorry to myself. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Support a non-self requested Block. This editor increased the amount of disruptive edits they made after their first round of self-requested block and unblock. I predict a second round would be equally ineffective at preventing disruption. Mikewem (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revoke TPA for Universedeletor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

i will request to revoke TPA for Universedeletor (talk · contribs) since they are abusing their user talk page ~2026-32769-66 (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It's just inoffensive chatter and emojis. Ignore them. Fences&Windows 11:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted the nonsense. In my opinion, this doesn't require a TPA yoink, @~2026-32769-66. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 14:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Also this warning was completely out of line and didn't help your cause in the least. Nathannah • 📮 15:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:~2026-33031-60

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ~2026-33031-60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an Admin please revoke this user's Talk page access? Clearly this LTA will continue to abuse it's own talk page. Untamed1910 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Word of advice; WP:DFTT. This wasn't necessary. Just ignore them, and they don't have a stage upon which to strut. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I think people are going here because it's not clear if it is within scope of WP:AIV. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, TPA revokes are specifically supposed to go to ANI, however, @Untamed1910 & @Bringingthewood no need to revert their edits multiple times on their own talk page if they are blocked unless they are outright insane. Don't let people like that waste your valuable time. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see that this is an LTA? The term LTA should be used sparingly (for many reasons, but mainly WP:DENY), normal socking doesn't mean its an LTA.​ – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Plus there have been recent cases where reversion of mild nonsense escalated into quite obscene attacks because the editor was recieving the attention they wanted - watch & wait, nine times out of ten they'll get bored and wander off to do something else. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editor not here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

~2026-33474-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ~2026-33407-08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP/temp editor has left quite a few edit summaries abusing and personally attacking other editors:

• "Learn to spell, retard."
• "All you gender-confused wiki retards still can't spell."
• "All the gender-confused retards who run wikipedia keep changing the spelling. I'll keep doing this until you gender-confused retards block me because every block is a badge of honor."
• "You lost, retard"
• "You also lost, retard."

The IP/temp accounts need a block. Gotitbro (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor mass removing sourced content without explanation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gabriel Benedictus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is actively removing a large amount of perfectly good sourced content from various articles without explanation - . The disruption appears to be actively occurring. Any chance someone can step in to stop the disruption from continuing? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430, they stopped once you posted this, so I'll close this thread and hope you can get a hold of them on their talk page. If they start up again, please head to AIV and ask for a pblock from mainspace. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD3 RevDel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

~2026-33504-86 (talk · contribs) and 痛 (维基黑鬼垃圾) (talk · contribs) both made disruptive edits to Soth Kevin that qualify for RD3 revision deletion. Malgosha 03:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

痛 (维基黑鬼垃圾) also made edits with disruptive edit summaries on their talk page before they were blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. Malgosha 04:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unproductive religious UP editing

User:Hemanthlee315 has been making a stream of edits to their user page, adding information relating to Hinduism and meditation that really does not belong here. Some material, such as the quote below, has a strong AI feeling to it:

Let go of society's expectations, what’s acceptable, the shoulds — and listen to yourself. What would make you happy? — being a traveler, growing a beard, pursuing dance? Start acting on that because once you do — you will accept yourself a little bit more. People will oppose you, they will force their world view on you but that’s okay. Take a chance on yourself and go for what you want no matter what. Keep going after it even when it gets hard — feed your soul with it. Once you accept your true dreams and start pursuing them — you will find self-belief. And that’s how you start to believe in yourself by — being you.

It seems like this user might be trying to convert others to Hinduism, which would obviously be unacceptable. Even if the strange edits have a different purpose, however, it's evident that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Somepinkdude (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not AI, it's plagiarism from pre-AI (though I'm not sure this is the original source--it may also be plagiarism): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/magic-happens-when-you-believe-yourself-kishore-shintr%C3%A9-cheers-/ .

We have pages pushing christianity, too. I'd be careful about labeling a page unacceptable because of the beliefs it's trying to push. However, this page does need to go for multiple reasons, so I'll delete it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

User page pushing religious viewpoints all need to go, they do not exist for the purpose of convincing or converting anyone to or from any religion. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 23:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

In that case, the WP:UPNOT policy would have to be changed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:UP#PROMO wouldn't apply? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 00:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE might apply to things like adding mantras to article Talk pages:

This is their only edit outside their own user pages. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

That was to their user talk page. All these edits were prior to the first warning: a bunch of edits to their user page followed by one to their user talk page. Let's see what they do next. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I got that wrong, apologies for that! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Good luck defining where "pushing religious viewpoints" ends vs where "being openly religious" begins. It would be massively unethical to suggest we should forbid people from expressing their religious status entirely.

UPNOT already forbids excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia, which I would imagine applies if a person's userpage is entirely dedicated to religious evangelism rather than any editing activity. Athanelar (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

User:ZibityZoom2006 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ZibityZoom2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE; created nonsense category. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• @Voorts: Just notified editor. Also, I was referred here by WP:AIV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  The admin who referred you here should have investigated further. This is clearly not something to be dealt with at ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Then why don't you talk to @ToBeFree:? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  I doubt that they said that creating a single nonsense category constitutes NOTHERE behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nope, it was an AIV report which was closed with the summary that's not the type of "obvious vandalism" suitable for AIV. Please report such things at WP:ANI instead.

  These are done quite quickly so I think TBF expected Mvcg66b3r to read through the noticeboard warning before submitting the report, to make sure it was appropriate for ANI. Either way, the thread is closed but I do have some lingering concerns about this editor - enough to keep an eye on them at least, since they've got a lot of warning messages that they don't seem to be reading. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've begun thinking about these possibly problematic editors and how to approach them in terms of "ripeness". Sometimes it takes a while to truly understand what's going on, and jumping to a noticeboard too early results in this sort of vague stuff. There rarely is an emergency when it comes to stuff like this, and watching (and fixing issues along the way) is often a better approach than prematurely going to ANI or AIV. Notice that both boards are looking for chronic or severe issues. Wait until the issue is ripe enough to understand and then report. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, I've got them watchlisted for this very reason. I'm hoping they'll realise they've got Talk page before it gets that far! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sigh :) When I decline/remove an AIV report because it's not the type of any-admin-can-look-and-would-quickly-block-without-thinking-much vandalism that should be reported there, I do so to prevent the quick action noticeboard from being clogged up by reports that need "further investigation". I don't do that at AIV. Or rather, I usually do, but I shouldn't have to, and sometimes I refuse to. The noticeboard was too full for that. What I don't do is performing a detailed analysis of whether the matter is actually suitable for any other noticeboard. If any noticeboard is needed, it's probably ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Spammerwocky on talk pages

~2026-20807-08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding patent nonsense to article talk space: . This user has also done the same across multiple sock TAs. The full list, according to my TAIP, is:

• ~2026-20807-08
• ~2026-31976-43
• ~2026-29151-36
• ~2026-10473-52
• ~2026-24150-32
• ~2026-85308-3

Somepinkdude (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It's been going on for over a year. Blocked. Main IP blocked, too. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced editing

~2026-22054-36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly engaging in unsourced editing (), among others, and making unproductive TP comments. They have already been warned thrice, but refuse to communicate, answering that they "Couldn't Find Sources"(sic). In addition to this, they have also made similar edits under the expired TA ~2026-19302-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suspect that they may be part of an LTA, since many LTA vandals like to vandalize the Thomas & Friends page and related franchises. Somepinkdude (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

User:SpencerWave

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

Adds poor quality text and has never responded to any messages left for them. I noticed that they had added a large amount of text to an introduction that was very badly written, and had marked the edit as minor. Then I noticed that someone had asked them two years ago not to mark significant edits as minor. There was no response to that or any other message. Classic WP:RADAR and administrators may wish to block until the user acknowledges messages. ~2026-33398-13 (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked SpencerWave from mainspace in an effort to get them to communicate. They have never used a talk page and continue to improperly mark edits as minor when adding long summaries to the introduction of articles: Michael D. Steele; XVIII Airborne Corps; Frank Sheeran. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I sincerely apologize for any issues that may have been caused, though I have never had any intention of violating the rules or guidelines of this site. I promise to uphold the site rules and I will respond to any messages you send. Please contact me if there is anything that can be worked out, and once again, I am deeply sorry for anything I may have done. Thank you. SpencerWave (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Minor edit has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and many people will ignore edits that are marked as minor. This is a problem when you are making large additions or changes, as it can go unreviewed by other editors that would otherwise be able to work constructively with the new material or offer their perspective. Please make sure that you take attention to this in the future. Communication is required; otherwise we can't learn from our mistakes. If you can address these concerns then I will be happy to unblock. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! I will be sure to keep that all in mind. SpencerWave (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you respond to the concerns from @~2026-33398-13 at the start of this section? I know "poor quality text" is not much to go off of but for one thing why call Michael D. Steele a "star athlete"? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

At this point I'd like to say that any other admin is free to unblock if they are convinced that SpencerWave will be responsive to talk page messages in the future and use the minor edit marker properly. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for everything. Thank you. SpencerWave (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize, I just want to know if you understand what the problem was. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand. SpencerWave (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Sparks19923 - yet another slop agent

Sparks19923 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sparks has more or less confirmed LLM use. Two months ago Sparks was warned about using an LLM and admitted to "using scripts". The warning was made by a person whom I know has experience in detecting AI agents. Also, their talk page comments are obvious for everyone to see. Very recently, is a bit of a smoking gun, so they obviously haven't stopped. Their contributions to articlespace itself contain subtle but noticeable AISIGNS. I suggest that we stop wasting our time with the bot. Crossposted onto AINB as cleanup is needed. Fermiboson (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The framing of this report ("slop agent," "the bot") prejudges the outcome, but I'll address the substance. None of my work is slop.

I use Python scripts that were written with AI assistance for citation formatting, search for sources, and MOS compliance work among other things. Foe example the scripts check if a Seealso link is also in the body. Recently I added a check for citations in the lead for example. Or if WP:Links is being applied properly. The scripts can also build and create an outline then help flesh out the start of an article. These scripts have evolved over time and have improved the quality of my work over time. I was warned in March, took it seriously, and cut my editing pace considerably. That was on me. Today I went faster than I should have. Thats on me to. I've been stuck at home in a caregiving role for some months and editing keeps me occupied; that explains the topic scatter, not a systematic content campaign. The Air Manchester edit summary ("Edit summary on clipboard") was an accidental paste from my workflow and I understand how it looks. The PhpGedView diff shows citation reformatting; clean citations are not diagnostic of LLM generation on their own, but I am not claiming my workflow is purely manual. I review everything before it goes in. If there are specific edits that need to be examined, point me to them. On a side note, I am happy to post the scripts to GitHub. Sparks19923 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a CU, so I can't back up my agent accusation. Feel free to consider that withdrawn. As to the rest, well, firstly you should read WP:NOLLM very carefully and tell us whether your workflow is in contravention of that; note that there is no carveout for manual review. I will then leave the judgement to others. Fermiboson (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I have to say, I think it's strange that you have not acknowledged at all that many of your user talk page responses are LLM-generated. It's not against policy to do so, but it's a telling omission. (I ran one of your messages in this section against an AI text detector, and it concluded the probability of it being LLM-generated was 100%.) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I used that same website on Spark's comments from that section (collectively) and it told me it was 83% likely to be human. I don't think tools like this are reliable on small samples like single, couple sentence comments and do better on a larger text sample. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe I'm just so used to the way humans don't usually leave detailed, step-by-step explanations of their self-criticism that I cynically assume every example is machine-generated. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I could definitely see that and have thought about it. Guess I need to make the output more Wikipedia idiomatic. But this hunt for AI craze has just gotten out of hand. Every type or mistake is suddenly a sign of LLM. Sparks19923 (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW typos are actually an indication that LLMs were not used. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Humans are much better at spotting AI than AI is. Try to consider WP:AISIGNS when assessing, then ask the editor if they're using AI/LLM.

Nine times out of ten, their reaction will give you the answer - AI will obfuscate and not give a clear yes/no, it'll deflect and say it'll try to write better in future or ask which parts of its writing make you think it's an AI (it wants to use your response as training data). Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 00:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Re WP:NOLLM — I've read it. My scripts handle citation formatting, source checking, and MOS compliance; they can also help generate rough outlines and fill in text that I then build from. The scripts do produce patterns that may look like AI to someone. I would have to really dig into that. The drafts that are produced are nowhere near Wikipedia-ready and I do substantial editing before anything goes in, but I understand that may still cross the line on content generation and I'll stop using that part of the workflow. But because I am doing the majority of the editing I didn't think it applied. If disclosure requirement applies regardless, I missed it. I'll add it to edit summaries going forward. I also use Grammarly for a final grammar pass, which is a different category from content generation.

On GPTZero: WP:Signs of AI writing says directly, "Do not solely rely on artificial intelligence content detection tools (such as GPTZero). While they perform better than random chance, these tools have non-trivial error rates." When I tested it myself a few months ago out of curiosity, it flagged nearly everything I ran through it as AI to varying degrees. I'd ask admins to weigh the tool's limitations when considering that evidence. Sparks19923 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll retract my accusation. I used another detector on the comments and it was much more confident the responses were human-generated. I think I was thrown by a few things in the comments, such as when you said "If any of the claims turn out to be unsupported by the sources listed, I'll fix or remove them." That read to me like an LLM trying to double back after being critiqued, not a human who had done the research necessary to generate the content in the first place. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It’s a canned response. I use. My first instinct is to be less than diplomatic so I can’t responses that were seriously edited to be as a neutral as possible to not be like many of the comments. I see that just doesn’t go for Wikipedia with me. Sparks19923 (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

One thing I'm surprised nobody's mentioned yet is that WP:SEMIAUTOMATED edits are still problematic even if the tool you're using is not necessarily an LLM. Depending on how 'automated' these edits are (and if they have a text-generation component, it seems they're fairly automated) you might even need to request approval for it, as it might count as running a bot. Athanelar (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you please explain what is wrong with , I don't quite understand sorry, I'm not the most across all of the AI "tells" etc. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The edit summary is "Edit summary: [the actual edit summary]". Fermiboson (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh okay thank you. I can see how that can be concerning. I'll take a closer look at this later. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It was a copy and paste from my workflow. Sparks19923 (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Think it's worth noting the argument in your edit summary here - that "banned-user contamination should be addressed through cleanup, rewriting, and source verification, not deletion of an otherwise notable topic." is inconsistent with our policy on the matter. Morwen (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The policy specifically allows for translating and basic copyediting of your own work. Things like citation formatting and MOS checks seem pretty different from actually writing all new article content, so I don’t think the guidance bans every kind of automation-assisted workflow. Like I said earlier, they generate a draft for the outline and I take it from there.

Just to clarify, the part of my tools that are generative in nature mainly rule-based NLP, they don't use LLM. From a computer science standpoint, that’s a big difference, especially when it comes to generating text or the risk of making stuff up. (AI uses way more advanced techniques.) Still, I get that reasonable editors might disagree about where to draw the line in practice or under the policy. PS. I did ask a LLM if this made me sound like a jerk before posting it. Sparks19923 (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn’t even talking about LLMs there btw. Morwen (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Generating a draft seems a large step from citation formatting. There is going to be nuance depending on what a draft means, but more generally it is worth considering whether it is worth pushing boundaries. The current LLM rules emerged after years of less firm handling didn't work, including people talking about their various personal workflows and why those workflows are unproblematic and should be exceptions. Any workflow that is producing pre-prepared edit summaries, whether using LLMs or rule-based NLP, is running contrary to the spirit of what many editors are looking for. A workflow that will fail if you "went faster than [you] should have" is not a robust one. CMD (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, in many cases, those workflows claimed to be unproblematic very much turned out not to be so, even from users otherwise familiar with AI and confident that they were the exception. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 08:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of a draft it generated, and run us through how you go from there to the finished product? It could help us evaluate whether the text generation aspect is problematic.

Also, you mentioned using Grammarly for a final grammar pass. While Grammarly is advertised as a grammar-focused tool first and foremost, it also does deeper rewordings, and it could again help to know how much changes go into that step. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 08:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby - for the PhpGedView one they're quoting, my script only gave me a super basic bullet outline like "june 2002 sourceforge release, project of month dec 2003, 2010 webtrees fork, last release 2017". I took that and wrote the whole sections myself, added the actual sources for this article, changed the wording completely, and turned the bullets into normal paragraphs. Grammarly only caught like two spelling mistakes and one run-on sentence in what I had already written, nothing else.

I am done with the generative outline/drafting part of the scripts now and no more pre-canned summaries. The rest is just citation formatting and MOS checks I do by hand. On the BRFA thing, it is all manual after the outline, but I will look into it to be sure. Sparks19923 (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The full quote is more damning, actually; Translation quality, LLM-style prose, or banned-user contamination should be addressed through cleanup, rewriting, and source verification, not deletion of an otherwise notable topic.

LLM-style prose is itself an AISIGN, because LLMs seem to think the problem is text "sounding like" it's AI generated, rather than being AI generated.

There's two rule-of-threes back to back

There's a bit of WP:LETSFOCUSON too. Athanelar (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I support the conclusion that @Sparks19923 has been using LLMs to write stuff, because this userpage revision contains the hallucinated Template:User WikiProject Computing template, which has never existed on the English Wikipedia according to the deletion logs for that page. GrinningIodize (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, their talk page (permalink to problematic revision) contains this text about how they will communicate with others (WP:AISIGNS in italics):

• Assume Good Faith: As an established editor, I am familiar with Wikipedia's core policies, including notability criteria, citation guidelines, and template usage. If I make an error, I am making a good-faith effort to comply with long-established precedent.
• Civility: I do not engage in arguments, debates, or drama. It is exhausting, depressing, and demotivating.
• Communication: If you have a concern about a specific edit, article assessment, or technical cleanup, state it clearly, neutrally, and without condescension. Hostile or scolding messages are unproductive and will be ignored

GrinningIodize (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

These kinds of "ethos statements" about how a person plans to engage with Wikipedis are themselves an AI sign, too. Normally it takes the form of a list on the userpage of "editing standards" or "policies" which they plan to dutifully abide by, such as NPOV, V etc Athanelar (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. They're truly bizarre. I never saw a single one before people started getting AI to write their userpages. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

They're so damn weird and off-putting. Who voluntarily talks like that? Who wants to come across as a person who talks like that? It's like elective surgery to replace your prefrontal cortex with conflict-resolution psychobabble and '90s middle-management sloganeering. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of the atuff AI writes for Wikipedia contexts seems to be preempting an accusation. On the obvious side you have AI telling users to deny that they used AI, but the more subtle side of it is stuff like this; AI encouraging users to post canned notices about how they adhere to all relevant policies and guidelines, or preemptively assuring that the draft they wrote is based on Reliable™ Independent™ sources. There's a strange sort of insecurity to it. Athanelar (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's likely that these are due to editors asking AI to generate a Wikipedia userpage for them, then plonking the result onto their page because it looks good.

The AI usually doesn't know anything about the person who made the request, so it can only talk about what an ideal Wikipedia editor would look like instead.

It's a simple equation to the AI:

• "Wikipedia editing" = following policies and guidelines (reliable sources, NPOV, civility).

Therefore:

• "Wikipedia editor" = follows policies and guidelines (reliable sources, NPOV, civility).

AI often wants to be helpful and please the user, so of course it'll describe them as the perfect Wikipedia editor despite them not having edited Wikipedia yet.

Outside User pages, AI chatbots usually explain how they've reached a decision as part of their explanation (try asking one to convert lbs to kg, you'll end up with at least two paragraphs) - their edit summaries will do exactly the same thing, usually vastly over-explaining things. They also don't quite get that summaries aren't there to explain how an edit was made, but rather why it was made.

I'll stop here so we don't go off on a tangent! Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 00:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

LLM context collapse, I think, these are fairly similar to LinkedIn-style/personal portfolio website biographies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Never mind that chatbots just love groupings in threes. (Alright, so do I, but even so.) Ravenswing 01:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

GrinningIodize, this seems to be an AI-adjusted version of Gnomingstuff's userpage. See the identical "It is exhausting, depressing, and demotivating." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

what exactly are you trying to imply here Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Since we're talking about AI, the likelihood that it's nicked content from an existing userpage (i.e. yours). If there's one thing that AI is good at, it's stealing content. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 17:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

LLMs don't really work that way, especially not with text this recent; that, given the context of my doing AI cleanup, feels more likely to be a person deliberately deciding to drop stuff from my userpage into their prompt or output, for whatever reason Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah yeah, that does make more sense - that's something I haven't seen for a while now I think about it. Thanks for clarifying! Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 12:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sparks19923 Why did your talk page have phrasing that appeared to have been copied from @Gnomingstuff? GrinningIodize (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi - just to clarify, I don’t really care either way if someone copies my userpage, and there’s no need to ping me about it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. GrinningIodize (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to address this directly. I used AI assistance in parts of my workflow, including outlining and drafting some article starts, some talk-page replies, and my userpage. I now understand that this is covered by WP:NOLLM even with review afterward, and I have stopped the generative parts.

I went back through my recent articles myself and found some with citation problems from the drafting step. I am fixing them now, starting with any biographies, and I have already started on a couple. Most of my sourcing is real, and some of the flagged items actually predated my edits. The citation details that are mine are on me.

I also edited too fast, especially that 27 May burst with all the dePRODs. I have slowed down.

Going forward I will not use AI for generated text or citations, will not use pre-canned summaries, and will disclose any assistance that remains. If I do any scripted editing again I will take it through BRFA first. Sparks19923 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to be sure, did you use AI to write that statement? Because that also isn't allowed per WP:AITALK. - Ivan530 (Talk) 02:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

No. I did not use AI to write that statement. I spent a couple of hours drafting and revising it before posting. Sparks19923 (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sparks19923 You said "I have stopped the generative parts". What about the other ways of using AI, like finding (often hallucinated) sources? David10244 (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@David10244, there's no rule against using AI to find sources. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

As long as you then read the sources to validate that they’re relevant. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A selection of things said by Sparks during this thread:

• Most of my sourcing is real,
• My scripts [...] can also help generate rough outlines and fill in text that I then build from.
• PS. I did ask a LLM if this made me sound like a jerk before posting it.
• I am not claiming my workflow is purely manual. I review everything before it goes in.
• I also use Grammarly for a final grammar pass,
• Going forward I will not use AI for generated text or citations, will not use pre-canned summaries, and will disclose any assistance that remains.

Since making that final claim, Sparks has made an edit with a summary that separates clauses with a "▎" unicode character, not traditionally found on a keyboard. I'm surprised and that no admin intervention has happened yet. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Just for the avoidance of doubt, "▎" is a block element character used to render styled output from command line programs. I was incorrect about it splitting clauses, it is actually in fact far more likely to be a linebreak from a AI command line tool such as Claude code, as it appears to separate the text every 150 characters. Similar edit happened here showing the same pattern. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was messing around with arrows in my scripts that generate suggested edit summaries. It was literally a copy/paste from a script I made to save myself ten minutes. For me, it was just something to do while software compiled. I have other things I can do, so I don’t have much of a stake in this. I do appreciate the passion, and most of the editors I’ve dealt with have been constructive. It’s also not lost on me that the first two accusations were withdrawn. That said, this is basically why I stopped interacting with this thread after the initial sprint. Wikipedia traffic is down 40% in two years, it’s dying a slow death, and somehow suggested edit summaries from my scripts that I edited and then copied and pasted are what people are worried about?

I’m just pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who isn’t too busy staring at one tree while the forest burns. Sparks19923 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Those edit summaries alone weren't the issue though were they, and hopefully you are smart enough to realise that. You said "Going forward I will not use AI for generated text or citations, will not use pre-canned summaries, and will disclose any assistance that remains. If I do any scripted editing again I will take it through BRFA first", but less than 48 hours later you used your automated scripted workflow in an undisclosed way again. What is the correct response to that, other than you getting blocked? Your scripts have wasted far more editor time than they have saved, and the above attempts at mediating with you have proven fruitless, so the block was a good one and a net-benefit to wikipedia. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting that we're individual editors and administrators; we are volunteers who can only deal with what we are able to do.

We saw someone who was running around holding a box of matches, someone who didn't put them down like they promised they would. We could have kicked them out of the forest, instead we've let them stay inside a safe, fenced area where they can still work without making the fire worse. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior

Strange behavior from Special:Contributions/Xcccccccc123; an account created on: 2023-11-16: - first edit: 2026-04-30 - this user has done 1,600 edits in one month, all but three have been to add either links or categories. This seems suspicious, but I don't know that it indicates anything actionable; I just wanted to bring this to people's attention in case this behavior pattern is known/standard for some types of problems. Sorry I don't know a better place to post this. Thank you admins, for all you do!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Avatar317 you need to notify them on their user talk page when you start an ANI about them. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with them; I just feel their editing is suspicious. I will post the notice. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

yeah the sentences from this edit are triggering GPTZero. Can't actually prove this is AI though beyond that, but this seems to be one of their biggest edits.

another big edit also triggering GPTZero. Can't prove actual AI either here. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I think removal of XC and page creation permission seems useful. might be bot user. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I already warned them about their redundant category work . Most of the categories that they have been adding are redundant: ^SMason_Garrison 00:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Might just be a new user getting hang of stuff. I think bringing this to ANI is escalating it... I don't see any vandalism or any pattern of disruptive editing on the user's part. Also the issue with redundant categories, is not exactly a grave issue... they might just be learning the ropes. There are new users way worse than this. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I also wanna stress i cant prove ai anyways or anything wrong otherwise User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Lakers96

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Lakers96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's talk page is littered with warnings about their disruptive edits. I dont think the user understad oor policies. While some of their minor edits are indeed useful, other edits like what I reverted or 14:58, June 2, 2026 diff hist −629 Khomeinism →External links: this is biased and untrue ] or curprev 10:00, June 3, 2026 Lakers96 talk contribs 22,407 bytes −16,851 No edit summaryundothank Tag: Reverted] are hardly constructive. I think admins must intervene. --Altenmann >talk 23:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for 4 days for WP:DE. Blocks will escalate if behavior continues EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive, unresposive editor with major OR etc. issues

Aayush.5466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor started editing late last year and in that short amount of time has raked up no less than 25 (!) warnings/notifications , exclusively in the WP:CT/SA area (of which they were informed six months ago ). The issues largely pertain to OR (, ) and leaving no edit summaries in almost all of their edits (, , ) and using LLMs to create new articles (, , ; many have since been deleted), disruptive page moves (, , ). The editor has never responded(s) and continues with the problematic behaviour.

Some examples that come to my notice. OR: (warned ), , , (here the OR replaces sourced content), ; Disruptive/undiscussed moves: and and (thrice at the same article, warnings linked above), , ; Disruptive removals: e.g. (other warnings: , , , ).

Danners430 noted this on the talk page "Going by the level 4 warning immediately above yours, I wonder if it's time for a noticeboard". I agree that it is time for sanctions. Gotitbro (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

For context, they've used article Talk pages three times (twice in March and once in Jan) and have never been on a user Talk page, despite having close to 2000 edits. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-33503-28

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user, or many users under the same IP, tend to perform small grammatical or spelling edits to articles, and some of them keep getting reverted by ClueBot, resulting in consecutive warnings on their talk page. Anyone have a look? -- Least Action (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @~2026-33503-28: -- Least Action (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

All of their edits appear to be correctly fixing bad grammar or spelling and have detailed edit summaries. Only three have been reverted by cluebot and all of those are questionable reverts. What is your concern? Celjski Grad (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I just think it's unusual to have consecutive reverts by cluebot... -- Least Action (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

ClueBot’s talk page directs false positives to be reported here for retraining: User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives Celjski Grad (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you look at the edits that ClueBot reverted? As far as I can see, all three were all false positives, and the TA's edits were fine. CodeTalker (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP-hopping TA still around

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ~2026-32937-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This looks to be a resumption of the editor blocked under ~2026-28816-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think we need a bigger block. -

• Looks to be a NadejdaJoleva8794 sock. Blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive behaviour by Howard the Duck involving AFD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Howard the Duck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For context: a discussion between HTD and myself took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Iloilo City local elections on the issue of whether the article met WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. One of the reasons cited for "Delete" was that "Past similar elections in the city, for example, are covered in articles covering elections in Western Visayas in general", rather than having their own, stand-alone articles.

The reported behaviour is as follows:

• HTD created the 2025 Iloilo City local elections article directly in response to that discussion (time of my latest comment before creation, time of the article's creation), despite the aforementioned concerns on GNG and NEVENT and with the AfD still ongoing. I specifically voiced my concerns to them. Concurrently, I found out that HTD had been involved in (both past and present) discussions related to that exact same issue of GNG and NEVENT of local elections, so they knew beforehand that this was a controversial issue at the time of our discussion. I was not aware they actually knew until participating myself in one such discussion earlier today at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Discussion on Elections.
• HTD's response to my concerns has been to suggest that I should send their newly-created article to WP:PROD or WP:AFD (diff diff), which I did. Their reaction was to immediately decline the PROD and tell me to send the article to AFD (diff). They also specifically replied that, if I thought their actions "need sanctions", I could report it "to the appropriate drama board" (diff).

I cannot see how this is not a blatant breach of WP:POINT (creating an article aimed at circumventing a still ongoing AfD) and WP:GAME (by misusing WP:PROD and WP:AFD procedures to protect their controversial, newly-created article), as well as a persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour (particularly from the point they created that article and I countered them about it). To this, add the clear contempt exhibited at noticeboards like this one (labeling them as "drama boards" and actively daring me to report them there), which does not seem like a proper way to resolve a conflict. Impru20^talk 21:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm currently on mobile and will answer this after several hours. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Take your time, even if being on mobile has seemingly not been a problem to keep editing the 2025 Iloilo City local elections article that is the subject of the controversy. Speaking of which, I should remark that, before the whole PROD/AFD/"drama board" ordeal, I had initially moved the article into draftspace for it to be incubated pending the outcome of the AfD on the 2028 article, though this was reverted by HTD. I was not intent on deleting it outright before that AfD was closed; that was basically the "solution" proposed by HTD, who then went on to oppose their own suggested proposals (as commented in the report above) whenever I proceeded with them. Impru20^talk 09:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Deleting articles is via PROD and AFD; that's what I told you and as you have the right to propose the article via those processes, I also have the right to oppose deletion. This also includes reversing move to draftspace. While I am not privy on when articles can be moved to draftspace, article authors are allowed to revert such changes, then the person who wants the article deleted go through the usual process, which I had told you.

Again. I have no problem for you to take the article to AFD, and I hope you have no problem with me opposing that. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have not read my previous comment (right above) when I specifically said that "I was not intent on deleting it outright before that AfD was closed", nor my own edit summary moving the article to draftspace arguing that it "Should remain in incubation until the AfD outcome is clear, notwithstanding any further action that may be deemed necessary". It was you who, all by yourself and on your own volition, forced me to seek to delete the article if I disagreed with it being used by you to circumvent an ongoing AfD. You keep doing so in this same discussion now. Impru20^talk 10:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You literally put the article on WP:PROD. If that was not deleting it outright, I dunno what is. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That was in response to you suggesting me to do it after reverting a previous action by me that did not involve deletion. Impru20^talk 12:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Isn't moving an article to draftspace a backdoor to deletion? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Draftification is not the same as deletion and is actually differentiated from it in WP:AFD. Drafts only become eligible for deletion if abandoned for over six months. Did you think the AfD on the 2028 article was going to be open for over six months and that your 2025 draft would be abandoned right away? My purpose in draftifying it was that you could work on the article if you wished without it being used to unduly circumvent the arguments laid out in the AfD, at least until it was determined whether its subject was notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. I do not think this is difficult. Impru20^talk 13:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I did not say "Draftification is the same as deletion"; I said it is a "backdoor to deletion".

The article has 16 W:GNG WP:RS references and counting. How much work do you want? Of course it won't be abandoned. It's not a draft. If you do not think it's notable, you know WP:AFD works. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This feels impossible and exhausting. Drafts are not deleted until six months without significant activity; 2025 Iloilo City local elections was in draft space for barely ten minutes. How can it be a "backdoor to deletion"? I told you what the intention of draftification was. It was you who suggested outright deletion!

Please note that this board is not to discuss content, but an article may have over 100 sources and still not meet WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT for constituting a stand-alone article. Impru20^talk 13:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, please send it to AFD, and let the community decide. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Why would I send it to AFD? How many times have I to tell you that my intention was/is not to delete it outright? Want the community decide on your article? Send it to AFD yourself! This is exhausting. Impru20^talk 16:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Explicitly suggesting PROD as a route and then immediately declining such a PROD is going to result in predictable frustation from OP if nothing else. Morwen (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, making the editor go to the effort of creating a PROD nomination and then declining it 3 minutes later is the very definition of WP:POINT; please don't do that again. Apart from that, shouldn't we simply wait for the AfD to conclude before deciding on the next steps? Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I do the same process myself on articles I want to be deleted (PROD -> AFD) and am not really frustrated (or even surprised) myself if the article author removes the PROD banner because that's allowed... maybe frustrated I'd have to do extra efforts for an AFD (LOL) but only up to that. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not the point. If you added a PROD to an article because the article author had suggested it, and then they immediately removed it, you'd be annoyed. You should have simply said to the OP "go to AfD". Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I was supposed to believe that you'd have to go through WP:PROD first before suggesting WP:AFD... well, I suppose suggesting to have my own article be flagged with PROD is "controversial" enough. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You suggesting another user to nominate your article through PROD makes it assume that doing so is uncontroversial, precisely because it is you who suggested it (again, multiple times) and you did not hint that you would oppose it. Impru20^talk 12:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Impru20, you seem to have decided to police HTD instead of doing dispute resolution. You're talking about an AfD that hasn't been closed yet, in an area where we lack clear guidelines and consensus, i.e., how to cover local elections. The 2028 elections page suffers from issues of CRYSTAL and SIGCOV that likely won't affect the 2025 page, so HTD working on a 2025 page instead doesn't seem like POINTy behaviour but rather a better use of their time. You don't get to unilaterally force a page into draftspace, see WP:DRAFTNO. Of course HTD was going to revert a PROD; what did you expect? PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions, so HTD shouldn't have suggested it and you should have known better. What's your rush here? Finally, HTD calling this a drama board is standard slang and acting as though it's some kind of violation is an overreaction. You deciding to report this seems premature. Fences&Windows 11:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I have suggested WP:PROD and WP:AFD to other people if they have problems with my articles, and underwent the same process on the articles I wanted to be deleted. If that was not the process, then my bad, but Impru20 has been on so many AFDs he should know better on what the actual process is. I mean, I know article authors themselves will remove the PROD banner even after adding it, yet I keep on telling other people to do that (LOL); I won't be frustrated if the author actually removes it, because that's what they tell you if you oppose the PROD.

And yes, people call this drama board as a drama board and this should not have been a problem. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Howard, in the future, please know that PROD is only used when you expect the deletion to be uncontroversial (aka opposed by nobody). If it looks like there's anyone around to object, typical process is to go straight to AFD instead. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This is noted; I haven't known of this and have always went the PROD -> AFD route no matter how controversial it may be. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Several things here @Fences and windows:

1. This is not a content dispute, but a conduct dispute. WP:DISPUTE (particularly WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE) specifically calls for discussing this with the user, then use WP:ANI, for conduct disputes. That is what has been done.
2. You know, I think you are absolutely right in that this is "an area where we lack clear guidelines and consensus". Thing is: HTD has been (heavily) involved in such discussions and was perfectly aware of what the issues with local elections were when engaging with me. I was not, until I came across one such discussion yesterday, then I found out the rest. HTD did not reveal this fact throughout the discussion with myself and actually made it appear as if creating such city election articles was the uncontroversial solution, which made me devote time and effort to answer them. I was not noted there were ongoing discussions on the issue. I was not noted that HTD themselves were engaged in them. I am sorry if I am disappointed by the apparent lack of good faith and by the exhibited dishonesty (at best). This is not the reason I brought HTD here, though.
3. You say that daring a user to report them to a "drama board" immediately after the other user has voiced concerns on their own behaviour and actions is "standard"? I am unsure of the type of discussions you seem to be involved with normally, but such behaviour is, by itself, discouraged per WP:CIVIL. Particularly if in response to a previous warning.
4. You say that HTD working on a 2025 page is "a better use of their time". This, in spite of the page being created in response to being explicitly noted that the lack of such stand-alone articles for past elections was an argument (not the only one, though) for "Delete" in the AfD, and after attempting to convince me into their position (which they did not). They could have awaited for the 2028 AfD to close so as to determine whether such 2025 article was really constructive or an outright waste of everyone's time, but creating such article to make a point in a AfD, then persistently attempting to mislead the editor voicing concerns on such action (even resorting to "standard slang"), seems anything but "a better use of their time". I would not create an article on a similar topic to the one under an ongoing AfD just to attempt making a point and/or counter an active argument in that discussion.

"Of course HTD was going to revert a PROD; what did you expect?" What did I expect? PROD was explicitly suggested by them, multiple times, as an alternative to incubation during the AfD timespan. They could have very well hinted at them being willing to decline it immediately so that I saved myself the effort of even attempting to nominate it. I am seriously astonished as to how you seemingly see this as normal behaviour; it was openly dishonest, at best. Impru20^talk 12:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Try to self-reflect instead of being so confrontational. No admin action is needed. Fences&Windows 13:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Impru, I'll put it this way: what do you want the admins to do in this situation? In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

As simple as having HTD engage in constructive and productive conduct in the present (and future) discussions. My main concerns came as a result of them creating an article circumventing an ongoing AfD and their response to the concerns that were voiced to them as a result (namely: blocking the initial proposal to draftify the article during the AfD to prevent it from being used maliciously; suggesting "solutions" that they themselves immediatelly blocked when conducted; or resorting to slang after being (repeteadly) noted on their behaviour). I do not think any proper sanction is required unless the behaviour persists, per WP:PUNITIVE, and my report here is more focused on counsel-seeking. A commitment from them in the sense of stopping this behaviour and respecting process could do the job, but it is obvious that, as of currently, they have basically resorted to ignore me in that regard. Impru20^talk 13:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

There's no circumvention. The WP:AFD is for that article alone. The AFD is even ongoing! There's no WP:CON to speak of. Even you acknowledge that this topic is not clear cut as you'd want it to be.

You do not unilateraly decide which subjects become a draft, an article or is deleted. I had every right to create an article, a fully-fledged at that, that is not a draft. If you think that's notable, please send it to WP:AFD.

I've previously thought that the process was PROD -> AFD, regardless of "controversiality", I followed that myself, as most of the AFDs I've nominated started as WP:PRODs. There was no malicious intent in suggesting PROD -> AFD, because I do that myself. Of course I will revert the PROD, but this is what I thought of how the WP:BURO works. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

1) You created the 2025 article in response to the AfD on the 2028 one. You have not even cared to deny this so far. It was you who connected both articles.

2) Do not put into my mouth what I have not said: I said that you were aware that this was a controversial issue when you replied to me in the AfD, and yet you attempted to present it to me as if it wasn't until I found out. To me, the 2028 article clearly does not pass the cut of NEVENT and GNG. That was my position in the AfD and one that I maintain (though this is a matter of content beyond the scope of this thread).

3) "You do not unilateraly decide which subjects become a draft, an article or is deleted" Yet you do? You had every right to create the article, and I had every right to move it to draftspace as per WP:DRAFTIFY. I find this unilateral view on how Wikipedia works, that seemingly you may do as you wish and then block any action from everyone else opposing you while expecting no complain, as particularly harmful. Also, see WP:OWN regarding an article's "ownership". Impru20^talk 14:04, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Impru, my honest to goodness thought was that you'd have to WP:PROD before you WP:AFD, regardless if it is controversial or not; there's no malicious intent in asking you to PROD then AFD it. Of course, as someone who has been in countless deletion processes, you'd know that anyone can reverse the PROD even on sight, even without an explanation. If this caused you distress, I apologize.

WP:BRD. Yes, you have the right to dratify, yes. I also have the right to reverse drafitication. See how that works? I am not blocking any action. There's nothing against the rules that I did. Reversing dratification and PROD is not "blocking any action". Howard the Duck (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally would take someone inviting me to PROD an article they had written as a promise not to remove the PROD themselves. Morwen (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask someone to do something that I won't do myself. I PROD articles myself fully aware anyone can remove it without explanation. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Authors can ask for their articles' deletion through WP:G7. Authors PRODing their own articles is a possible but very weird occurrence. I had assumed you preferred outright deletion over draftification, but that you wished to avoid asking for a deletion yourself, so I PRODed it. Asking someone to PROD an article just to say "no" seems unnecessarily bitchy. Impru20^talk 14:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought I was following the PROD -> AFD process. This is something that I would've done myself, and while I would've been frustrated if the other editor removed the PROD, I would not have brought that editor here. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Just for noting: you suggested me to PROD the article and you suggested me to bring you here. With this edit you openly hinted at no amicable resolution being possible. Impru20^talk 14:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I've always told other people to bring their thoughts here if they think I did something wrong. There was this one guy who I told this exact same thing, then did not do so, then did it a few months later, only to be replied with "why did you not bring that up here then?" Howard the Duck (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I've always thought one-on-one discussions on my supposed actions would go nowhere, that's why I always say to bring their thoughts to here.

And yes, me hinting "at no amicable resolution" is like voting "delete" by voting "dratify" instead in AFDs. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

And you were brought here for your disruptive and hostile behaviour, yes.

"And yes, me hinting "at no amicable resolution" is like voting "delete" by voting "dratify" instead in AFDs." ????Impru20^talk 16:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if it came due to a (grave) misunderstanding on your part, you still did not disclose your intention to immediately oppose the PROD you yourself suggested. My intention was not to delete the article outright, that is why I draftified it. You blocked that, then suggested PROD, then blocked it, then taunted me to report you when I raised my concerns to you. My good faithing in you throughout the whole discussion fell apart at that moment, and I am not sure what exactly did you expect from anybody after behaving that way with them. In this thread, you are still somehow accusing me (some comments above) of seeking to "backdoor delete" the article through draftification, even when that is not possible outright and despite I having repeteadly explained what the intention of draftification was.

"There's nothing against the rules that I did." You have just acknowledged that you acted the way you did because (at best) you misunderstood the PROD/AFD process. That misunderstanding led to a severe clash, multiple back-and-forth actions, playing around with my good faith and taunting, a number of actions that, at the very best, go against WP:CIVIL. I brought you here because I stopped regarding you as able to appropiately behave in constructive discussion, and sought outside counseling on that. Impru20^talk 14:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Can we stop saying WP:BRD actions as "blocks"? That's how Wikipedia works. People tag articles, people remove it (with or without discussion depends on the tag). There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing illegal about removing PROD or de-dratifying something. Those are valid actions. My actions are do not circumvent any discussion determined by consensus. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not criticizing your BRD actions, but the behaviour and intent you exhibited while conducting them. Re-read my reply above. Impru20^talk 14:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

More or less agree with Fences&Windows here. The invitation to prod and then declining the prod probably inflamed this dispute unnecessarily, but HTD has clarified that he thought it was a necessary step and that he won't do it again. Creating an article mentioned in an AfD doesn't seem like WP:POINT as much as a creation that fundamentally challenges the underlying WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Of course, if Impru20 is correct that neither are notable, HTD would have wasted time creating it as there would wind up being consensus to delete both (we'll see, I suppose -- no opinion on that from me). Definitely disagree that AfD is used to "protect" an article. That's how we determine consensus to delete and is the last chance stop for an article -- if the sole author of an article would prefer to jump to that last stop and risk deletion rather than userfication/draftification, they can do that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you here (also note that HTD ultimately acknowledged their mistake after being confronted by several users on the issue in this thread). Aside of my concerns raised above (that HTD does not engage in such behaviour again), if there is a commitment that this will not happen I would say this issue may be resolved. The issue on the 2025 article existing was always dependant on the outcome of the AfD (ultimately, it was HTD who thought it should be contested by deleting it, rather than acknowledging that a temporary incubation in draftspace could be an option and was not used as a "backdoor to deletion", which they also took by mistake as seen above). Next steps would ultimately come following the outcome of the 2028 article AfD. Impru20^talk 07:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Iloilo City local elections has now resulted in "Delete" and no further issue has arisen since this ANI case was filled, I am now inclined to ask for this to be closed and for standard procedure to be followed on the content issue (i.e. a proper AfD being filled on 2025 Iloilo City local elections to determine consensus there). Impru20^talk 10:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User repeatedly adding unsourced edits, unresponsive to concerns

• LepYd258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ydlp19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:LepYd258, who previously edited under User:Ydlp19, has a long-standing pattern of unsourced edits and complete non-engagement with other editors. This account switch was documented in LepYd258's user page. I will refer to them by their current account, LepYd258.

Example Diffs:

LepYd258 has received numerous warnings and notices on their talk page and has not responded to any of them, even after several months. They have also never participated in either of the two prior ANI discussions opened about their editing, both of which closed without resolution: Archive 1192 (started by @Yoblyblob) and Archive 1188 (started by @Gommeh). LepYd258's contributions to their own talk page confirm they have never responded to any of these concerns.

As previously noted, LepYd258 also almost never provides edit summaries, in violation of WP:UNRESPONSIVE: 2.9% as LepYd258, and 1.4% as Ydlp19.

LepYd258 has demonstrated, over several years and across two accounts, an inability or unwillingness to engage with the editing community, whether through talk page responses, edit summaries, or participation in dispute resolution. Whether this reflects a lack of awareness or a deliberate choice, it raises concerns under WP:CIR. I understand this is a very serious accusation; however, given that two prior ANI discussions produced no change in behavior, I believe further action is necessary. Pattersonuwu (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Zero edits to Wikipedia: or User_talk: namespaces, and it looks like the only thing in Talk: is page moves. Morwen (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is not saying what it is supposed to — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-33732-74 (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the diff that was reverted. Malformed citation, yes, but otherwise not vandalism. With regards to the ref, I'd advise reading WP:Referencing for beginners. However, the bot isn't malfunctioning - it sometimes does pick up false positives, that's just how it is. You are perfectly entitled to restore your edit, although I'd urge you to fix the malformed citation. The bot also gives instructions for reporting the false positive. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistance with Paul Revere's Ride

• Paul Revere's Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi friends. I inserted the text of the poem (which is in the public domain) into the Wikipedia entry on Paul Revere's Ride. But it received an automatic revert. For some reason ClueBot thought this was vandalism. Could someone please take a look and correct this? Thank you very much. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

While your edit isn't vandalism, the reverts are in order. The text of the poem does not belong in the Wikipedia article, and s:en:Paul Revere's Ride is already present on Wikisource. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-27874-38, the message at the top of this noticeboard and when posting explains that it's for reporting long-term, chronic behavioural issues with editors.

Administrators can't assist with content disputes and queries, so please visit the Teahouse if you need help with editing Wikipedia articles. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

That is not the consensus on talk. Most historic documents of this size in early America are published on the page. But in this case, DiscoSpinster and his friends/sockpuppets immediately revert anything I contribute seconds after I publish it. This is not a controversial edit. But I have been accused of vandalism and warned repeatedly by his friends. This is an issue for Talk, not for accusations. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of accusations, please do not accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet unless you have solid evidence.

If you have (very) solid evidence, you should be making an WP:SPI report and not making accusations here. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

TA doubling down on unfounded accusations and WP:NPA in their talk . Some drastic action might be needed. Borgenland (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Calling someone a "goof" and telling them to "get a life" flat-out isn't on and I've told them to knock it off.

I'm very concerned this person doesn't know how to collaborate, because they have chosen to write that PA instead of engaging with the article Talk page discussion to down a consensus.

I don't know whether an admin wants to consider a block now or wait to see how they respond to my post, but I'll keep an eye out for any reply. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

AGF thrown out the window, accompanied by borderline wikilawyering Borgenland (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to quickly add that there is no current consensus to include or exclude the full poem on the article Talk page, that's why you need to speak to others and form a consensus.

This is now a controversial edit since it's been reverted, therefore a consensus needs to be formed with other editors on whether to include (or continue to exclude) it. I've started the ball rolling by replying to your post on the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've left them another note, and advised the new editor who inflamed things by using the word "vandalism" in their edit summary that they need to be more careful and avoid automated tools. The TA is in NZ and has presumably logged off, so let's leave them alone for now. Acroterion (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I only just saw this after responding! I agree it's best to leave them alone going forwards since things aren't calming down as well as I had hoped. I'll only engage further if there's any replies on the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Their response to my note was discouraging, but let's see if they respond positively, or at least not with a continuation of their aggressive accusations of bad faith, to yours. If they're just here to lecture other people about their expectations while rejecting any expectations on their part, then we'll deal a with it. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Although the text is in the public domain, including the full text fails WP:IINFO. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

And, as mentioned, this is what V2WikiSource is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

A new TA has appeared at the article Talk page & inferred that they're a different editor, this was rather confusing since they've got the same position and argument for inclusion (basically WP:OTHERSTUFF.

I've explicitly asked whether they're the same person; since the original TA never came back to the article Talk page after their initial post, it's not been possible to form any sort of consensus with them. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that they're the same person, logged in from another location. I'm blocking both TAs on the basis of their disingenuous response. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Legal threats by Nahyssan at Sappony

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Nahyssan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sappony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nahyssan (talk · contribs) is a newly created SPA with an acknowledged COI with the Sappony, a state-recognized tribe in North Carolina. They are trying to remove the same book from the article that Insitemobile (talk · contribs) tried to remove. In an edit summary, they wrote, "Please be aware that future changes that are derogatory will be reported and may be subject to legal action." diff. —Yuchitown (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That was indeed a legal threat. Blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Probable impersonation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ntheq (talk · contribs) claims to be User:Nthep. Fram (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fram thanks. I certainly have not lost access to my account. Nthep (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for impersonation. KylieTastic (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ermes3711

Ermes3711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Inserts AI slop: Ọba (orisha) (Diff ~1357925360)
• Reverts my AI slop removal: Ọba (orisha) (Diff ~1358224044)
• I re-revert them, pointing to Wikipedia:Image use policy#AI-generated images: Ọba (orisha) (Diff ~1358226877)
• They generate new slop: Ọba (orisha) (Diff ~1358272547)
• Gaslights me on their Commons talk page "This is not the same image, NOR is it AI generated.": c:User talk:Ermes3711

So my WP:3RR just ran out and I'm not getting through to this user. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to confirm that this is 100 an AI-generated thanks to a very obvious clue within the image itself, as well as the mangled patterning on the clothes and a few other tells. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm very concerned over the work of this editor, which appears to be almost entirely AI-generated. There are also unexplained removals of large amounts of content and I'm especially unhappy that they have been untruthful to Commons in the face of direct evidence to the contrary.

Interestingly, this edit adds a Google Play download link for a book that has the same (AI-generated) cover. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The book is also listed as Science fiction and fantasy at that Google Play link, so is wildly inappropriate to use as a reference. In solidarity, nil ^nz 01:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Blue-Sonnet, the author for that book (play.google.com/store/books/details?id=UWTSEQAAQBAJ&pli=1) is "Oba St. James". That's also the author of "Onikoyi: The Warrior King: Unveiling the Legacy of a Relentless Leader " ( amazon.com/Onikoyi-Warrior-Unveiling-Legacy-Relentless/dp/B0GWPCWZBV ) which was, like the Play store book, published by "James Edward Brown III". According to Amazon this is "Independently published". The sample reveals it's from Kindle direct publishing. That book states that "This is a work of historical fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents are either products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously."
The book on Amazon is 100% slop. Here's a quote: "I remember Tyson repeating what Cus D'Amato taught him—the difference between a pro and an amateur is that an amateur shows up no matter what. A pro shows up no matter what."
I now see the Play store book also has a sample. "Published by James Edward Brown III under the name Oba St. James . Distributed by Lulu Press , Inc." Lulu.com. Some users are now screaming at their computer upon seeing that business name. You know who you are. "The first - person narrative of Obanani is a work of mythological fiction rooted in sacred oral tradition." — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even get that far - I was starting to look into whether it was a reliable source and had just removed it. I guess the question is whether the image was an AI-generated copy of the original AI-generated image, or did they upload the original file that was used for the book cover (and therefore have a possible COI)?

Either way, they are absolutely using AI here and not verifying the output to boot.

That calls their past edits into question, which I'm currently reviewing - I've undone a lot of it so far, for various reasons.

There are one or two that weren't AI-generated, but I can only tell that because of the number of spelling errors - the sources may well still be AI-generated.

If an admin can consider indef for DE, that would be great. I don't think a mainspace block should be considered, since they've proven themselves untrustworthy. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Blue-Sonnet, I've compared the uploaded image to the book cover. They are not identical. One is a processed version of the other. The file that was uploaded to Commons is almost certainly an earlier version of the book cover. The shells in her headgear have some shading in the Commons file. In the cover the shading was converted into weird distortions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That's good to know, the differences weren't obviously visible on a mobile screen so the analysis is interesting. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, let's hold on for a second here regarding any blocks... I'm looking on Ermes3711's user talk page; not including the ANI notice that was just added, I only see one discussion there in total that was added by a bot in back in January regarding a CS1 error. Many comments added to this ANI discussion managed to include diffs to a lot of different issues with Ermes3711's contributions. However, what I don't see included anywhere in this ANI discussion is any evidence of attempts to reach out to Ermes3711 (either directly or on any relevant talk pages), notify and warn them about their problematic and disruptive contributions, include links and reference relevant policies and guidelines so that Ermes3711 can read though them, and offer resources that they can turn to in order to receive help. Before we consider blocking someone from editing Wikipedia, we need to show that we've repeatedly notified and warned Ermes3711 about the issues and problems with their edits, provided links to the policy or guideline they must follow, and allowed them a reasonable chance to adjust and correct these issues and improve their edits first, and I'm not seeing any evidence that this has been attempted at all. I'm running on my third day with a very little amount of sleep, so I could've missed that this has been done. If this is the case, please let me know. Otherwise, umm... yeah... we're missing a bit of an important step that should be done before we just run straight to the block button... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Oshwah: and I'm not seeing any evidence that this has been attempted at all.

In this revert Ọba (orisha) (Diff ~1358226877) (which by default results in a notification) I linked the relevant policy. That's probably not good enough to justify a block (which I wasn't asking for when I started this discussion), but it is an attempt. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Granted, I may have been hasty here since Commons is technically off-wiki and they've not had a warning before now, although the attempt to add a fictional book then claiming the cover (or an amended version of it) was their own work and also appropriate for an article is concerning. Let's see how they respond and take it from there. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I've deleted the files per Commons policy regarding AI-generated images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

..which isn't a policy and isn't supposed to apply to divine spirits. (the AI-imagery-of-people guideline does apply to Moses for some reason though..) Deletion is correct (I don't disagree with the outcome) but the rationale is not, and such a DR would normally be left open for a week. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thats not how AI content work. Thats not how things are verified either. There are factors that are tell tell signs, as well as watermarks/ hallucinated nothings. The metadata also tends to tell or show ownership. I sat for hours trying to figure this wikipedia thing out, as I am disabled and whatever coding or language yall speak. I sourced everything I wrote. No copy past. I even ran a small graphic design business back in the photoshop days, so i know my way around images. You have a clear agenda, and I dont understand what I did to you. I am updating the story in which it was told firsthand, of the strength of this woman who endured, to empower women like my mother who did the same. And you are my obstacle in doing this? Do you know how hard it was finding information that was verified by scholars, this has been months in the making, and now my book. Which not only speaks about her, it tells a story of survival, and it is supported with the research that put Mary, Lilith, Persophone, etc in the same category. Actually you know what. This isnt the place for me. This post or picture or whatever you got going on, was one thing but to atttack my work for what. Because that was personal and I refuse to be attacked while trying to do some good on the world. I poured my heart into that book, what have you done with your life thats so special? Yes please, delete me because Idk I dont even undertand whats happening and why. Who was hurt? She is my guardian orisha, this is my tradition and.You could never understand and you wonder why the world is the way it is. I followed the rules the best I knew, if I violated some, it was not intentional, and ill take whatever punishment is sentenced. I no longer want to be a part of this, say what you want, keep the lies and cut ears and jealous wives and everything else they portray OUR tradition as I no longer care. I pray that you have a blessed day. I really cannot believe this is happening lol. Ermes3711 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am trying my best to humbly walk away, but were there or were there NOT sources. For everything, every paragraph, every line of text I wrote. Do you need a copy of my book? I have authors copies. So you can see who I cited. The material I used. You don't get to invalidate people because reasons. I am fine, but you have to look in the mirror and face the real reasons why. And I pray that you have compassion for yourself when you figure out the answers. This place was too complex for me, I thought I understood, but I did nothing with malice or deception in my heart, yet I feel like I am on trial. And now the anxiety attack no I still want to conclude this, but I have to get off here all of this text is is too much this is overwhelming when I was. Just honoring my heart, my orisha. You win I didnt even get a chance to show anyone the page. delete it all ill delete my shitty book and hell delete myself ror that matter. Ermes3711 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody said you acted with malice or deception. But damage to the encyclopedia from malice and damage to the encyclopedia from ignorance, if identical, cause the same damage. You are entitled to your traditions, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to have them appear in an encyclopedia. If there's information that can be cited to scholars, on Wikipedia, we cite the scholars, not our personal interpretations of those what those scholars say. And there most definitely was some LLM use in there as well; in no galaxy are the paragraphs you've written here and the paragraphs you've written in articles the product of the same individual. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Ermes3711, delete it all ill delete my shitty book and hell delete myself ror that matter.
I've forwarded this to WP:EMERGENCY. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for intervention and help

WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I need urgent help from an administrator. I am feeling extremely vulnerable and stressed right now. Because of unplesant communications by User: AirshipJungleman29 Prev notice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected Wikihounding and Incivility by User:AirshipJungleman29 I agreed to disengage from a previous dispute, but this editor continues to leave unpleasant comments and messaes on my talk pages. I have autism and intellectual difficulties. This situation is causing me immense alarm, distress, panic attacks and a meltdown because all of his previous communications have been direct and inconsiderate. Where is the professionalism and understanding. It feels like deliberately unloading a massive amount of complex and highly specific information to hold me to a unrealistic standards. I just want to be left alone by this editor and let others come and review in their own time because I don't feel safe around this individual. Latest: Your personal attacks Please step in and ask this editor to cease and desist from contacting me entirely. ~~~ APDHistorian (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC) You can tell him to do that yourself. If he doesn't honour your wishes, he can be blocked for harassment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Object Class: Drygioni 22:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC) I have done so, but unfortunately he has been going through the history of my personal contributions which feels like stalking APDHistorian (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC) AirshipJungleman29 has interacted with you four times: at the AfD and draftification discussed in your last ANI thread (see this analysis of those complaints), when he reverted your ANI notice on his talk page, and when he left the message on yours. That is not stalking by any definition of the term, and accusing people of stalking is a personal attack. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC) Further, I don't see any evidence of where APDHistorian has asked AirshipJungleman29 to stop interacting with them. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC) @APDHistorian I see two messages on your talk page from this editor. On 4 June they left a templated message about declining a draft you submitted. On 8 June they left a message asking you to redact a perceived personal attack by you on another user's talk page. (Personally, I don't see anything that rises to the level of a personal attack.) There is nothing actionable here at this time. The most likely potential recourse would be a two-way interaction ban between you and them. but it would take more than a single message to lead to that. —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC) APDHistorian: AirshipJungleman29 warned you not to make personal attacks in a concise comment. He did not unload a massive amount of complex and highly specific information to hold [you] to an unrealistic standard. Civility is one of the five pillars. Accusing other editors of being sexist, as you did here, constitutes casting aspersions. Weaponizing threats to quit Wikipedia is a form of tendentious editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC) I really did not want to make another report. To clarify, I did not accuse anybody of being sexist, nor did I name anybody. It was an argument for wider context to encourage positive discourse. I am extremely disappointed by how others communicate with each other on Wikipedia. Not only does it make me feel unwelcome, it feels unprofessional and the reporting culture is unsafe as it shouldn't be public and encourages wider harassment which is what I have been getting. APDHistorian (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC) Nobody is harassing you. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC) …and the reporting culture is unsafe as it shouldn't be public and encourages wider harassment… There are channels to make reports out of the public eye; see WP:Volunteer Response Team for mechanisms for getting assistance via email. That said, there is a boomerang effect that occurs when reports are made to ANI and other noticeboards: the reporting user's contributions and conduct are assessed in the same ways the reported user's are. However, the noticeboards provide transparency, so sanctions are discussed in the open; it may not be a perfect mechanism, but it is the established Wikipedia culture. —C.Fred (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC) Unfortunately this is Wikipedia's problem. Clearly it doesn't allow for reporting mechanisms to be accessible in easy to read digestibable format. Most complaints are not given the benefit of the doubt and a thrown large texts to shut the notice down. Not only that, but this should not be done openly in a public forum. Where is the safety to protect potential victims in that? There is also a huge problem with allowing people with disabilities for using assistance to process large texts of information like accusing everybody of using AI slop. I would question that some of the practices are now incompatiable with the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act. Wikipedia is not immune, other large social media sites like Reddit have fallen foul to it. However, this is a fight I do not want to continue. I am deeply disappointed with the mechanisms here. I am wasting my time remaining a member. Thanks for your fair and open comments to me but I am leaving for good. I thought I would battle to keep some of my work live for others but clearly it is not worth it as I am unappreciated here. Goodnight and I wish those who genuinely care about positive chasnge for the good the best of luck. APDHistorian (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ravina0612 SASG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ravina0612 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly made disruptive edits at Shreyas Iyer, including CT/SASG violations after being warned repeatedly and alerted. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I originally gave the new user a lot of grace, but that was apparently pointless. Indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 20:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TA is not here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

~2026-33106-46/~2026-33778-68/~2026-33899-80

User initially signed Wikipedia:Wiki Workers United solidarity twice, once as -46 and once as -68 which share an IP. Shortly after a discussion on their talk page concerning this which involved mention of TAIV , mobile TA ~2026-33899-80 was created and also signed the same page and then asked a teahouse question about TAs and IP editing . TAIV also supports a connection between the accounts.

All these TAs share the same primary behavior, trolling the refdesk by asking a large number of open-ended or inconsequential questions etc. Not here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Can I leave? ~2026-33778-68 (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Only I share the same IP address with other TAs. ~2026-33106-46 and ~2026-33778-68. I edited fine, but suddenly logged out after closing the tabs. ~2026-33778-68 (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering I see you've blocked -80 as a sock, thoughts on the others? Both -68 and -80 even left similar signatures. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Unambiguous, yeah. This is WP:LTA/CB885. Thanks for the heads up. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Liberty5000 is WP:NOTHERE

Liberty5000 _{Talk Contribs BlockLog}

Liberty was page blocked from Fascism and then sitewide for 72 hours by Bishonen, first time for bludgeoning and then for WP:NPA issues.

Their talk page contains lots of arguments for an editor with ~200 edits, mostly veteran editors explaining, with great patience, why they should drop the WP:STICK and move on something else. The user called some of the disparaging comments on their page as spamming, and then refuses to accept that the consensus is against them, and starts arguing what reliable sources Wikipedia ought to be, going into WP:CANTHEARYOU territory, without defending User:Simonm223's critique.

I also like how in this edit they cited AGF and arguing that they're not given enough assumptions of good faith.

Lastly, I'd like to cite this comment by Softlavender. I think it summarizes L5000's behaviour on this site pretty succinctly. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 03:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The editor has only eight edits in 2026, and only one since Bishonen's warning and 72 hour block. Let's wait and see what happens going forward. Ping me if disruption resumes. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

As someone who has been involved in the discussions on the talkpage for Fascism, the previous actions applied seem to have worked in preventing further disruption, so nothing more needs to be done unless disruption elsewhere occurs. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

As an obviously involved editor I do have to concur with Cullen238 and Cdjp1. If Bishonen's time-limited block gets the message across then no further action will be needed but if they start POV pushing again please let me know. Simonm223 (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, mop-wielders, for the explanation. I'm starting to understand that this thread I filed is an overreaction. I still have a lot to learn on evaluating these situations. Sometimes I act too soft, and other times, like this one, I act too impulsive/aggressive.

Please close this thread here, thanks. Sorry for the inconvenience. :) _{12:18, edited 12:23 UTC} 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 12:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Wamalotpark – Edit warring, tendentious editing

User:Wamalotpark is still at it with the tendentious editing ascribed to MOS:GEOLINK, despite being informed the last time this discussion was brought up here that his behavior was inappropriate. From that discussion: "If you continue to edit war you're likely to be blocked and considering your history, you're working your way up to an indefinite block. You also should not be making mass changes if they're disputed or otherwise not clearly supported by wide consensus. ... If you're not willing to discuss in appropriate places like the talk pages of the relevant pages or in other appropriate places (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking for disputes of geographical linking in a wide set of articles) then you should refrain from making those edits." Pinging User:Nil Einne.

From my original complaint, which still applies here: "Additionally, as has been stated repeatedly at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking, there is no provision against [[Stockholm, Sweden]] versus [[Stockholm]], Sweden as long as the style is used consistently in the article, since, again, only Stockholm is being linked. Your "bull in a china shop" editing is most unappreciated. ... I am clearly not the only editor who has a problem with your editing based on the slew of complaints you have in your talk page history."

I am not looking for anything other than for Wamalotpark to rein it in. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Editor has an issue with me simply editing in accordance with MOS:GEOLINK on figure skating articles, which they have been reprimanded in multiple noticeboard incidents over their ownership tendencies over the topic and general offensive behavior. Wamalotpark (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Since both Bgsu98 and Wamalotpark are for whatever reason not capable of opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking (to be fair, it does involve making three (!!!) clicks), I will do it for them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Dispute regarding accusations of alleged edit warring and incivility on my part

I'm reposting this here on the advice of Daniel Case (talk · contribs):-

I'm being accused of edit warring here and alleged incivility by Revirvlkodlaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over a single re-insertion of content they reverted without bothering to properly explain why.

The initial issue was ultimately minor:-

• I put synonyms for the band name (i.e. article subject) in bold text, which was initially reverted
• The unexplained reversion of anchor links I'd added in a separate edit

I'd already explained my rationale in summaries of the original edits (here and here).

If this reasoning was flawed, Revirvlkodlaku could- and should- have made that reason clear when they reverted it. Instead they simply said "Why the bolding?"

That gives the impression that:-

• They hadn't bothered to read attention to the original edit summaries (since those already explained "why")
• There was no clear reason given by them for the reversion, or what (if anything) I'd done wrong
• They'd simply reverted everything I'd done, including an unrelated- and undisputed- edit adding anchor links

That lack of an explanation is why I felt justified in adding them back (*) and leaving this message, which I don't think was unreasonably rude.

Only *after* this did Revirvlkodlaku bother to explain- somewhat combatively and unhelpfully- their reasoning, i.e. that synonyms should, stricly speaking, only be bolded in the lede/header. ("Show me the policy that says alternate names should be bolded (except in the lede). In the meantime, stop edit warring and drop the combative attitude."])

They're correct in respect of the policy. If they'd made the reason for the reversion clear in the first place, they might have had a case. But they didn't.

Instead, they've been quick to escalate to accusations of "edit warring" and of alleged incivility.

Would appreciate any feedback.

Ubcule (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a tempest in a teapot. You weren't too uncivil, but I can see how they'd take it that way. They weren't too uncivil, but I can see how you could interpret it as WP:ASPERSIONS. It sounds like the underlying content dispute has been solved. Ideally you'd both shake hands and say you'll take a more generous view of others' words and actions in the future, but even without that, I think there's no action needed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the sentences Did you even bother to read the edit summaries? and Yet you clumsily reverted the whole lot anyway? were what Revirvlkodlaku regarded as combative. It also looks like you made similar comments in these edit summaries [1] [2]. These were the edits that predated the edit summary in which Revirvlkodlaku asked you stop edit warring and to drop the combative attitude. These edits were also made before they responded on your talk page discussion. From WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page... Avoid reverting during discussion.

Edit summaries should not be used to argue with another editor. From WP:REVTALK, Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiations over the content. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on the discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself.

If another editor reverts your edits, try not to take offense. Even if you disagree with their revert, there are more amicable ways to start a discussion, e.g. Hi Editor, you reverted my edit on article X. Here's the reasoning for why I made that edit. What do you think?Truthnope (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck and Truthnope: I'm glad that you (EducatedRedneck) don't think I was overly uncivil.

I'm not sure "offended" is the word so much as (initial) irritation at someone reverting *all* my edits, which had been explained, then doing so without bothering to explain *themselves*.

Truthnope, I don't think my attitude was especially "combative", and certainly not any more than Revirvlkodlaku's.

And what pushed me to take the matter elsewhere wasn't simply "offense", but the fact that Revirvlkodlaku's *initial* response was jumped-up accusations of rudeness and incivility and supposed "edit warring" in a pseudo-rank-pulling manner obviously because they didn't like being legitimately criticised and/or the changes I made to the page.

This wasn't merely about "WP:ASPERSIONS", it was about such accusations being made in a clearly weaponised manner to make it harder for me to continue editing without being seen as the "edit warring" party.

I'm not prepared to tolerate being forced into that position- if Revirvlkodlaku wants to make such accusations, they can justify it here.

It was also clearly a mistake on my part to open a potentially contentious discussion on the user's own talk page, i.e. non-neutral territory that gives the owner the ability to control and shut down discussion that doesn't suit *them*. (Something I subsequently noticed they'd already done with another supposedly "rude" editor and which confirmed my initial misgivings).

The discussion could have been started on or moved to the talk page, as you say, but it's not likely to get much further involvement from anyone else and thus won't achieve much more.

And by the time we'd got to this point it was no longer really about the edits, but user conduct. (As I said, if they'd bothered to explain in the first place *why* they'd reverted my edits, we wouldn't be here).

So I'm not sure what the best place to have a discussion like that would have been. Ubcule (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It's essentially a question of whether it's an issue that two editors can resolve through talking or just moving onto other things and letting temperatures cool down.

If it's bad enough that another volunteer or administrator needs to stop what they're doing and intervene, there are several dispute resolution processes available.

If that fails or it's especially severe, then you would usually bring it to this public noticeboard for administrator and community attention. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet: - Thank you for the link to the dispute resolution page. However, I'd already investigated that and followed the current path because (IMHO) there wasn't a clearly better solution to the current situation. Ubcule (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, the order of events is roughly: You edit the article, adding the other names in bold -> Revirvlkodlaku reverts your edits with Why the bolding? as the edit summary -> You open the discussion on Revirvlkodlaku's talk with the aforementioned comments -> You redo your edits, repeating those comments in the edit summaries -> Revirvlkodlaku responds on talk, accusing you of edit warring and combative behavior -> Revirvlkodlaku reverts your edits again, repeating those comments in the edit summaries -> You file a report at the edit warring noticeboard, and then here.

Once a discussion has started, both parties need to stop editing the disputed material until consensus has been achieved, which neither of you did. That is edit warring. Also, the discussion would have been better on the talk page for the article.

Whether or not your behavior was combative, I would call it accusatory. You didn't ask Revirvlkodlaku why they made those reverts, you accused them of not reading edit summaries and being clumsy. That goes against WP:AGF. You also didn't give them the opportunity to respond before reverting their reverts.

Edit summaries are useful to explain to other editors what edits you made and why, but they're also supposed to be brief. If you think an edit summary doesn't justify an edit, that doesn't automatically make that edit bad- take it to the talk page and ask them to explain their edit.

There is no "territory" on Wikipedia. As WP:BLANKING says, editors are not prohibited from removing comments from their talk page, although archiving is preferred. The edit history is still there. Revirvlkodlaku removing a separate discussion from their talk page is not a violation of policy and it's not relevant to this discussion, especially given that the discussion that you started on their talk page is still there. Truthnope (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I honestly feel that both editors really should have done better considering their long tenure here (one side more than the other).

Nevertheless, I hope that everyone can draw a line under this and move forwards, since you now know what to do should you encounter a similar situation going forwards. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Truthnope: - With respect, you missed my point. I'm well aware that editors *are* permitted to remove or alter discussions on their own talk page.

My entire point *was* that because they're permitted to do so, it makes them unsuitable for contentious discussions since the owner gets the one-sided advantage of deciding what constitutes (e.g.) allegedly uncivil comments they don't like, removing or altering them and in general getting to control the discussion in a manner that wouldn't be permitted elsewhere.

And yes, I'm also aware that, technically, users don't "own" their talk pages and don't have full control over them.

But let's be honest. In practice- for the reasons above- I don't think it's unreasonable to consider talk pages as non-neutral territory in the general sense of the phrase, as originally intended.

The argument that (paraphrasing) "it's all in the history, so it doesn't matter" doesn't really work- in practice, few are going to go through that history and spot and track comments the user didn't like having been removed- often without an edit summary- unless something really egregious elsewhere has given them a reason to.

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion. Ubcule (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Editors don't get to alter comments even on their talk page. They can remove comments and it might be acceptable to redact part of a comment if they make it clear they have done so. But it doesn't matter much. User talk pages shouldn't generally used for content discussions for many reasons besides an editor's control. If it's a behavioural discussion, then the editor you're talking to has already read the comment or refused to read it. Either way it doesn't matter if they remove the comment because you've tried to help them, either they've gotten the message or they haven't. If they don't improve, you can take them to ANI and explain the problem and point out you tried to discuss the issue with the editor but they didn't take your message on board for whatever reason. If the editor ended the discussion so you couldn't explain much as you would have liked to, you're free to point this out. If it's a behavioural discussion about some other editor, then you should not be having it on some other's editor talk page if they're not receptive to such a discussion. If your own behaviour comes up it's also moot. They've said what they've said. It might be fair, it might not be, there isn't really any need to defend yourself. It can help to explain the situation if there's been a misunderstanding but if the editor you're speaking to isn't receptive to it, there's no point. Removal of comments is largely moot. If they actually bring up your behaviour at ANI or somewhere else, you can defend yourself then. Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Generative AI allegations

Agreement that there's nothing here & the accusation was misplaced. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ubcule: are you using AI to write these comments? Things like This wasn't merely about "WP:ASPERSIONS", it was about such accusations being made in a clearly weaponised manner... seem like an AI's typical not-quite-denial, and there's also overused structures such as "Not X, but Y. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 17:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC) (This has nothing to do with the original discussion above, which is now largely over). @Somepinkdude: So, let me get this straight, you've seized upon a single comment of mine that- yes!- happens to follow that linguistic structure that's widely-known to be overused by AI. Well done. A phrase I'd have rewritten for that reason if I'd noticed I'd done that. Purely because I didn't need the hassle of proving I'm not using AI slop to every would-be-detective who "knows" it's an infallible sign of that. Never mind that this has been part of English language usage since long before LLMs exploded little over three years ago. And, er.... never mind that there are examples of my writing in a similiar style from over a decade ago, long before modern LLMs came along. And yes, I'm aware that my tendency to longwindedness might come across as AI's ability to do the same thing with ease, but I can't help that. (FWIW I'm not personally a fan of generative AI, and I don't want it anywhere near Wikipedia, not even for discussion purposes like this). Anyway, have you considered running an AI-generated text detector on my comments... including that ten year old one and numerous others long predating the launch of ChatGPT et al? So, would you like to proceed with the accusation that I'm using AI? Or would you like to reconsider whether it's a good idea to throw about such accusations on the basis of a single scrap of evidence without bothering to check further? Ubcule (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC) @Somepinkdude: - I've collapsed this section of the discussion as it's distracting from- and doesn't really relate to- the rest of the discussion. You are welcome to undo this if you are serious about proceeding with- and discussing- these allegations further, but if so I think you would be better to do so elsewhere. Ubcule (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC) I've uncollapsed this discussion. An editor who's behaviour is under discussion should almost never collapse a discussion on them unless there is some agreement among participants to do so. Even in a case where the editor who raised the issue was blocked, you should generally leave it for someone else. If Somepinkdude or some other editor wants to close this discussion, they're welcome to but not you. And it's perfectly normally your behaviour will also come under discussion in the same thread if you open a discussion. If you don't like that, then don't open threads here. There's zero need to move the discussion somewhere else. Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC) @Nil Einne: - "If you don't like that, then don't open threads here." - No need to be abrasive about it; as I made clear, I was open to this being undone anyway. I just thought its placement here was (and is) a pointless and annoying distraction from the parent discussion it really has nothing to do with beyond the fact it involved myself. If you or anyone else seriously want to discuss further the allegations that I'm secretly a robot, please feel free to do so. Ubcule (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC) I looked over the older edits, and I concede that my accusations were misplaced, although using automated AI detectors is not usually accepted on Wikipedia to determine if content is AI-generated. I didn't expect that this would expand into such a large section, and I, myself, would be fine with collapsing it, as it is somewhat unrelated to the discussion topic. While Ubcule's comment feels slightly confrontational, I'm not sure if I would have done any better had some random editor accused me of AI use. My sincere apologies to @Ubcule:. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 22:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC) I've collaped this again based on Somepinkdude's agreement that there's nothing here and it's fine to collapse. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Apparent Continuation

@Truthnope, Blue-Sonnet, and EducatedRedneck: I assumed that this dispute was effectively over and that- issues over how it had been conducted aside- the supposed misunderstanding that caused the problem had been resolved.

I took on board what (as far as I could tell) the apparent complaint was- that bolded synonyms should only be used in the lead section (i.e. "Show me the policy that says alternate names should be bolded (except in the lede)") and redid the edit to meet that (i.e. *placing them in the lead section).

That edit- now in line with the supposed guidelines- was reverted regardless, a different reason being given this time:-

"Removing content not highly relevant to article topic and thus not appropriate to include in the lede; someone just wants to see bolded letters, eh?"

Bear in mind this is someone who was quick to accuse *me* of "edit warring" for reverting an unexplained edit, but reverted mine for (a) some unexplained reason then (b) because it supposedly didn't meet the guidelines then (c) once that objection was met, for an entirely different reason.

I don't see any legitimate justification for this, and I don't see any evidence that Revirvlkodlaku is interested in resolving the issue between the two of us.

I've opened a discussion at on the article talk page here.

Ubcule (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You opened the discussion about 27 minutes before you made this comment. I don't see how you can conclude that "that Revirvlkodlaku is" (not) "interested in resolving the issue between the two of us" if you've only given them 27 minutes to discuss the issue. I haven't look much into this dispute but considering you collapsed a discussion on your behaviour and are complaining about an editor not being willing to resolve the dispute when you've only given them 27 minutes to discuss it, it's starting to look like your behaviour might be a big part of the problem here. Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

"I haven't look much into this dispute"

Well then, perhaps you should have?

If you had, you'd have seen that this is a pre-existing dispute- one that has already been ongoing elsewhere for the better part of two days- not 27 minutes- currently here and previously on Revirvlkodlaku's talk page.

Revirvlkodlaku's existing responses to myself- including, in particular, the most recent one via an edit summary with a snide aside- already made clear that they aren't interested in a good faith discussion regarding this. I already explained this above.

I opened the article talk page discussion after I dispute I assumed had been resolved (albeit not at a personal level) hadn't been. That's all explained over there.

"considering you collapsed a discussion on your behaviour"

I collapsed the allegation that I was using AI slop because it was a pointless distraction that had nothing to do with the parent discussion and I didn't expect to go anywhere. As I said in the edit summary, "you're welcome to undo this" and the heading was left clearly visible.

If you seriously want to discuss the allegations that Metal Mickey is my ghostwriter (ahem), don't let me stop you, but IMHO that would be better as a separate discussion.

Ubcule (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, both of you have personalised this dispute way way too much & been unnecessarily aggressive to each other. Comments like "but reverter clearly didn't bother to read" and "someone just wants to see bolded letters, eh" in edit summaries are definitely helping no one. Also while one of you, you Ubcule, has finally taken this to the talk page rather than simply edit warring and trying to communicate via unnecessarily aggressive edit summaries, even that discussion is way too personalised & includes behavioural stuff not suited for an article talk page . If a third party is coming into the discussion, they just want to know what each of your preferred versions are any why you feel your preferred version is better/more supported by our policies and guidelines. They're unlikely to be interested in whatever wrong doings you believe the other side has done, which doesn't go any way to resolving the dispute or deciding what our article should look like. Keep that stuff for user talk pages & here when needed. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, the essence of it is here.

Cut a long story short, this or this is my preferred version. Both put aliases for the band (i.e. synonyms for the article subject) in bold as per the standard MOS style.

Revirvlkodlaku, for reasons best known to themselves, doesn't appear to like this, even though this is in line with the MOS guidelines. (This isn't "non-standard" as they've claimed when removing it previously.

I redid the second version to meet what I originally thought was a legitimate objection (though on closer reading, they were misinterpreting the guidelines and the first was fine).

Even after meeting that original objection, they reverted it anyway, giving a different reason for doing so.

Ubcule (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the place to resolve content disputes. That's what the article talk page is for. And as I mentioned it should have been the focus of your statement not an the other stuff you said there. Revirvlkodlaku when replying, to their credit, has kept their focus on what matters for the article talk page i.e. why they believe their preferred version is better. Meanwhile, you've continued to edit war after you open the talk page discussion and followed up with another talk page message that goes way too much into behaviour .

Also them replying calls into great question your claim they aren't interested in resolving this. If anything the evidence is that they are much more interested in resolving this, you seem to just want to demand you have your way and are trying to use whatever means you can to achieve that. Yes Revirvlkodlaku should have taken it to the talk page sooner too, but you opened this ANI and seem to have continued to try to get them sanctioned, not them. (I.E. taken with everything else, you opening that thread is much less of a positive on your side than it could have been.)

Note, if you didn't understand why Revirvlkodlaku was undoing your edits all the more reason why you should have taken this to the article talk page earlier rather than edit warring to try to get your way. (And once you'd taken it to the talk page, stopped edit warring.) Don't you see the unfortunate irony in you complaining about Revirvlkodlaku allegedly not reading your edit summary when you yourself apparently don't understand why they made their edits but yet you continued to edit war and accuse them of misbehaviour when you didn't even understand why they were making their edits?

Note, even if Revirvlkodlaku read this subthread and was reminded of how they should behave, the chronology shows you continued to edit war and followed up with another personalised message about behaviour instead of content after you'd replied to (and so read) my first message here but they did none of that. I.E. You've both had the chance to improve but only one of you really has.

In other words, while neither of you has crowned yourself in glory, since we don't resolve content disputes and WP:being right is not enough, even if we assume you are totally right on the content issue (which by the by, I'm not convinced of myself), in terms of what matters for ANI, behaviour; it's clear now that I've looked in to this that you have indeed behaved far more poorly than Revirvlkodlaku. And so if we were to sanction anyone over this it's far more likely to be you and not Revirvlkodlaku.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking more at why you opened this thread I see Daniel Case did mention ANI and I don't blame them since it's clearly not something to open at ANEW. But there was no reason for you to open this ANI any more than there was reason to open the ANEW. Even if you were falsely accused of edit warring and being uncivil, you don't need to open a thread to pre-emptively prove you weren't edit warring or being uncivil. If Revirvlkodlaku believed your behaved was bad enough to warrant sanction, they could open a thread themselves. Then you could defend yourself.

Since that's what ANI is for, it's for dealing with "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" as the headers says. So if you are opening a thread here (or raising a new issue in an existing thread), the assumption is you feel someone's behaviour is bad enough it may warrant sanction or some other administrative action needs to be taken (e.g. protecting a page, rev-deleting an edit). There should be never any need to open a thread to stop your behaviour since you can just change your behaviour and if you really can't there are better ways to self request a block.

If you felt Revirvlkodlaku's accusations were unfair, it was reasonable to to bring it up with them on their talk page but if they weren't receptive then the best thing to do was to just drop it. Part of editing here is that editors may describe our behaviour in ways which we feel is unfair. And while if these are serious enough that they cross the WP:NPA line, there can be merit to take action against them, it's extremely unproductive for the community to have to decide whether every claim made about an editor's behaviour was fair or not.

Although the reality is Revirvlkodlaku wasn't being unfair anyway, their accusations were IMO justified. It's just that it's a pot, kettle and black situation. Both of you were edit warring and both of you were way less civil than you should have been. For whatever reason, Revirvlkodlaku seems to have improved on that since this thread started. Unfortunately you haven't really. Still this isn't something for ANI. I suggest you just drop this and concentrate on resolving the dispute on the article talk page, try to be more civil going forward, and also cut out on the edit warring and on talking about behaviour or other irrelevant stuff on article talk pages.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:

• "This isn't the place to resolve content disputes. That's what the article talk page is for."

That's why I'd opened a discussion on the article talk page.

(I'm continuing this discussion with you here because that's where you're replying; I'm quite happy to move it elsewhere).

• "Revirvlkodlaku [..] has kept their focus on [..] why they believe their preferred version is better"

Firstly, they did so after I'd opened the talk page discussion. Prior to that any reasons given were restricted to edit summaries.

Second, as I commented in my reply, that's the fourth *different* rationale given for why they want to revert my edits. Every time I've addressed the previous one, this has shifted.

• "you seem to just want to demand you have your way and are trying to use whatever means you can to achieve that"

What?

Did you forget that I took on board what I understood to be their criticism here- that synonyms should not be bolded outside the lead section- and modified my original edit to meet that requirement instead?

(Once that objection had been met, the new version was reverted anyway with an entirely different objection given.)

How does that make *me* the one "demanding I have my way"?

• "You opened this ANI and seem to have continued to try to get them sanctioned"

I wasn't trying to get them sanctioned, I was trying to solve the dispute, wasn't sure where best to take it and was advised to move the discussion to ANI.

• "the chronology shows you continued to edit war"

And Revirvlkodlaku hasn't?

• "And so if we were to sanction anyone over this it's far more likely to be you and not Revirvlkodlaku."

As I said, I wasn't trying to get Revirvlkodlaku sanctioned, I was trying to have a discussion regarding the dispute and advised to move it here.

• "Looking more at why you opened this thread I see Daniel Case did mention ANI"

Yes, I was advised to move the discussion here. I don't blame Daniel if this wasn't the best choice- I wasn't sure myself, which is why I asked- but you seem determined to continue using something that was simply a poor choice made in good faith against me personally.

Ubcule (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• That's why I'd opened a discussion on the article talk page. - yes but you also said "Cut a long story short, this or this is my preferred version. Both put aliases for the band (i.e. synonyms for the article subject) in bold as per the standard MOS style." above. This has nothing to do with us and is irrelevant to ANI.
• they did so after I'd opened the talk page discussion. - yes as I said you should be congratulated for opening the talk page discussion, but not for pretty much anything else. You've continued to personalise the dispute as you have in your reply here. No third party is likely to be interested in whatever you believe about different versions. They just want to know why you believe your version is better and why the other editor believes their version is better.
• How does that make *me* the one "demanding I have my way"? & You opened this ANI and seem to have continued to try to get them sanctioned I wasn't trying to get them sanctioned, I was trying to solve the dispute, wasn't sure where best to take it and was advised to move the discussion to ANI. - you opened a discussion at ANI, the place to get administrative action against other editors. Even if we can accept you were confused because of what Daniel Case said, even after you were told above this isn't the place for content disputes you opened this subthread rather than focusing on resolving the dispute. What were you hoping to achieve with this subthread if not for some administrative action? You even said when opening this subthread that you "don't see any evidence that Revirvlkodlaku is interested in resolving the issue between the two of us". And you edit warred even after you'd initiated a discussion rather than trying to resolve the dispute by discussion. Now of course you've continued to focus on behaviour in the article talk page, rather than explaining why you disagree with Revirvlkodlaku's views on what's better for the article. So yes it's a fair conclusion to make. If you don't want editors to make it, then leave this ANI, focus on the article talk page thread, learn to assume good faith, stop personalising the dispute and stop edit warring. If Revirvlkodlaku or anyone else reverts you, that's on them.
• And Revirvlkodlaku hasn't - While Revirvlkodlaku did edit war, they stopped. You however continued to edit war even after opening a talk page discussion and after you came here and were told by several editors to stop edit warring. To be clear, if you are the last to revert because the other editor stopped reverting and instead has chosen to focus on discussion to resolve the dispute, it doesn't mean you "won" the dispute because you tired others out and get to keep your version until the discussion comes to some consensus. It means you lost the dispute because instead of resolving it properly you've edit warred to get your way. The editor who is the last to revert in a two party edit war is always likely to look worse than the editor who stopped. And if you're thinking 'how was I to know they would stop' that precisely illustrates the problem with how you're dealing with disputes. It doesn't matter what they do, focus on what you're doing and ensure you behave reasonably in a dispute. Note I was highly tempted to revert you because there's one thing I hate it's edit warriors thinking they can edit war to get their way. I resisted the urge precisely because I knew it wouldn't help anything.
• but you seem determined to continue using something that was simply a poor choice made in good faith against me personally - you are free to stop replying and to focus on resolving the dispute. Instead you continue to reply here. And in the article talk page thread, you've continued to personalise the dispute way more than Revirvlkodlaku and are failing to WP:AGF . As I said, I don't think it's time for action against you yet, but if you continue down your current path you're likely to face sanction soon.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC) 16:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, if you've made mistakes that's fine. We all make mistakes. The key thing is you need to learn from them. If you didn't know that well what ANI is for then that's fine but learn from it. If you edit warred when you shouldn't have then learn from it. If you've personalised a dispute when you shouldn't have then learn from it. The big problem is that Revirvlkodlaku does seem to be improving but you don't really seem to be. Instead you're still at ANI and still seem to be trying to defend stuff which cannot reasonably be defended. And worse, are still doing stuff you shouldn't be doing as we can see from your latest article talk page message which came after at least editors had called you out for personalising the dispute. As I said, as much as it's tempting, I'm not going to revert you. But give it a 50/50 chance you would revert me if I were to do so. If I'm wrong, I apologise but everything you've said etc lead me to think there's a good chance you still would revert me rather than focusing on resolving the dispute on the talk page. So all in all, it doesn't seem you've really learnt the lessons you should other than perhaps the perils of opening an ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I notice that you added this section after I started work on a reply to your original comment. As this is somewhat more conciliatory in tone, this somewhat changes what I would otherwise have said, and I think it's better we leave the discussion here instead. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku @Ubcule Both of you are edit warring and need to stop editing the article until consensus is achieved. You've also both been using edit summaries to write pointed remarks at each other, which you really should not do.

Ubcule, you've been combative with other editors coming in to comment on this dispute (e.g. "I haven't look much into this dispute" Well then, perhaps you should have? here and including a pointed remark in the edit summary here.) Your remarks aren't helping your argument. Truthnope (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Truthnope: - If someone is willing to criticise me on the basis I'd supposedly "only given [Revirvlkodlaku] 27 minutes to discuss the issue" when they acknowledge they hadn't paid attention to the full facts- which would have shown otherwise- then suggesting they should have done so is neither unreasonable nor impolite.

Sorry that you found the reference to Metal Mickey in the edit summary offensive- I guess you're not a fan?- but it was just a tongue-in-cheek poke of the flimsiness of the allegations against me that I'd already addressed. Ubcule (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Folks, being party to an ANI filing is like going to court; you may win, you may lose, you may settle amicably, but no matter what it's going to cost you. I have trouble imagining the original dispute is worth all this. My view on the best way forward is this: get a third opinion then leave the article alone, even if the 3O is wrong. Find something to edit that brings you satisfaction, not headache. To do otherwise seems likely to WP:BOOMERANG. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I may have killed 3O because I replied to try and get the discussion back in track and since I'm part of it even if I didn't express an opinion, fair chance 3O will just say there's already more than 2 parties. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: I composed this message before seeing Ubcule's last response to Nil Einne above, which indicates a willingness to resolve this matter where it stands. Nevertheless, I think there's some merit in the observations herein, and even some points that Ubcule would appreciate being re-assured about, so I'm gonna post it all the same, hoping its benefits outweigh prolonging auto-archiving a tad:

I really could not agree with EducatedRedneck on this more. Ubucle, having read through this discussion and the user talk exchange, and to a lesser extent the underlying content dispute, my take is that you deserve a bit of a fat WP:TROUT for the needless (but not bad faith) use of community time on a non-issue here. The comments to Revirvlkodlaku on their talk page, to which they took exception, are not sufficiently uncivil or disruptive enough to qualify as anything you were ever likely to be called to account for, had you not brought them here yourself. But they were less than charitable and on the bubble of combative in tone, at the least, so Revirvlkodlaku's brief response strikes me as reasonable and non-objectionable--and certainly nothing that qualifies for an WP:ASPERSIONS inquiry.

On the other hand, it's not like Rev went out of their way to keep curtness out of their own comments in the initial edit summary, so I would say there is room for improvement in the way you both approach communications over content disputes involving minutia. But at the end of the day, this was just not something that needed to be escalated to ANI. And yes, I appreciate you were operating on independent advice when you did that, which is why I am going to lengths to not describe your actions as bad faith or abuse of process. But it's certainly generated a bit of a waste of time, and I think your drive to defend yourself, although a reasonable instinct we can all appreciate, is blinding you to the diminishing returns of doubling down repeatedly here, regardless of whether you think your actions have been misconstrued.

EdRed is right, this can and should be resolved through a normal dispute resolution process or (even more ideally) one of you just giving way, as the article hardly stands or falls on the little bit of content you are sparring over. And failure to drop the stick at this point (hopefully while understanding that we all accept that you at no point intended disruption and were attempting to operate within guidelines), could lead to an actual, unfortunate, and entirely needless boomerang. Best just to move on, imo. At this point, nobody, as far as I can tell, considers this a black mark on your name, as things stand. SnowRise ^{let's rap}

User talk:~2026-33482-55

Hello, can an admin please revoke the talk page of ~2026-33482-55 (talk · contribs) due to ongoing talk page abuse? Malgosha (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll say again what I've told you (and others before): do not edit other people's user talk pages unless you have to. You got into a deletion fight with that editor over what is mostly mild stuff (a few were not so mild, but still didn't meet the threshhold allowing you to act). As Wikipedia:User pages states If the material must be addressed urgently (for example, unambiguous copyright, attack, defamation, or BLP reasons, etc.), the user appears inactive, your edit appears unlikely to cause problems, and you are quite sure the material is inappropriate... you can delete the edit. None of those edits needed to be deleted urgently. The stuff left on the page is not useful, but I'm not revoking TPA as it makes it much harder to handle potential appeals.

Next time, don't edit or reply on the talk page, just post a request for talk page access revocation on AN/I. Staying off blocked users' talk pages unless you're trying to help them is the right thing to do. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I was in the process of checking all the edits and reverts, and did not see the reply at this thread. I already blocked the TAs talk access based on that, this post was added after I first checked this thread, so I hope that's okay. ASUKITE 02:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, actually after rereading your reply I think I'll just make note of it and undo my block, and watch the page for further vandalism. Sorry for jumping into this. ASUKITE 02:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries. To me it was borderline to revoke: I could have gone either way. What persuaded me not to revoke TPA was how much the blocked editor was provoked/encouraged by @Malgosha's deletions of user talk page content (which started even before the block). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll stay off the user talk page of blocked users. Malgosha (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That will help a lot.

You can write on blocked users' talk pages when you are trying to help them get back to editing and are providing advice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Prof NV misrepresenting sources on Ika people article

•  Courtesy link: Ika people

I am reporting editor Prof NV for misrepresenting sources on the Ika people article.

Prof NV has added a language section to the article claiming that Onyeche (2002) characterises Ika as "a linguistic system situated at the intersection of neighbouring Edoid and Igboid languages." The full Onyeche (2002) paper is publicly available here: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/server/api/core/bitstreams/e08bdb55-a3e9-404a-8600-b7ea6f2d407e/content

The paper does not say this. It states:

"The Ika language is regarded as a cluster of dialects (Williamson 1968). This is similar to the Igbo language which is also a cluster of dialects."

And: "In spite of being surrounded by languages such as Ishan, Edo, Ukwuani and Aniocha, the Ika linguistic situation in the Ika community has not been significantly affected by them."

Prof NV has attributed to this source a claim it does not make and that is contradicted by its actual content. This is a direct violation of WP:MISREPRESENTATION.

Additionally the Cambridge University Press peer reviewed Journal of the International Phonetic Association (Uguru 2015, DOI: 10.1017/S0025100315000067) states in its first sentence: "Ika is a dialect of the Igbo language." This directly contradicts the Edoid origin claim Prof NV has introduced.

The majority of the article's history sections are sourced entirely to ikaweekly.com, a local newspaper blog, and onuika.com, a community website. Neither meets Wikipedia's reliable sources policy under WP:RS.

For context, my own edits to this article cited Forde & Jones (1967), Williamson (1968), Blench (2019), Uguru (2015 Cambridge UP), Onyeche (2002), and a peer reviewed African Identities journal article (2022). These edits were reverted by Tbhotch as disruptive while Prof NV's content, which misrepresents its own source, remains in the article.

Prof NV entire edit and claim about ika origin is sourced to this same local blog, not a academia sources.

I am asking administrators to review whether WP:MISREPRESENTATION and WP:RS violations have occurred here. Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Prof NV GarethBaloney (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I am updating this report with significant new developments.

Since filing this report, the following has occurred:

1. Prof NV has reverted my peer reviewed sourced edit and reinstated content sourced entirely to ikaweekly.com and onuika.com both are community blogs that do not meet WP:RS.

2. Prof NV has now disclosed on the Talk page of the Ika people article that he is himself an Ika person, stating: "I will acknowledge that on this matter there is a beyond academic and personal need to ensure that it is clear that the Ika people are neither a part of or a subgroup of the Igbo people as I am myself an Ika person." This is a declared conflict of interest under WP:COI. He is editing the article to promote a personal identity position against academic consensus.

3. His response on the Talk page contains zero peer reviewed academic sources. He dismissed Cambridge University Press, the Journal of the International Phonetic Association, and the American Anthropological Association as "appeals to false authority" without providing any counter-sources.

4. He provided a list of shared vocabulary between Ika and Edo languages as his primary argument. Shared vocabulary between neighbouring Niger-Congo languages is not a basis for language classification and is not supported by any published linguistic methodology.

5. The version of the article he is protecting contains numerous unsourced claims about Ika town origins and identity, sourced entirely to ikaweekly.com and onuika.com.

For reference, my edits cite the following peer reviewed sources:

• Uguru (2015) Journal of the International Phonetic Association, Cambridge University Press — "Ika is a dialect of the Igbo language"
• Williamson (1968) University of Ibadan
• Forde & Jones (1967) International African Institute
• Blench (2019) Atlas of Nigerian Languages
• Glottolog ikaa1238 — Nuclear Igboid classification
• African Identities journal (2022) DOI: 10.1080/14725843.2022.2117132
• Onyeche (2002) Africa & Asia journal — states Ika "has not been significantly affected" by surrounding Edoid languages

I am asking administrators to review the conflict of interest, the continued reverting of peer reviewed sourced content, and the reinstatement of blog-sourced material. I am not making further content edits pending administrator review. Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for long-term, chronic behavioural issues, it should be a last resort when all other measures have failed - not the first resort.

Additionally, administrators cannot assist with content disputes.

You've been spamming talk pages with multiple comments and haven't given anyone time to respond to massive walls of text, such as this one.

Please start by communicating with your fellow editors using the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to begin with, and the dispute resolution processes if it fails. Jumping straight onto an administrator noticeboard is not the way to collaborate with other editors.

I also have concerns that you may be using AI or LLM's to edit Wikipedia, please read WP:NEWLLM if I am correct. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Funny enough, while Jeremiah has definitely not gone through the proper channels to deal with this, in the midst of mishandling a completely separate content dispute they have actually stumbled into a situation with a chronically disruptive editor. User:Prof NV has made 24 edits on Wikipedia since 2019; half of those were on Ika people. Every couple of years they show up to apparently push the claim that "The Ika people do not trace their ancestry to common origin." Each time, they add a significant amount of unsourced content , or remove a a huge amount of sourced information and replace it with low quality blogposts or links to Wikipedia itself.

Nobody had ever reached out to communicate with this editor on their talk page until yesterday, so this situation can still develop, but it's fair to say something is happening at this article that there should be some attention on. Amatmilen (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this quite belongs on the article talk page so I'll post it here instead. This is, as far as I can tell, the order of events that has happened so far:

1. Jeremiah uduak nome makes this edit which rewrites the entire article, including the removal of all nine existing sources.

2. After Tbhotch reverts this change, Jeremiah uduak nome attempts to open a talk page discussion , then after not receiving a reply for one day makes another total article rewrite

3. Tbhotch reviews the newest version section by section and removes content they feel is unsourced. At this point, Jeremiah uduak nome opens a discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard

4. Prof NV now enters and makes this edit , also a total article rewrite over the existing changes from

Jeremiah uduak nome. As you can see from this comparison , this is nothing like the article from before Jeremiah uduak nome changed it.

5. After some edit warring, Jeremiah uduak nome opens this ANI discussion, and later this dispute resolution filing as well. These discussions are ostensibly about the conduct of Prof NV, not about Tbhotch, but evidently due to the haphazard nature of this user's communications, this development gets lost.

I don't have the experience to know what needs to be done in this situation or if this is still even something that needs to be up at ANI, considering that neither editor has ever had much activity on their talk page, and Jeremiah uduak nome is quite new (although their possible LLM usage is something I would like for them to address). Amatmilen (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

thank you. please, I want to address a few things. I am a relatively new editor and I acknowledge that I did not always follow the correct procedures, i was filing in multiple forums and rewriting large sections of the article at once rather than making small targeted changes. I was not aware of the correct process and was trying to find the right channel to address what I saw as a sourcing problem. I understand now that the correct approach is to make small specific changes with Talk page discussion first and I will follow that going forward. Regarding the concern about LLM usage, all sources cited in my edits are real published academic works that I have personally sourced and verified... I take full responsibility for the accuracy of everything submitted under my account. If there are specific claims in my edits that appear inaccurate or unsupported by the sources cited, I welcome that being pointed out and I will address each one Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications Jeremiah. My account is also pretty new, and for what it's worth I think you have been acting in good faith, you were just inexperienced and probably a little frustrated by the pace of communication that usually happens on Wikipedia. You definitely have not been the more problematic of the two editors brought up here.

One recommendation I have is that you write much shorter messages on talk pages and noticeboards. I understand that you are trying to be polite and thorough, but you should remember that everybody on Wikipedia is a volunteer. Nobody is paid to be here and if you write messages that are too long, people do not have time to read them carefully, which is how important details get missed. Formality isn't a requirement for participating on Wikipedia, as long as you aren't being rude. Amatmilen (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate that and will definitely future messages shorter Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the concern about LLM usage, all sources cited in my edits are real published academic works that I have personally sourced and verified

That does not answer the question at all. Did you use AI? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I write, research my own articles and personally source and verify every citation I use. The academic sources I cited are real published works that anyone can verify. The actual content dispute I raised is about the Ika people article containing claims sourced only to community blogs while peer reviewed academic publications from Cambridge University Press, the Journal of the International Phonetic Association, and the American Anthropological Association classify Ika as Igboid. That is the issue that needs addressing… Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be certain, you are confirming that you do not use any form of AI, LLM or machine text generation to source or generate any of your work at Wikipedia? Apologies, but it may be helpful to be super clear on this. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

No. Not at all. I do not use AI or llm to generate my Wikipedia articles. I personally research, source and verify everything I publish. These are articles I have spent hours carefully writing and drafting. Every academic source cited is a real published work that I have personally read and verified. I will note that I used LLM to polish my first three AfC submissions which were declined for that reason. I read the rules and have not used it since Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Jeremiah uduak nome - Reporting a dispute at multiple noticeboards, such as the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and WP:ANI (this noticeboard) is forum shopping, and is not a useful technique. I have closed your DRN case. This appears to be primarily a content dispute, in which the conduct issues may go away if the content is addressed. I suggest discussing at one noticeboard, not three. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Advertising and Undisclosed Paid Editing User:Anabelenplaza

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

Anabelenplaza has made several edits to IP related pages adding references to a promotional source. The source's website strongly suggests the editor is affiliated with the source and promoting the business. For example this edit adding the promotional reference. IPBilly (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @IPBilly, for future reference COI concerns are usually brought up at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but you can leave the report here since it's already been made.

I can't see any prior warning or discussion between you and this editor to try to clear up whether there is a conflict of interest. ANI is usually the point of last resort when other avenues have failed, and nine times out of ten you can resolve matters by just talking to the other person.

That said, this editor is singularly focused on adding this one website (which could well be theirs as the name matches a marketing manager) to as many articles as they can - See . In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I note that they tried this in 2020 and were reverted due to it being a non-reliable "vendor blog".

I've looked through and agree that's still the case, so I've reverted their edits and given a COI warning (since I can't see anyone doing this previously). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Bogus CSD tags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The owner of ~2026-34213-12 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly overwriting with an editing test consisting of a large number of speedy-deletion templates. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misgendering and spurious AfD by Greenpark79

Greenpark79 (talk · contribs) has started a rather silly AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Craggs about a minor but notable actress. This is after a period of fruitless kvetching on Talk:Charlie Craggs. There seems to be more at play than a mere misunderstanding of our policies compounded by WP:IDHT. There is reason to suspect animus against Craggs as a motivation but that's hard to prove. What is provable is the misgendering.

• "Their book" in the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Craggs
• Repeatedly referring to Craggs as "they" in comments on the AfD, even after being called out on it by @Pburka: (diff), most recently in this diff.

Note that Craggs is a transgender woman and there is no indication that she uses any pronouns other than she/her. Greenpark79 does not seem to have used Craggs' correct pronouns even once either on the AfD or on the Talk page. It is impossible to believe that this is an unintentional oversight.

I think that some action is required against Greenpark79 although I am not sure how severe. I guess it depends the extent to which we believe this is intentionally disruptive? I think there might also be a good case for an early close to the AfD under WP:SNOW. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: @Greenpark79 Where you aware that Craggs used she/her pronouns? nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 12:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

While I think Greenpark could afford to stop bludgeoning the discussion, I don't think that the most reasonable interpretation of their behaviour to this point is that their 'misgendering' is motivated by anything malevolent. As Charlie Craggs herself once said: " If you’re not sure (what pronoun to use for someone), forget or don't feel you can ask, just refer to a person as 'they'. If I’m not sure I use that term, it’s safe." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I don't read them as misgendering rather just neutral language and they apologised with their first edit of the day for 'it' with "Apologies for the confusion, it refers to the article and not the subject". If there was other indications that this was intentional behaviour such as if they normally do use gendered pronouns maybe and this was anomalous, but as it stands I do no see this as intentional. Also per Eddie's quote above the subject would not be offended by they either. They would be wise to drop the stick though. KylieTastic (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll point out that Pburka's comment was IMO not that clear. Pburka said "you've called the subject "they" and now "it". Is this an intentional choice". If you read this carefully and especially if you know Charlie Craggs prefers she/her, it's easy to see this as calling out Greenpark79 for using "they" as well as "it". But it's also easy to miss this and just notice the "it" part. The "it" issue was resolved & I agree there was nothing wrong with the usage there. But AFAICT, no one has explicitly told Greenpark79 until this ANI that the subject prefers she/her pronouns so it's not that surprising they continued with they even after Pburka's comment. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

My comment was not the first. I was replying to a thread in which the nominator had already been called out for misgendering. Instead of apologizing, the nominator complained about swearing (possibly misunderstanding "AGF"). pburka (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Separate from that issue, Greenpark79 could really do with a rest from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Craggs, because bludgeoning is one thing, but bludgeoning and IDHT are not a good mix. Oddly, exactly the same mix was happening the last time I became aware of this editor , where they were only not sanctioned because they disengaged from the article completely. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no problem with use of the singular they but Greenpark79 clearly has a poor grasp of notability and is engaging in tendentious axe grinding at that AfD. The editor needs to knock it off and stop arguing with everyone who disagrees with them. Which happens to be everyone commenting. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

LateNightCoffee continuing to disrupt categories after block

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

This editor's questionable edits in Category space and Template space were the subject of a discussion in April 2026, which I can't find, except for the following link: , which shows that User:voorts partially blocked them from Category space and Template space, for which I thank them. They now seem to be trying to work around those blocks by using Category Talk space, and have launched four poorly formatted RFCs, because RFCs are normally run in a Talk space. See Category_talk:18th-century_Irish_scholars, Category talk:19th-century Irish scholars, Category_talk:19th-century_Irish_philosophers, and Category_talk:18th-century_Irish_philosophers. I became aware of these malformed RFCs when I was notified of one of them by a bot.

Oh. Here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223#LateNightCoffee.

I don't know what LNC is trying to do other than play around in the encyclopedia which is an electronic workplace for some of us. I haven't looked over LateNightCoffee's contributions in article space and article talk space yet, and so don't know whether they make a positive contribution there, or whether an indefinite block is in order. I think it is clear that the RFCs should be deactivated, but that is not the question. The question is what should be done with an editor who is continuing to disrupt the category system after one effort to protect the category system and LateNightCoffee from each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I think they contribute to terrorism-related articles as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223#LateNightCoffee. I regret not reporting their 1RR vios, I think they’re a few days stale now. I can’t fully explain why I and others tend to take a light touch with this editor. Mikewem (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Since the block, there’s been a pattern of attempting to work around it or nibble at the edges, most recently in this unofficial block appeal. I don’t know how to describe their behavior other than an apparent desperation to make a tremendous amount of category edits. Mikewem (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

They've made a ton of requests in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories that are effectively circumventing the category creation block. ^SMason_Garrison 20:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the ANI's been reopened. @Rsjaffe could you add Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories to the block? As I mentioned on my talk page, they're effectively circumventing the category block by making category creation requests at ARC. ^SMason_Garrison 22:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not think that would be warranted. Requests there can be declined. I was told directly that my use of that space is appropriate and allowed. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You are not hearing what the concern is about your AFC requests. You have been asked by multiple people to be more careful with your nominations and clean up. ^SMason_Garrison 22:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I will wait and respond based upon this discussion. I will note that [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories]] has existed since 2010. @LateNightCoffee first edited the page last month. Their total contributions to that page since then make them the second-largest contributor of content for all time, with 12.4% of the total content since 2010 being by LateNightCoffee in less than a month. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This is because I am in an unusual situation? Most people making requests there cannot create the categories themselves because they are not autoconfirmed? They would usually be able to make them for themselves within a week and thus most people don't make repeated requests? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I just wanted it on your radar as part of the broader impact of LNC. ^SMason_Garrison 22:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of these have been accepted. I interpret this as meaning the requests were constructive. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That is not a block appeal. Mason is too WP:Involved, and so they are not allowed to block me and so I presume also not able to unlock me? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I replied to your message. You didn't respond. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 23:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

After review, I am p-blocking @LateNightCoffee from Category Talk space. They have almost 1,100 edits there, which is astonishing, and the recent edit history shows extensive disruption and continuation of the behavior for which the prior blocks were intended to fix. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, User:rsjaffe. I will be disabling the RFCs by removing the {{RFC}} template, since it is agreed that their "work" or "play" or whatever in Category Talk space was not constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I was told to seek consensus. As far as I am aware, that is the way to seek consensus? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who asked you to seek consensus on potentially controversial changes. I linked you WP:APPNOTE and gave some advice on discussions; RfCs were not part of that advice. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I was not prohibited from contributing to category talk. I was even told directly by Mason to make more edit requests. So I don't think this should be interpreted as "continuation of the behavior". Late Night Coffee (ping me) 23:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

My interpretation of the last ANI was that one significant problem was you attempting to add too many categories too quickly. To wit:

Quotes from last ANI

The most immediate issue is the velocity (and apparent acceleration) of LNC’s edits. -- Mikewem I'm not seeing any evidence of them understanding the volunteer time costs or engaging with the heart of the conduct issues being raised. -- S Mason Garrison You're asking a lot of volunteer time to clean up after you as you learn. -- S Mason Garrison Their refusal to respond to criticism and their refusal to check many of their edits is the major problem. Also the speed. -- PARAKANYAA

I think you would do well to avoid categories in their entirety. For whatever reason, you seem to have trouble contributing there in a way the community finds appropriate. If you keep attempting to manage categories, I think it likely that you will be topic banned from the topic of categories. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

A disproportionate amount of the objections have come from Mason. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 23:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Dude, I'm an admin who works in category space.... you need to focus on what is being conveyed to you, regardless of who is conveying it. ^SMason_Garrison 00:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I was responding to "in a way the community finds appropriate" because yes, you are an admin in Category space, but you are not "the community". You are one editor, you are one editor who I have an ongoing content dispute with about multiple categories. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 00:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon why didn't you talk to me directly before you opened this? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The first message you ever wrote to me was the notification about this ANI. I don't think that's appropriate. I can find no previous interaction between us before you opened this discussion? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 23:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

User:LateNightCoffee - On the one hand, civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. On the other hand, I didn't have anything constructive to say to you, since your editing did not appear to be constructive, so I said nothing to you, except to give you the required noticeboard notice. Your proposed category changes were questionable, and your RFCs were malformed. It appeared that you didn't know what you were doing, but it would not have been helpful to say that (and I am only saying that now because you asked me directly). I thought that the community should know. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

"RFCs are normally run in a Talk space"? So an RFC about a category goes in a category talk space? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 00:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I just fully blocked LNC indefinitely for the continued disruption and rules-lawyering. This is getting out of hand. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I just re-opened this discussion, because it's entirely possible to make the case I was too harsh with the block. I'd prefer to give it until, say, tomorrow morning? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This is the second time this topic was closed prematurely. Nothing needs to be closed a few minutes after the last comment, and certainly not complex ones like this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think keeping it open for a while is good. I'm just not convinced that we'll find a better outcome. But when this does close, I think it would be extremely helpful to LNC for someone to directly AND concisely explain what the conduct problems are. They seem to believe that this is about category speed... and content disputes.^SMason_Garrison 02:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for reopening it, I was thinking it looked a bit fast of a close. First, I want to preference that in LNCs case, I don't know anything about them personally, and have never encountered their edits to the best of my knowledge. That said, reading this and the linked other discussion where they got blocked from editing categories, it looks like a new editor that is a bit excited to be involved and taking some time to learn the system. The way they are replying and are described makes me suspect there could be some neurodivergence, or something similar, in play that people might be mistaking for other things. I've said this a few time, but Wikipedia policies are overwhelmingly neurotypical, and Western in their construction. For example, even the essay Wikipedia:Autistic editors mostly frames the recognized things that may cause misunderstandings as "something which autistic users need to be aware of and take special care with." Examples of things autistic editors may struggle with given in that essay include issues dropping the stick, and the tendency "to say everything that needs to be said and expect others to do so as well." There are recommendations on that page for "Dealing with it on Wikipedia," and I think some of the suggestions might be useful here, or in similar situations. I also think that essay probably needs to be reworked a bit, and some policies/rules (such as WP:BLUDGEON and WP:SEALION) could be softened to feel less "Shut up, stop asking questions, and go away." I understand this user has created a lot of work for others, and they seem to be having a hard time internalizing some feedback, but it looks like they have tried to follow advice. It looks like they are opening RfCs based on their understanding of advice, that they were on categories for creation because that is what they were told to do, and have made a lot of mistakes that were not repeated after they were told to stop (The volume of edits seems to make this inevitable). I'd hate to see a seemingly energetic and enthusiastic contributor blocked if there is any hope for salvaging them. Again, I don't know if LNC is neurodivergent or anything, but know that there are people who are neurodivergent that might find themselves in a similar mess. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess neurodivergence would be the best explanation for the 30 single-character edits removing blank lines from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 1, because they're way beyond needing to game edit counts at this point. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Just took a look at that log, it looks to me how my edits might look if I wasn't previewing before hitting submit. I've also done similar things when looking at a page, making an edit, and then looking to see if anything else needs to be fixed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: One area that has fairly strict rules but looser implications for the project as a whole that LNC might be interested in is Wikipedia:Vital articles. We need people who can vote on a lot of things there. Could be a good place to get away from categories and sort some articles while learning more about how Wikipedia works. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-34086-97

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

~2026-34086-97 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly harassing me on their talk page. Malgosha (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Bahasa Melayu (1.0) - creating unsourced articles, not communicating, removing AfD and maintenance tags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wiki Bahasa Melayu (1.0) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user started off editing List of MeleTOP episodes (which has had an eventful article history) and then went straight into article creation. If you look at the history of their user talk page, you will see that there have been issues for a while around creating unsourced articles. As per normal process, users have moved their creations into draft space but this user moves them straight back without adding any sources. In the case of MeleTOP season 1, they moved the article to mainspace on 2 occasions after being told to add sources.

They are also removing AfD templates and removing maintenance templates with no attempt to address the issues raised. They do have access to their talk page as they edited it once, albeit just to remove the warnings.

At this stage is it worth potentially blocking them from article space? Firstly, so they can communicate with us and, secondly, so that they can work on their articles in draft space or their own userspace rather than just shoving unsourced content into mainspace at their current quick rate? I have looked into MeleTOP briefly and can't really see much coverage online but, then again, I'm not very clued up on Malaysian sources and where to look. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting to note that via Astro Ria these articles are linked to a pretty substantial network of articles with a grand total of zero sources between them, some of which have been up since 2006. They've also had activity from Joanna Gunadi (talk · contribs), who is blocked, and an editor name Astro Alpha Plus (talk · contribs). Seems likely this user is one in a string of paid editors from this organization going back about 20 years. Amatmilen (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked them, looks like it's an LTA evading a global lock, judging by their username and topics of interest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for the swift action. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dahproman

I've been speaking to Dahproman for a little while regarding their AI-generated articles at AINB, where concerns about COI editing were raised.

The articles were tagged, but Dahproman removed the tags without fixing the problems.

Most of the articles were deleted under WP:LLMPROD, however @InfernoHues had been able to confirm that their recreated articles are pretty much identical to their deleted counterparts.

Almost all of Dahproman's posts contain classic AI signs, so I am pretty confident that they're continuing to use AI here. Compare these comments to their non-AI-generated posts. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This editor has had several different conduct issues, and I do not believe they've stopped using LLMs in prose or communications. They've been given several chances to move past LLM editing. Since they appear to have declined those chances, and been generally unhelpful resolving the existing issues, I do not think this editor belongs in this project at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of AI, their products are BLP messes, relying substantially wildly non-RS sources (primary and/or promotional fluff) and using one cite that might support one fact for a sentence that contains many other claims not addressed by the cite. Whether that's AI or CIR, I don't care. This content cannot remain and would require as much detailed investigation from a trustworthly editor to verify it as to have someone with skill and better references available to write it from scratch. That's TNT. That's why LLM must be prohibited and articles tainted by it rejected out-of-hand. DMacks (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DMacks, Blue-Sonnet, and CoffeeCrumbs:. I want to sincerely apologize for my delayed responses and the frustration my actions have caused the community. I am based in Nigeria and have experienced severe network and connectivity restrictions recently, causing me to miss warnings on my talk page. However, that is not an excuse for my poor communication.

I have read your comments here carefully, and I want to address them head-on.

First, regarding the AI concerns: I want to assure you that I attempted to write the recent drafts manually. However, I recognize that my attempt to sound "encyclopedic" often comes out sounding unnatural, repetitive, or promotional, which strongly mimics AI patterns. I understand why my previous mistakes with AI have completely destroyed my credibility on this front.

More importantly, I hear exactly what DMacks is saying regarding the BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) issues. I admit that I have completely misunderstood how strict Wikipedia's sourcing policies (WP:RS) are. In my enthusiasm to document Nigerian music artists, I relied on primary sources, promotional fluff, and failed to ensure that my citations strictly matched every claim in a sentence (WP:V). I now understand that this is a critical competence issue (WP:CIR) and unacceptable for BLPs.

I want to learn how to do this correctly and contribute properly to WikiProject Nigeria. I am asking for a chance to prove that I can be a collaborative editor.

Dahproman (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I was willing to look past the talk page LLM use, since they were actually responding and seemed receptive. However, it's become clear that they say they will follow advice and then don't. For example, they were told repeatedly ( ) how WP:LLMPRVOBJ works, and ignored it by recreating their articles in almost exactly the same state they were in before.

They've been previously blocked for one week for sockpuppetry (SPI). The sock, Distrigency, also created similarly promotional and LLM-looking articles/edits on Nigerian music topics. They're also indefinitely blocked on Wikidata for running an unauthorized bot, and in their unblock request, mention that they work at Search Alpha, an AI "search reputation" platform (see d:User talk:Dahproman). You can see their explanation for this here. They also asked North8000 to review their recreated article (see here).

For these reasons, I think that, despite their LLM-generated denial (), they do have an undisclosed COI. InfernoHues (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this. On Restlezz and Teemirror, the images are marked as "own work." I couldn't find the images elsewhere on the internet. So if they actually were taken by Dahproman, that further proves the potential COI. InfernoHues (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI there was another exchange on about 8 days before the one noted above, it's also on my talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @InfernoHues: damn, I want to directly address the points you've raised, as I realize my actions and history have painted a very suspicious picture, and I want to clear the air honestly.

1. Regarding Distrigency (SPI): I state this with absolute honesty: I have no relationship with the Distrigency account, nor any agreement with them. I have not edited their articles or coordinated with them. If we share an IP range, it is purely coincidental (which can happen frequently with shared ISPs in Nigeria), but I am not that user and I do not know who they are.

2. Regarding North8000: I reached out to North8000 strictly for guidance because they kindly reviewed the Restlezz article back in 2023. Because the article was deleted and I was struggling to understand how to rewrite it from scratch properly, I asked for their mentorship. I was not asking for a "free pass" or trying to bypass the rules; I was genuinely lost and asking an experienced editor for help. North8000 has been nothing but helpful, now to the next.

3. Regarding AI and Restlezz: I am genuinely struggling to understand exactly how my writing is failing the WP:AISIGNS test. I want to learn and fix my writing style, but I feel completely lost. Could someone please point out just one or two specific examples in the Restlezz article that trigger the AI flags? I am not asking this to argue or demand proof; I am asking because I sincerely do not know what I am doing wrong and I need a concrete example so I can learn to write more naturally.

4. Regarding the Images and Copyright: I now realize I made a severe mistake when uploading the images of Restlezz and Teemirror. I did not take those photos personally. I found them free online, and out of complete ignorance of Wikimedia's strict copyright policies, I selected "own work" simply because I didn't understand the licensing options and it seemed like the only way to get the upload to work. I deeply apologize for this copyright mistake. It was pure inexperience with the upload wizard, not an attempt to cover up a Conflict of Interest (COI). I do not know these artists personally.

5. Regarding Search Alpha and COI: I am not an employee of Search Alpha. I briefly collaborated with them on a now-abandoned project aimed at helping SaaS tools utilize the MediaWiki API. That project failed and I have since left. More importantly, my brief involvement with them has absolutely nothing to do with Nigerian music articles. I am not being paid by anyone to write these articles, and I have no undisclosed COI. Dahproman (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll note this is 100% LLM in both GPTZero and Copyleaks and 47% LLM content in Quillbot. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It was - virtually every section of WP:AITALKSIGNS has been hit. Their usual style of writing is very different to this. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DMacks, Blue-Sonnet, CoffeeCrumbs, and InfernoHues:. I want to start by apologizing for the delay in my response. I live in Nigeria and have been dealing with some severe internet connectivity issues, which meant I missed the notifications on my talk page. That is not an excuse for the silence, but I wanted to provide context. I am very sorry for the frustration my edits have caused you all.

I have carefully read through all your feedback. I see exactly how bad my track record looks right now, and I want to be completely transparent about each of the concerns raised.

First, regarding the sourcing and BLP issues DMacks brought up: I now have a much broader understanding of the strictness required for WP:BLP. When writing, I tried my best to use sources approved by WP:NGRS, and I genuinely believed I was following the guidelines for each article. However, I now see how I fell short regarding promotional tone and exact citation matching (WP:V). I completely understand that my mistakes here are serious. If the current state of the articles means they cannot remain live, please consider moving them to Draft space rather than deleting them, so I can work on them to your exact specifications.

On the topic of AI and the Restlezz article: I wrote the recent drafts myself, but I admit my attempts to write in a formal, "encyclopedic" tone ended up sounding robotic, repetitive, and promotional which exactly mirrors WP:AISIGNS. I am genuinely struggling to see exactly where I cross the line, though. If someone could kindly point to just a sentence or two in the Restlezz draft that sets off the AI alarms, it would help me immensely. I'm not asking for this to argue; I just desperately need a concrete example from my own text so I can learn how to fix my writing style.

To address the other specific concerns raised by InfernoHues:

• Distrigency (SPI): I have zero connection to this account. I don't know them, and I haven't collaborated with them. If our IP addresses match, it is purely a coincidence due to shared internet infrastructure in Nigeria.
• North8000: I only contacted them because they reviewed the Restlezz page back in 2023. Since I was confused about the deletion and how to rewrite it properly, I was just looking for a mentor to guide me. I wasn't trying to find a loophole or get a free pass. because the rewritten article was reviewed by someone entirely different, if you check you'd see that is true.
• The Images: I made a massive error here due to my lack of experience with Wikimedia Commons. I did not take the photos of Restlezz and Teemirror. I found them online and mistakenly chose "own work" because I didn't understand the complex copyright tags and just wanted the upload to go through. I apologize for the copyright violation; it was born out of ignorance of the rules, not an attempt to fake a relationship with the artists. I do not know them. I honestly do not know how to delete those images now that I understand my mistake, which is why I have left them there all this while.
• Search Alpha & COI: I do not work for Search Alpha. I did a brief stint collaborating with them on a project that tried to use the MediaWiki API for SaaS tools, but the project was abandoned and I moved on. That brief association has nothing to do with my Wikipedia editing on Nigerian music, and I am absolutely not being paid by anyone to create these pages. I have no undisclosed COI.

I genuinely want to be a helpful contributor to WikiProject Nigeria. If you are willing to give me one last chance, I will immediately cease creating any new articles in the mainspace. I can accept all the other articles being sent to Draft space so I can work on them more. However, I genuinely believe the article on Restlezz deserves to remain in the mainspace. If there are specific WP:AISIGNS issues in that text, please show them to me and I will fix them right away.

Thank you all again for your time. Dahproman (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

More AI-generated pablum. EEng 08:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dahproman, did you use AI, LLM or a chatbot to write this post? You have two very different writing styles and this post has very classic signs of AI.

I honestly think you are using AI LLM or a chatbot to write your posts here and didn't write them yourself - you keep asking what makes us think this is AI but never tell us whether you are currently using it or not, even though we keep asking you.

Please also try to stop posting the same thing repeatedly, you've done this three times now.

You keep saying you'll do better, except you carry on causing the same issues as before. For example, the original drafts were deleted for being AI generated and you were instructed to rewrite and replace the AI-generated text from scratch. You agreed, but then chose to recreate them exactly as they were. This was after you were asked to fix the drafts, you agreed then deleted the AI-generated tags and didn't fix the articles. The original citations were either inappropriate, broken, or led to the wrong place & the original articles were filled with AI-signs as explained to you on AINB.

I also asked you to use AFC going forwards but you continued to publish articles directly to mainspace. We know you used AI originally (even though you denied it) and all the available evidence shows us that you are still using it here on this noticeboard after being asked to stop.

I'll ask once more - are you using AI, LLM or a chatbot to generate your posts on this noticeboard? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Pangram says this is human. It definitely looks like AI, but AI is heavily trained on Nigerian content (and thus Nigerian content is more likely to look like AI), so that's probably why it looks suspicious. Feeglgeef (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

here's a link to verify Feeglgeef (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

"AI is heavily trained on Nigerian content (and thus Nigerian content is more likely to look like AI)," sorry this is a bit of a side issue here, but this is fascinating. Have you got an article we can read about this or something? Morwen (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

here's a surface level overview Feeglgeef (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally I think we should be more careful with accusing people of LLM misuse. It's, of course, an existential threat to the encyclopedia, but not only is being falsely accused of using an LLM really scary (I'd know), it's often classist and racist, even if unintentional, so I generally believe that we shouldn't rush to use bad AI detectors to accuse people of using them except in obvious cases, lending even more of the benefit of the doubt to Nigerian and Indian people. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I liked this related Substack post (less about model training and more about how English is taught in some countries): I'm Kenyan. I Don't Write Like ChatGPT. ChatGPT Writes Like Me. InfernoHues (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That said, I do think they are using AI at least sometimes. For example, here they say "I am actively reviewing and rewriting my drafts," but their resubmitted drafts are almost the same as their old ones. InfernoHues (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

We're getting very far from the original topic, but generally I don't understand why people use AI for basic communication. I mean using it on a school assignment or something is one thing, you want a good grade and its possible you just don't understand it. But, I mean, come on, writing a communicatory paragraph is not that hard, and using AI is only going to harm you. It might be a dependence, at some point you use AI so much you can't function without it. Feeglgeef (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

After carefully reading the reply, I do not believe that it was AI-generated, I believe that it was written by the user themselves (who seems to genuinely have wanted to write a thorough, clear and well-formatted reply).

Otherwise, I have no context about this filing, and I just saw this being brought up and wanted to weigh in after having carefully read their comment. It my opinion that we are talking to an actual person here. And it deeply saddens me how this is even a consideration these days. --gurkubondinn 22:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I desperately want to talk to them directly and wish I didn't think this was AI but I've been talking to them for a good while now so I'm relatively familiar with the way they write. I look at differences in writing styles between comments (evidence in original post) and use our own WP:AISIGNS page to look for evidence before asking someone if they're using AI.

If they say they don't use AI to write comments and I'm unsure then I'll usually AGF and go with what they say.

In this case we have an editor who's grammar and writing change between different posts, has hit many signals of WP:AISIGNS across many discussion pages, has worked with/for an AI company, has multiple drafts deleted for being AI-generated (twice in some cases) and hasn't yet confirmed/denied using AI to write their comments here.

In my opinion most/all of their replies here are AI-generated, but I'm happy to revise my opinion depending on their response here.

I really don't want to make an unfair accusation based on gut feelings, so this is a decision I've reached over time and through as careful an analysis as I think I can reasonably do. I've tried my hardest to be fair to them, but AI would also explain why they promise to do things then go back on that promise - it's not them making the promise. The alternative is that they know they're not being honest when agreeing to do something and I don't like thinking that way.

That said, if others feel that there isn't a difference in the comments I've linked to in my original post and that AI isn't being used to reply at ANI, I'm happy to go with consensus as it's always possible that I've made a mistake or been overzealous without realising it. I know what their hand-written replies look like, and I'm unfortunately not seeing them at ANI. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Like I said, I just carefully read this one single comment in isolation and did not believe it to have been generated. I haven't interacted with this user like you, so I don't have a feel for how they have written before. When you deal with identifying AI text and AI users every day, you start to feel like there are robots everywhere you look, so I want to AGF and I want to believe. And I really don't want to see robots or chatbots everywhere I look.

The alternative is that they know they're not being honest when agreeing to do something and I don't like thinking that way.

This is a really good point, and I agree with you. That actually makes it a more generous reading because it's not them making the promise. --gurkubondinn 10:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That might actually be my fault too; blaming an AI takes some responsibility off the editor but, if there's no AI in the way, then any issues are down to the editor themselves.

I'm really hoping the extra eyes that ANI brings can help dig through what's happened, and that we can get things sorted out one way or another. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone @DMacks, Blue-Sonnet, CoffeeCrumbs, InfernoHues, Feeglgeef, Morwen, and Gurkubondinn: I want to sincerely thank Feeglgeef and gurkubondinn for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I assure you I am a real person just trying my best to communicate in a very stressful situation.

To Blue Sonnet: I understand why my writing style might seem inconsistent. I am trying very hard to be careful and write professionally because I know I am under a microscope right now, which might be why it sounds stiff to you. I feel that this discussion is becoming less about the article itself, which is why i need to say this:

Regarding the Restlezz article, I really did rewrite it from scratch manually. I took the liberty of doing what Feeglgeef did to my post, and I audited the Restlezz article using a popular AI detector called Pangram. It came back as written by a human. However, I know some detectors can still be unreliable depending on the backend model, so I did something much more technical: I did a thorough manual investigation of the Restlezz article myself according to WP:AISIGNS and WP:LLMPROD. If we audit the current article, it passes:

• It has no "fluff" or overly complex vocabulary.
• It does not use classic AI words like delve, pivotal, or testament.
• It does not use the "rule of threes" or compulsive summaries.

The prose is now just a very basic, straightforward list of facts: "Leo Sandoval Jr... is an American rapper... signed to North Coast Music Group. His single appeared on the NBA 2K24 video game soundtrack..."

As you can see guys, I asked questions and I followed the rules. So far, everyone saying I rewrote the article "exactly the same way" hasn't showed me where or how. If it is an article about the exact same Wikipedia subject, it will obviously contain the exact same biographical facts regardless of the wording. But yes, I rewrote the actual text completely to follow the new AI/LLM writing standards.

I want to believe that this explains everything, unless this is not just about the article anymore. I want to follow WP:LLMPRVOBJ and remove the deletion tags. The last time I left a tag on an article during an AI notice, the article got deleted and no one said a word, heard me out, or helped me bring it back. Because I am taking responsibility for the article under WP:ONUS, I feel justified in removing the tags, because with everything I showed above, the deletion feels like it is based just on suspicion and no one has shown me actual proof of WP:AISIGNS in this new text.

I really hope you can look at the actual text currently in the mainspace and see that it is neutral and human-written. Dahproman (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to us - considering the issues and signs in my opening post it did genuinely appear that you were continuing to use AI, but I'm happy to take you at your word that you aren't using it here.

It's not always possible to definitively prove that AI is being used, but if there are strong signs such as broken/invalid links, promotional wording and phrasing that AI tends to use often, the best thing to do is usually delete the article and start from scratch. AI is prolific, it's used very frequently with little effort by the editor using it yet it takes ten or a hundred times more effort for others to clean up after it. We have to make a judgement call as volunteers, often that call means we have to scrap anything that is likely AI-generated for the sake of the project as a whole - the cost is often too great.

Ignoring the aforementioned AI, the biggest issue we have is that editors are trying to explain how policies work, you're misunderstanding them and doing what you think is right even if it's wrong - in some cases, you're doing things you were explicitly told not to do, sometimes repeatedly.

That needs sorting out, the question is if/how we can do that. If you're not able to understand and follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that's unfortunately going to be a big problem.

I'm really hoping we can clear this up at ANI with the help of other experienced editors and administrators, so we can be as fair to you as possible. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Blue-Sonnet:. First, thank you for taking me at my word regarding my comments here. I really appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt on that.

I am reading what you are saying about my past misunderstandings of policies. You are right that in the past, in my eagerness, I misunderstood how strict policies like WP:RS and WP:V are. I also acknowledge that I made mistakes by doing what I thought was right instead of listening carefully, which led to me doing things I was told not to do. I understand now that this was a competence issue (WP:CIR), and I am truly sorry for the extra work my past misunderstandings might have caused the wikipedia community volunteer cleanup team.

However, I have taken those lessons to heart, which brings me to the current state of the Restlezz article. As I broke down in my previous message, I really did rewrite it from scratch specifically to fix those past mistakes and remove all the WP:AISIGNS (promotional wording, fluff, etc.).

Because the text itself is now clean of AI markers and straightforward, my hope is that this new version will not be judged by the state of the old, deleted versions. Because the current text in the mainspace has been entirely rewritten to address the community's concerns, I genuinely feel that it no longer falls under WP:LLMPROD and shouldn't need to be deleted again.

I want to sort this out and continue learning, but I ask that you please evaluate the text as it stands right now. I am ready to listen. Dahproman (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Exact words of the admin I asked: "They're similar but slightly reworded. Overall structure and details are the same." Can you explain how this is if you "[rewrote] it from scratch"? InfernoHues (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the potential LLM usage is a side issue, and the more pressing concern is the (in my opinion) undisclosed COI. I personally believe the SPI more than their denial. Using User:Daniel Quinlan/Scripts/Unfiltered and User:DreamRimmer/DeletedMetaData, you can see that most of the seven articles they've ever created have also been edited by their sock, or by other socks doing undisclosed paid editing, some of them specializing in Nigerian music topics.

While this on it's own doesn't prove anything, with the other signs I mentioned above, I believe there is something fishy going on here. InfernoHues (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @InfernoHues:. Before I address the serious accusations you've raised, I want to note that I have removed the WP:LLMPROD tag on the Restlezz article. Per WP:LLMPRVOBJ, I had completely rewritten the text manually to eliminate any AI signs, and I am formally taking responsibility for this content under WP:ONUS.

Now, regarding the accusations about Distrigency, COI, and Paid Editing. I want to break this down honestly:

1. The Distrigency Overlap: I absolutely do not know who the user Distrigency is. However, your technical findings make complete sense to me, because I actually noticed this happening myself. I realized that this user was following my edits whenever I worked on a Nigerian music article, they would show up. I suspected they were doing this to easily boost their own edit counts within WikiProject Nigeria by piggybacking on the topics I was researching. I considered leaving a warning on their talk page, but I didn't want to violate Wikipedia's rules about assuming good faith or biting other editors. I swear to you, we are not the same person and we do not coordinate.

2. My Motivation (No COI/UPE): I am a software developer from Nigeria. I love my country's music, we have global stars like Burna Boy, Wizkid, and Davido, but many emerging artists are overlooked. I edit these articles out of pure passion, not for money. To ensure notability, I strictly target artists who chart on the Nigeria National TurnTable charts or featured by them, and I try to build the articles using sources explicitly supported by WP:NGRS. I do not collect a single dime from these artists or their management to post about them.

3. The Restlezz Article History: Restlezz was actually the very first article I wrote back in 2022/2023 when I was just learning to navigate Wikipedia. It is about an American artist, not a Nigerian one. Furthermore, in the times it was in the mainspace, it was reviewed and passed twice. This isn't a case of me sneaking promotional material in; it went through the standard community checks at the time.

4. Willingness to be Investigated: I know how suspicious my editing history, combined with the Distrigency overlap, looks right now. I don't blame you for being suspicious. But if a formal investigation is launched, you will see that absolutely nothing ties me to paid editing rings. If necessary to clear my name, I am even willing to provide personal information privately to the Wikimedia Foundation (such as identity verification or account statements) to prove I am not receiving payments.

As a community member, I have not been perfect. I have misunderstood policies, and my writing style needed serious work. I have recently spent time researching how to fix everything that WP:LLMPROD and WP:AISIGNS flags, and applied those fixes to my work. But while I am guilty of being an imperfect editor, I am completely innocent of sockpuppetry, and I am completely innocent of undisclosed paid editing. Thank you. Dahproman (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. You haven't "rewritten the text," as has already been confirmed. Just as you did in the previous iteration of the articles, you've removed LLMPROD tags without changing the article at all (last time they were restored by Blue Sonnet). I've reinstated the tag. The admin which reviews the deletion will check to make sure the tag was placed validly, and will decline to delete it if it wasn't.

Also, please don't ping me in every reply. InfernoHues (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I got the email notification about these comments while I was on my way home from work. Depending on your timezone, it is currently around 4:15 PM here. I immediately started writing my response on my phone while riding public transportation. Why? Because I remember the last AI noticeboard. The article on Restlezz and the others were deleted before I even had a chance to say or do anything to defend them.

So maybe my writing sounds stiff, or maybe it sounds like "AI" to you, because I am terrified, rushed, and trying my absolute hardest not to "crash out" over how tiring and helpless this situation makes me feel. Everyone seems to have forgotten the actual articles and is just focusing on attacking me personally.

So my question is: **Does the current version of the Restlezz article actually contain WP:LLMPROD or WP:AISIGNS violations?**

Because yes, the former version and the current version contain the exact same biographical information, but reworded differently. Isn’t that the entire point of a rewrite? To meet a particular standard? If it looked vastly different, I would be introducing lies and fabrications. I made the necessary prose changes to meet the AI standards.

Because I feel like everyone completely missed or ignored how I broke this down earlier, here it is again. I am pasting this word for word because I am frustrated, and I just want this to end fairly:

Regarding the Restlezz article, I really did rewrite it from scratch manually. I took the liberty of doing what Feeglgeef did to my post, and I audited the Restlezz article using a popular AI detector called Pangram. It came back as written by a human. However, I know some detectors can still be unreliable depending on the backend model, so I did something much more technical: I did a thorough manual investigation of the Restlezz article myself according to WP:AISIGNS and WP:LLMPROD. If we audit the current article, it passes:

• It has no "fluff" or overly complex vocabulary.
• It does not use classic AI words like delve, pivotal, or testament.
• It does not use the "rule of threes" or compulsive summaries.
• The prose is now just a very basic, straightforward list of facts: "Leo Sandoval Jr... is an American rapper... signed to North Coast Music Group. His single appeared on the NBA 2K24 video game soundtrack..."

As you can see guys, I asked questions and I followed the rules. So far, everyone saying I rewrote the article "exactly the same way" hasn't showed me where or how. If it is an article about the exact same Wikipedia subject, it will obviously contain the exact same biographical facts regardless of the wording. But yes, I rewrote the actual text completely to follow the new AI/LLM writing standards.

Dahproman (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If anyone cares, this reply definitely was AI generated. So they're mixing using it and not using it, which is quite annoying given that their Nigerian dialect makes it hard to tell. Feeglgeef (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I need to pause and address this recent comment: "this reply definitely was AI generated... which is quite annoying given that their Nigerian dialect makes it hard to tell."

Wow. So you mean to tell me you don't even know that the official language of Nigeria is English? Are you actually implying that Nigerians cannot speak or write good, proper English on our own without the help of AI?

This is becoming very eye-opening. It is honestly shocking to see how little we are perceived and respected here. My "Nigerian dialect" isn't some "annoying" obstacle for you to deal with—it's just English. To assume that any well-structured sentence coming from a Nigerian must be "definitely AI generated" is incredibly prejudiced.

If my natural, human writing is just going to be dismissed as AI simply because you assume a Nigerian couldn't possibly write this way, then this isn't a fair review of my articles or my edits anymore. It is just profiling. Wow. Dahproman (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

1. That's not what I meant. See wikt:dialect. A dialect is a variety of a language, the Nigerian dialect is a valid and equal variety of English. I do believe you can write proper English without the help of AI, I've seen you do it before!
2. That's not what I'm saying, either. I'm annoyed by the fact that you're using AI (see below) after being asked, multiple times, to stop doing so on Wikipedia, in accordance with our policies and guidelines, and the fact that it's difficult to determine when you're using AI and when you're not. I have immense respect for linguistic diversity.
3. No, it's definitely AI. For one, the bolded faux ordered list is tell-tale. It also flags as 100% AI with high likelihood on Pangram, which has a very low false positive rate, and is very different from your human style just before.

I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith here, nor the use of AI. Feeglgeef (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Come on now, that is obviously not how any of that was meant. English is the native official language of a lot of countries, there is British english, Canadian English, Indian English, American English, South African English, Singaporean English, and a bunch of other ones, including Nigerian English. All of them are as much "English" as any of the other ones, that's why we have {{use Nigerian English}}, {{use Canadian English}}, {{use American English}}, {{use Indian English}}, and so on.

This is a massive assumption of bad faith on your behalf, and I think that you should strike it and apologize to @Feeglgeef. There's a ton of news reports and studies that document how AI-generated prose often resembles Nigerian English and why it does that. None of that is a comment on you personally. --gurkubondinn 05:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I am doing this because I refuse to let this go in circles again. The circle usually goes like this: I try to defend myself, the deletion tag is placed, I explain how the text meets the standards, everyone ignores the actual text, the tag hits its June 8th deadline, the article is deleted, and when I ask for an undeletion review, no one listens.

Now InfernoHues is saying that the article "wasn't rewritten" even after my changes.

Let's look at the actual text. Here is the former, deleted version (specifically the Career section):

In 2016, Sandoval released his debut project, "Get It How U Live" in collaboration with Yo Gotti, the CEO and founder of Collective Music Group.[8] In 2017, he debuted his first studio album, "Tyrant," featuring collaborations with various creative talents, Following this in 2019, he released a collaborative album with B-dawg titled "Still At It," which showcased appearances from several music creatives. In 2020, he released his third studio album and second solo project titled "Self Therapy."

And here is the current, rewritten version that I manually wrote to replace it:

In 2016, Sandoval released his debut single "Get It How U Live" in collaboration with Yo Gotti, CEO of Collective Music Group.[7] In 2017, he released his debut studio album Tyrant. The following year he released Still At It, a collaborative album with B-Dawg. In 2020, he released his second solo album, Self Therapy.

Can you see the difference? I removed the flowery, promotional language like "showcased appearances from several music creatives" and "featuring collaborations with various creative talents." I stripped it down to raw, neutral, encyclopedic facts to ensure it completely passes WP:AISIGNS.

Of course the current version contains the exact same biographical timeline and facts as the old version it is a biography about the exact same human being! If I completely changed the story just to make the text look "different," I would be fabricating information. Rewriting means changing the tone to meet Wikipedia standards, which is exactly what I did.

My question to all of you is this: Look at the current version. Does it or does it not pass WP:LLMPROD and WP:AISIGNS based on what those guidelines *actually* say? And if it is now clean of AI markers, is it fair that this article is still being targeted for deletion based on the old versions? Dahproman (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't see the past versions, I was going off what I was told. I didn't know you had access to the past version, or else I would have asked for a comparison like this. This does show a more substantial rewrite than I previously thought. I still think the LLMPROD tag should stay, as the admin who reviews the tag will check the rewrites more in depth (as they can see the deleted versions) and will decline to delete if they decide that the rewrite was done well. InfernoHues (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @InfernoHues:. Thanks for looking at the comparison fairly and acknowledging the rewrite. I really appreciate that.

The issue I'm facing is exactly what you just mentioned about an admin reviewing it "in depth." In my experience with these tags, that just doesn't happen. When June 8th comes, an admin is likely just going to see the LLMPROD tag and hit delete without ever comparing the texts. Once it's gone, getting anyone to listen to an undeletion request is almost impossible.

That's why I'm asking for your help here. Now that you've seen I actually did the work and the rewrite is clean, could you please help me out?

If an experienced editor like you just leaves a short note saying the rewrite is substantial and passes WP:AISIGNS, the admin might actually stop and look at it fairly instead of just auto-deleting it on the 8th. I really need someone from the community to help make sure the work I did gets recognized before the deadline. Dahproman (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

To get the timeline straight - you rewrote the page before it got deleted, then you recreated that rewritten version after it was deleted? I think the hiccup is that the admin still felt that it warranted deletion in its edited state, and that's what you recreated.

I'll be very honest with you; if the draft is deleted after all this, then you should completely get rid of any version of that draft that you have saved and truly start again from scratch as if it were your first time writing it.

If I could give any advice to you now, it would actually a strong recommendation to delete the article from your computer. I know that the sunk cost fallacy hits hard when doing that - we've all been there!

Writing articles is one of the hardest things you can do at Wikipedia - it requires knowledge of most of our policies, guidelines and manuals of style all at once.

If you don't have a COI or financial interest then you have no reason to want that article live asap & should be ok that task to sit on the backburner for a while. Work on improving existing articles, so you know what goes into the best work here and how to avoid any future drafts looking like they're machine generated; nothing beats having real-life editing experience.

If nobody has created an article about those artists in a few weeks or months, you can use your newfound knowledge to write then yourself.

There will have been enough time for you to forget what the old versions looked like and you'll be familiar with what is expected from a good Wikipedia article. Editors without a COI understand that there are no deadlines here - we work on what we enjoy and are good at, using our own common sense and knowledge of our current abilities. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this isn't any sort of statement on the current state of the article, these are just my thoughts on the best course of action if the article gets deleted - this is obviously very stressful so a break may be the best thing if so. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @InfernoHues:, getting back to this thank you again for your honesty in admitting this.

However, this is exactly why this entire process has been so frustrating and feels so unfair. You just stated that you were "going off what you were told" rather than looking at the actual evidence or past versions. It means my articles are facing deletion based on hearsay and assumptions, rather than an actual review of the facts.

If people are placing or supporting deletion tags based purely on what other users tell them, without verifying if a manual rewrite actually happened, how is this a fair process?

I am leaving the LLMPROD tag on the page out of respect for the process, but I strongly urge the reviewing admin to look at the actual before-and-after evidence I have provided above, rather than relying on the same hearsay that led to this situation in the first place. Dahproman (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Good day everyone @Feeglgeef, InfernoHues, Morwen, DMacks, Blue-Sonnet, CoffeeCrumbs, and Gurkubondinn:, today is June 6th, and the deletion template was set for June 8th. I've learnt a lot over the past couple of days from everyone here.

Also to Feeglgeef, I don't have any issues mate, you are good, I just vented out of frustration. I have had issues with that in the past as a Nigerian, I even had to not add 'this user is Nigerian' on my talk page because of some issues that occurred here on Wikipedia in the past.

Now back to the issue at hand. I want everyone to actually see this because I am tired of saying that after the 8th no one listens, so I am begging everyone to listen. Let's talk about the articles. The whole point of this AI noticeboard report was the claim that the articles weren't rewritten and showed WP:LLMPROD and WP:AISIGNS.

I need to break down everything so everyone sees this one last time. As I have learnt, I feel it's time we deal more with evidence than hearsay.

Here are the links to the former versions of the articles compared to the current live ones, so you can see if they were actually rewritten and understand where I am coming from:

• Restlezz
  • Old version: Archive link
  • Current rewritten version: Restlezz

• Tomi Folayan
  • Old version: Archive link
  • Current rewritten version: Current link

• Zeeno Foster
  • Old version: Archive link
  • Current rewritten version: Zeeno Foster

As InfernoHues just acknowledged above when I showed them the old text, this does show a substantial rewrite. I am asking you as a community to please actually look at these changes. I did the work to manually rewrite these to meet the standards, and I am asking that the LLMPROD tags be removed before the June 8th deadline so all this work isn't deleted without a proper review. Dahproman (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: You can request the text of a deleted article be sent to you. Instructions are at: WP:Requests_for_undeletion. So the text is not hopelessly lost even if the article is deleted. I hope this is helpful. M kuhner (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @M kuhner:, thank you for the helpful information. But honestly, if there isn't any evidence found that shows the articles violate WP:LLMPROD and WP:AISIGNS, why are they getting deleted in the first place? That's what is bugging me right now.

It's as if I am the only one seeing it this way. For real, the articles were nominated for deletion because they allegedly show signs of WP:LLMPROD according to the nominator, but there is clear evidence that the articles were manually rewritten and do not show any signs of WP:LLMPROD or WP:AISIGNS anymore. It's honestly confusing, surprising, and I am just lost for words tbh. Dahproman (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I have not been involved with this case, but I think the problem is that fixing the AISIGNS without fixing the underlying issues that cause Wikipedia to reject LLM use is a worst case for us. If the article sounds human, but the claims aren't supported by their sources, then we have false information that is incredibly hard to spot and will likely persist for years. So when you seem focused on removing AISIGNS rather than actually fixing articles, people get very worried and don't want to help you. We do not want to train editors to hide their LLM use; we want them to stop using LLMs!

I don't have time right now to go through one of the articles in detail, but I'll try to do so later today. But what people are telling you that I think you really need to take in, is fixing the tells is not enough. It's not even helpful. LLM articles have got to be rewritten more or less from scratch. I've tried fixing some and honestly it is more work, and less safe, than starting over. I don't recommend it. If you have good sources you can read them and write an article based on them.

Yesterday I spent a bit over two hours meticulously checking each claim in an article and seeing if the source supported it, but I only got halfway through the article. I found that over half of the claims were not supported. This is what we are trying to avoid, and we're getting increasingly strict and harsh about it because the problem is so severe. M kuhner (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @M kuhner:, thank you for clarifying that. I actually completely understand the community's concern about AI hallucinations and false information.

But that is exactly my point: every single reference and source used in my articles actually supports the claims made. I didn't just "hide" AI signs; I spent hours manually writing the content and meticulously checking the sources to ensure everything is accurate and supported. Furthermore, two of these articles were already previously reviewed and approved for the mainspace.

I am feeling incredibly stressed and exhausted by this because the deletion deadline is tomorrow (the 8th). It feels like everyone who was previously scrutinizing my work has suddenly gone quiet now that I have provided the before/after evidence and proven that the rewrites are clean. It feels like people are just waiting for the clock to run out so the articles get automatically deleted tomorrow without any formal investigation of the actual text and sources I provided.

I put in the manual work you are asking for. I verified the sources. I am just asking for someone to give it a fair review before the deadline hits tomorrow. Dahproman (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I spent hours manually writing the content and meticulously checking the sources to ensure everything is accurate and supported.

I took a look at the first article you mention, Restlezz. Comparing the archived copy and the current article, I don't see any evidence of a substantial rewrite. The article is basically the same, with the same sentences in the same order, with a few sentences deleted and occasional minor rewording.

More importantly, I don't see evidence of meticulous source checking:

• The sentence "His single "Undisputed" appeared on the NBA 2K24 video game soundtrack in 2024." is sourced to , but that source has no mention of the words "Undisputed" or "Restlezz".
• The sentence "He began rapping at age 13, recording early songs using a 6-channel mixer, house speakers, and Cool Edit Pro 2.0." is sourced to , but that source does not mention the words "6-channel", "mixer", "speakers" or "Cool Edit Pro".
• The sentence "In 2016, Sandoval released his debut single "Get It How U Live" in collaboration with Yo Gotti, CEO of Collective Music Group." is sourced to the same source , but that source does not mention the title "Get It How U Live".
• The sentence "On February 10, 2023, he released "Why You Mad", a collaboration with Jake Strain." is sourced to , but that source does not mention the date February 10, 2023.

I have not looked at the other articles, but the source integrity on this one seems pretty poor to me. CodeTalker (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CodeTalker:. I want to thank you for taking the time to meticulously check those sources.

You are 100% correct. I just went back and clicked every link you mentioned, and those specific details (like the 6-channel mixer, the exact date, and the NBA 2K24 claim) are simply not supported by the text in the citations.

I was so hyper-focused on rewriting the "prose" and the "tone" to remove the AI sound, that I completely failed to verify the underlying facts that carried over from the older drafts. I wrongly assumed the previous information was properly sourced, and I was wrong.

I understand now why everyone has been so strict about this. Given how badly the sourcing was messed up here, what is your advice on the best path forward? Should I request this be moved into Draft space so I can completely strip it down to the studs and start over from scratch with only verified sources? I want to do this the right way. Dahproman (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think M kuhner has answered your questions below, but I just want to thank you for responding appropriately to my concerns. CodeTalker (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

References

I looked at the edited version, as linked above, of Restlezz. Here's a source analysis.

• No source for the "Tyrant" nickname.
• Sources 1, 2, and 4 support the claims they are attached to.
• Source 3 I can't find any mention of either the rapper or the song. It is a complex page, possibly I missed something, but I was able to find other names by searching.
• Sources 5 and 6 support the claims but the article paraphrases the sources perhaps too closely.
• Source 7 does not mention 6-channel mixer or house speakers.
• Source 8 does not name the song or the Collective.
• Source 9, dated January 31, does not give a release date for the song; article says Feb. 10. Crystal ball?
• No source for the entire Discography section.

I did not do the needed further step of asking if these are reliable sources. My impression is that too many of them go back to the rapper himself, which could be acceptable for basic facts but nothing else. Others seem promotional.

This took me about 25 minutes, just to find the problems, not to fix them. If that seems like a lot of work, well, now you know why we reject LLM. This sourcing, even after your revision, is totally not okay--and that is what usually happens when someone claims they will edit LLM text to an acceptable level. Don't do it. Just write from scratch. M kuhner (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @M kuhner:, I appreciate you taking the time to actually look into the sources. You made a very fair point.

I just checked CodeTalker's breakdown and the links, and you are both right about the sourcing discrepancies. I was so focused on rewriting the prose to fix the 'AI tone' that I missed the fact that some of the underlying details weren't explicitly backed by those specific citations.

Given the deletion deadline is tomorrow, what is the standard procedure here if I want to rebuild this properly from scratch? Should I ask for this to be moved to Draft space so I can start over using only verified sources, or is it better to just let it delete and start over completely down the line? Let me know your thoughts. Dahproman (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I recommend starting from scratch. I have "rescued" three LLM articles and it's exceptionally difficult, and less fun than writing a new, clean article. You could take note of the sources, read them carefully, and use that as the basis for the new article. (Don't re-use the actual citations: write your own so you can be sure they're correct. A major LLM issue is subtly broken citations, such as title or date not matching the source.) M kuhner (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

You should also make sure that they meet the criteria in WP:NMUSIC, to make sure that the artists qualify for an article in the first place. I don't want you to do all the work again and then have the page deleted because the artists are not notable enough. InfernoHues (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• The user is trolling at this point with their repeated AI-generated text in this very discussion. C'mon admins, do your thing. — Longewal (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-33058-38

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suspect ~2026-33058-38 (talk · contribs) was created mainly to target or provoke me.

I have had no prior interaction with this user.

This account was created on 4 June 2026. Its only two edits are comments on my user talk page.

The first comment was made on the day the account was created, and the second was made on 10 June 2026, today. The comments mainly focus on me personally.

The account has no other editing activity.

I would appreciate administrator review.

Relevant diffs:

Xjptankman (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I reviewed your editing history and believe the block against you were justified. This is a TEMPORARY account automatically created by Wikipedia, not made specifically for you.And I hope you understand Ive not provoked you, I have only stated the facts, including the evidence supporting your block. Please stop making unfounded accusations and follow Wikipedia's policies and community guidelines. Thank you. ~2026-33058-38 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33058-38 We know that you're User:Liozhao by the way. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 12:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Judging from your language being very similar to that in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matcha/Archive_2 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1204#Report_of_Liozhao_(talk_%C2%B7_contribs)_for_racial_slurs, with an additional note that diff 1 provided by Xjptankman is a personal attack. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 12:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I was telling the truth, and do not use "provoking" to make things complicated, and you have not switch your account btw. nhals8 = xjptanman isn't it? ~2026-33058-38 (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33058-38 Speaking as someone from a Sinosphere country, I know that diff 1 is a provocation, and I know your use of the words such as YOUNG implies that you're insulting that Xjptankman is "inexperienced" or "noob", and that some of your phrases can be loosely seen as somewhat direct English translations of Chinese provocations.

Also I'm just a silly little guy who likes watching two men kiss, My Chemical Romance, and Bungo Stray Dogs </3 nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 12:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

to @.nhals8Honestly, I no longer understand what you're talking about anymore. Perhaps you've made too enemies on Wikipedia, please be reasonable human being instead of making false accusations. Thank you for you cooperation. As for your personal preferences, no interest to me or any administrators here. There are probably better ways for u to do it. I will stop all communication with you from here, as it's genuinely a waste of time and energy. ~2026-33058-38 (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33058-38 OK, just make sure to stop provoking people over some drama that you caused a few months ago <3 nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 13:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Your usage of emojis in the first diff, ten 😂 emojis in particular, is provoking though; you are insulting a user, and even if they violated rules, you also did by provoking them (violating WP:NPA) and potentially sockpuppetering. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Besides, if this TA wasn't made specifically to comment on @Xjptankman 's talk, why are all your contributions either on their talk page or on this AN/I discussion? Bunny (need me?) 15:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I suspect, from the writing style, the content, and the grudge, that this is Liozhao too. Not sure if it's sufficient to take to SPI, but I'd definitely like to hear from Liozhao how their first edits were to a specific talk page such as this and if these aren't their first edits, their previous accounts/temporary accounts. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You won’t hear from them, (I hope), because I blocked them as a Liozhau sockpuppet, based upon review of IP history. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Ever better! lol CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute regarding Koplik War result infobox

• Page affected:
  • Koplik War
• Users involved:
  • FranéRogoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Magapetro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Description of the issue: I started out a detailed, sourced back and overall logical discussion on the article's Talk Page to correct the infobox result from "Yugoslav military victory" to an objective, descriptive outcome ("Successful Albanian defense; total Yugoslav withdrawal"), as the Yugoslav forces failed to secure any territorial gains and completely evacuated to the 1913 borders.

Instead of him engaging in a genuine historical debate he's responded using copy-pasted, AI generated text (yes i put it through a detector and it came out nearly 100% ai, its obvious too just by looking at it that its ai) that doesn't address the specific historical context. Basically just a refusal or failure to engage in a meaningful consensus to be built and just exploits automated text to stonewall a clear content dispute, this has gone on repeatedly for months, people point out the claims, he ignores and continuously reverts the infobox.

Desired outcome: I request admin/mod intervention to review the historical consensus, apply an accurate, descriptive result to the infobox and temporarily lock/protect the article to prevent further un-collaborative, revisionist edits or wiki wars between some kind of biased Balkan nationalists, maybe even a block for this guy, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magapetro (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello admins, I am honestly really surprised by this report and the completely uncalled-for personal attacks from @Magapetro, who decided to call me a "biased Balkan nationalist" just because we disagree on content, which is a clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. He is claiming my replies are AI-generated simply because I took the time to write a polite, properly structured response to explain the historical facts, and we all know those online AI detectors are completely unreliable and just used as an excuse to avoid a real debate. The actual dispute here is very simple: he wants to change the infobox to an "Albanian victory" (or his newly softened "Successful defense") by mixing up a clear military battlefield outcome with a later diplomatic treaty. The reliable academic sources already in the article, including the prominent Albanian historian Paskal Milo, clearly state that the Yugoslav army decisively defeated the local forces using superior artillery, captured the strategic region including Koplik, and firmly held it under their control for months. They only withdrew in 1921 because of a diplomatic agreement pressured by the League of Nations, not because they were militarily pushed out or defeated. Instead of addressing these academic sources, Magapetro's only argument on the talk page was to cite a local town monument and another Wikipedia article, which is a direct violation of WP:CIRCULAR. I am just trying to protect the article from unsourced local mythology and historical revisionism. Given his personal attacks, his refusal to engage with actual historical sources, and his disruptive approach, I respectfully ask that administrators review his behavior for a potential block or strict warning, and keep the article protected in its current, properly sourced state.FranéRogoz (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Stop responding with AI @FranéRogoznow we know that you are a nationalist Serb who wants to make all things like you want with your Serbian sources. But we gonna not let you to do such things because you showed only Serbian sources in Luma operations 1912 and koplik war etc... So i wish that admins will banned you from Wikipedia for making false claim and false sources ~2026-33725-11 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Admins, I think this situation is speaking for itself now. Right after my last message, an unregistered IP~2026-33725-11 suddenly appeared on the article's talk page just to aggressively agree with Magapetro and call me a "nationalist Serb". Magapetro immediately replied to the IP, calling me a "clown". It honestly looks like someone logging out to use an IP address just to fake support and gang up on me. And now, that same IP ~2026-33725-11 has followed me all the way to this noticeboard just to continue the name-calling. Also, just to clear up their ridiculous claim about me forcing "serbian sources" – the main historian I am quoting for the Koplik War is Paskal Milo, who is literally a well-known Albanian academic. I'm not going to argue with them anymore or reply to these attacks. I'll step back now and leave it to you guys to check if these accounts are actually the same person and to review the whole situation. FranéRogoz (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

There have been a string of other editors criticising you over months now who you have ignored so is it a surprise really theres another guy here? You're making baseless claims to avoid the fact you're using artificial intelligence to respond, which I recommend anyone here to read his response to my statement and tell me that it's not ai or put it in an ai detector, also i live in the UK idk what ip log in log off youre talking about. I came to report you after your response to my statement, it showed me that you clearly aren't here to help us come to any sort of historical concensus. Magapetro (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

AI detectors are notoriously poor at detecting AI, I'm not seeing any signs of AI writing in their posts above either.

You both need to please calm down and remember that this is a public noticeboard. There are a lot of allegations being made and not much evidence in the form of diffs for others to consider - in all the above there is only one single diff for anyone to look at.

If you make a claim that a person said something, a diff to that exact comment is incredibly helpful and can vastly increase the likelihood of your report being assessed quickly.

On the other hand, lots of posts with evidence-free allegations actually lower the chances of a response, because most readers will just see an argument between two people and nope out of the giant wall of text that they see forming. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

so this is not AI answer according to you ? This is a pure AI answer without any historical evidence ~2026-34028-82 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a pure AI answerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koplik_War#c-FranéRogoz-20260608104400-Magapetro-20260604150900 ~2026-34028-82 (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Could someone please look into this new IP ~2026-34028-82? I'm pretty sure it's the exact same person ~2026-33725-11 who was just blocked last night for making insults and causing drama. They've come back under a new IP to do the exact same thing. Thanks. FranéRogoz (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Same country but that's all I can confirm due to possible proxy-use. Any assessment would have to be behavioural (and the behaviour is pretty clear). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Magapetro Instead of spending your energy trying to provoke an argument by calling me a nationalist and obsessing over fake AI detectors, you should really focus on finding actual historical literature to back up your claims. You can't just use a local town monument or local mythology as an academic source. It seems to be a pattern for you, seeing how you rely on local news portals and websites instead of actual historians for articles you've created, like Operation Mercerised and the Battle of Peshkopi. That is simply not how an encyclopedia is built.

Regarding your claim about a "string of other editors" criticizing me, that's just completely false. The only "criticism" came from one single user who ended up getting blocked for opening multiple fake sockpuppet accounts. So I have no idea what you're talking about there. Also, nobody asked where you live or what your IP is. Getting overly defensive and volunteering that you live in the UK when nobody asked actually just makes the whole IP situation look even more suspicious. Honestly, I don't even know why you brought this to the admin noticeboard in the first place. If you have an issue with the article, the normal process is to use the Talk page to present real academic evidence and try to prove me wrong with facts, and I would do the same. Running to the admins just because the sources don't match your personal view only wastes their time with unnecessary drama. A constructive, mature editor doesn't start a debate by throwing around insults like "biased Balkan nationalist" or "clown". They engage in a logical dialogue backed by relevant evidence. I cited an actual Albanian academic historian; you cited a local monument and then insulted me. I'm completely fine stepping back now and letting the admins look at that and decide who is actually following Wikipedia rules. FranéRogoz (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You forgot to leave a notice on FranéRogoz's talk page. They've already responded here, but I left the notice anyway, for completeness. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Recommending an indef for User:Magapetro for sockpuppetry and being obviously WP:NOTHERE Amatmilen (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am responding directly to this complaint. The filer Magapetro has engaged in a clear pattern of personal attacks against me on the talk page, calling me a "clown" and a "biased Balkan nationalist" , all while falsely accusing me of using AI just to dismiss my valid points.What is actually happening here is a textbook case of disruptive editing. Initially, the filer tried to push their preferred narrative using nothing but their own imagination and personal opinions, completely failing to provide any reliable sources. When I challenged this and asked for actual references, they escalated to using ChatGPT to generate and insert completely fabricated citations, including a fake, non-existent book by Bernd J. Fischer. They openly admitted to this on the talk page today . Apologizing only after being caught does not change the fact that inserting AI-hallucinated sources into complex historical articles severely damages the project's verifiability WP:V. This is a straightforward violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:OR, and WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Instead of engaging with the reliable, academic sources already present in the article (such as Albanian historian Paskal Milo), Magapetro has relied on pure imagination, AI hallucinations, cited Wikipedia itself WP:CIRCULAR, and coordinated with suspicious IPs to force their edits. I respectfully ask that administrators dismiss this boomerang report, consider appropriate sanctions against Magapetro for the personal attacks and fabrication of sources, and apply semi-protection to the Koplik War talk page to prevent further IP disruption. FranéRogoz (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Magapetro there are several TA's who replied on that page and one or two continued discussions as if they were you - were you editing under ~2026-34124-29 or ~2026-34308-84 perhaps you didn't realise you were logged out? It'll help to understand who is speaking to whom.

I'd also like to hear your responses to the above points, because you appear to be doubling-down in the Talk page discussion. I'm not seeing these points being addressed beyond the confirmation that you used AI and didn't bother to check the output it gave you. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they appear to be under the impression that if you are caught using AI to fabricate sources after you have insulted others for using LLMs, that means a) being suspicious of further references is "very hostile" and "exposes my ignorance" and b) they are entitled to demand where the attention of other editors acting in good faith go. I have disengaged from the talk page discussion until I check the cited source, and we'll see if Brandolini's law applies here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive editing, failure to communicate and bogus edit summaries

Baqotun0023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has a lengthy history of causing issues. Their talk page is littered with warnings from numerous users about their edits, very few of which have ever been acknowledge. This shows a pattern of behavior of simply not caring that they are causing problems. Of particular note is the fact that are continuously introducing duplicate arguments into templates due to their failure to preview or check their edits. I have personally warned them about this issue at least 4 times, zero responses.

Of equal concern is their continued use of totally bogus edit summaries which almost always consist of a random letter. When I requested that they please respond to my concerns on their talk page, they ignored my request and simply reverted my latest attempt to fix one of their broken edits.

To summarize:

1. Disruptive editing for repeatedly and unapologetically breaking pages with duplicate arguments.
2. Failure to WP:ENGAGE as required and address concerns of other editors.
3. Failure to even attempt to provide the most basic of edit summary but to instead just insert a random letter into their edit summary as seen in their contributions.

Request admin involvement at this time. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at this, I saw you left them multiple notices.

A bit of leeway could be given to newer editors (or if they've just been very busy with life) but given that they've been on this site for 6 years and since you've been warning them since 2025 im very surprised they havent replied to you. It does seem like its a failure to engage/they might deliberately be ignoring you. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I just want to clarify here. We ALL make mistakes, lord knows I've made my share. My issue is the repeated and unapologetic breaking of pages as well as the refuser to engage in any way, shape or form despite multiple attempts. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yea I agree with you there, everyone's human. That said, there is a very discernable pattern here. Its pretty easy to tell by a certain point if an editor is say hypothetically POV pushing, or editing with ill-intent whether it be via pattern recognition or just their tone. Here, I don't think Baqotun is POV pushing and we can't discern if theres any ill-intent so they should be given the benefit of the doubt, but what we can absolutely establish is that there is a failure to engage/deliberate ignorance.

I do strongly agree with you Zackmann. @Baqotun0023 please reply to this thread. Its one thing to ignore a few notices (many editors, even experienced ones, often do this). I also understand editors can be very busy with life and perhaps the earlier notices you didnt need/weren't responsible to respond but...

Zackmann has put NINE notices on your page and you have not replied to them once, the first was posted in September 2025. We can clearly see via your contributions that you made edits despite Zackmann's repeated warnings. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I was shocked to suddenly be involved in this incident. I want to sincerely apologize to everyone here, especially @Zackmann08. You're absolutely right that I should have responded more quickly. I wasn't ignoring you out of malice or disrespect; I was simply overwhelmed/distracted and made the mistake of focusing on editing instead of checking my talk page.

I now understand that this interfered with consensus building. I should have checked my edits on the related articles first to avoid the duplicate article issue. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Baqotun, Zackmann can you please discuss this with them. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Baqotun0023: mistakes happen, we all make them and then we (hopefully) learn from there. To be clear, we are only here because you did not respond to earlier notices OR make any visible attempt to change your behavior. It seems you have now gotten the messages and are going to be more careful moving forward. Please be sure that in the future you:

1. PREVIEW your edits to check for errors
2. Respond to discussion posts on your talk page. Not EVERY post requires a response, but when you do need to WP:ENGAGE.
3. Use meaningful edit summaries that explain what you are doing and why

Follow those 3 things and you will go far here. Keep learning and keep up the otherwise good work. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, Next time I'll improve more and will be careful in editing. Baqotun0023 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Happy we had an easy resolution! Thank you both for being accomodating, ive seen some ANIs spiral into conflict/arguing but this is a good example of how to easily resolve something. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks by a disruptive editor in a contentious space

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The editor has been active since late last year and in that short amount of time has raked up at least 4 final-level warnings for editorial conduct in the WP:CT/SA space (the WP:ECR sanctions and restrictions of which they have been informed of twice [removed that notice and other warnings and notices of multiple P&G vios including OR, content blanking etc. here], including just recently by me though violations continue unabated). This includes repeated personal attacks/aspersions based on assumed nationalities of other editors: , (warned by a sysop that it was banable and to quit it), twice against me (egregiously restoring it just now ) which prompts this report.

A look into their edit history shows no signs of any adherence to enwiki policies, sanctions or ability to discuss.

They were informed of SA and ECR sanctions in April but subsequent edits show a wanton disregard: at Gurkha (covered by both WP:CT/IMH and WP:CT/CASTE): serious POV introductions in violation of ECR and edit warring to keep it despsite reverts by multiple different editors ; at Chalise: ECR violation and edit warring to keep their edits despite being reverted, this along with a litany of personal attacks there:

keep crying

[their IP sock]

keep crying Indian

Their responses when warned and informed of sanctions (more egregious personal attacks and serious disregard for any civility) [emphasis mine] :

lol you act like a spoiled brat who couldn’t handle that his mommy came home from shopping without bringing him a lollipop. You couldn’t handle a simple fact about the Gurkhas (all Gurkhas are of Nepalese origin) — it’s a fact whether you like it or not. Do a bit more research before changing anything; just because you know a little about them doesn’t make you the expert here. You keep ignoring established facts and reverting detailed edits repeatedly just to feed your ego. And when you get angry, you start reverting my other wiki articles (like this one Chalise) for no reason and giving excuses for not adding proper sources. Haha. You also said you only detected the paragraph because it wasn’t properly sourced, but you don’t seem to understand that common, widely accepted information doesn’t always need an extra citation. I wrote: “The Gurkhas are widely recognized for their long history of military service and are known for their discipline, bravery, and loyalty. Gurkha soldiers have served in various national and international military forces, especially the British and Indian armies, and remain a symbol of courage in military history,” — without citations because this is common knowledge!!! This doesn’t need an extra source — and if it were false, why would the British and Indian armies even recruit Gurkhas in the first place? Can you explain that? And yet you’re reverting my edits saying they lack sources, while your “edits” have no sources either. Haha. ... Lmao, those were just bot replies saying I added the wrong links. You really out here trying to get me banned lol. And next time, add “your sources” before deleting other people’s edits while saying “not reliable source.”

And after recently being informed to quit ECR violations :

lol

Further using LLM, despite being warned previously : .

Their edit history reveals that they are most likely related to this blocked sock:

It appears time for a block has indeed come. Gotitbro (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@C.Fred, Sasquatch, and PhilKnight: Also pinging sysops who warned the user/handled the previous sock. Gotitbro (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Behavioural evidence (beyond the very clear temp sock above), further shows extensive temp account/IP socking at various WP:CT/CASTE articles. Gotitbro (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Confirmed to CrimsonCamel, blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Both are confirmed to CrimsonPine (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). There's also a fair amount of stale TAs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Yea the personal attacks directed at you clearly violates Wikipedia’s no personal attacks policy and may also fall under civility concerns. That said, the user may still be learning the ropes, so a soft block might be warranted (with a chance to appeal), and I support that. However, a permanent block may be too harsh for a new user who could still improve with time. I was a lot worse when I first started. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Olafrangnar repeatedly adding hoax "footballer"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Olafrangnar has been persistently adding a non-existent footballer, "Omer Sulaiman", across multiple articles since 2024. The issue first began in 2024 when the user inserted the player into a biography article (diffs 1, 2, and 3). In August 2025, they added the same fabricated player to an article of a Pakistani domestic football competition. More recently, in June 2026, they repeatedly inserted "Omer Sulaiman" into the Pakistan national football team article despite being reverted several times diff 5, 6, 7, 8. The user was notified on their talk page regarding these disruptive edits. However, just now, the same addition was made again from an anonymous unlogged account. JayFT047 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I have indeffed both accounts for deliberately adding fake information. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.