Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Continued bad automated edits by Rofraja

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

Rofraja keeps making high-speed, seemingly unreviewed automated edits using some script (I don't know which one since it isn't linked in the edit summaries) to add titles to references. Most of the time this is useful, but a significant number of their edits are obviously broken and they have not been doing anything about that, after multiple warnings. Here are three examples just from their most recent 50 edits: (completely broken), (obvious generic title), (obvious generic title). The script also frequently messes up with titles that do not use Latin characters, like in . Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Just after this ANI, they have been correcting those edits. (Nwa Mbata) (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

They did fix a few, but then went right back to making the same bad edits (the first three diffs above are from after they fixed a few pages). Some sort of response from the user would be very nice. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The best way to resolve this would definitely be to have Rofraja participating in this ANI Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

They haven't edited for a bit over 24 hours so I won't do anything now. Please let me know if problems continue. If that happens without engagement here they can be blocked from article space until the issue is addressed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The problems with their edits go back more than a year and probably include thousands of poor edits; I recommend an article-space block given their failure to respond here. --JBL (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree with this, I've encountered them before and the same query was in my mind, how does a user make so many edits and most of them are unreviewed in my opinion. Regardless, I support an article-space block for their behaviour. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPA, and WP:TE by User:Alexandraaaacs1989 on Third wave of autocratization

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First, the clearest evidence: Since Oct 1, they have posted more to the talk page than every other user combined, and added more bytes than the next four users combined. Stats here. Textbook bludgeoning.

User has engaged in extensive WP:SYNTH, as described in previous ANI thread. Synth was removed, and after the removal got near-unanimous support (one other user continued to advocate inclusion), they started an RfC on the exact same issue. While that was going, they brought up 5 separate discussions within 5 days, including another RfC on an issue that had been discussed only two days by three editors (who both disagreed with them).

I advised them on October 17 to slow down, that the volume of changes they were attempting to make was disruptive. They continued, and on October 20 I advised them both of the disruption from starting many RfCs and their bludgeoning. Their response was to accuse me of bad faith, trying to remove opponents, etc, and indicated they would continue. This has become very disruptive of that page. They did start the page, but as they brought up, WP:OWN is a thing. It’s very difficult to keep up with all the issues they bring forth, especially when they action them once they receive support from the one editor who agrees with them. The drain of community time from the various RFCs, which have not done RFCBEFORE, is also substantial.

They have described my attempts to address their behavior as very clearly a bad faith accusation (diff), implied I was sadistic )diff) and when asked to remain civil, doubled down on it (diff).

They have begun splitting content into new articles wholesale, so a page block wouldn’t solve the issue. I think a TBAN from authoritarianism, broadly construed, is the most effective way to prevent disruption. When SuperPianoMan noted their goals don’t align with Wikipedia’s, they noted: I suspect you're right. (See also their page on their motives.) So they may be due for an indef per WP:NOTHERE. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Well obviously I disagree for a multitude of reasons, which I'll get into in a bit. But I'll briefly state I had more or less disengaged from editing the page which I stated, in response to which this editor re-ignited tensions by telling me, out of the blue, that I would be better off starting a "global politics fandom" than editing Wikipedia. When I called him out, he told me not to accuse him of sadism, in response to which of course I doubled down. If an editor tells you to essentially write fanfictions instead of editing Wikipedia with the clear implication being you are incapable of high-quality writing, then yes, I am going to call this sadism, as a WP:SPADE is a spade, and I am not going to take one-sided incivility for the sake of a social performance. This editor took a situation that had completely resolved itself, threw a grenade in the room, and for whatever reason, took me to an ANI for reacting to said grenade. But like I said, I'll reply to the rest in a bit. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Noting that I am not engaging with Alexandraaacs1989 here directly, but if anyone has any questions for me or would like me to respond to something they said, I'm available to answer questions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• WP:BLUDGEONING allegation
  • I will begin by saying that obviously I do not WP:OWN the article. But it is relevant that I created the article from the ground up, writing significant original content, improving and re-organizing other articles along the way, without significant help from other editors when it came to actually constructing (as opposed to policing, which I should clarify is not necessarily bad) its content. So make no mistake that the only reason why this article exists at all is because of the hard work I have put into creating it. In the process, there were a variety of challenges to my writing, which of course I felt inclined to respond to. Responding to criticisms of your writing on talk pages as an article is being written is common practice among editors most involved in writing an article in the interest of moving the discussions forward. It seemed clear to me if I didn't respond, no one else was going to put in the work to defend the perspective I was taking (not necessarily because it was an unpopular perspective, but because only a few editors seemed invested enough to iron this topic out). I was eventually told to disengage by the editor who started this ANI (whom I will note has made two total contribution to the article: the first deleting a hyperlink to the 2010s decades article (which I challenged here, in response to which the editor did not respond to any of the points I had made and simply stated This is not compelling. I'd like other editors to chime in, as the two of you seem to have the same opinion on a great many topics related to this article that don't always match community opinion.) and the second which added three words), so I gave it a day or two for others to make their own changes to the article. No significant changes were made, so I resumed making RS-based improvements to the article, in no contradiction of any talk page consensus, and being mindful of leaving helpful edit notes every step of the way. Importantly, no issues have been taken with the content of any of my edits from this point to now, aside from the fact that I remained editing frequently, which is neither a policy violation nor inherent WP:TE.
• They have begun splitting content into new articles wholesale
  • This is bringing a content dispute into an ANI. In the interest of compromise, I suggested various avenues through which we could move forward, including splitting the article into new subtopics so we could migrate RS-supported information elsewhere. No one replied to my split proposals (including the editor who started this ANI, who is now holding it against me), so I figured I would go ahead and start them myself in the interest of preserving deleted content. These are literally draft articles that were created in the interest of abiding by the consensus for a narrower version of the page, and I cannot conceive how creating entirely uncontested Draft:21st century pro-democracy protests or Draft:21st century innovations in protest tactics is disruptive behavior that belongs in an ANI.
• SuperPianoMan9167 stuff
  • SuperPianoMan and I obviously disagree on a great many things, but most recently he implied he understood I am WP:HERE to write an encyclopedia, so again, this many-against-one argument does not seem to hold any weight.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandraaaacs1989: I had previously been satisfied with your response to my concerns on your talk page, but Okay, I don't really care at this point about anything other than having a home somewhere for these details, I just want to write. (source) makes me very concerned that my initial assessment of your motivations is in fact correct.

Regarding I only ask if you remove content, you document each case where you do so explicitly somewhere in this talk page so I can perform migration myself as needed.: are you aware that the userpage policy says that [User pages] should also not be used as storage for old revisions, deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content.? (emphasis mine)

This summary of the situation by @GenevieveDEon encapsulates my concerns perfectly: Alexandraisaacs has fairly clearly stated that she just wants to write about the current trend of autocratisation, using the 'third wave' concept as a convenient hook on which to hang it. (source)

And @EducatedRedneck: Was this non-apology really necessary? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Was there something I should've been apologizing for? My intent was to make it clear their message had been read and understood. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: I also think that draftspace should not be used to host preferred versions of disputed content. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The migrated content was disputed due to it allegedly being outside the scope of the article, rather than due to being otherwise disputed, making it exactly the kind of content you would want to split into a new draft or article in my view. I expand on this here. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

When I said this, I now agree I should have worded that better. But this was more or less out of exhaustion due to what felt to be an interminable set of demands with no end in sight. I was really trying to just make a plan so we could move forward and I could have a space to write, since it was growing clear opposing editors were not backing down. I'm mainly on Wikipedia to write and improve articles, and getting sucked into an endless talk page discussion that didn't seem to be going anywhere was a bit tiresome, especially when I wasn't getting the sense other editors were working with me to get to a point of productively moving things along. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe this is perfectly within the scope of ANI. A simple content dispute may not be ANI material, but when a content dispute spreads to multiple drafts on Wikipedia, with little limiting factor, then that does become conduct rather than content. Yes, there's nothing wrong with creating drafts. but when they're on general topics that basically become syndicated versions of the content dispute, we're getting into a bigger problem that requires general attention.

I do think there is some ownership behavior in this concept. While I do think AI1989 is here to write an encyclopedia, I think there's too much personal investment in this scaffolding used to describe 21st-century events. I would be fine for now with taking an assurance of backing down this area to work on other things as being in good faith, but otherwise, I have an inclination that a topic ban from frameworks describing 21st-century authoritarianism may be beneficial to the encyclopedia. In other words, making edits that describe Viktor Orban's actions OK, but edits characterizing those as part of a wider concept such as democratic backsliding or part of the third wave of autocratization not OK. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure it's no surprise I disagree here, but just since this is a case against me and I would like to respond in a specific manner to each point rather than leaving open to interpretation a smaller set of general comments I previously made, I will just say I am just not sure what specific behavior is in violation of guidelines.

It sounds like a lot of criticisms come down to me clearly having an area of interest (I do), which I would characterize as the consequence of seeking to create articles in what I believe are blindspots on the website. And only one article I have created has ever been deleted (it was merged rather than deleted in whole) out of dozens of articles created in total and there's unanimity that the Third wave article deserves to exist, so I really don't think there's a case I don't write DUE content pertaining to authoritarianism in the 21st century, which I have done more than a little work with. That's precisely the reason I started so many RfCs - because as someone pretty familiar with this article space, there is very little history in the way of consensus regarding the degree to which Wikipedia is allowed to acknowledge autocratization, and by taking the initiative, I am helping us create global consensus on these very central questions for us to adhere to.

when a content dispute spreads to multiple drafts on Wikipedia, with little limiting factor Well if you read through the discussions on the talk page, you'll see the central argument of people defending the deletion of content was that the "Third wave of autocratization" is something we have to speak of in narrow terms (i.e. not using RS that are not explicitly about the "third wave", as opposed to 21st century autocratization more broadly), or else any content about autocratization could just be plopped on the page, which others but not myself believe is a serious concern. So by this reasoning, it makes sense for a split to occur moving the content into another draft, considering the central reason the content is being contested is due to it belonging elsewhere, which many in the discussion have admitted are substantiated by strong RS/are DUE on Wikipedia more broadly.

If we're talking about the Viktor Orban thing, we could argue about RS characterizations and MOS:SEEALSO, but this is getting into a content rather than behavioral dispute.

As for ownership behavior, I get it, but at the same time I am the only person who contributed to the article in question, which I feel like entitles me to reply to criticisms of my writing beyond what is typical of anti-WP:BLUDGEONING advice on an article talk page. I get this sounds a bit entitled, but when another editor has disproportionately contributed to content on a page and it's prima facie defensible content, I recognize that this entitles them to at the very least defend their content, since they understand the page's history better than most.

I get that I touch a lot of controversial content, but I do really try never to violate the spirit of consensus on this website, even when it doesn't go my way, which you'll even see in the discussion in question where I took the initiative to restore a version of the article I disagreed with because of a consensus with which I was less than happy. Are there any specific policies you believe I'm violating? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC) Struck to avoid bludgeoning Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused by Textbook bludgeoning, regarding an article page, because that's not what WP:BLUDGEON refers to. What you're describing in your accusatory diff is called active editing, not bludgeoning. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor I may have phrased it poorly. The bludgeoning and states are for the talk page. The link I use to support this is also for the talk page. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

They are very clearly bludgeoning the talk page. They've added almost 30,000 more bytes to the talk page than the next most active editor. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I'd misread my bad. I see you what you mean now. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

As a third party, several points:

1. The editing concerns a high-profile topic of global importance; while slightly academic, it arguably nonetheless sits at the intersection of controversial topics defined by ARBCOM, or at the very least has characteristics that typically define such topic areas. As such, it is natural for alertness to politically motivated manipulation to be high on all sides.
2. I do not see where Alexandraaaacs1989 (A1989) clearly stated they were going to disengage in that comment. My understanding was that they were suggesting that they would attempt to migrate material rejected by EducatedRedneck (ER) to other articles, which may not adequately address complaints pertaining to the material (which I have not reviewed).
3. On the other hand, I agree that telling them where else to take their writing is unwarranted and frankly out of scope. Basically, if you're starting a sentence with something like "I'm going to state this as gently as I can", you may want to very much reconsider that sentence, because that's a condescension red flag. At this point, I am not closing my mind to the possibility that ER was engaging in grave-dancing - which would assume it was clear to them that A1989 was truly disengaging, on which, at this point, I have not examined evidence pointing in either direction.
4. It does appear from skim-reading the talk page that several editors thought A1989 wasn't fully editing within guidelines.
5. Looking at the outcome of the current responses to the RfC started by A1989, it is not clear that A1989's position is universally and summarily opposed. In addition to an early support, the reluctant oppose (GenevieveDEon) and the separate query for proposed phrasing (Redwolf Milkshake Fox) lead me to this conclusion.
6. A1989 is the principal author of the article, having made 83% of the edits, and being assigned 96% of the authorship. By contrast, the talk page shows much more diverse participation. Having to answer to a "backseat gaming" crowd is a very uncomfortable position for an author to be in. It may be worth understanding more fully why there wasn't full scale collaboration on this article, with several individuals contributing material rather than just one. As with any single-author article, looking from a distance unfamiliar with the entire history, it is possible that the single author has edited either at great pace, or defensively, or both, accounting for the pattern. Avatar317's removals of material may provide clues.
7. On balance, I assess it as unlikely that any trouts should fly in one direction only.

The numbering of my remarks is arbitrary and for convenience only. It should not be mistaken for any kind of prioritisation.

Finally, looking at the recent escalation, I would assess this to be within the remit of ANI. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely believe that A1989 is here to build an encyclopedia. I have no doubts as to her bona fides. I also have no particular recommendation for the outcome of this ANI case. However, I am very frustrated that A1989 seems not to hear the distinction between chronological reportage of specific events and local trends on the one hand, and large-scale historiographical theories and metanarratives on the other. I really do not understand her insistence on yoking the extremely well-documented, widely-written-about current trend of autocratisation to the historiographical theories of Huntington et al. As it stands, we are currently saddled with an article whose title and lead paragraph relate to the latter, but whose body text relates only to the former. I suppose my ideal would be to move the material that is actually about the 'third wave of autocratisation' to Waves of democracy#Autocratization, and to have a new article with no transcluded material that is about the much more widely accepted idea of a current autocratic trend. I don't know exactly what title that new article should have, but I shall be very relieved if it does not include the words 'third' or 'wave'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I want to apologize to Alexandraaaacs for the "blog or fandom" comment. My intent was simple; an editor expressed furstration that they weren't permitted to put the content they wanted into the article, so that was what sprung to mind as a way for them to have full creative control (blog) or freedom of content with collaboration (fandom) for that project (Third Wave of Autocratization). Based on the responses here, it came of as condescending and offensive. I don't understand why, but I accept that it was. It wasn't my intent to cause harm, just an (apparently utterly inept) attempt to help another human being find what they said they wanted. I'm sorry that I caused offense and pain; it wasn't my intent, but that doesn't take away the harm. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I for one appreciate this apology, I wasn't impressed with that comment. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, it's alright :) Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I think I understand what you were getting at. I'm going to take a break from Wikipedia and work on some other projects that give me more freedom in my writing. I left some notes at my userpage about areas that others are invited to improve upon in my stead, in case it's of any interest. Hopefully someone will take up this challenge, but if not, I'll likely get back around to it myself in due time. Happy editing all ~ Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Most or all of this dispute is within CTOP(s), and I think that this is something where tempers have risen too rapidly over controversial content, escalating something that didn't need to be escalated. Looking at this ANI discussion so far, as well as the linked one just before it, a lot of the same editors keep showing up. There are obviously some walls of text here, from more than one editor, and not all of it is readable. Although I agree that this is something more than a content dispute, and as such is something reasonable to bring up at ANI, I don't think that anyone here needs to have administrator actions taken against them. I have interacted a lot with Alexandraaaacs1989, and I have always found that politely explaining how it would be helpful to adjust some aspect of editing results in sincere acceptance of the advice. The opening claim of "not here" is without merit. Now, I'll try to politely explain that editors should avoid walls of text, dial down the assumptions of bad faith, and try to work this out, perhaps by getting more eyes on the topic. There are a lot of things pertaining to possible redundancies of content about AMPOL and autocracy where it would be most helpful to have widely-advertised content RfCs about what to do with the content, and this is at least the second time in the past few days where I've said this at AN and ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

There is a clear issue with this editor's collegiality. Six days ago they opened a deletion review for a template, and in their opening statement they cast aspersions towards myself and PARAKANYAA. Today I made a perfectly good faith edit to an image they placed in a WP:SIDEBAR in which I did not remove the image, but used the thumbnail version and added the attribution per the Flickr posted CC-BY license for this image. They reverted with edsum calling my edit passive aggressive and their talk page comment accuses me of "backseat editing". Repeatedly this editor assumes bad faith. Indeed they rushed to ANI against me when I removed non WP:BIDIRECTIONAL links from a massive WP:SIDEBAR they created. Despite which, I did not pursue a WP:BOOMERANG at the time, and nor was I much interested in posting here. But as long as they continue to assume bad faith, even while they are at ANI, there does seem to be a behavioural issue that needs addressing. I am not sure about any kind of topic ban (nor interaction ban), but I think a warning is in order. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I think I was very polite in my comment — a softly-worded request voicing concerns is not an assumption of bad faith. And I didn't call your edit passive aggressive — I called your edit note (No opinion on whether [my recent edit] is even appropriate.) passive aggressive, which I still believe to be true. In the deletion review, I explicitly said my assumption was that you are purely interested in keeping our sidebars tight and on topic, i.e., that you are here in good faith, but that I was still uncomfortable with a pattern of deleting content that I was seeing. Constructive criticism/voicing concerns about topics on which we disagree is very different from assuming bad faith. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

[Uninvolved party] An edit summary of that general description may simple reflect a wish not to take responsibility for the content. For instance, one may copyedit a recently inserted section without wanting to express an opinion in support of that inserted material. I consider it possible that this was the case here. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, and I understand why that comment could be interpreted that way. But if I undo an edit you made, leave a set of "corrections" to your edit, and leave the final remarks "no opinion on whether your edit is even appropriate." - do you not see how this could come across as passive aggressive? What function is the word "even" serving in that sentence, if not expressing a degree of exasperation? If someone plausibly told me I was coming across as passive aggressive, I would assure them I'd work on my tone (or at the very least talk it out) rather than not responding to their concerns and bringing it straight to an ANI to be used as leverage against them, which feels a bit opportunistic (not assuming bad faith). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I did not undo your edit. And it is not the issue of the edit that is the problem. It is your leap to an assumption of bad faith that is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm again going to say that I think all editors are escalating this too much, but I'll also say in particular to Alexandraaaacs1989 that you should be more careful about the language that you direct at other editors who disagree with you; I think some of what you said to Sirfurboy was needlessly personal. It's better to politely seek input from other editors than to criticize, and to accept whatever consensus comes out of that. Please take this as a friendly warning, in the hope that this does not continue to rise to the level of needing an administrator to act. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

you should be more careful about the language that you direct at other editors who disagree with you; I think some of what you said to Sirfurboy was needlessly personal. It's better to politely seek input from other editors than to criticize, and to accept whatever consensus comes out of that. Thank you for the tangible advice. I thought about this and did some thinking, and this is my current understanding:

• You say what I said to Sirfurboy was needlessly personal. I think this is a fair criticism.
• You say to be more careful about the language I direct at others. I think this is a fair criticism. Sirfurboy has also repeatedly criticized me for assuming bad faith. While I'm not sure I would go quite that far in characterizing my actions, I understand how the way I directed my language at him created the impression of an assumption of bad faith, which is problematic. I often get a bit myopic during my interactions with others when I'm fixated on making a large volume of edits as quickly and efficiently as possible, sometimes at the expense of my interactions with others. Maybe before conflicts going forward, I should take additional time before writing comments so I do not lose sight of the emotional impression my words create during interactions beyond their literal substance.
• You say it is better to seek input from other editors than to criticize. I think this is fair, but that while I should have conveyed myself better, I also think healthy criticism on Wikipedia is important (not to imply the way I handled this was particularly healthy). I'm hesitant to consistently seek advice from others because obviously volunteer time is limited (I do not like feeling like I'm nagging), and drawing others in is often unlikely to be fruitful, so based on my understanding, it's best to resolve things person-to-person when possible. I even think the most recent disagreement between the two of us has been more-or-less resolved as a result of the talk page discussion, but Sirfurboy might be inclined to disagree.
• I also think that I tend to get annoyed (which is not reasonable) when I feel that content I am writing is consistently being policed by uninvolved editors in helping create or write the content (which is why I linked back-seat driver). I understand the need on Wikipedia for editors to correct mistakes of others, but when editors consistently remove or "fix" the content of others without starting courtesy talk page discussions, while leaving edit notes bordering on terse, it is very easy for me to experience a deeper sense of hostility and to get aroused beyond what is appropriate. That said, when you say I should go to other editors to create external consensus rather than arguing, I think that's a reasonable solution to these kinds of situations, so going forward, I will save your consensus-building advice for resolving situations where there are deeper-seated or seemingly intractable issues. However, I am not entirely sure how to go about raising perceived issues with another editor's behavior in a way that does not come across as overly-personalizing the conflict. Maybe using softer language with more consistent and explicit assurances that I am assuming good faith is the answer, which I will work on going forward unless you have alternative advice regarding this bullet point.
• The only thing I will ask of Sirfurboy in response is that he makes a greater effort at starting talk page discussions regarding disagreements to facilitate conflict resolution, as opposed to making changes he likely suspects are likely to be contested and seeing whether anyone will challenge them. Maybe it's unreasonable to request this, but after a WP:BOLD edit I recently made to a contentious article, I left a comment describing my changes to make it easier for other editors to analyze/criticize my edits as needed. I think if Sirfurboy made a greater effort at leaving these kinds of comments, that would make it easier to avoid escalation going forward. I also feel that when I have in the past attempted to create mutual understanding with Sirfurboy, he has disengaged with or scolded me, which contributed to a sense of animosity towards this editor. If Sirfurboy would be more willing to engage during meta-discussions about how to resolve disagreements between us, this would make it easier for me to understand where his edits are coming from and I would appreciate it.

I hope this seems like a reasonable analysis of the situation, and please let me know if not. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandraaaacs1989: While I *FEEL* that you've often ignored my opinions/advice and assumed bad faith against me - we can leave those things behind.

My advice to you is to NOT be fixated on making a large **volume of edits** as quickly and efficiently as possible, but rather to spend more time thoughtfully creating content that follows Wikipedia's policies. IN MY OPINION, that will make it more likely that your edits (the content you create) will become a permanent contribution to Wikipedia rather than be reverted/removed, and you will spend less time arguing with others; time which can be used to compose new quality content. As an easy example, lately there have been lots of large content additions done with AI (not by you) and those have and are being removed, with the size/volume/number of the additions being irrelevant as to whether they get kept or removed. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Just a note that I perceive Alexandra as an extremely well-intended editor who is trying her best to work hard to be of help for Wikipedia in constructive ways. As such I strongly object to any punishment against her. David A (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

FYI: sanctions against editors are not done as punishment, they are done to prevent disruption. See: WP:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a lot of words for something that's essentially a content dispute. I see no actual misconduct here by Alexandra. Jtrainor (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Neither do I. I think that it is extremely overzealous to attempt to sanction her for something like this. David A (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I concur. I don't see anything sanctionable here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Withdraw. Consensus seems clear that I've made a mountain out of a molehill. Alexandraacs is no longer doing the behavior I objected to (whether my objections were founded or not), and so there's no ongoing disruption, and keeping this open longer does Alexandraacs a disservice when consensus seems clear that there's no sanctionable behavior. I hope, and it sounds like they will, take this thread as a sign to try to be more polite to others, and I know I have conduct of my own to reflect on and try to figure out where I went wrong. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

AI agent

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

---

• SilverMuse26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to their userpage, this account is operated by Muse, an AI assistant, which violates WP:Bot policy and WP:NOLLM. Cicada1010 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this violates the bot policy, it states "any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user pages, user talk pages, user's module sandbox pages and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval." ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 19:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

It has edited the mainspace once.

I declined to block this case at AIV because it was not obvious to me based on the description that this account is in fact a "bot" account. And, it struck me as a reasonable use of an alternative account.

One would need to argue that the user of this account is not taking the care necessary according to WP:NOLLM to see this as blockable, but that is not an AIV decision. Izno (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked. I think it is sufficiently clear, and it was indeed violating NOLLM. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

For anyone interested in the current intersection between AI Agents and the bot policy, there is Wikipedia:AI agents and the bot policy.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Surely AI agents are by default in violation of WP:NOLLM and getting into the weeds about the bot policy is irrelevant anyway? Athanelar (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

AI agents are in extreme contravention of WP:BYHUMANS, but fortunately that's an essay, not a guideline. guninvalid (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

NOLLM is about llm text in content? An agent could check sources or suggest edits so long as they only edit their or their operator's user space. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 01:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Except that LLMs don't actually give sources more than a superficial skim (if that much) and are so unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy any suggested edit would be suspect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 07:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

That's fine so long as they're not writing the actual text of the edit. For example, if someone wants to ask AI to review an article for them to identify coverage or npov gaps, there's nothing wrong with that at all. When I've noticed AI agents doing that on talk pages I've mostly left them alone as harmless. If any of them were doing it at scale I'd block them under the bot policy. If an AI is outright writing drafts, though, wherever they may be, I block for NOLLM. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I've only found one agent like that, I really need to up my game. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 18:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

The usual path for upping one's game in this way is admin-->SPI clerk-->checkuser. Cheers. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Should we close this now? We found it, and blocked in indef. with no chance of appeal ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Amandamillsaps74: Continually restoring AI-generated content despite several warnings

Amandamillsaps74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continually restoring massive amounts of AI slop to Kirkland Bushwhackers. (originates Special:Diff/1377455213: at least a dozen WP:AIDISCLAIMERs, along with the WP:AICONNECT/WP:AIATTR cocktail that usually accompanies them; this is like a parody of modern ChatGPT output, it's that blatant)

When I pointed out that AI-generated content is not allowed on Wikipedia, their response (Special:Diff/1381517234) was Respectfully, I decline your edit suggestions and will continue to undo your activities as I discover them., so they clearly do not care at all what Wikipedia's guidelines are. (Isn't it great when people attach "Respectfully" as if it's some magic incantation that will substitute for having to be respectful?) Therefore, they should "respectfully" be blocked. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

There's a parallel in English courtroom practice, in which "I submit that" means "My argument is", whereas "I respectfully submit that" means "Your Lordship is an idiot". Narky Blert (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

also, as of a few minutes ago in the AINB thread:

• lying once again about this extremely textbook AI use
• declaring their intent to game 3RR: Fine, I’ll just check the article in a few days and revert outside of the 24 hr cycle.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week from Kirkland Bushwhackers because of the edit warring and this comment. CambridgeBayWeather (Alappaa), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean they're just going to re-add the AI writing after a week, by all indications this does not seem like someone who cares about anything but cramming their non-compliant AI slop into an article Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Probably but that gives time for the AI to be investigated properly and a full block to follow. CambridgeBayWeather (Alappaa), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 18:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Seconding the fact that this AI use is absurdly blatant and undeniable, and continuing to readd it and lie about it is disruptive editing per WP:LLMDISRUPT. Indef and move on. Not sure how that isn't the default reaction to somebody being informed about a guideline and responding with "no thanks!" Athanelar (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

so is anything going to happen on this or are we just going to have our readers' money wasted with AI slop a week after October 29 Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

They're pblocked from the only article they've edited and it's llmprod'd Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:20, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

and then the minute they can they're just going to re-add it, as they said so themselves. when someone outright says, repeatedly, that they are going to continue to violate the guidelines, then it can be reasonably assumed they are going to continue to violate the guidelines, in which case they can pound sand Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't come across as an editor who's willing too work within the policies, or even work with others, at all:

• Respectfully, I decline your edit suggestions and will continue to undo your activities as I discover them.
• Fine, I’ll just check the article in a few days and revert outside of the 24 hr cycle.
• Once again, I am going to add this article back! I wrote the darn thing based on my own research. Read the bloody footnotes.
• This revision was done logged out as a TA & screams AI-generated to me.
• WP:AILEGACY is all over the place and even has it's own headed section! There is a swathe of random snippets of completely unsourced analysis throughout (especially in the lead), for example Ratledge's work provides useful regional interpretation but does not by itself document specific acts attributed to the Kirkland Bushwhackers. and The documented movement places a substantial Federal force in Monroe County and Sherman himself at Tellico Iron Works on December 9, 1863. It also establishes active Federal foraging and the collection of livestock and meal during the same operation. These facts provide a stronger historical setting for the later tradition that the Kirkland gristmill was destroyed by Union forces.
• The text under"Historiography and sources" has bolded headings
• WP:RO3 is everywhere
• The "Historiography and sources" section is basically an AI analysing the sources in the article WP:AILEGACY again, along with WP:AICONNECT & WP:AIWEASEL. For example, The later process papers add another evidentiary layer. They demonstrate that the prosecution remained active during 1866 and 1867 rather than ending with the original indictment.
• Even more obvious is this part: The Bas Shaw case shows the difficulty of relying on later compressed narratives. Some accounts attribute his death directly to John Kirkland, while other reconstructions place Shaw in Confederate custody immediately before he was killed.
• For these reasons, any reconstruction of the Kirkland Bushwhackers requires a clear distinction
• The case also demonstrates the need to distinguish allegations from adjudicated facts.
• The chronology of the Kirkland mill tradition likewise requires caution

How on earth can someone say that this not AI-generated work? I also would not expect someone who responded in the way this editor has, to have written this overly-complex analysis, which reads more like an essay or thesis than an envy article - it just feels disingenuous to me.

@Amandamillsaps74 can you please respond here and explain why you've responded in such a combative manner? Please be honest if you'd like to remain an editor here - did you use AI on this article, in any form? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:57, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

It's either AI or WP:NOTHERE. I don't think we need to be picky on which before acting. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, XTools says this is the only article (no, the only page) that they've every made any significant edits to. They've only made 1 other edit in mainspace, and all other edits have been against the scrutiny of their edits or to pages that now redirect there. This is not only AI and WP:NOTHERE, but also has a large, highly visible blob of a single purpose account mixed in. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 13:30, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I tend to be very optimistic and polite (or try to be); the above comment is basically me going "you'd better have a good explanation for this and fast..."

I try to give everyone a chance, but this one was pretty much a sliver and I totally get why there are major concerns - I have them too. They've had several days to respond here & their responses so far aren't enough, so I would agree with an indef as the next step. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:29, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

JaredMcKenzie's behaviors

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

JaredMcKenzie (JMK) was indefinitely Topic Banned from Taiwan, broadly construed, in November 2025. The main concerns editors raised in that discussion included WP:Bludgeoning, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, edit warring, use of AI-generated comments, etc.

JMK started to edit Falun Gong topic in June. Since then, they have made 218+ edits on the Falun Gong page, 173+ edits on the Teachings of Falun Gong page, dozens of edits on other Falun Gong-related pages. In these edits and related talk page discussions, I have seen many of the same behaviors mentioned above. The following are some examples:

Adding an AI-fabricated quote to an article and later denying having added it: On Sept. 12, JMK added this quotation "casting off the mixed physical illusions of the mortal flesh to reveal their true spiritual form." to the Teachings of Falun Gong page, attributing it to scholar Benjamin Penny's book The Religion of Falun Gong (p.217). However, this quote was not from the book, but rather generated by Gemini, as they later admitted. Another editor removed it, saying "content does not seem to appear in Penny's book." JMK restored it, saying in edit summary: "Make one more falsehood, and with God as my witness - I will report immediately to ANI".

Then, JMK challenged that editor on their user talk page, saying "why are you lying to me?". After that editor provided the actual paragraph from page 217 of Penny's book and asked them where they got their quote from, JMK admitted they got it from Gemini. They apologized, struck through their earlier comments, and self-reverted that edit.

But on Oct. 5, when I mentioned this incident on Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong as an example of JMK adding original research to articles, they replied "I didn't think Google Gemini would lie but I never added it to the article and I self corrected and struck it out in talk" . But they did add the AI-fabricated quote to the article and did it twice, as mentioned above.

WP:Bludgeoning: In JMK's Taiwan TBAN discussion, bludgeoning is a major concern raised by editors. JMK promised "If I bludgeon again, I will accept a permanent topic ban." In the Falun Gong topic, JMK appears to be engaged in the same behavior: they replied to almost everyone who disagreed with them, often with long-winded comments.

• In this WP:RSN discussion that JMK started about an academic source on Falun Gong, they made 16 out of the total 32 comments, often long;
• On Talk:Falun Gong JMK made 55 out of the total 111 comments since Aug. 2 (excluding older threads already archived), many with long texts;
• On Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong JMK made 33 out of the total 71 comments since August (excluding 3 threads started by JMK that no one interacted with), many with long texts.

Casting aspersions and making uncivil comments and edit summaries:

• "if you continue to keep replying to me with these overt falsehoods then I will consider building a case to report to Ani specifically about how you keep advancing these extreme falsehoods"
• "You need better reading comprehension."
• "Don't be obtuse." on Aug. 7 ; on Sept. 13
• "Don't be disingenuous… don't insult my intelligence."
• "That is bull." in edit summary

WP:ICANTHEARYOU: JMK agreed in June to drop an opinion article by a non-expert, then proposed to restore it in Oct. as a secondary source and a journalistic investigation. The following timeline shows how much it took for JMK to acknowledge it is an opinion piece:

• June 19–20: Two editors, including me, explained on the Falun Gong talk page that an opinion piece by a non-expert on ABC News is not a reliable source for factual claims about Falun Gong's beliefs and that it is a primary source. JMK eventually agreed not to add the source back.
• Oct. 3–4: JMK proposed to restore it as "a secondary source (ABC News) reporting the teaching". Another editor replied that it is "an opinion article (labeled clearly)".
• Oct. 7: JMK proposed an RfC draft calling it a "secondary source" and "independent journalistic investigations by ABC News". The editor reminded them that it is an opinion article and a primary source, and that this "has also been stated multiple times." JMK changed the wording to "the ABC Religion & Ethics article" but still listed it among "secondary sources".
• Oct. 13–14: The editor reminded JMK again that it is an opinion article, not an ABC report, and that "WP:NEWSOPED states clearly that opinion articles are primary sources," citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. JMK replied "I am not going to term it as an opinion when it's arguably a statement of fact." JMK changed the RfC draft wording to "an opinion piece" 23 minutes later.

The above are the same type of behaviors raised in the Taiwan TBAN discussion (Bludgeoning, ICANTHEARYOU, and AI use), despite JMK's promise there not to bludgeon again. I hope admins can take a look at these behaviors and decide if a TBAN from Falun Gong should be given to JaredMcKenzie. MrGerLib (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I want to note at the start of this that I was briefly involved in at least one of these discussions (regarding the ABC source) and actually agreed with JMK that it should be included, with attribution, as I think the accounts of people who leave charismatically-led new-religious-movements can be significant at getting at issues that NRMs tend to treat as being for within-the-community-of-worship only. However, notwithstanding that agreement, I share some of MrGerLib's concerns. I do want to note that there are definitely some WP:CPUSH issues with the Falun Gong pages and this is certainly not new. I do remember, with the opposite of fondness, back when the FLG and the Epoch Times had paid employees whose job it was to edit Wikipedia all day, pushing pro-FLG narratives, and I've been concerned to see some of those pro-FLG narratives returning such as the push to downplay the far-right extremity of the Epoch Times.

But, the thing is, that the presence of CPUSH doesn't justify disregarding consensus and certainly doesn't justify the abuse of AI. I don't think JMK has comported themselves in a positive manner at these pages. I don't think they're alone in this regard. I am loath to explode additional drama into the drama board and so I'll say I don't think these issues are sanctionable at this time with regard to other parties. But I do hope an outcome of this discussion will be increased general and neutral scrutiny of Falun Gong pages and won't end at just expanding one editor's TBAN and calling it a day. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Simonm223. I am not familiar with the history, but I'd welcome neutral scrutiny of Falun Gong pages. Regarding the opinion article by an ex-practitioner, I am not talking about any content dispute here, as that has already been discussed on the Falun Gong Talk page. I am concerned about how JMK characterized the source and how much it took for them to do so properly. MrGerLib (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that's a content dispute and best left to article page. I honestly mentioned it to situate that, when I say I agree JMK's behaviour has been sub-standard that's despite the fact that I actually agree with them about some of the content dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

This is rich and an unfair characterisation.

Bulk of my other edits are carefully sourced via non paywalled sources. I do not have a habit of using Google Gemini in backing my edits. However it was one time when after I felt disillusioned how they misquoted Ownby when their editor added in a quote from Penny's book - in which the page was not available for preview to the public.

So without being able to read the source and check that edit easily, I made the one error of asking Google Gemini who mislead me in the quote. Afterwards, I made a promise to myself that I will never trust Google Gemini again and struck out my comment, apologized to the user and that issue was resolved promptly and long ago.

Using Gemini is a one time error that I would not repeat again so it is not an urgent or persistent issue.

I don't have issues with other editors and there have been disputes while @Simonm223 and @Binksternet would constantly revert edits from a certain group of editors while also backing my edits as proper and well sourced. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

This complaint by MrGerLib appears to be an attempt to take back control of the Falun Gong topic group narrative, as MrGerLib is one of a group of editors who continually promote Falun Gong's interests and diminish criticism as much as possible. The pro-Falun wiki editors always team up against anyone who dares to expand Falun Gong pages with well-cited critical material, which means the defense against that onslaught appears to be bludgeoning when in fact it is answering multiple editors. If MrGerLib succeeds in shutting down JaredMcKenzie, then the Falun-favoring editors will have their way with the topics, pushing non-neutral aspects and interpretations. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Since you brought up two of my edits, I will just explain them briefly here. For the first edit , I've already resolved it with Simonm223 on my user talk page . It is an editing issue, not a POV issue. Even JMK didn't disagree with that edit, which was initially made by 23impartial, and restored it. See this talk thread. Regarding the second edit , I didn't remove any content. I only added in-text attribution to two scholars in Chinese universities, per WP:Academic freedom and Wikipedia.

BTW, on August 6, after their edit in the lead was reverted, JMK pinged you , and 15 minutes later, you restored their reverted edit, saying "Rv... restore well-cited summary of scholars". But it turned out that 2 main clauses in that edit were not supported by any of the 5 sources cited. JMK eventually removed that sentence from the first paragraph of the lead. See this talk page discussion. . MrGerLib (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Frankly the idea that "you can't trust them (academics who work with) commies" is one of the most perverse misinterpretations of WP:NPOV to rear its head on this platform. Should we qualify that Ownby's FLG book was published by a UK state institution? Or that he works for a Canadian state institution? State institutions are no more neutral in allied capitalist countries than they are in antagonistic socialist ones. That someone thinks this is an appropriate sentiment to utter on Wikipedia is deeply dangerous to our mission as a neutral, international knowledge base. Simonm223 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

China's academic freedom index is near the bottom among all countries. The UK and Canada don't have this issue. Major universities in China are all state-run, which is not the case in UK and Canada. Their governments don't persecute Falun Gong either. WP:Academic freedom and Wikipedia gives an example of in-text attribution: According to __ scholar at Moscow State University..." I was only following that example. MrGerLib (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are assigning too much authority to a single index composed by a single German university to then discount the academic contributions of every scholar in the most populous country in the world and in the process making WP:SYNTH assumptions about what "academic freedom" means and how it might apply to due weight. This is patently ridiculous, even if it is a popular opinion among POV pushers who want to right the great wrong of socialism. Simonm223 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I started writing a very harsh response because the gemini thing just seemed insane - I really don't understand why anyone would go to an LLM for a quote of all things. For a 2 minute summary maybe? But asking for a quote is asking to be lied to. Now that Jared has said this was a one time error, I think we have to take him at his word (barring any future recurrence, at which point the word goes out the window).

The issue of standing by the fabricated quote, again pretty terrible in isolation, but the user says this is part of the same one time error. You really can't trust LLMs, and it's kind of a WP:CIR issue not to know that, but hopefully that's been rectified now.

Disregarding the Gemini thing, the rest of OP's evidence is convincing. The bludgeoning at the RSN shown in OP is very clear (like 2 thirds of the words are from this user), as is the diff from the TBAN discussion less than a year ago where Jared says they now understand bludgeoning and take responsibility to avoid it. The ICANTHEARYOU evidence seems solid too.

I am open to the suggestion that there is a pro-Falun side imposing its will numerically - such things have been known to happen - but @JaredMcKenzie even if that's the case, are you going to say that the evidence posted here is wrong? It seems right to me. And if it's right, do you have any suggestion for how you would prevent yourself from editing this way, rather than other people having to prevent you? Samuelshraga (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

There is much context missing from OP's report.

When he claims that two others support him. He is basically referring to the group of pro Falun Gong interest editors that are constantly supporting each other and have been problematic on Falun Gong article in which veteran editor like @Binksternet and @Simonm223 can also confirm.

Here is just one example of why they have been difficult and why I became skeptical of them. Recently, I mentioned to @MrGerLib that Li Hongzhi does in fact predicts doomsday scenarios since he talks about evil aliens will take over humanity and that our future society will have people where our organ and limbs no longer work, but only his believers will be spared and saved. That is obviously within the grounds of apocalyptic pseudoscience and cult mythology.

However @MrGerLib doesn't want to admit that it's an end of world religious theory and so they reply to tell me that such a prediction is not "that much different to experts warning us how AI will destroy humanity". That is an absurd comparison that completely misses my point. As experts warning about AI risks are not equivalent to some religious leader making extraordinary claims about evil alien and exclusive salvation for his followers.

Also before my Gemini error, the wider group of pro Falun Gong editors had just argued with me that Ownby claims that Li never made anti-science teachings. They even give me his quote while simultaneously saying this but it's them who misquoted Ownby.

Ownby quote:

One of Li Hongzhi’s favorite themes is that of modern science. Again and again in his lectures, he returns to the limitations of the scientific paradigm and the blind arrogance of the world scientific community. Not that Li’s vision is antiscientific or necessarily antimodern in the way that, say, some Mennonites’ world views might be understood to be. On the contrary, Li claims to speak the language of modern science and seems quite content that his followers take advantage of all that modern science has to offer—indeed, without modern telecommunications, most notably the Internet, Falun Gong most certainly would not have achieved its present form.

It is very clear that Ownby was saying that Li was very critical of modern science and hence it's disinfo to say the opposite. I find it shocking that they will give me that quote above and tell me I am wrong for not agreeing with them. I don't feel they should get away with that. But nonetheless I did not report it but let it go. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

So here's the thing. @Binksternet is correct, as I was alluding to in my own comment, that there are CPUSH issues at the FLG articles right now. And what @JaredMcKenzie describes above is exactly that - an example of CPUSH tactics. I don't personally think that justifies using quotes pulled off of Gemini without checking sources (I think anyone familiar with me knows I tend to be a sources-first sort of person). So this kind of squares the circle as to why I agree with them on content but not on comportment. Of course the end result of this is seeing just one editor other than myself pushing back against obvious CPUSH tactics was that I went to edit other things that wouldn't give me a headache and they ended up here.

I've said, above in this thread, that I don't think comportment at the FLG pages rises to sanctionable. Yet. I'd suggest, in light of Bink's statement (which I do somewhat reluctantly agree with) that JMK be warned that any further abuse of AI would lead to sanctions and that, hopefully, the attention this thread creates will bring some new blood to pages that desperately need it. Before we end up with yet another Arbitration case about this contentious topic. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

+1 It's not just the CPUSH tactics they use. When I done the diligent work of correcting their misinformation, these pro Falun Gong editors sourly responded by casting aspersions at me like I am a problematic editor making up a non-existent issue. Really, that conduct is what's solid grounds for a warning/ or community ban.

Rather than just acknowledge the substance of my concern, they questioned why I raised it in the first place and starting a petty fight. You can imagine how that is very frustrating when I had legit grounds to challenge their misrepresentation of a source and had taken the time and effort to explain those grounds.

That doesn't excuse my own actions for the Google Gemini mistake but at least I apologize for that. Regardless in the end, I find it hard to continue with them and no longer wish to talk with them further. Lately, in all my final threads with them, I given up and they all end with me stating it is clear we cannot agree with each other but other users like @Simonm223 and @Binksternet etc, agree with me and hence there is no consensus. I have made it clear to themm that I am not willing to continue debating the issue directly, and further discussion should ideally take place thru rFc. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie, I'm not very impressed by blaming others. You've apologised for the AI misuse, so I'm going to draw a line under that. I think the warning suggested above would be redundant, both because you've already apologised, and because whether you're warned or not there's no way another instance of AI misuse will pass, people here are extremely wary of that. I'm more concerned by the bludgeoning/IDONTHEARTHAT/source misrepresentation bit.

On that, you have a choice. You can either bluster it out, blame everyone else, and hope that this report doesn't come to a conclusion on sanctions and that you skate on this one. It could happen, ANI is very disorganised and a lot of serious reports get archived without action. Or you could consider your own behaviour reflectively, tell us where the portrayal we've received is false, where you've fallen short, and how you might change to fix that. I would extend a lot of credit to the editor who chooses the latter course. And I'm probably not going to pay much attention to your opinion of other editors until after that. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I agree with Binksternet that the claims of bludgeoning and IDHT are seriously over-egged here. The thing that bothers me is a failure to adhere to sources. IF JMK will commit to avoiding that comportment this thread can be closed IMO. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

They are overstating it. When I say stuff like don't insult my intelligence and that I will report them if they do it again, there is background. I actually have on multiple occasions tolerated their falsehoods of me.

Here, this editor nitpicks where on the talk thread, I had accidentally called Britannica as a secondary source instead of tertiary. It's not a big deal and I fixed it as soon as they raised it the first time but they falsely claimed WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as if editors had to repeatedly tell me that Brittanica is tertiary and I refuse to listen to them.

At the beginning, I let that fib go but later on, they reply with a snarky comment again saying - The fact that you think the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is trivial says a lot. After which I warned them not to make up inflated claims on me and will take to Ani if they continue with this and also asked for an apology, which they have not given.

Regardless, for the mistake I did make - Google Gemini error - I at least made a proper apology to the user on their talk, struck out my comment and have not repeated that error since. I believe my last message to them on that error was civil and resolved. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Your description of my position on the apocalypse issue above isn't accurate. Here is my full comment on the talk page. Regarding the discussion about Ownby's quote, here is the WP:RSN thread so that everyone can see its full context. MrGerLib (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Really? I told you that Li predicts the world will end where it's either evil aliens going to destroy us or our bodies won't have functional organs and li can only save his followers.

Yet you whitewash these claims by saying - "I don't see how that is much different from what some experts have predicted recently about AI potentially wiping out human civilization in the future if we don't slow down its development"

So it seemed very clear to me that you wanted to present that prediction as not so much a crazy doomsday claim but closer to a scientific opinion. This allows you to civil pov push that Li was not predicting an end of our civilization in a religious cult-like manner..

Regardless the key issue with Danny's statement is that it's an absurd lie of omission. Danny wasn't interested in explaining how followers expect a coming apocalypse but mislead people into thinking nothing of that sort is taught by Li. I believe his statement will risk misleading readers when he said "Li ALWAYS discourage predicting doomsday theories". I prefer proper explanations like from Palmer and Penny who explains how Li doesn't set a specific date for judgement day but just says it's coming and also after the Apocalyptic event where most of us are being destroyed for not believing Li, the world will start a new civilization from scratch. That would be more honest. Danny's statement by itself would easily mislead others and why I preferred its better to be removed. But you defend that comment despite any neutral editor would agree with me it's heavily misleading to say the least and is best removed.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

To be fair to MrGerLib, there was more than just using AI in that part. In order, it was: Using AI, threatening to take another user with ANI for 'making a falsehood', doubling down at the user's talk page, and then misrepresenting what happened later on.

Though, to be completely fair, I am inclined to believe Simonm223 that I don't think these issues are sanctionable at this time with regard to other parties. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that comportment from JMK needs to stop. I do think they should be warned that any such continuance would lead to a topic ban. I do also think they should get that warning rather than just kicking them off the raft. After all the efforts to downplay FLG apocalypticism, FLG anti-medicine positions and Epoch Times extremity as a far-right disinfo vehicle have been pervasive on FLG related pages lately. I do suggest lending some very limited latitude to people acting up in such cases. Basically I'm saying WP:ROPE is relevant here. And for more than one editor. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, Thomas Meng was arguably oversimplifying or misrepresenting Li's position by implication. It risked suggesting that Li considered other religions effective for achieving consummation through cultivation in the modern era. However, I was familiar with reliable sources that directly contradicted that implication. That's why I doubted their interpretation.

When I later reverted my edit, I explained to them that their given quote itself doesn't establish that Li consider other religions effective in the modern era. I also cited David Palmer who explicitly describes Li position that other religions have been declining and that Falun Gong is superior to orthodox religions including Christianity; and that now all other religions are incapable of bringing salvation to humanity. (A very different picture from the one implied by their edit)

Orthodox religions, i.e. Taoism and Buddhism (for Li Hongzhi, Christianity is a form of Buddhism66) have long been in decline, and today practise only external forms. They are now incapable of bringing salvation to humanity. Buddhas and gods no longer pay attention to these religions67 ; rather, they are now studying Falun Gong by the myriads68.

Ultimately, I am uncertain if they quoted Penny right but I decided in the end to take them on their word. We resolved the issue productively where I acknowledged my own error while addressing the misleading implication of their edit, without further speculating about their intentions. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I've edited a bit in this topic area and will say it does not bring out the best in anyone involved (which is why I have mostly avoided it despite having quite the interest).

The AI misuse is bad and I have the impression of JaredMcKenzie as at times being overly hostile in discussions. At this stage, I do not see the need for much more than a warning: stop with the AI issues especially and try to be less harsh. Beyond that I am not seeing the need for a topic ban provided they take the warning.

The rest of this is a content dispute and is best not litigated at ANI. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Having interacted with JMK in this topic area, I think this is a wise take and agree completely. Neither side of these content disputes comes across as appearing reasonable. IMHO @JaredMcKenzie is well meaning and brings the evidence, but should focus on learning pro-collaboration behaviours like dropping the stick and avoiding the wall of text if they are going to be productive. Oblivy (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I’ll briefly comment here since I was mentioned. I was involved in a few of the conversations brought up and have witnessed occasional hostility from this user. If a warning would be most appropriate, I think the issues of bludgeoning, incivility, and AI misuse should be addressed in the warning. The bludgeoning did become a bit disruptive and stalled progress at times. 23impartial (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

The real issue there needs to be boundaries. My own conduct can certainly be improved, but it did not happen in a vacuum. I am willing to agree to mutual rules where if we can't agree with each other, we do not make disparaging remarks or pressing another to keep replying when it's been expressed that they don't want to argue with them anymore.

Lately, when I can't agree with them and there is usually me and a few other editors disagreeing with their group, so I suggested we should stop this back and forth as it's unproductive, and resolving the disagreement through an rFc instead, if others are willing.

Yet in response, I have received uncivil attacks/false slander addressed here - as well one of their editors rejecting need for proposed rFc and imply I was unable to respond and so that I must not leave and instead address their point in full. Diff - So after their encouragement, I did. - However, I do not wish to participate in endless arguments involving a rotating group of editors presenting me arguments that I believe are unpersuasive. Nor should my lack of continued response to allow this pro FG group to portray as if matter is settled.

This is not merely hypothetical. Example is this thread where they argued to remove a sourced edit from a reputable book from Helen Farley on how FG teachings on Medicine resulted in many deaths. They refuse to listen to me and @Binksternet on not agreeing to have it removed but we stopped replying. Despite there was no concensus to remove info from a reputable Oxford published book, this group went ahead and removed the info.

My only point is that disengagement is not an admission of defeat, nor does it establish consensus. If you genuinely believe your case is well founded, then when an editor tells you that discussion is no longer going anywhere and suggest rFc, respect this and allow the wider community to assess the disagreement. I think we can be at least able to disagree without throwing personal attacks, or pressuring others to keep arguing and dismiss need for other dispute resolution processes. I am asking for that courtesy to be mutual and am equally willing to extend it to others. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the Farley removal, there was no consensus to add the source. Per WP:ONUS, "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content." The source has a citation error and WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies too. As PARAKANYAA suggested earlier, we'd better not relitigate content disputes here, as this is not the right platform for that. Thanks. MrGerLib (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikijacking

In 2017, I followed an online course on FRANCE UNIVERSITÉ NUMÉRIQUE (fun-mooc.fr) about contributing in Wikipedia. I contributed to History of the metre, Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain and International Association of Geodesy among others. I created two articles: Central European Arc Measurement and Swiss Geodetic Commission in French and in English under the nickname @Charles Inigo. Despite my renewed efforts to limit duplications which I was accused of and my efforts to constructively discuss ways to ameliorate articles I contributed in, I was recently mentionned by @Johnjbarton in Talk:History_of_the_metre#c-Johnjbarton-20261030181100-Fgnievinski-20261020125000. Indeed, I may perhaps come across as overly suspicious and full of myself, but I must confess that his recent deletion of my contributions in Swiss Geodetic Commission leads me to suspect that he intends to publish my work under his own name. I believe this behavior—which I would term "Wikijacking"—is something he has been criticized for in the past, and could accordingly to another editor justify his exclusion from Wikipedia. See User:Johnjbarton#Experience_with_Wikipedia. I therefore firmly demand that he undo his recent deletion in Swiss Geodetic Commission. Please see Talk:Swiss_Geodetic_Commission. Charles Inigo (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that we can't port articles from other language wikis to here cause it's "your" work? — VPP (t/c) 19:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. My behavior, deleting off-topic content duplicated across several articles, was in response to another editors complaint, see Talk:History_of_the_metre#Duplication. Within the very long thread Talk:Swiss_Geodetic_Commission#Content_deleted_from_this_article. I asked if Charles Inigo would agree to add part of a deleted paragraph to a section in History of the metre. I was trying to find a way to reuse the off topic content. I guess that is where this "suspect that he intends to publish" comes from. I can see now that trying to help was a mistake. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: Your last sentence there was a bit hostile. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hammersoft Could you clarify "last sentence there"? Which article/talk page? Or are you referring to my post directly above? Johnjbarton (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The last sentence in your post above; "I can see now that trying to help was a mistake." --Hammersoft (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hm, can you help me understand why this is hostile? I regret wasting rather a lot of my time attempting to communicate. I added this because I think the community should understand that my experience with engagement went badly. I don't see how this is hostile to anyone. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Because stating that trying to help was a mistake can be read as an accusation that the person you are in dispute with is intractable. It's just not necessary. Your comments read just the same with out. Focus on the dispute, not the person. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

No less hostile than the wild accusation coming out of left field that deleting a section = intent to publish under one's own name. Ravenswing 22:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hostility by someone else doesn't justify hostility by another. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Nor does it excuse the hostility in the first place. Ravenswing 00:59, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@Charles Inigo: When you publish new content to any page on Wikipedia, you "agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL". That means anyone can basically do whatever they want with it so long as attribution occurs (which, for our purposes, is done with edit histories), so long as it follows those licenses. That includes another editor re-publishing it...even word for word...from their accounts. If you're not comfortable irrevocably releasing your content under those licenses, you shouldn't publish here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

As Hammersoft says, once you post something to Wikipedia, you do not have any further control over what's done with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Of course, I understand that the content I added can be reused. I am also conscious that if I port articles from other languages to English Wikipedia their content can be reused without permission. The point is that I am afraid Johnjbarton is not of good faith when he deletes content pretending it is off topic. When saying that deleting a section could be explained by the intention to publish under one's own name, I repeat an explaination that Johnjbarton hosts in is own userpage about the hostility his behaviour produced in another contributor. The advantages he could get by obtaining attribution of content which is not anymore available in the free Encyclopedia seems more important than if the content is stil under publication in Wikipedia. An alternative explaination could be that he exercises censorship or both. Charles Inigo (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Or you could WP:Assume good faith and consider the possibility that they deleted the text as off topic because they genuinely believe it is off topic. MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I did not publish any content authored by Charles Inigo, so the entire question of whether it is according to license or not does not apply here. The root cause of this discussion is not my additions but rather my deletions, which Charles wishes to revert and prevent. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I would precise that I endured a lot of deletions which I tried to overcome as a means to ameliorate my contributions in other articles. Hence the duplications. However I consider my contributions in Swiss Geodetic Commission my masterpiece. I sought to illustrate Switzerland’s participation in the history of scientific collaborations during the 19th century, which led to the creation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the International Association of Geodesy, and the International Statistical Institute. The drive to do this was to let know this true fact following a period in which Switzerland (not Sweden) was deprived from access to scientific collaboration with the European community. The article corresponding to Swiss Geodetic Commission in German is another example of promotional enterprise in Wikipedia. However this article is protected and cannot be modified. Charles Inigo (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Have you, uh, considered writing a book instead? Serious question. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 06:59, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Another of my motivations was to show that the history of science can be explained in different ways. I could cite, for example, the sidelining of Carlos Ibáñez e Ibáñez de Ibero from the caption of a photograph depicting the founding members of the International Statistical Institute, or recent article that highlights the role of the German astronomer Wilhelm Julius Foerster, even though Carlos Ibáñez e Ibáñez de Ibero served for 16 years as the first president of the International Committee for Weights and Measures.https://www.unav.es/gep/IbanezDeIbero.html Charles Inigo (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

References

I must acknowledge that @Johnjbarton has done an excellent job in simplifying the "History of the Metre." The article is now much more readable. However, as far as I can judge as a French speaker, my contributions regarding the Swiss Geodetic Commission are of a higher quality than what I would expect from the simplified style adopted by Johnjbarton. As I mentionned, I would like the article "Swiss Geodetic Commission" to be translated into as many languages ​​as possible. I therefore propose that Johnjbarton translates this article for the Simple English Wikipedia and ceases his acts of vandalism on the corresponding article in the English Wikipedia. Charles Inigo (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sensing major WP:OWN problems from you. And you really should read the 3rd pillar. As the 3rd pillar implies, you should expect anything you write to be mercilessly edited. If you don't like that then a collaborative project isn't that place for you. You can consider something a masterpiece but unless other editors agree it's perfect for the article this is irrelevant. Write a blog or something if you want to write masterpieces uninterrupted. To be clear editors can and do almost singlehandedly bring an article to WP:FA status but that's because they improve them enough in ways the community agrees makes them good enough for the status. An editor's personal opinion on how his good their work is is largely irrelevant and all editors need to be willing to accept that their work will be edited and that no matter how good they consider their work was, if the community disagrees it may be edited significantly and they need to adjust to what the community wants going forward. To be clear I have not evaluated your changes. It's just your comments here which makes me think you're confused how things work. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2026 (UTC) 14:21, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

BTW to be clear, I mean no sarcasm or doubt about the masterpiece thing. You may very well have written a masterpiece but it doesn't mean it's suitable for the article or any article. Things need to be suitable for and fit in with the English Wikipedia and how we do things regardless of how good they are. Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I got the point. However, in Talk:Swiss_Geodetic_Commission I tried to answer objections of Johnjbarton doubting that my content was correctly sourced. I provided 16 sources and got answers showing that they were missinterpreted by him. Charles Inigo (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

As I pointed out on that talk page, the sources mostly verify the content, but they fail to mention the article's topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to look into detail but it's no point providing 16 sources if many of them are useless. Letters written by people involved are primary sources and are almost definitely useless for anything except maybe as an additional source for readers who might want to check them out when all the content is already supported by recent secondary sources. I say recent for a reason, letters are even more useless when they are from the 19th century. If you want to do independent history research, Wikipedia is the wrong place for that. Feel free to write an article somewhere that will be welcome, there are many places where that will be welcome but Wikipedia is not one of them. You said "Third, the first large section you deleted correspond to the Background of the creation of learned societies in Switzerland in particular in the canton of Geneva joining Switzerland in 1815" but the article is about something founded in 1861 so it's incredibly unlikely you'd need a "large section" "creation of learned societies" "in 1815" belongs. Sources are basically irrelevant. You never explaied what on earth "The Swiss survey is clearly mentionned" had to do with anything. This is an article on the Swiss Geodetic Commission. It's not an article on Pearce or a Swiss survey or anything else. Very limited background information might be added but generally sources will need to connect the background to the Swiss Geodetic Commission and regardless it will need to be very limited. This is much more likely to belong in the European Geodetic Association article although frankly even there is seems likely it's WP:UNDUE. If this survey or Peirce are notable then we could have an article on either of them where this might belong, But not the article on the Swiss Geodetic Commission unless you find far better sourcing establishing that this is of relevance to the Swiss Geodetic Commission which you never seemed to do. I could go on but from what I see Johnjbarton basically outlined plenty of well supported concerns and you ignored them. Johnjbarton has even gone as far as to try and help you find places to copy the content yourself (so you will get the credit) and while to your credit you have engaged in that, you are still complaining about the basic fact a lto of what you are trying to add doesn't seem to belong or at least you've failed to establish that it does with any sources. So on your part, what I see is an editor demanding to have their way even when there are very good policy and guideline based reasons why you are wrong, and ignoring an editor explaining this to them and continuing to edit war to have their way. And I suggest you think carefully about how you respond since it's looking more and more like a boomerang is going to result. Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

The Swiss suvey cannot refer to anything else than the pendulum work of the Swiss Geodetic Commission in the secondary source mentionned. A primary source about one's own work can also mention other's work and be also considered a secondary source on some points. I also mentionned secondary sources already sourcing the text which was reverted.

I acknoledged that the background of the creation of learned societies in Switzerland could be moved in Swiss Academy of Sciences and moved the content there.

I mentionned two secondary source mentionning Pierce, Cellerier, Hirsch and Plantamour. N° 9 and 10. Charles Inigo (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I have a personal interest in, and some knowledge of, the history of science in Switzerland. I have looked at the material recently removed from Swiss Geodetic Commission by Johnjbarton, and scanned through the talk page thread about it. It seems to me that Johnjbarton was quite right to say that the removed content doesn't fit into the narrow topic of the history of this commission: it's overly detailed, contains long paragraphs about background matters not really related to the Swiss Geodetic Commission itself, and lacks contextualisation for the lay reader as to why this background is important. In my opinion, at ~50kb, the text should also be broken up into at least two or three subsections to make it easier to read. The material is more like an essay on the development of geodetic standards than an encyclopaedia entry, and while it is well-sourced and has value, it was not appropriate in its previous state in this article.

I agree with Johnjbarton that at least some of this material could usefully be moved to other articles, perhaps History of the metre as has been proposed (though I haven't read that article myself). Some of it could even be reworked and put back into Swiss Geodetic Commission. I don't think, however, that it should be replaced as-is.

I also don't believe that there's any reason to suspect Johnjbarton of wanting to re-publish Charles Inigo's work as their own, whether here, on other languages' Wikipedias, or elsewhere. In my opinion, there's not much point discussing that suggestion further. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, that was too many words from me on the content-dispute side of things. Sorry. Suffice it to say that I think this is a content dispute, and Johnjbarton has not been vandalising the page, let alone with nefarious intentions. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Refering to History of the metre, I must recall that after its simplification the article was proposed for deletion. See Talk:History_of_the_metre. This was the reason I interpret some contributors were exercising censorship. Charles Inigo (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

To save everyone else the trouble of looking, the AfD for History of the metre was opened and closed in July 2025, more than a year ago. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Soon after the process of simplification was over. Charles Inigo (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Someone suggested the content be merged. It got limited support with the result of this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the metre being keep. Notably no one suggested anything more than merge so most of the content was always going to be kept and anyone would find it from the same URI. So it's hard to see how there was any suggestion of censorship. Everyone would still find more or less the exact same content in the same way. The editor who suggested the merge is not the one who you're complaining about here indeed the editor here was uninvolved in the merge problem. Besides the problems I highlighted above you seem to have a major problem with not WP:AGF and are fact accusing editors of ridiculous things with basically zero evidence. Again this seems to come because you are unwilling to accept other editors may legitimately have different ideas from you about how our articles should be and that's perfectly okay. In this case it's even more silly since the community consensus was with you so there's zero reason to care. And as I said this is largely a dispute over organisation of content not whether the content will be in any article. No one was suggesting the content should be removed from Wikipedia just put somewhere else so it seems even more ridiculous. I suggest you stop with all this and just agree to do better than you have been before a WP:boomerang result. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to assume Johnjbarton's good faith after he proposed to me to move the content in History of the metre#Meridional definition. Then explained in Talk:History_of_the_metre#Duplication that his attempts to cleanup articles have been reverted and all discussions return to adding the same off-topic content back, while this discussion started with a complaint about my duplications. I must confess that I asked him if the content would be suitable for Topographic Map of Switzerland which he recently proposed to rename Dufour map. See: Talk:Topographic Map of Switzerland. Charles Inigo (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I just replied to @Johnjbarton in Talk:History_of_the_metre#Duplication. Charles Inigo (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

The suggestion I was exercising censorship is as absurd as Charles Inigo telling Johnjbarton "your recent deletion of my contributions in Swiss Geodetic Commission leads me to suspect that you intend to publish my work under your own name. ... I therefore firmly demand that you undo this action." For years, Charles has been adding detailed and longwinded content to articles about the metre and the metric system, and for years, other editors have sought to persuade Charles it's off-topic and often removed it. Charles has persisted anyway, across multiple articles. Now they claim their material must not be removed, for fear of something that has not happened, is unlikely to happen, and would not be wrong if it did happen.

Looking for example at Charles's edits to Metrication this month, with e.g. its long list of committee members and circuitous lecture on temperature effects, I despair of these important articles ever being readable as long as Charles Inigo is active in the topic area. NebY (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Please have a look at Metrication#United_States_(1830–present). Charles Inigo (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

A fine example, wandering massively off-topic with one long paragraph about error and temperature effects, another about European assemblies, and another about geodesy, while the initial content that could be on-topic for the US is all about recognising the contribution of one Swiss geodesist. NebY (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I added content about Samuel B. Ruggles US representative to the Committee on Weights and Measures and Coins which was established during the Exposition Universelle (1867) in Paris and called for the international adoption of the metric system. I tried to put this in context. Charles Inigo (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You added one sentence about Ruggles, followed by a paragraph of "context", and you're not acknowledging the other problems. NebY (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you consider mentionning the Metric Act of 1866 in Metrication#United_States_(1830–present) as a problem? Charles Inigo (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what's going on? ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I must admit the discussion is a bit confused. I complained about reccurent revesal of my edits, while other would like to impose me a topic ban because I proposed an alternative history of the definition and adoption of the metre than that which used to be proposed in History of the metre pretending the metre was defined by the pendulum length. This led to an editorial dispute, and some would like to lay the blame on me. Charles Inigo (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence that "other would like to impose me a topic ban because I proposed an alternative history of the definition and adoption of the metre"? It seems no more justifiable than your initial accusation that "he intends to publish my work under his own name". NebY (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Please give your own answer to the question. Charles Inigo (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

No. You made the accusation, now you must back it up or strike it as an aspersion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I must confess I was surprised by @Johnjbarton proposal to duplicate content of Swiss Geodetic Commission into History_of_the_metre#Meridional_definition while there was a discussion starting with a complaint about my duplications in Talk:History_of_the_metre#Duplication in which I felt threatened by @Fgnievinski question about a topic ban which should be reactivated against me.

This threat had been followed by Johnjbarton's suppressions of contributions I made 3 month earlier in Swiss Geodetic Commission two days after a suppression of content in Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain. I had expanded this article in a hurry when History of the metre was simplified, a process concluded by a proposal for deletion in Summer 2025.

I had discussed with Johnjbarton the possibility to move deleted content from Swiss Geodetic Commission into Topographic Map of Switzerland from where content (90 percent written by me according to Johnjbarton) had been duplicated and ameliorated (in my opinion). I thought this would be alright for him, but he deleted the content there too. After a discussion in which I thought I convinced him that the text he had suppressed was correctly sourced, as he had proposed to add this content in History_of_the_metre#Meridional_definition, I added the text he had suppressed into Swiss Geodetic Commission leaving to him the change in History of the metre.

He then deleted the text again and mentionned me in Talk:History_of_the_metre#Duplication. Considering he was not of good faith, I checked his user page where he mentionned the "wikijacking" strategy he had been accused of and of which I thought I could also be a victim. Hence the notice aiming both at stopping the threats against me and stop this edit dispute.

Since then Johnjbarton proposed to rename Topographic Map of Switzerland. I hope my deleted contributions from Swiss Geodetic Commssion could be inserted into the new Dufour map article. Charles Inigo (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

After a discussion in which I thought I convinced him that the text he had suppressed...

...considering he was not of good faith

...I thought I could also be a victim...

Hence the notice aiming both at stopping the threats against me...

(bolding added)

I'm sorry to say this, but your mindset is not a good one to have at at a collaborative project like Wikipedia and I hope you can change your view of other editors who you disagree with.

Firstly, some of your posts indicate that you're not fully aware that the things you write here don't belong to you - they are transient and very likely to evolve over time, as others edit the same article. Your original text may not exist at all in a year or two, and you have no control over that.

You also seem to be having trouble focusing your work on the core subject of the article, and don't seem to fully comprehend/accept whenever this is fed back. Even here, you're not always properly answering the questions you've been asked, nor fully understanding why your posts can be seen as problematic. If you are, I'm afraid it's just not coming across in your responses.

Secondly, your last post is (IMO) still pretty accusatory, and I'm not seeing much introspection on your part - even reading through past discussions, you tend to gloss over concerns, even after they've been raised repeatedly, and the whole discussion at Talk:History of the metre#Duplication is rather difficult to read as a result.

You've been asked to substantiate your allegations against another editor, instead it feels like you've doubled-down (saying you could be a victim, as if there were a previous crime/malfeasance committed by that editor). Re. "Wikijacking", it seems like you were perhaps proactively looking for something negative about another editor, to validate your own negative feelings about them? That's not a pleasant place for anyone to be, if I'm right then please try to avoid doing this, for your own wellbeing as well as others.

BTW, I can't see any specific threats of reinstating a TBAN on Talk:History_of_the_metre#Duplication? There's a mention of a previous TBAN suggestion from last year, but these seem to only have been suggestions and didn't go any further (I will say that article Talk pages aren't really the best place for discussions over behaviour/TBAN's, however). I presume this is what you meant?

Overall, it feels like you're talking to other editors, but you don't seem to really be listening. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:35, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. According to you, I should not feel theatened. I rencently talked to other editors in Talk:History_of_the_metre#Duplication and wait for they answers. Charles Inigo (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Well, no, you can feel however you wish, my exact words were I can't see any specific threats of reinstating a TBAN in response to your comment that I felt threatened by @Fgnievinski question about a topic ban which should be reactivated against me. This threat had been followed by Johnjbarton's suppressions...

I couldn't find any evidence of a threat to reactivate a TBAN (I don't think you've ever had one?), which is why I was a bit confused and wrote that I couple only presume (guess) that this is what you were referring to.

I could only find other editors discussing whether they should consider suggesting a TBAN (very reluctantly, I might add), but no specific threat from either editor that matched what you alleged.

You can feel however you wish about this, I wouldn't ever tell you otherwise.

I also don't see that they ...would like to impose me a topic ban because I proposed an alternative history of the definition and adoption of the metre - their concerns were over the amount of off-topic, tangential and excessively verbose material that was being added, as far as I understand the discussions. They didn't seem keen to take this to a TBAN discussion, considering it had first been mentioned in 2025.

It's honestly hard to tell, because you're linking entire threads and not any specific quotes or diffs; we're all left trying to guess at which comments you mean, yet none of them really match what you're alleging has happened here. We don't know whether you're bringing up valid concerns or if you've perhaps misunderstood something. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:45, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort to explain the situation to me. I have contributed in History of the metre a long time and was bothered by reccurent added content mentionning that the original definition of the metre was the seconds pendulum's length. Interventions of Johnjbarton helped to summarize the link between the seconds pendulum and the Earth after many years of what I would call (using the words of Johnjbarton) a curious and obscure kind of vandalism tedious to repair. Thus, the reproach Johnjbarton leveled at me resonated within me in a particular way. I can't either be absolutely sure that I did not misunderstood something nor that I am bringing up invalid concerns. I am still waiting for an answer to my last question in Talk:History_of_the_metre#Duplication. Charles Inigo (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I can't either be absolutely sure that I did not misunderstood something nor that I am bringing up invalid concerns.

Whenever this happens, please try to follow the assume good faith principle; unless there's very good, obvious evidence that someone is purposefully being malicious, then always presume the other person is operating in good faith; it's entirely possible that the person you're speaking to is mistaken, not in possession of all the facts or even just having a terrible day. Perhaps you're mistaken but don't realise it.

Good faith is the default position on Wikipedia and it should take a lot to tip the bar over into "bad faith" territory.

Turning to content, the desire to pass on knowledge about something you're passionately interested in is entirely natural, but it can often lead to that person inadvertently overwhelming the recipient. That's also the case on Wikipedia - if you know all this interesting stuff, of course you'll to want to pass that information on. It doesn't mean it's always a good idea, however, and that instinct often needs tempering. It's akin to information overload or a wall of text, but that's not how we want our articles to be.

Can you understand the concerns that others have raised regarding your work lacking focus? If this continues then I'm worried it has the potential to turn toxic and sour your editing career here when it really shouldn't have to go that far.

I'm certain that you don't want to waste your time writing paragraphs of information that will only be removed by someone else as off-topic, and other volunteer editors don't want to spend their own time pruning and removing your hard work - nobody wins in that scenario, everyone just comes out of the experience feeling awful.

So, I have a question for you: Would you be willing to try and focus your work on the core subject of the article, minimising tangents as much as possible?

For example, if you've begun a completely new paragraph and find that you're writing about something other than the subject of the article, take it as a giant red flag & seriously consider removing/amending it. Take it out and review the article - does it still give the reader the same amount of information about the core subject? Would it tell the reader more if it was in a different article instead? If that article doesn't exist, would it be worth drafting one?

Tangents & focus seem to be the main concern, and it's a temptation that I'm personally very familiar with.

Being very honest, my initial drafted posts are usually three or four times their eventual length (including this one, which took half an hour), as I've learned over time that I need to treat my writing like a bonsai; I prune off as much as I can, whilst leaving the core message intact. It's a skill that I don't always succeed at - this post is a little longer than I'd like it to be - but it's nowhere near as bad as it would be otherwise!

Perhaps you might find this approach helpful as well? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:45, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

To be honest here, when I look at the article, I can see why the content was deleted. I'm not saying it's bad content—it's not—but quite a lot of it seemingly has very little to actually do with the Swiss Geodetic Commission. The second section that was deleted contains 4 paragraphs in a row—a total of nearly 700 words—that don't mention the commission once and it's unclear as to how this actually relates to the topic at hand. Is it just miscellaneous content about people who happened to be in the commission? If it's genuinely related, then state that in the article. And the first section is just miscellaneous history without justification as to how it relates to the Swiss Geodetic Commission. I'll admit, I don't know a ton about the topic so I'm not sure to what extent it actually is related to the Swiss Geodetic Commission but it doesn't necessarily seem like it just from a readthrough.

In terms of the reversion, I don't think you should have added that content back into the article and I think that Johnjbarton was in the right for reverting it before a consensus was reached. After removing the content, Johnjbarton (appropriately) created a talk page discussion explaining why he removed the content and suggested where you could reuse it. You two debated, and after not being able to come to a conclusion, he suggested to ask other editors for help (i.e. in an WP:RFC). However, instead of doing this, you re-added the content and accused Johnjbarton of removing the content in bad faith and "Wikijacking". For one, you could have waited for that to actually happen before taking it up at ANI. Additionally, there is no indication that Johnjbarton is trying to steal your content nor any realistic motivation for him to do so. I am more concerned about your willingness to assume bad faith and how you insult people who disagree with you, such as the multiple times you've insinuated Johnjbarton is not smart enough to understand or write complex English, that he is trying to steal your work and paste it elsewhere on WP, or that other editors are trying to censor Wikipedia.

I have read through the previous ANI that Johnjbarton was part of and it's another post accusing Johnjbarton of incompetence and trying to get him banned from WP over a content dispute (which also had nothing to do with Wikijacking, for what it's worth). The fact that you seem to think that Johnjbarton was in the wrong there, too, makes me a bit concerned about your mindset towards editing WP. I am not trying to say this to hate, and I realize that a significant proportion of editors come from academic settings and it is not always easy to collaborate with others, especially when you're used to working alone. However, to me, it seems that you feel that you WP:OWN the articles you've created or worked on substantially, and that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong and/or incompetent. I have worked significantly with Johnjbarton on Black hole and never had any problems, even when we didn't always agree on content. I do think you are genuinely trying to act in good faith and improve the encyclopedia, but unfortunately, you need to change your mindset before that can happen. I support looking into WP:Assume good faith, WP:Don't call a spade a spade, and WP:Assume high intelligence. Good luck, and I hope you can hear me out. Shocksingularity (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I tried to calm myself translating in German. The Wikipedia article Swiss Geodetic Commssion exists now in French, Italian and German with a permanent link towards https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swiss_Geodetic_Commission&diff=prev&oldid=1382828231. This discussion will also remain as a trace of my motivations in this enterprise. This is sufficient for me. As John F. Kennedy advised I asked not what my country could do for me, but what I could do for my country. I recalled the role Switzerland played in the 19th centuy scientific collaborations as a neutral country in central Europe and could continue to play in the future. Charles Inigo (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Recommend we just close this as a rather initially confusing series of cultural and communications misunderstandings, so we can all go back to editing. — VPP (t/c) 17:28, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Gregory Khachatrian, redux

• Gregory Khachatrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1233#Gregory Khachatrian making large batches of redirects

Please see the above ANI case for context. TLDR: user was making large amounts of low quality redirects, there was an emerging consensus for a TBAN from redirect creation, but the case was archived without action, probably in part due to the user's apparent quitting of Wikipedia.

However, he's back, and over the past week or so of his return, he's continued to make the same sorts of problematic redirects (often of a juvenile nature), such as Erfurt poop disaster, Collection of sperm, and others, along with endless combinations of unneeded capitalization differences (which aren't needed for searching, as has been pointed out to him repeatedly). Keep in mind his comment at the previous case, "It's like an addiction for me, so it's best for me to just leave this platform for now."

I'm seeking that TBAN due to the continuation of the problem, and I'm still advocating for a mass nuke of his redirect creations for the same reasons in the previous case. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:36, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

How is this a problem? Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not even spamming anything. Besides, the redirects you just mentioned are completely normal. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Let's take "Erfurt poop disaster" as an example. Does the word "poop" appear in the target article? No. Is it a literal translation of the German title, "Erfurter Latrinensturz"? No. Is the subject known as the "Erfurt poop disaster" at all by anybody? Let's take a look at the sources:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

That's another no. In fact, it gets zero Google hits, which is even less than I expected. The closest thing I can find is one YouTube short that calls it the "The Great Erfurt Poop Flood", which is not RS and not even the same. The phrase "Erfurt poop disaster" seems to be of your own invention. It is not known as the "Erfurt feces disaster" either. There is no way that this is helpful to Wikipedia. It seems that you are amusing yourself at our expense. I think you know this. I don't think that I have to explain why this is a problem. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I have indefinitely partially blocked them from creating new pages, which includes redirects. This will either allow consensus to form as to a topic ban, which was proposed last thread, or to prevent ANI flu/flounce and subsequent resumption of the same behavior. Star Mississippi 23:56, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to sound mean but I think that he has had his chance. Either this is intentionally disruptive or WP:CIR is in play. I think the topic ban is the bare minimum but maybe it is not enough. The poor judgement and lack of care shown in something like the "Erfurt poop disaster" combined with the tendency towards sexual and the scatological phrases makes me think that a lengthy block might be better. Maybe see if he is able to behave more maturely in a year's time? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to propose that @DanielRigal. My block was to stop the disruption and allow consensus to form, whatever that consensus may be. Star Mississippi 01:20, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. If this user's disruptive behaviour is strictly limited to the creation of frivolous redirects, an indefinite partial block (which is not the same as a topic ban) should be sufficient to prevent disruption. Athanelar (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I've been looking through their history to try to reach a decision, unfortunately there's not much to go off.

Out of 40 edits since their return, here are the only non-redirect ones (barring blanking their Talk):

Whilst I'd love for them to explain why on earth they continued to cause problems as soon as they returned, I don't know if that's going to happen. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:08, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Here are the possible remedies which have been suggested: (Feel free to add to this list)

• 1. Indefinite topic ban Gregory Khachatrian from redirect creation.
• 2. Delete all redirects created by Gregory Khachatrian.
• 3. Block Gregory Khachatrian for a period of time.

--DanielRigal (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

• It is hard to get a feel for Gregory Khachatrian. He might be a young editor who just needs to mature a bit or he might be a troll. We need to give him some benefit of the doubt but not to the point where it impedes the project. I support 1. If he can edit responsibly in other areas for a few months (maybe after a block expires) then he could request the topic ban be lifted. I support 2 giving the deleting admin the discretion to leave any of the redirects that they think are justified and giving any other editor the right to reinstate any that they think they were justified (except for any deleted by consensus at RfD). I am unsure about 3. Maybe we should give him a final warning and a little more rope before doing this but maybe the previous ANI was as much rope as was justified. If Gregory can make a serious and sincere statement that such a block is unnecessary then I'd be in favour of giving him just one more chance. If not, maybe not. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
• To me the current partial block seems like an appropriate sanction that nicely fits the locus of disruption, better than any mixture of 1 and 3. No objection to 2. --JBL (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
• As nom, I support 1 & 2. I don't see any overriding reason for a full block. His fixation on sexual/bodily function/profanity topics is a little weird, but not on its own a reason to block. I do still strongly support a mass nuke of all redirect creations though. Of the user's ~1.6k edits, roughly 1k are new page creations, the vast majority of which are redirects and of the sort that just aren't needed or even helpful. Trying to sift through that would be a pretty big time sink. If someone really wants to, be my guest, but I don't see how we're going to lose anything by going forward with it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:13, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
• Support 2. As well as the scatological stuff already mentioned, there are useless things like (just picking one recent one) Gimme A HugGimme A Hug. which (a) should be tagged {{R from other capitalisation}} and {{unprintworthy}} but isn't, (b) should never be linked per MOS:TITLECAPS, and (c) add no value because typing that string into the searchbar with any capitalisation will get you exactly what you want with no ambiguity. This is useless clutter which creates puzzles for readers, work for other editors, and would waste time and effort at WP:RFD. Narky Blert (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't looked into this enough to have an opinion, but I don't think the two redirects you reference in your original post are problematic. The Erfurt latrine disaster did involve poop, and Collection of sperm is a perfectly reasonable rephrasing of Semen collection. Wikipedia is not censored, and the purpose of redirects is to direct alternate search terms to the correct location, even when those alternate terms may be crude. I haven't looked into the mass creation redirects or any of the other redirects, so I don't want to give insight on the entire situation when I don't have all of the context. However, I don't think that banning/blocking for creating crude redirects in and of itself is appropriate. Whether the rest of this user's behavior is ok, I will not weigh in on. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Exactly! I told Deacon at the beginning about the mentioned redirects not having a problem at the start. It’s completely unfair that I get a permanent block on creating new redirects over something that had completely normal redirects mentioned, and the administrators never bothered to think about this before continuing with their action. Besides, why was I even banned from creating new uploads, if that has nothing to do with the redirects I made?

Now back to Deacon, you need to think about what you post before confirming. If I really was disruptive to Wikipedia, then I would make spam titles and comments with random words and emojis, especially when they’re uppercase with slurs. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

BarryRailfan-38 persistently adding unsourced content

BarryRailfan-38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since creating their account almost a year ago, this user has built a history of making unsourced changes to articles covering Japanese and Indonesian trains (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I and two other editors have raised concerns to them about their editing to no avail. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

They've never used a Talk page of any sort, so might not be aware of them (only some edits are marked as mobile, though).

If they don't know how to talk to other editors, then a partial block might be needed to get their attention. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:55, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I'd guess they're aware of their user talk page, as they thanked me for my edit on their user talk. No response to it, unfortunately. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I agree that a partial block might be necessary here. They haven't edited since this discussion, but they normally take several-day breaks between editing anyway. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

User:Issac I Navarro - request temporary block

Requesting block for this user as they are engaging in disruptive editing to make a point. There are longer term editing/conduct issues that need addressing (spurious AfDs, extremely large unexplained content removals, edit wars/3RR violations, refusal to build consensus) and I'm currently writing up an ANI submission for that, but I'd appreciate a short block in the meantime to prevent their immediate behaviour.

@~2026-58005-46 can confirm Issac I Navarro removed information from Bronx High School of Science for the purposes of making a point in an argument. The removal of the exact kind of content was being discussed at Talk:Queens High School for the Sciences, and Issac I Navarro removed it to make a point instead of attempting to discuss the issue and establish consensus. Review of that talk page should be sufficient to justify the temporary block. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 02:12, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

This ANI is very long and it has gone on for a rather excessive amount of time, and I don't think it's worth keeping it going. At its current stage it's basically unreadable for any new entrants, as @Nil Einne points out. As such, I'd like to request closure.

Based on @Hammersoft's comments I think that ANI is probably not the correct venue for the longer term issues I wish to present, and I cannot reasonably explain them in a short and to the point fashion as @AndyTheGrump has advised.

My complaint involves a lot of diffs (a lot) in a way that I realise is unsuitable for the format of ANI, and I may just need to take this to arbitration instead. I would appreciate guidance on whether this is the right call, but that will need to be external to this already very bloated ANI thread.

I can assure you that I've read every single comment on this thread and tried to understand and digest the points of view that people have presented. Overall I don't feel that I explained things very well, and I think things ended up getting lost in the jumble of threads.

I've greatly appreciated the input from @The Bushranger and Nil Einne, and if they would be interested I think I'd like to try and explain the whole situation to one of them, as I think they'd have a much better grasp of how I should try to handle this. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 12:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

EDIT: Please see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#h-Laundry_lists_of_trivia-20261101012000, as Issac I Navarro has been trying to spread this around the place. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 02:48, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

EDIT2: Issac I Navarro has now posted an SPI regarding the TA, which appears to be retaliatory. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 19:21, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

This is absurd. Most of my edits involve school related pages. But I will refrain from schools in the state of New York until this matter is adressed. As also notified on that talk where this matter manifested from that I was raising the issue at WT:WPSCH. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

To whom may be reviewing this matter, please see that talk and my rational; as this is false that I was warring. This is a blatant mischaracterization of what has happened. I would even say that this may be a WP:BOOMERANG on Stylomecon part.

Every step of the way, I made an effort to explain my edits. I do most of my work at WP:WPSCHOOLS. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

To whoever may be reviewing this matter, please see the blatant violation of WP:3RR on October 22nd for Queens High School for the Sciences, in which Isaac I Navarro reverted @Qhssparents twice and then manually removed their submissions three more times. (I'm pretty that's a more applicable example of WP:BOOMERANG, anyhow.) • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 02:34, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I was in the middle of edits as I pointed out to you multiple times. I had the Template:In Use on the page. I am finding it very hard to keep my good faith with you when you seem to have ignored my statements. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I've already requested you stop replying to me and pinging me. Your use of the "in use" and "school zone" templates were both very clearly employed to suppress participation by Qhssparents, along with your usage of template warnings to intimidate them and suppress discussion while you were actively edit warring with them. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 02:41, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

You keep trying to get WP:TLW in. You made that request after you pinged me on a public Wikiproject. I am trying to move on with my editing but you keep pinging me into this matter. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro: You may have been in the middle of edits but neither that or the presence of {{in use}} is an exception to WP:3RR. If your undoing their edits had been as a direct edit conflict (i.e. you 'saved over' their edits) then that would be mitigating, but you explicitly reverted thier edits at least four times, which is a bright-line violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:11, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger, while I understand why you may see it that way, I would point you to this comment: Talk#c-Issac_I_Navarro-20261101003100-Stylomecon-20261101000900.

This matter has taken much of my attention away from other Wikipedia work I could have done. I have spent far too long trying to explain myself, and I am now simply frustrated by this situation. I was also a little offended by Stylomecon's comment: " request a topic ban for WikiProject: Schools and a ban from XfD, as I don't believe that Issac has the competence or judgement"" - "and there are serious issues with his conduct." I have edited thousands of school pages and to suggest a topic ban I take quite a bit offence. If the closer was to decide that such actions are appropriate. Then I would be flummoxed beyond all rational, at that point I might as well retire from English Wikipedia.

I am tired and frustrated at this point, and I would rather leave the matter for the closer to decide. This whole situation has simply spoiled my mood deeply. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how I see it (or how you see it). 3RR is a bright-line rule, and you flagrantly violated it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, my last big edit to the page, was Old revision of Queens High School for the Sciences. I was still working on the old revision when that edit was made.

When lot of these edits were happing I was on mobile and switched over to my computer, as I saw this page needed a lot of work.

• curprev 16:20, October 22, 2026 Issac I Navarro talk contribs 12,119 bytes −5,103 For the most part, I am done with my cleanup. undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 15:48, October 22, 2026 Qhssparents talk contribs 17,222 bytes +2,036 take it to talk. wait for other editors to give their opinion. undothank Tag: Undo
• curprev 15:40, October 22, 2026 Issac I Navarro talk contribs 15,186 bytes −2,036 WP:SCHOOLCRUFT undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit
• curprev 15:32, October 22, 2026 Qhssparents talk contribs 17,222 bytes +1,086 take it to the talk. undothank Tag: Undo
• curprev 15:29, October 22, 2026 Issac I Navarro talk contribs 16,136 bytes −1,086 WP:WPSCH/AG#OS undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit
• curprev 15:20, October 22, 2026 Issac I Navarro talk contribs 17,222 bytes −22 Template content Generated from: Schoolzone undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 15:20, October 22, 2026 Qhssparents talk contribs 17,244 bytes +603 I understand the concerns regarding WP and WP/AG#WNT. However, Wikipedia does not require a criminal conviction before reliably sourced allegations can be discussed. undothank
• curprev 15:20, October 22, 2026 Issac I Navarro talk contribs 16,641 bytes +44 Template content Generated from: In use undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 15:18, October 22, 2026 Issac I Navarro talk contribs 16,597 bytes −603 Undid revision 1381444740 by Qhssparents (talk) take the matter to the talk undo Tag: Undo
• curprev 15:14, October 22, 2026 Qhssparents talk contribs 17,200 bytes +588 Undid revision 1381444255 by Issac I Navarro (talk) undothank Tag: Undo
• curprev 15:13, October 22, 2026 Qhssparents talk contribs 16,612 bytes +603 Undid revision 1381444549 by Issac I Navarro (talk) undothank Tag: Reverted
• curprev 15:13, October 22, 2026 Issac I Navarro talk contribs 16,009 bytes −765 →Extracurriculars: WP:SCHOOLCRUFT undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App section source Advanced mobile edit
• curprev 15:11, October 22, 2026 Issac I Navarro talk contribs 16,774 bytes −603 →Transportation: WP:SCHOOLCRUFT undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App section source Advanced mobile edit
• curprev 15:08, October 22, 2026 Issac I Navarro talk contribs 17,377 bytes −588 Undid revision 1381443213 by Qhssparents (talk) seems to be BLP unless we have sources showing convictions. WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI undo Tags: Undo Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App undo Advanced mobile edit
• curprev 14:58, October 22, 2026 Qhssparents talk contribs 17,965 bytes +588 June 2025 assistant principal allegations undothank Tags: Reverted Visual edit: Switched

October 21, 2026

• curprev 02:09, October 21, 2026 Issac I Navarro talk contribs m 17,377 bytes +35 logo 150px undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 02:08, October 21, 2026 Issac I Navarro talk contribs 17,342 bytes −1,216 Undid revision 1381252452 by Rencoolguy (talk) Decent clean up, under WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI undo

If was to look at User talk:Qhssparents#October 2026 and User talk:Rencoolguy#October as well as paired with the page history, I would hope one could see that I was in the middle of other edits.

I digress.

This has taken far too much energy away from me. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro: Once again: it does not matter that you disagree, and it does not matter that you were editing the article at the time. You violated 3RR, by deliberate reversion of another editor's contributions six times: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Let me be extremely clear here, since you don't seem to be listening: there is no exception to 3RR for "I am currently working on the page" or "I [am] in the middle of other edits". As this happened over a week ago, you won't be sanctioned for it, but if you violate 3RR in this (or any) way again you will be blocked for it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I understand your position deeply. I'm not trying to make excuses for my actions.

When I'm pointing out that I was in the middle of other edits, (I unfortunately lost my first round of cleanup due to the edit conflict) The edis that I undid, I saw them as pure vandalism by adding nothing more then trivia that has no place in a secondary school page. Which the user continued to include, even after being asked to address the matter to the talk page. I went go to the user's talk to explain why the content was removed.

As for the edit I undid for the other user; there edit completely changed the structure and format that I used. The format I used quite normal for secondary school pages. I looked over their edit and reinstated the parts that are in line with our guidelines.

I did my best to assume good faith with these users and addressed their questions and concerns individually. I hope you see that my efforts were only a good-faith attempt at cleaning up a school page that has been neglected and had far too much trivia. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

In response to this, I would recommend viewing Qhssparents' edit history.

Try and square Issac I Navarro's claim:

The edis that I undid, I saw them as pure vandalism by adding nothing more then trivia that has no place in a secondary school page. Which the user continued to include, even after being asked to address the matter to the talk page. I went go to the user's talk to explain why the content was removed.

With Qhssparents' actual conduct. Qhssparents was unfailingly polite, reasonable, and extremely willing to seek consensus. They had very clearly made themselves familiar with Wikipedia's policies, tried to educate themselves in the proper use of templates, and were extremely willing to learn.

I did my best to assume good faith with these users and addressed their questions and concerns individually.

In light of his previous comment regarding Qhssparents, this claim cannot possibly be true. If Issac I Navarro views Qhssparents' contributions as "pure vandalism", what does that make the rest of us? I fear that we have lost a truly wonderful editor as a consequence of Issac I Navarro's actions. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 03:19, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro: - This is a very long thread so maybe this has already been addressed elsewhere but you need to re-read WP:Vandalism right now. Your description "I saw them as pure vandalism by adding nothing more then trivia that has no place in a secondary school page" is contradictory as "nothing more then trivia that has no place in a secondary school page" is definitely not vandalism. It might be inappropriate but it's not vandalism. Obviously this means WP:3RRNO does not apply but frankly the much more important point is that you're making a personal attack when you say something is vandalism when it clear isn't. Please don't do it again or you will be blocked and this is the sort of block which will very quickly lead to you being indefinitely blocked since personal attacks are not acceptable here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

See WT:WPSCH#Laundry lists of trivia. User talk:Qhssparents#October 2026 and User talk:Rencoolguy#October 2026 Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

But I will refrain from schools in the state of New York until this matter is adressed.

Can I ask if you ever intended to keep your word about this? You went back on it less than 12 hours later and repeatedly edited one of the two articles that led you into conflict with @~2026-58005-46 in the first place.

Additionally, I noticed you tagged a bunch of Scottish schools with "use British English". I'm not sure if you realise the shitstorm that's likely to cause in future, but you should really stop doing that.

For what it's worth, Dundee was one of the single strongest areas of support for Scottish independence during the 2014 referendum. When some TA inevitably takes umbrage with your tags, please understand that you will be solely responsible for the disruption caused. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 07:40, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

(Involved comment) @Stylomecon, though I may also disagree with Issac's edits as an editorial matter of course (which makes me involved), the issue boils down to a content dispute where other methods of dispute resolution are preferable. Removing a similar type of content from a similar page, which they believe to be unencyclopedic, is not pointy per se. Again, I do not agree that the content is not encyclopedic, but "I don't agree with them" is not disruptive behavior.

What may be more concerning is the edit warring on the Queens High School of Science page on 21 and 22 October. That is also a content dispute, and it happened over a week ago, but I do see at least three distinct content reverts in under 24 hours from both Qhssparents and Issac. The edit warring is stale, and I'm involved, but I agree with The Bushranger that there was, in fact, edit warring. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I was in the middle of edits; to break it down, on 14:58, October 22, 2026 Qhssparents undid my edit. I reinstated my edit and cited how "seems to be BLP unless we have sources showing convictions. WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI." in this edit: 15:08, October 22, 2026

• I would work on other areas of the page that also needed cleanup. that where undid in 15:14, October 22, 2026 and 15:13, October 22, 202 with no explanation why Qhssparents undid my edits.
• In my next edit at 15:18, October 22, 2026 I Undid revision 1381444740 by Qhssparents (talk), and said "take the matter to the talk"
• As I saw the user just undid my edits for no reason, while I was cleaning up the page. I added the inuse template on my next edit: 15:20, October 22, 2026.
• On 15:20, October 22, 2026 Qhssparents would undo my edits once again and repeat my advice; back to me: " take the matter to the talk" I went over to User talk:Qhssparents#October 2026 on 15:19, October 22, 2026 to template the user.
• I would answer their questions on their userpage.
• In 15:40, October 22, 2026, I removed different WP:SCHOOLCRUFT.
• As seen in 15:29, October 22, 2026, I was reformatting all the sections in the page per WP:WPSCH/AG#OS, I was in the middle of majorly reworking the whole page, in 16:20, October 22, 2026 I said "For the most part, I am done with my cleanup", as I was done with anything big. My next edits were fixing the refs and other minor things.

Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I will note the following from WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. A series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a single revert. ... A "revert" is any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. (emphasis mine). Regardless of whether you revert different content on the page from what you originally reverted, it still counts toward the 3RR limit. In the future I recommend keeping that in mind. This also does not excuse the other user's reverts of your own edits - they made three distinct reverts, and could have been sanctioned for edit warring if an uninvolved admin had seen it at the time. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

It seemed clear to me that the user had a COI with the school, as the username alone is: Qhssparents.

The school in questions is Queens High School for the Sciences (QHSS), and well the seconed half of their user name is parents.

I know many staff, students, and parents do tend to edit their school page; and that by itself is not an issue, for the most part. It was clear to me that the user was a newcomer, and did not know how Wikipedia school pages work. I did my best to not WP:BITE this user, and help this user understand why such content would be inappropriate for a school page. While the page was undergoing a lot of construction and rework on my part. I reformatted the whole page. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I will also note that, while not directly related to the transport reverts or the stuff about the member of staff, Issac I Navarro did additionally revert @Peter1 Baggio's contributions on the same day. I didn't include that in describing Issac I Navarro's violation of WP:3RR, but it does technically fall under that.

Whilst these actions occurred on the 22nd and would rightfully be called stale, my view is that the WP:OWN and WP:WINNING issues that led to the edit war on the 22nd reignited in the argument with @~2026-58005-46 on the 31st. The removal of content on the Bronx High School of Science article is an outcropping/extension of that same dispute. (Also, apparently that argument is still ongoing at Talk:Queens High School for the Sciences.) • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 18:33, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Removing a similar type of content from a similar page, which they believe to be unencyclopedic, is not pointy per se.

My contention is that this is an expression of WP:OWN and WP:WINNING, and part of a pattern of retaliatory behaviours that I both can and will substantiate in a subsequent ANI regarding Issac I Navarro's long-term conduct issues.

Furthermore, the claim of Qhssparents having a COI is ludicrous. Is it a Conflict of Interest to edit the article about your hometown? They very clearly named their account according to the first thing that made them want to edit Wikipedia, which is not especially uncommon. There is no indication that they would be a single-purpose account, but there is ample indication that Issac I Navarro's conduct pushed them away.

My own opinion is that the source Qhssparents was adding was unsuitable because it was from the New York Post, but that could have been very easily resolved by explaining that to Qhssparents and either asking them to find a more appropriate source or looking for one themselves. Issac I Navarro could have also led by example by editing Qhssparents' additions into a more encyclopedic tone if this was necessary, particularly as Qhssparents was very clearly not a vandal, was trying to engage in dialogue regarding the changes (which I feel he mischaractises), and Issac I Navarro was already working on the page, so this should not have been a burden to him.

However, given Issac I Navarro's sustained failures to observe WP:BEFORE when submitting and voting on AfDs, I don't believe that he looks for sources as a matter of course. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 17:59, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Even with a source it would still be trivia. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

That...isn't what trivia means. 🤦‍♀️ • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 18:07, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Note that Issac did an edit on stuyvesant early on October. He did not have an issue with the Stuyvesant Transportation section but similar sections on QHSS and BxSci were removed by Issac. ~2026-58005-46 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not interested in defacto sanctions for a mere 3RR, this is nothing more than a surly reaction by User:Stylomecon who instead of BRD, immediately attacked Issac I Navarro in this diffwith no attempt whatsoever to address the situation with civility and good faith. If anyone should be the subject of a warning it should be a BOOMERANG for User:Stylomecon who has been around for the grand total of 123 mainspace edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  The diff you cite is very far into this issue, after he started WP:CANVASSING. As Issac I Navarro himself has pointed out, we haven't really crossed paths on AfDs in the past and don't have any personal history. Personalising this in the way that you are doing is deeply inappropriate, and you are casting aspersions and making personal attacks.

  I came into this while trying to understand why there were so many spurious AfDs for school-related articles, and in the process discovered large amounts of unexplained (and poorly explained) content removals on school-related articles. I asked Issac I Navarro directly to explain his actions, and he was highly resistant to WP:SCRUTINY, gave vague answers, and failed to accurately represent the timeline of events. After I felt I had heard enough I informed Issac I Navarro that I would be submitting to ANI and left the discussion to begin writing up my findings.

  I didn't make another edit for nearly an hour an a half, during which time Issac I Navarro had gotten into an argument with a TA and began engaging in a similar pattern to what I had observed previously, so I stepped in with a warning and made clear that I believed Issac I Navarro was in the wrong to avoid incorrect warnings or sanctions being levelled against the TA.

  The diff you cited is from around an hour later, and also about 15 minutes after I had posted at ANI. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 17:42, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  It appears WP:SCRUTINY is the wrong link. I'm afraid I can't recall the correct link for the page which talks about needing to be able to explain your edits and how they're constructive. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 19:06, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  In addition to Issac I Navarro canvassing Kudpung into this ANI and the related issues (Queens High School for the Sciences and its talk page, Bronx High School of Science, the WikiProject Schools talk page), Kudpung now appears to be canvassing @Hammersoft explicitly for the purposes of influencing this ANI discussion, and to back Isssc I Navarro and Kudpung's "side" in the argument they're having in the Queens High School for the Sciences talk page.

  I also note that Kudpung has added "transportation" and a passage about alumnae to WikiProject School's article advice page, which is clearly self-serving and intended to stymy an ongoing discussion.

  I would additionally invite @Kudpung to explain the meaning of "YGM", which he posted to Issac I Navarro's talk page during this time.

  At this point it is my intention to expand the ANI I'm writing regarding Issac I Navarro to include Kudpung as well, and to request the removal of both of them as Coordinators of WikiProject Schools. I've seen numerous instances of the article advice page for WikiProject Schools being modified to win arguments and stifle discussion, and it's concerning that two of the WikiProject's Coordinators are so hostile to discussion and building consensus. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 20:07, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  Since it seems to me that you are looking for blood, and that you are wish to also include "Kudpung as well, and to request the removal of both of them as Coordinators of WikiProject Schools" in this ANU, and have made it very clear you wish to have me not edit school pages as a whole; with a topic ban for me. I will ping the other coordinators, of the project: @Tedder, @Kudpung, and @Steven (Editor). I will let the closer of this matter decide what is appropriate, for me. I hate to add more lines of text but this has some interesting stats. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  Since it seems to me that you are looking for blood

  This makes it sound all very personal. I don't know you or Kudpung, I only know your actions and the way you've conducted yourselves:.

  I've initiated a discussion regarding bringing WikiProject Schools under the auspices of WikiProject Geography in addition to WikiProject Education, in the interests of finding some much-needed balance in how these subjects should be covered. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 20:33, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  This is a content issue of a few secondary school pages. If you feel this strong about keeping public bus stops on school pages you are free to set up a RfC instead of going project shopping. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  Again, I'm not familiar with the term "project shopping", but your characterisation that [t]his is a content issue of a few secondary school pages does not accurately reflect my concerns. I can certainly set up an RfC regarding the WikiProject organisation, but I felt it best to check if WikiProject Geography were even interested in such a proposal first. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 20:45, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  You may find this essay helpful: WP:POLSHOP. Instead of asking for Wikiprojct schools to be taken over by WikiProject Geography, becuase you did not like the answer. If you feel this strongly about the answer please set up a RfC, about having trivia in school pages. I been trying to move on with my editing however, evetime I see one of my notifications it has been this. I would like to move on be productive in other areas now. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  As stated, it isn't simply because I did not like the answer. Please refrain from further mischaractisations and instead engage with the complaints I have actually levelled regarding your conduct. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 21:09, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  I think you're trying to suggest WP:BLUDGEON with your link to Xtools. This would be more convincing had you not made an incredibly large number of responses here and on the various related pages.

  I had initially not responded to your comments, as I had asked you to stop replying to me and pinging me due to the sheer volume of notifications you were sending me. It became necessary to do so in order to engage with the ANI, and you hadn't respected either the letter or spirit of my request anyway, since you engaged others to fill my notifications.

  As the Xtools data shows, I've made more overall edits than you, but contributed less content. Many of these edits are corrections to wikilinks and formatting issues. (I did also comment on an unrelated ANI thread.)

  However, I'm mindful to avoid disrupting the ANI page, so I've primarily sought to use the "reply" tool instead of editing the page/section directly, and have left some errors be to avoid conflicts. I'm on mobile, so my edits are slower, more cumbersome, and more likely to generate an edit conflict on a large and active page.

  This choice is actually to my detriment, as the reply field is rather buggy and frequently eats large portions of what I've written. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 21:06, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  (It should additionally be noted that Kudpung is an involved party, both through the AfD regarding St Luke's, and through WikiProject Schools and the discussion there.) • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 18:05, 1 November 2026 (UTC))

  Kudpung is a long time coordinator of Wikiproject schools. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  I should additionally note that after posting these two comments regarding Kudpung, they reverted the objection to the shortcut ("WP:SCH/AG") that I had made on the related talk page. I don't see how that could possibly be justified, and the shortcut is only two weeks old, having apparently been added by Issac I Navarro. I commented on it after correcting my link to the page and noting how unsuitable it was a shortcut. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 18:15, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  The shortcut was created by @CT Cooper, back in 2007. As I am also a coordinator of the project I was doing routine fixes to the project advice page. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  At any rate, it's in poor taste. It's also not really applicable or helpful, since the page was changed from "article guidelines" to "article advice", which would suggest it should be WP:SCH/AA instead. I'll add that to my comments on the talk page there since it's a more suitable venue. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 18:38, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  See also:

  Neither Issac I Navarro or Kudpung have made any effort to suggest what they think the correct "forum" for such a discussion would be. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 19:11, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  Kudpung additionally seems to be casting aspersions by referring to me as a sockpuppet here, in addition to their previous aspersions and personal attacks. I must admit I am also baffled by both Issac I Navarro and Kudpung's insistence on citing WP:BOOMERANG, which they seem to be doing more for the purposes of suggesting retaliatory sanctions against me than for any kind of constructive discussion. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 18:53, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  Kudpung has engaged in further retaliatory action against me, leaving a warning template-esque message on my talk page rather than discussing the issue on the relevant talk page for the WikiProject. I have removed this, as this seems to be an effort to cast further aspersions and smear me via a WP:WALLOFSHAME. I've removed this addition. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 19:00, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  I stand with Kudpung edit as he is coordinator of the project. For sake of diplomacy, I have taken your suggestion into account, on the projects' advice take page: WT:WPSCH/AG. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  I stand with Kudpung edit as he is coordinator of the project.

  That's not exactly an explanation, is it? Please give reasons and discuss your positions, rather than making appeals to authority. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 19:15, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Stylomecon: I'd like to summarize what you're asking for as of this moment:

• You want a topic ban for Issac I Navarro from anything covered by Wikiproject Schools.
• You want a topic ban for Issac I Navarro from XfD
• You want Issac I Navarro to be blocked
• You want Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography to take over at least partial administration of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools
• You want User:Kudpung removed as a coordinator at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools
• You want User:Issac I Navarro removed as a coordinator at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools
• You want WP:SCH/AG deleted because you feel it's too close to the term "shag" and is therefore offensive

Am I missing anything? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

You want Issac I Navarro to be blocked

As a temporary measure in advance of a more thorough ANI regarding his conduct, yes. This is the only point that's immediate to this ANI.

You want a topic ban for Issac I Navarro from anything covered by Wikiproject Schools.

You want a topic ban for Issac I Navarro from XfD

Correct. I'll be making my case for this at the later ANI.

You want User:Issac I Navarro removed as a coordinator at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools

You want User:Kudpung removed as a coordinator at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools

Correct. I've been investigating the ways in which they exercise this position, which I will present in detail at the later ANI.

You want Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography to take over at least partial administration of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools

If they're interested, and jointly with WikiProject Education, yes. Given that WikiProject Schools has four Coordinators and I will be requesting the removal of two of them, it will be necessary as a practical measure to replace them. I think that joint inclusion under WikiProject Geography would provide appropriate balance to ensure that schools are covered both as educational facilities and as places. Most schools are physical places, in addition to also being networks of human activity. That's geography.

You want WP:SCH/AG deleted because you feel it's too close to the term "shag" and is therefore offensive

I didn't say I wanted it to be deleted. I also don't think it's offensive, but I do think it's vulgar and could potentially bring Wikipedia into disrepute. This is covered here. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 23:42, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

The block you want for Issac I Navarro isn't going to happen. Including me, two other administrators have contributed to this section and haven't found cause to block Issac I Navarro. If the "more thorough ANI" is an in depth examination of what he did that was reported in this thread, the new ANI you are planning isn't going to go anywhere; it will rightfully be viewed as a rehashing of this thread. Similarly, the topic bans you want aren't happening either. Unless you can demonstrate a long history of inappropriate behavior on the part of this person, it's unlikely such a topic ban will ever happen. So that's a non-starter as of now. You also want Issac I Navarro and Kudpung removed as coordinators, but haven't laid out really any case for doing so. You might think you have, but let me lay out an example of how you haven't. You claimed that Kudpung's action here was out of line and was an attempt to thwart ongoing discussion. It wasn't. Kudpung was codifying what is common practice across school articles on this project. I have edited a LOT of these articles (feel free to go through my edit history looking for 'school' for proof of that). I don't recall running into any transportation section like this, and if I have it's exceedingly rare. We don't include these sections because it's not encyclopedic. Now before you think I'm just siding with Kudpung and locking step with him, think again; Kudpung and I have a very long history of dissension. 10+ years ago Kudpung said he wanted nothing to do with me (the 'individual' in that diff is me). My feelings towards him aren't exactly warm either . What Kudpung did with that edit was codifying what is common practice. That's not out of line. That it was missing from the article advice and he added it doesn't mean he was tilting it in his favor. Further, the idea that Kudpung canvassed me with this is frankly absurd. As noted, Kudpung and I have a long is history of dissension. I would be one of the last people he would ever ask to take up sides with him. Further, his request didn't ask me to take a position, but rather make me aware of the thread likely because he saw my posting here. Some assumption of good faith would go a long way here. Continuing; the idea that the geography project would take over partial administration of the schools project is dead on arrival. It isn't going to happen. While a school building is technically a subject of geography as a place, nothing in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography suggests they do any work related to such things. Note the distinct absence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums, and more from their crossovers. It's not something they would work on. As for WP:SCH/AG; no you didn't say you wanted it deleted per se; you said you wanted it "reconsidered". In this case, there's only two options; keep it or get rid of it. You don't appear to be a fan of keeping it, so the only option is to delete. Also, offensive and vulgar are synonyms to each other. In quick summary; there's nothing to act on here. You're generating a lot of debate over something that is quite small. Speaking from a lot of experience, what you hope to see happen isn't going to happen. I'm not saying that to dissuade you. Proceed ahead if you wish. I don't care. I'm telling you it won't work. Nobody is going to take action on this when it's a simple content dispute. Best of luck. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

You also want Issac I Navarro and Kudpung removed as coordinators, but haven't laid out really any case for doing so. You might think you have, but let me lay out an example of how you haven't.

I haven't claimed that I did. I explicitly told you that the purpose of this ANI is for the purposes of securing a temporary block for Issac I Navarro while I work on a more extensive submission. I've responded to things that Issac I Navarro has claimed in this ANI, given context for his ongoing conduct, and indicated the remedies that I intend to seek at the later ANI.

Nobody is going to take action on this when it's a simple content dispute.

It isn't, and never has been, despite Issac I Navarro shouting that from the rooftops.

Best of luck.

Something tells me you don't sincerely wish me luck. Just a hunch. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 03:28, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

the purpose of this ANI is for the purposes of securing a temporary block for Issac I Navarro while I work on a more extensive submission. There is zero possibility of that happening, since a temporary block for such purposes would be grossly improper, I suggest you drop that right now. We don't block people because someone thinks they might be able to retroactively justify it. That would be utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

That isn't what I meant to suggest, sorry. My requested block relates to Issac I Navarro's ongoing conflict with users regarding Queens High School for the Sciences and the other related pages. I was trying to clarify to Hammersoft that the only remedy I was seeking in this specific ANI was a temporary block for Issac I Navarro, and that I would be seeking those other remedies in future. I'm just trying to be transparent in my overall intentions because both Issac I Navarro and Kudpung have poisoned the well by priming reviewers and other onlookers by repeatedly citing WP:BOOMERANG, casting aspersions, and generally mischaracterising my actual complaints.

I'd begun writing up an ANI submission regarding Issac I Navarro's long-term conduct before all this boiled over. I was entirely up-front with him about this because I didn't want to blindside him, and had left the discussion. After that time he got into an argument with the TA and started acting in a similar fashion to how he had done during his edit war with Qhssparents. I intervened and made this ANI because I'd seen from his edit history that Issac I Navarro tends to smear others in order to discredit them during arguments, and I feared that would result in sanctions being applied to the TA. He's carried on hounding myself and the TA throughout this whole process, and has followed me about the place to discredit me. If I post on a talk page, he replies. As a result, I can't seem to get anything done that doesn't relate to this ANI.

To be clear, I haven't sought a block for Issac I Navarro in relation to long-term conduct, and hadn't sought one at all initially. A block isn't part of my proposed list of remedies for his long-term conduct. I had no meaningful history with Issac I Navarro prior to all this, and my motivation was solely to prevent him from slashing and burning articles without any accountability. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 04:45, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

A word of advice. If you are going to start another ANI thread, keep it brief, strictly on topic, and supported by the necessary diffs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

keep it brief

I would love to, but I don't think I can realistically do so. It's going to need to be rather long and supported by a lot of diffs, otherwise I'll be accused of casting aspersions. Would it help if I included a tl;dr/summary at the start and refer to the specific areas of evidence? My intention was to format most of it into collapsible sections to avoid it disrupting the ANI page. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 05:17, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

For an example of the kind of smears Issac I Navarro is making against the TA, please see this SPI in which Issac I Navarro accuses seemingly everyone who disagrees with him (including me, but not by name) of being a sockpuppet.

Both myself and @Epicgenius stepped in to defend the TA to avoid them getting blocked as a result of Issac I Navarro's aspersions and prevent him from engaging in an edit war as he had done with Qhssparents. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 05:00, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

What "ongoing conflict"? Issac I Navarro hasn't touched the Queens High School for the Sciences page since 2026 10 27 and has said above they won't. There is zero need to block someone to stop someone doing something they are not doing and there is no reason I see to not trust Issac I Navarro to follow through. Blocks are preventative and there is nothing to prevent. I don't believe there's sufficient evidence that Issac I Navarro shouldn't edit the article although obviously none of you should be edit warring. But they've made that commitment and having done so it makes it even more ridiculous you'll suggest. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

It's messy. The talk page the conflict is on is Queens High School for the Sciences, but the article Issac I Navarro has been using to make a point is Bronx High School of Science. He hasn't kept to his commitment not to edit New York schools articles, as I note here. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 11:31, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Well that's disappointing. User:Issac I Navarro as noted, I don't think there's any reason you needed to refrain from editing articles on schools in New York state, just from edit warring and personal attacks. But you shouldn't make commitments on ANI unless you are going to follow through since editors will take you at your word. In this case, I don think it would make a difference to most or all editors in the end, but OTOH it's also easy for us to decide it's not worth thinking about in more depth because your commitment here mean it's moot. If you make a commitment but change your mind, you really should come back here and note that. If you've already done so, sorry but this is a very long thread so it's easy to miss. If you haven't please clarify whether you do or don't intend to NY state school articles. Also what do you mean by "this matter is addressed". Do you mean that this ANI thread is closed or something else? Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I suppose that since the whole state of New York is now somehow questionable when I remove assent principals that had nothing to do with this situation;

Can someone please remove the assistant principal from this random school in New York: Burgard Vocational High School, North Rose-Wolcott Central School District, and Lewis J. Bennett School of Innovative Technology per WP:RFCSCHOOLADMIN. Also please do MOS:MR.

When I see an issue I fix it. I would of done this myself, as this seems uncontroversial. However, as pointed out, it was unfortunate I did this type of edit to other non related schools, and I wish to keep my word. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I can't comment on the first part of this edit but I can say the Alumnae part is in no way controversial. In fact for any living persons it's pretty much required per WP:BLP. Technically being mentioned in an article on the subject isn't even enough, although if editors have confirmed this they should just copy whatever sources are using in the article on the subject. So it may be useful to mention it in the schools Wikiproject page, it doesn't matter that much if it is since any editor editing here needs to quickly learn it's a hard requirement site wide for living persons that anything we say about them needs to be clearly sourced. Technically this doesn't apply to non living persons, but I imagine this is far less common for schools articles and more importantly wild the requirement might be less strong, lists where people are added without sources tend to become a dumping ground for stuff which cannot be sources so is almost already a bad idea again in any part of Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

This will probably be my final comment here. Now that I've looked a bit more at the Queens school talk and have a better understanding over what the dispute is about. Again to be clear, whatever the schools Wikiproject rules say, this is not in any way a binding consensus on any article.

This means that ultimately if there is a dispute over whether to include public transport information, unless there is some sort of guidance somewhere outside the wikiproject, it will need to be decided on a case by case basis for each article. Editors will need to outline why they feel the information does or doesn't below which should be based on our policies and guidelines, but not what some wikiproject rules say. Arguments based on a what a wikiproject rules would be discarded by any closer.

So ultimately what that article advice says doesn't matter that much. If the information is removed or added e.g. about public transportation information, editors are free to dispute that & establish consensus for that article. It will be fine to notify the wikiproject schools but also probably wikiproject geography. Wikiproject geography editors decide what their scope is so if they ask editors to stop notifying about school disputes that should be respected but if they're fine with it then it's okay. While this could mean that the discussion has a lot of school and maybe geography editors, provided they behave reasonably, make arguments based on our policies and guidelines and not what their advice page says, and don't seem to be trying to override participants from outside the wikiproject that's okay.

If the outcome of most discussions suggest that the community supports including public transportation information then probably that advice page needs to be modified. However we don't really care provided wikiproject editors are not continually removing it when they shouldn't because there is likely to be consensus to include it. (In other words, wikiprojects shouldn't be removing faulty advice but the big concern for those of us outside the wikiproject is not the advice per se, but if stuff happens due to it that shouldn't.) If it most discussions support including the info, then the advice seems fine.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Okay one final thing. While unless there's been some widely advertised consensus discussion about the inclusion of public transportation information, each article where there's a dispute will need to be decided on a case by case basis, if editors are aware that in the vast majority of such disputes consensus has ended up in one direction, it will generally be disruptive for editors to open new disputes over this in different articles unless there is very good reason to think the outcome in this new article will be different. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, I suggested that if the user feels this strongly about the content. Then settings up a RfC is another way to build consensus that gets more attention from others outside the given project. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I didn't care about the WP:SCH/AG acronym before, but I'm definitely going to Strongly Oppose any changes made to placate Fictional Person Who Gets Really Mad at Acronym That Can Be Read in a Weird Way to Sound Like Mildly Spicy Word That Can Be Said on American Network Television. Unless fictional person strokes out upon find out that WP:RUSUKR contains "suck" let alone one of the thousands of articles that are quite explicit about human sexuality. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Well, we should probably deprecate the term "WP:AN/I" from use as well. It contains the term "Ani", which is a latin term meaning "anus". We shouldn't be parading rather disgusting excretory body parts around like this. I mean, while this noticeboard is a decidely powerful form of pruritus ani, it's still not appropriate. Whose with me? (p.s.; if it's not clear enough, sprinkle smiley between every word and do it again and again and again until your brain's humor center kick in.) --Hammersoft (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: What do you mean by "Fictional Person"? In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:47, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

They're suggesting no actual real person is upset about WP:SCH/AG looking somewhat like a word describing a type of carpet and / or an act two or more people could do on that carpet. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I can guarantee that ANI has zero interest in removing coordinators for a Wikiproject. Wikiprojects should manage themselves. If they can't, then what ANI may do is shut down the Wikiproject, or more likely topic or siteban anyone in the Wikiproject who is behaving inappropriately. Also Wikiprojects define their own scopes, and these can overlap without concern. Again, if one Wikiproject cannot tolerate these overlapping scopes, that's a problem with the Wikiproject which may result in the Wikiproject being shut down. OTOH more likely if it's a problem with one or more editors in the Wikiproject, we just topic or site ban them. No Wikiproject will ever control another Wikiproject. From what I've seen while unfortunately Issac I Navarro seems to have problems understanding what vandalism is and the 3RR bright line, your behaviour Stylomecon seems to be the bigger problem especially given your fairly silly proposals here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Also an important reminder, Wikiprojects are just a way for editors interested in a topic to coordinate appropriately and be alerted to stuff they may want to work on. They do not get to control how anything happens in any article per WP:LOCALCON and editors in the Wikiproject do not get any more say in any article than any other editor. Wikiprojects who think they do get that level of control are the sort of Wikiprojects which are a problem which we may want to shut down or at least topic or site ban the worse members. While neutrally notifying all relevant Wikiprojects is generally not considered WP:canvassing, still wikiprojects need to be careful that their coordination does not seem to be trying to force through the view of the Wikiproject over other editors. (The WP:ARS is one where this has been a concern in the past.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head regarding the way WikiProject Schools is being used, which is why I don't feel is a content issue but rather a conduct issue. I frankly have very little interest or investment in the kinds of content that should appear in school articles, but I do have a problem with the way control is being exerted over these articles.

Here is an example of Issac I Navarro altering WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to remove the guidance that it shouldn't used as an argument in AfD discussions, nine minutes after he had used WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to do exactly that.

You can additionally see here that no discussion ever actually occurred regarding this, he just pushed it through.

A user's status as a Coordinator in a WikiProject should not enable them to game the system to influence AfD discussions. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 12:11, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

See when I read what @Nil Einne what I got is that, in specific page content arguments, "well the Wikiproject says" is not a powerful argument absent an appropriate consensus and, as such, a request to remove a Wikiproject coordinator from their position or to change the oversight structure of a Wikiproject is kind of, you know, irrelevant. I would suggest you should consider accepting that multiple editors and administrators have said that this is not sanctionable behaviour and work toward finding a collaborative way forward. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to game the system. A lot of words have been spoken to you. I appreciate that you've said you have read them all, but the vast majority of it has gone unheeded. I hope you will take the following advice; User:Stylomecon/ANI draft is incredibly long. In printed form, it's somewhere around 13 pages long. There's ~4200 words. Preliminary statements at ArbCom are limited to 500 words. This intended submission is far, far, far too long for WP:AN/I or ArbCom. Further, it has very limited chance of moving forward at ArbCom even if the 4200 words were accepted. My recommendation is to drop the stick and move on; nobody is going to get blocked, nobody is going to be removed as coordinator, no project is going to take over administration of another, nobody is going to get topic banned. Failing that, it would be in your best interest to segment these 4200 words into considerably smaller chunks that are topically oriented. Keep cutting and cutting and cutting until you're down to something that can easily be digested. As is, nobody will read it. Nobody. It's important to understand we are all volunteers here. At standard reading speeds, it's going to take someone 15 minutes to read all of it. That doesn't include the dozens and dozens of diffs you included. It would likely take someone more than half an hour just to bring themselves up to speed on this. Nobody's going to do that. Once you've cut these issues down to far, far smaller chunks, progress them independently of each other in serial, not in parallel. Progress them by following Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ArbCom is NOT your next step; as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution notes, it's the last resort. Right now, if you attempt to take this to ArbCom now it's going to be shot down, and shot down hard. Go slowly. If you start up a bunch of different discussions at various noticeboards and project talk pages (as is already happening), people are going to view you as WP:FORUMSHOPPING whether that is your intent or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Just to add to this: nobody gets blocked so I [can] work on a more extensive submission. While it's clear that Isaac I Navarro has issues with WP:3RR and WP:NOTVAND, I agree that the more immediate issue here is your failure to drop the stick. I strongly suggest you stop digging and do so before the boomerang arrives. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

User:Carotte7874 translating from fr.wiki without attribution

Carotte7874 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Carotte7874 has been creating new pages that are clearly translations from French Wikipedia, but without providing attribution to the original text. Examples: La France a un incroyable talent season 21, La France a un incroyable talent season 20, Juju Fitcats. I left them messages on their talk page about this on 29 and 30 October, but they haven't responded, and the Juju Fitcats page was created this morning, 1 November.

Could an admin get their attention about this, please? Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Juju Fitcats is a BLP. It appears to be a machine translation and is almost entirely unsourced. I also suspect the subject isn't notable, but a PROD left by another editor has been challenged so if I understand correctly draftifying is no longer an option (although this really shouldn't be in mainspace until it's at least properly sourced). Meadowlark (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

That’s incorrect; I provided sources for the first paragraph—even for Karine Le Marchand. Carotte7874 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Either your translator is not doing a good job, or you are not listening to what people are saying to you. I did not say anything about Karine Le Marchand. I said that Juju Fitcats is almost entirely unsourced, and that it is not properly sourced. Both of these statements are correct. You did not provide a source for the first paragraph; someone else did that.

This is one of the reasons we require editors to be fluent in English. It seems like you don't fully understand what we're saying. Meadowlark (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I have indefinitely p-blocked them from mainspace. Communication is not optional. Star Mississippi 13:42, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

And regarding Koh-Lanta All Stars, you blocked me even though I provided sources. Carotte7874 (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You were blocked because you weren't responding to concerns that were raised. You provided some sources but you should really be providing sources for all claims that could be challenged - see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

After you've done that, can you please read through Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to understand why this happened? What will you do differently, now you've read through those pages? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:33, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

For starters, I wanted to include sources, but some paragraphs—for instance, the one stating "The semi-finals are on February 13th"—lack any citations or references; next time, I’ll make sure to include 50 or even more sources. Carotte7874 (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

• Support community ban. I do not believe this editor can communicate effectively on their own in the English language, and given that they're making it clear as day that they have no intention of following our guidelines on LLM usage, and being as combative as they can about it, I'm just not seeing the benefit to anyone for extending more rope at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Carotte7874, there's some evidence (here and elsewhere) that you are using an LLM. For example, maybe you are writing your response in French and then running it through translation software to convert it to English, before pasting here. Is that accurate? If it is correct, are you able to read, understand, and write English without using translation software? --Yamla (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I am French; is there an authorized site for Wikipedia? Carotte7874 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Please answer my question. --Yamla (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, I am using a translation. Carotte7874 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

That answers only part of my question. It doesn't answer this one: "are you able to read, understand, and write English without using translation software?". --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

No Carotte7874 (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

• Propose community ban. User exhibits clear WP:CIR concerns. They need translation software to operate on en.wikipedia.org, and "operate" is being excessively kind here. Even with the translation layer, it's almost impossible to communicate with this user. Looking at their talk page, a lot of users have tried really hard to get through to them. At best, they understand only part of what people are saying, and frequently don't even hit that bar. Their responses miss the point. By their own admission (above), they do not understand English sufficiently to communicate without translation software. --Yamla (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  That’s incorrect, since I asked which site could be used, and you didn’t answer my question. Carotte7874 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  You can edit the French language Wikipedia. We know you have already found it because we can see that you've been editing it off and on for a couple months. MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry—I’m certain that if I hadn’t edited the Koh-Lanta page, no one else would have, or at the very least, no one else would have provided any sources. Carotte7874 (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  For starters, I’m not just copy-pasting; I’m taking the text directly from the French Wikipedia. This is permitted—since the French, English, and German versions of Wikipedia are essentially the same—as long as you simply cite the French Wikipedia as the source, okay? And all of this can be verified using Google’s AI tools. Carotte7874 (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  It's not permitted if you cannot read, write, and communicate in English without translation tools, no.

  No, all versions of Wikipedia are not essentially the same, policies very quite a lot.

  Google's AI tools are apparently giving you wrong information. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t think so; since the French and English versions of Wikipedia are essentially the same, we should use the same conventions—especially given that *Koh-Lanta* and *La France a un incroyable talent* are both French shows. Carotte7874 (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  The French and English versions of Wikipedia are not essentially the same, and we do not use the same conventions or even the same basic criteria for what we can write an article about. I don't think Juju Fitcats qualifies for an article by English Wikipedia policies, even though she does qualify by French Wikipedia policies. English Wikipedia is generally considered to be the strictest and have the highest level of requirements.

  For the English Wikipedia, if you wish to translate an article, you must be fluent in both languages - the language the article was written in, as well as English. That way, if there are any errors, you can find them easily. If you are relying on translation software you won't know if there are errors. It's very easy to make mistakes when two words mean almost but not quite the same.

  I know this is not pleasant and you were trying to help improve English Wikipedia. Unfortunately this is not the right way to do it. Maybe you could try translating English articles to the French Wikipedia, if that is allowed by their policies? If you want to contribute to English Wikipedia, you must become fluent in English first - translating from English to French could be good practice if you feel like it. I hope you find something that you really enjoy doing and that is welcomed by the Wikipedia you choose to contribute to. Meadowlark (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, for example, the Koh-Lanta All Stars entry hasn't even been updated yet. Carotte7874 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure whether you meant to reply to me with that statement - was that meant for someone else?

  French Wikipedia may be different, but on English Wikipedia we prefer things to be slow but correct. So if it takes some time for someone to update the Koh-Lanta All Stars article using text they have written, that's okay. For us, that's better than someone using an AI/LLM to update the article. AI/LLM use is almost completely forbidden on English Wikipedia: WP:NOLLM. Meadowlark (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

  And also the same sources, such as TéléLoisirs Carotte7874 (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  AI tools are not reliable sources. Most have disclaimers that their outputs may be incorrect. Always review each Wikipedia's policies and guidelines instead of having a chatbot do it for you. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but sometimes—for example, with a football player—I’ve updated information because he changed clubs, yet it hasn’t been reflected; it’s as if the person making the edits just doesn’t care. Another example: I made an edit regarding the *Koh-Lanta* season *Les Reliques du Destin*—someone else had made changes, which is fine, but they left them as they were for two weeks, even though two episodes had already aired by then. Carotte7874 (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  That’s incorrect, since I asked which site could be used, and you didn’t answer my question. Carotte7874 (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  Support CBAN per Carotte's admission. I'm not opposed to them being allowed to edit here again if, and only if, they are able to demonstrate they can communicate here without having to rely entirely on machine translation. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I know where and how I can use Content Translation Carotte7874 (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  But what does it actually matter to you if I use a translator, considering that maybe not even 100 English speakers will end up watching it? Carotte7874 (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

• Support community ban. User is unable or unwilling to understand the problems here. - MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, I see—it’s actually you who doesn’t understand. I’m just responding to your comments; you’re criticizing me, even though I’m doing a good job. I do provide sources—okay, it’s copy-pasted from the French Wikipedia rather than from newspapers (except for the sources themselves). Carotte7874 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Temporary accounts (same IP) vandalizing creationism-related pages

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

---

• -Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I've indeffed them and blocked the IP for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 15:05, 1 November 2026 (UTC).

close this? ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

(post-block comment) This ES caused me to raise an eyebrow. Narky Blert (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Anirvinya 2009

Anirvinya 2009 (talk · contribs) entered my radar when they reinstated a WP:IINFO-violating "frequent collaborators" table which was massive, unsourced, and trivial. In addition, their next edit attempted to expand the table but instead broke its formatting.

Looking at their edit history and talk page, I strongly suspect WP:NOTHERE is in play. The earliest warning was in August 2025 for removing content with a misleading edit summary. Their most recent warning was for this bit of vandalism on Mahesh Babu filmography, which included adding their own opinions on the films. Warnings on their talk page include improper links, vandalism, poor formatting, and addition of unsourced content. I count at least four separate occasions where, when warned for adding unsourced content, they responded with a variant of if you want source please you can provide the source or just okay.

In short, I think there is some WP:COMPETENCE/WP:NOTHERE at play, as the editor has been here over a year and still fails to understand the basics of sourcing and formatting, and has also demonstrably vandalized articles. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:04, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

This user should've been blocked three months ago, and they going on to receive 5 level-4 final warnings looks quite... comical. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 19:07, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

On 11 April they responded to a warning about unsourced content with if you want you can add sources and it was then explained to them that no, they need to source their own edits.

Then on the 12th of October they said Sorry but I couldn't find a source. It's an open edit. So If you want, you can provide the source and received the same information.

Then on the 13th of October Sir if you want source please you can provide the source

This is probably the world's most obvious and overdue WP:CIR block. Athanelar (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that talk page shows a lack of understanding that edits have to come from reliable sources, not personal impressions. Pblocked from Articles and invited to reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:30, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe do we close this now ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hoping for a reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Jungle Dinasty

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

---

Jungle Dinasty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Something smells strange here. A user claiming to be an experienced Wikipedian who lost their account, gamed to receive their autoconfirmed status. They were immediately being welcomed by other editors, receiving two barnstars from an account with a whopping two edits. The user then picked up few drafts created by few throwaway accounts and immediately moved them into mainspace, and created several Indonesian BLPs that reads like blatant UPE directly inside mainspace.

I'm too sleepy to think straight, but the interests this account has seem to have overlaps with the following throwaway accounts:

OYI_SAM123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (LTA, blocked)

Nikita Adiasa Verina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Marc Bartra Kalibata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pratama Subagya Besuki Bayuaji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All editing on this draft:

Muhammad Raynan Rizky Akbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It feels like an Indonesian UPE farm again. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 18:52, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

This user's talk also have an entry from another confirmed LTA.

Mandela0616 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It may be many things, but "this is just a normal, good-faith editor" is not one of those possibilities. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 18:55, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

We also have shenanigans with speedy deletion contestations. In the span of 90 minutes we have:

• Someone with zero edits contesting the speedy deletion twice with different TA's
• Brand-new account Edo Azka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posting an LLM "keep" as their first edit. Edit: They've posted a second "keep"
• Editor RevaniaTP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posting four different LLM "keeps"
• Jungle Dynasty posting two different "keeps"

Celjski Grad (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for closing. Would this be worthy of a retroactive SPI?

Today is the longest patrol in my Wikilife. Signing off. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 20:24, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind. CU-blocked by Ponyo. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 20:24, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

For starters I've blocked RevaniaTP, Jungle Dinasty, and Edo Azka as Confirmed to each other. There's a bunch of data to go through on multiple busy ranges and ISPs, so this can be considered a placeholder comment.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Adding Andreas DOCs to this batch. Everything else here is either already blocked or  Stale.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:41, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

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

User:BochiWilayah5 and User:~2026-58426-77 is constantly WP:EDITWAR and readding unsourced info

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

---

BochiWilayah5 (talk · contribs)

~2026-58426-77 (talk · contribs)

AhmedArmousi (talk · contribs)

These 2 users are currently WP:EDITWAR, WP:DISRUPT and WP:HOAX in the page 2026 Greenacres Learjet 60 crash by claiming the crashed was caused by a terrorist attack without provable source (see [] and [])

i also suspect them of sockpuppetery because those 3 accounts have been reverting those same edit

Stmbus (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

it seems like its resolved now. Thanks! Stmbus (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Vandalism, blanking, and misinformation

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

---

Arcofdreams2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was temporarily blocked on 27 September for disruptive editing and has continued this path. They have not responded to a single one of the 11 warnings accrued on their talk page since April 2024 and have made zero conceivable effort to change their approach to editing. Examples of disruptive behaviour, most of which they have been warned for:

• Adding unsourced information to a BLP: Kimi Antonelli (ongoing, recurring issue)
• Outright misinformation: Jim Morrison , Light My Fire
• Unexplained removal of content: Senna (film) , Ted Kaczynski , List of choral symphonies , Jeffrey Dahmer , Charles Darwin

User simply does whatever they want without respect for policy. There are very limited examples of constructive contribution. Propose indef from article space. MB2437 15:55, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Indeffed from mainspace. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish hi should we close this now? ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I generally don't close ANI reports I action as there may be further input on the situation or my actions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

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

BLP issue

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

---

I hate reporting this kind of things, but I just noticed this. Psychloppos (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I'd normally say to give them a vandalism warning and watch what they do for a while, but it seems they already have a collection - this editor has been prone to editing shenanigans for a good while now:

There are a few ok-ish edits (perhaps I'm stretching the term), but overall it's either trolling or stuff that's had to be fixed/reverted by others. I'm rather surprised that they've flown under the radar for this long - overall they're causing far more problems than they're fixing.

Honestly, I don't think this editor is able to edit productively in mainspace right now; would an admin agree that either a mainspace or indef is warranted? I'm thinking the former is the minimum sanction in this case, unless they've got an absolutely incredible explanation that justifies what they've been up to.

@Sam4mthefuture, can you please explain why you've been vandalising Wikipedia so often and for so long? There are times where you appear to be trying to edit properly, yet other times you're clearly not even trying to take Wikipedia seriously.

I know you probably think it's hilarious, but you're forcing complete strangers to spend their own spare time fixing your mess, and that's just not on. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

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

TPA revoke needed

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

---

Oswald Quinsley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oswald Quinsley needs a talk page access revoke. They have been calling us things like "miserable fucks" and "assholes" after their block and consistently continued their disruptive, uncivil comments, just look at their talk page and you'll understand. Jako96 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Refusal to remove copyrighted content

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

---

@Soran refused to believe that US copyright laws do not apply in Iraq. Insisted that CCTV footage in Iraq is automatically not under copyright protection, just like in the US. Did not provide proof that the content in the article is exempt from copyright protection in their case. Donkeykong71818 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

This is also being hashed out at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Donkeykong71818_reported_by_User:Soran_(Result:_). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

@JelleBijleveld several personal attacks on User talk:JelleBijleveld#h-Reverted your edits at Shia Islam in Iraq-20260613105000 and here Talk:Shia Islam in Iraq#h-Listing of non-Shia non-Iraqis-20260615065700 Donkeykong71818 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Would like to note that the second mentioned conversation took place 5 months ago and that in the other no personal attacks were made. Thank you. JelleBijleveld (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Concern about Sricsi's conduct and interactions with other editors

I would like to raise a concern about @Sricsi's conduct and the way he interacts with other editors, particularly when discussing or challenging their contributions to Lady Gaga-related articles. I understand that disagreements over article content and editorial decisions are part of Wikipedia, but my concern relates to what I perceive as a recurring pattern of unnecessarily confrontational and dismissive behavior.

One example that particularly concerned me is the case of "Brooklyn Nights". I created the article from scratch, researched the subject, and looked for reliable sources, using as a model the article about another Gaga song, "The Greatest Thing", which Sricsi himself had co-written with another editor. He nominated "Brooklyn Nights" for deletion less than a day after its creation, while I was still working on it and had not yet finished developing its content. I subsequently added further information and sources during the deletion discussion, but the article was ultimately deleted. On 2 November 2026, after I added the song's link to the Lady Gaga songs template, Sricsi reverted my edit with the summary "Good riddance". I found this comment particularly disrespectful toward the time, research, and effort I had invested in creating and developing the article. My concern is not that he nominated it for deletion, which was a legitimate editorial action, but the dismissive way in which he subsequently referred to its removal, as though he were pleased to see my contributions removed, even though they were valid contributions regardless of whether the song itself met Wikipedia's notability requirements.

This is not the only instance of wording I have found concerning. On 18 October 2026, while rewriting the "Composition and production" section of Harlequin, Sricsi described the section I had developed as "a mess" and its coverage as "randomly singling out a handful of songs". In reality, the section was reasonably well developed, even if it may have been incomplete. I had already addressed this issue directly with him in another article, explaining that constructive edits were welcome but negative edit summaries about another editor's work were unnecessary. He responded that such comments were not directed at me personally. However, given the recurrence of these expressions, I find them increasingly difficult not to perceive as dismissive of my contributions.

Another uncomfortable interaction concerned the planned merger of The Mayhem Ball and The Art of Personal Chaos. When I explained that personal circumstances had prevented me from making progress and that he could proceed without me, Sricsi reproached me for not informing him sooner, as he had been waiting for me to take the lead. I had never committed to a deadline or been under any obligation to report my editing plans to him. I found the reproach unnecessary, as Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a job with deadlines or work commitments. My concerns also extend beyond my own interactions. Another editor, @Another Believer, raised concerns on Sricsi's talk page about repeated reversions, disagreements over image selection and placement in Gaga-related articles, and what they perceived as inconsistent expectations regarding talk page consensus. This exchange adds context to my concerns about how Sricsi handles editorial disagreements. I have also noticed recurring disputes over minor editorial matters, creating the impression that other editors' contributions and decisions are continually subject to his approval. More recently, Sricsi brought up my contributions in a discussion about another editor's conduct, which I considered unnecessary and unrelated to the topic, particularly as I was not the subject of that discussion.

I recognize that some of these incidents may not, individually, amount to personal attacks or constitute misconduct. However, taken together, they have raised concerns for me about a broader pattern of dismissive and confrontational interactions. I would appreciate an assessment of whether this conduct is consistent with Wikipedia's expectations regarding civility and collaborative editing. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your stance. I think you're overlooking the most crucial context, though. There's an ongoing discussion at the AI noticeboard about your apparent use of AI-generated text on Wikipedia, which is strictly prohibited under WP:NOLLM, except for certain exceptions. You were notified about this discussion several days ago and have yet to respond; instead, you've chosen to open this discussion. I don't really understand why you haven't mentioned these allegations here, since most of my concerns about your contributions are coming from precisely these issues.

So let's talk about "Brooklyn Nights". I added a notability template to the article because, after reading it and reviewing its sources, I couldn't find enough reliable, independent coverage to justify a standalone article under the notability criteria for songs or the general notability guideline. Then you removed the template basically immediately, but did not address these concerns. I nominated the article for deletion to open a discussion with more editors included. During the discussion, you questioned my ability to assess the article because I had also been editing other articles that day. I'm honestly not sure how that would stop me from assessing that article. Anyway, the discussion ultimately led to the article's deletion. I apologize for my "Good riddance" edit summary. I understand it was harsh and most likely unnecessary, but I meant it to express my opinion on the article's removal, not on you personally. I'm sorry you spent time working on it, but that doesn't automatically make it notable or well-sourced. Most of the references only briefly mentioned the song or discussed the Artpop album in general, and many of them are not even trustworthy sources (PopCrush, WebProNews, etc.), as @SNUGGUMS: also pointed out in the deletion discussion. Quantity is not the same as quality.

Harlequin: I called the composition/songs section "a mess" because I found its coverage inadequate. The article singled out a few songs at random, at the same time barely discussing the others. I even placed an "expansion-needed" template there, but this issue was never addressed. And what was further concerning to me was that you had already nominated your Spanish translation of the article for Good Article status on the Spanish Wikipedia, apparently considering it complete at that point. I could have worded my edit summary more politely, but it criticized the article's content, not you. E.g., in the article Apple Music Live: Mayhem Requiem, I pointed out that a claim about "Disease" was nowhere to be found in the cited source, so I have no idea how you got there. Your response focused on my supposedly negative edit summary instead of explaining this discrepancy. I have also pointed out underdeveloped sections in several other Lady Gaga-related articles many times, usually by adding expansion-needed templates. Very often you removed those templates without addressing the underlying issues. You've also nominated unfinished articles for Good Article status because you considered them complete. Then other editors and I had to deal with their shortcomings. I've been editing Gaga-related articles for over a decade, and I want to maintain their quality. It's frustrating that I have to correct the same kinds of problems again and again.

I also don't find our interaction about the merger negative at all. You previously said you wanted to lead the merger of the two articles, but months passed with no progress. Other editors were already questioning why the merger had stalled, so I contacted you to ask if you needed help. I can't help if there's no feedback. Of course, you weren't under any obligation to meet a deadline, but it would have been nice to know that you were occupied, because I would have tackled the merger myself much earlier.

About Another Believer: as I recall we've only had disagreements on the topic of image selection, placement, and their sizes. However, I don't expect other editors to seek my approval before making changes. I do expect you to use reliable sources and accurately reflect their content.

I'd like to point out that the concerns about your reliance on AI are not my own. @Gnomingstuff: has raised them multiple times, including at "Die with a Smile" and "Abracadabra", which you have denied. @St0407: found entirely nonexistent lyrics accompanied by apparently AI-generated analysis in "Zombieboy". Gnomingstuff also identified a quotation in Mayhem that he couldn't find in either of the cited sources. Gnomingstuff also raised concerns that some of your talk-page messages appear AI-generated, such as this example.

@MarioSoulTruthFan: has been reviewing your contributions to "Die with a Smile", checking the sources and correcting issues. He mentioned unsupported statements and inaccurate paraphrasing, which is exactly the kind of edits I've repeatedly encountered from you. In fact, your last edit on English Wikipedia before starting this discussion was an addition to the critical reception section of "You and I" on October 27. The following day, NRP had to correct your edit, raising concerns about AI-generated wording in the edit summary. So apparently, I'm not the only editor who has noticed these issues. Since I work on Gaga-related articles so frequently, I tend to come across problems with your edits more often than editors who don't work on these articles as much.

At the AI noticeboard, I mentioned that I initially assumed some of the strange wording in your edits might be due to a language barrier. Which would be fine; not everyone's mother tongue is English, or has the same level of English proficiency. But after I regularly encountered text that had very little or absolutely no connection to the cited sources, and eventually quotations that seemed to exist nowhere, I began to suspect that you were using AI. It's honestly really frustrating to spend so much time cleaning up inaccurate or incomprehensible text across multiple Gaga-related articles. Your articles The Art of Personal Chaos and Mayhem still contain many of these problems.

To sum it up, I don't have any personal issues with you. I also don't believe your intentions are bad at all. I can see you're expanding the Spanish Wikipedia with missing Gaga content, which is certainly appreciated work. But I do have some major concerns about the quality of your contributions to the Gaga-related articles in the English Wikipedia. I agree that some of my edit summaries could have been more polite, and I'll aim to be more careful with my wording in the future. Pointing out problems with articles, especially when source-to-text irregularities appear, isn't a personal attack, though. My only goal has always been to improve the articles' quality. And again, it'd be great if you responded to the AI noticeboard discussion, where several editors have raised concerns that remain unanswered. The main source of my disagreements with you are exactly the concerns that I mentioned in detail over there, but you haven't mentioned them in this report. Sricsi (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm still reading through all this (only get a ten minute break at work!) but the OP's ANI report is giving me very strong LLM vibes. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:08, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

That was quite frustrating to do. However, I don't think what he wrote in "Die with a Smile" article used AI. CHr0m4tiko0 might have used it for sources basically "I have these three sources what both journalists/authors have said in common" or "summarize what they have said"...henceforth the flaws in the sourcing which have been fully amemended. Gnomingstuff is asking me to erase the sections that CHr0m4tiko0 and re-write them. I won't do so for several reasons: First there will always be plausible doubt regarding such use of AI, second not fair for the user and thirdly some stuff is actually written as it should on wikipedia and I wouldn't do a better job.

Moreover, the article was subjected to so many re-writes that most AI (if there was any) was nuked. If went through a GOCE, 2 FA reviews and a peer review. So a lot of the content was re-written several times, it looks quite different from the begging. Moroever, I was the person that implemented most of those suggestions and I'm sure no one in the FA community used LLM language modes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@CHr0m4tiko0 If you're using an LLM then you haven't really reviewed the output fully. this was a nomination for redirection, not deletion - if it was ultimately deleted/redirected then why are you bringing this up, as this would indicate the minimisation was warranted? Nobody own an article and it's perfectly fine to nominate an article for deletion/redirection whilst someone else is working on it. There's no policy or guideline advising against doing that, and nothing that says it can't be done a day after creation.

A lot of your evidence is pretty old too - in some cases it's from a year and a half ago - which makes it feel like you were perhaps actively looking through their edit history for evidence to use against them, despite an ongoing (and arguably more urgent) discussion over your possible AI-use. This is an archived post from May 2025, eighteen months ago - it's not something you'd happen to see whilst leaving a message for another editor - you went looking for dirt on them to prove your point, whether it did or not.

You're also missing out very important context in your report - the "demand" actually read I understand that you’ve been busy, but I do wish you had told me this earlier. Your previous messages gave me the impression that you were planning to work on the merge, especially when you said you had already started working on the synopsis and were considering how to integrate the two articles. Since you were the main contributor and said you intended to work on it, I was waiting for that rather than starting the merge myself. You were actively discussing and neglected to mention/weren't clear about something the other editor felt was important - This feels like a polite exchange and IMO I don't see it as a reprimand. It's genuine human frustration.

Other than this, we're left with the matter of edit summaries and I'm glad to see that Sricsi understands why this was problematic and will take it on board. None of the behaviour in your report rises to the level of requiring adminstrative intervention - it's the sort of thing that can be resolved though calm discussion on the other person's Talk page, not a random comment on an edit summary that they might not even see (and isn't meant for that anyway).

@CHr0m4tiko0 I don't see any major concerns work Sricsi, but I do see major concerns with your editing.

Honestly, I'm not very impressed that you've apparently chosen to ignore the AINB report and decided to spend that time digging up dirt on someone you've had a disagreement with instead.

Can you please confirm whether you are using AI, LLM or chatbots to edit Wikipedia and respond to the concerns raised by multiple other editors about the quality of your work? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:40, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Analysis of @CHr0m4tiko0's report here. GPTZero: We are highly confident this text was human written and polished with AI (100% chance AI polished). Pangram: 85% of text AI, 15% AI polished. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:52, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

It's tricky using AI text detectors, which unfortunately aren't very reliable. It could be a machine translator, but then we've still got a couple of source verification problems, e.g. those at the AINB thread and linked to in this AN post. Annoyingly I can't look into them properly right now (back to work), but I will later. Perhaps this is all down to an LLM machine translator?

BTW correction to my post above, I can't see a Talk page notice for the AINB thread, does anyone know whether the editor notified when a report is created in their name? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:03, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701 explicitly pinged CHr0m4tiko0 on 28 October in the AINB. Wikimedia also supports cross-wiki notifications, so notifications from the English Wikipedia would appear while someone edits the Spanish Wikipedia. Sricsi (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

If you read the AI noticeboard thread you will see instances of hallucinated lyrics, quotes, and whatnot, which are not explainable by differences in machine translation software.

I don't know why everyone keeps waving around AI detection software as if it's the last word and completely ignoring actual people here who are doing the work. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Little off topic, but the research shows that humans are better at picking up on AI-gen language then tools are - for a while I tried to use at least four to cross-reference and verify the results, but it was just too inconsistent & I was worried I'd end up using the ones that matched my own preconceptions. I'd imagine that Gemini would be most reliable for picking up Gemini-generated text, but even then I don't know just how reliable that would be... In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:09, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Point taken. I wasn’t trying to shortcut the investigation, only to provide more evidence that the post here appears to be AI-involved. The whole AI detection issue has been a moving target as models evolve. Back to @Gnomingstuff’s comment. I thought we were getting admin actions at AINB when needed. Having to flip back and forth between noticeboards fragments the investigation and response. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:43, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I want to emphasize to @CHr0m4tiko0 that discussion and complete and unabridged transparency and disclosure will be their best approach. I'm perfectly in favor of additional chances for LLM editors admitting fault, helping the community by fully disclosing the extent of the LLM user, assisting in cleanup, and pledging not to do it in the future. LLM editors that stonewall, filibuster, DARVO, or simply catch a case of the ANI flu, not so much. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted to explain a bit more about how I've been using AI tools and give some context about my time editing Wikipedia. I actually joined Wikipedia back in 2010, when I was 12. I edited both the English and Spanish versions for around two years, but eventually stopped. I lost access to my old account and didn't really come back until around 2024, when I started editing the Spanish Wikipedia again. After a while, I also began contributing to the English one. I mention this simply to provide some background, as I've been involved with Wikipedia since long before AI tools like ChatGPT existed.

English has never been my strongest point. It's not my first language, and I've always struggled a bit with grammar. That's why I've relied on translation tools. My usual approach was to find and read the sources myself, decide what information was worth including, write it in Spanish and then translate it into English. I was also more used to the Spanish Wikipedia, where I had developed a somewhat different approach to adapting and expanding information from sources. I now realize that I may have carried some of those habits over to the English Wikipedia, without fully understanding how strictly it expects article content to stay within what the sources explicitly support. I used ChatGPT and Gemini for translation, along with Wikipedia's own translation tool. Sometimes I would also ask ChatGPT to rephrase something or make a sentence shorter because the translation didn't sound quite right. Of course, I understand that these tools can make mistakes. Sometimes they can even change the meaning of a sentence or introduce inaccuracies. Looking back, I should have checked the resulting text more carefully against the original sources before adding it to articles. I didn't always do that, and I accept that some mistakes may have made it into my edits.

Most of my contributions over the past two years are to the articles listed on my user page, so those might be a good place to start if anyone wants to look into my previous edits. I don't remember exactly which edits may have been affected, especially since other editors have worked on those articles too, but I'm happy to review any specific examples and help fix whatever needs correcting. I enjoy editing Wikipedia and would like to continue contributing to the English edition, even if I do so less often. I know I need to be more careful when using these tools and take the time to understand and follow the policies.

I also want to clarify something about my report concerning Sricsi. Although I had felt uncomfortable with several interactions over time, what ultimately prompted me to raise the issue was his "Good riddance" edit summary when he reverted my restoration of the *Brooklyn Nights* link in the Lady Gaga songs template. My concerns had been building up for quite some time, and that particular incident was what finally led me to bring them forward. I understand that others may see these interactions differently, but I wanted to explain the context behind my report. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for explaining - so are you currently using AI, LLM, Chatbots or any grammar correctors/translators that might incorporate AI?

You say you're not confident in your English but this post was very well written - that either means you're being (extremely) modest or are currently using a tool of some sort to write/refine your posts. Can you clarify this for me? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

For this discussion, I wrote my initial statement and replies in Spanish and then translated them into English using Google Translate. I can speak, read and write in English, but I know I can make mistakes, so I wanted to make sure everything was expressed correctly. I didn’t mean to suggest that I can’t write in English on my own.

I apologize for any misunderstandings. Most of my contributions are to the articles listed on my user page, and I’ve also contributed to Wikimedia Commons by uploading my own material and obtaining permission from others to share images related to Gaga. I’ve always tried to contribute in good faith, and I’m grateful to the many editors who have helped and guided me along the way.

I understand if my account is sanctioned and I’m no longer able to contribute here. I just wanted to make clear that my intentions have always been good and that I genuinely wanted to help expand the coverage of Gaga-related topics. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I got curious and tried ZeroGPT myself after seeing it mentioned here. I checked a few comments from this discussion, and it gave some of them pretty high AI scores. So I’m not sure how much we can rely on those results. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The problem with AI detectors is that they, themselves, use AI. But there are many tells that AI produces that can be easily spotted by human eyes; some are at WP:AISIGNS and others are left undescribed for good reason. That said, and then translated them into English using Google Translate - Google Translate incorporates LLM these days. It didn't always, but now it does, so using it now falls afoul of WP:LLMTALK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Socks declared by Carigval.97

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

---

I'm reporting that the user Carigval.97 (talk · contribs) has held previous accounts, as he claims to have been editing on Wikipedia for nearly 20 years. In this statement made by the user in 2024, he admits to having more accounts that are currently dormant.

Upon review, I have identified the following accounts, which are not blocked:

• Carigval (talk · contribs · logs)
• Ulof2 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Ulof4 (talk · contribs · logs)

As for the other accounts the user claims to possess, there is not even any record that they ever existed—even assuming the user confessed to having them years ago. Taichi (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:SOCKLEGIT, editors are allowed to have alts as long as they aren't using them disruptively (which User:Carigval.97 is clearly not doing since they are inactive. IMO it would be better to just add alt account and dormant templates to the user pages and move on. Shocksingularity (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, but Carigval.97 is inactive because they've been indefinitely blocked. So I have blocked the alts, even though it's probably pointless as none have been used for some years. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Can someone block ASAP?

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

---

Negara tanpa serangga dan kulit hitam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been vandalizing for almost 2 hours. They were reported to AIV around 100 minutes ago. They're continuing to vandalize. APK hi :-) (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

 Done (wasn't around earlier). ~Lofty abyss 11:36, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. APK hi :-) (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Just FYI since I think this is important enough to mention despite the closure and extremely unlikely of an unblock already, but the name translates to "country without insects and black skin". Nil Einne (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

SaintAvenger88 - citation issues and lack of communication

Given there is suspected LLM abuse involved in this case, I wasn't sure whether it was best to file a report here or at WP:AIN, but the concerns about SaintAvenger88's editing apply regardless of whether or not they are actually using a LLM (and their edits are mostly being reverted, so there is no AI cleanup left to do), so I've picked here (please advise if I've picked wrong!).

SaintAvenger88 (talk · contribs) has been persistently introducing serious referencing errors into articles, and has now stopped engaging with editors who are raising concerns about these.

1. They have a very idiosyncratic habit of adding citations without full URLs, only the domain name – and even persistently update existing citations to delete the page path (and the www.) from citations. They were warned about this by @LibStar on 15 October and acknowledged the warning, but needed warning again on 29 October and a third time yesterday, but they have continued to do their edits today. They have also needed to be warned twice about circular references to Wikipedia.
2. They have introduced citations to sources that do not appear to exist at all. I have not audited many, but just a few I found:
   1. On Clock Face: {{cite web |title=Clock Face (Ward, United Kingdom) - Population Statistics, Charts, Map and Location |url=https://citypopulation.de |website=City Population |publisher=Office for National Statistics |date=2022 |access-date=30 October 2026}}: no page with this title exists, there is no place on CityPopulation with the name 'Clock Face', and the title implies that Clock Face is an electoral ward, which it is not.
   2. On Longsight: {{cite news |last=Islam |first=Faisal |title=My home town: Manchester |url=https://theguardian.com |work=The Guardian |date=10 May 2009 |access-date=31 October 2026}} – no page with this title exists in Google, and Faisal Islam's author page at the Guardian lists zero articles published under his name in 2009.
   3. Same edit, {{cite news |last=Skentelbery |first=Gary |title=Channel swimmer Sunny Lowry dies aged 97 |url=https://warringtonguardian.co.uk |work=Warrington Guardian |date=22 February 2008 |access-date=31 October 2026}} – no page with this title exists in Google, but warringtonguardian.co.uk has published an article on this topic that has a different title, a different publication date, and no byline name.
3. Given the made-up citations (and a few other hallmarks of LLMs in their edits), I warned them about LLM use on 31 October and again yesterday, which they have made no comment on. They had also opened a discussion on the Clock Face talk page, but have not replied after I raised the issue with the fictitious citation/electoral ward.
4. They have not engaged with other users on their talk page since 15 October, instead choosing to blank their talk page warnings on 30 October and again this morning, before continuing to make edits with the same kinds of issues.

Whether this is LLM use is kind of moot (their edits are now generally all getting reverted regardless), and the main issue is a failure to communicate and a failure to learn not to keep making the same mistakes. Joe D (t) 13:10, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw this is LLM use, their filter logs are full of markdown and citing WP Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:26, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

The latest edits in the past couple of hours to Hartington, Derbyshire show zero change in behaviour, but it's very clear they are seeing their talk page message because they are deleting them. Continued bad behaviour and refusal to communicate - clearly WP:NOTHERE and just creating extra work for other people cleaning up after them. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

AI edit summaries too e.g. Overhauled the Buses section to reflect the launch of the franchised Bee Network framework in South Manchester. Condensed individual bullet points into a clean paragraph, and added verified references from Transport for Greater Manchester Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from article space for LLM misuse and refusal to communicate. If they come here or their talk page with a valid reason then feel free to unblock. Or of course fully block them. CambridgeBayWeather (Alappaa), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:19, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

cleanup at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/SaintAvenger88 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:09, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

User:CassandraFassi still making unsourced and/or POV edits after many warnings

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

I reported this recently but it slipped by with no action taken (see archived report); however, the disruptive edits continued unabated and the editor has refused to respond, so I'm trying this again. This user has received numerous warnings about non-constructive editing, including unsourced changes and POV edits especially relating to ethnicity and geography. One of the recurring trends is removing or de-emphasizing mentions of "Africa(n)". Unexplained substantive changes to the meaning of sentences are often mixed in with mass unrelated minor changes across an article. You can see recurring attempts by myself and other editors to explain this to them on their talk page, e.g.: , , , , , , .

In September:

• They were blocked temporarily on 12 September for disruptive editing ().
• Right after that block expired, they resumed the same type of disruptive edits, as I explained to them here.
• After that, they received yet another warning from Asqueladd (), for unsourced and/or POV edits like this.

They took a break for a couple of weeks, then resumed the same type of editing from 19 October onward, e.g.:

• This edit deleted cited content, then added a dubious tangent about other ethnicities, which they incorrectly attributed to the citation that supported the deleted content.
• This mass edit manages to add uncited details (see the first addition in the diff).
• Other unsourced changes are present in this and this.
• Unexplained/unsourced changes to ethnic terms again and inappropriately editing a quotation here, which was reverted by another editor ().
• This edit once again sneaks in unsourced/unexplained content changes and goes out of its way to remove or deliberately complicate use of the word "Africa" (e.g. replacing the heading "Veracity of Africa trip" with the unhelpful and potentially confusing jargon "Veracity of Sahara-Sahel Africa trip"), alongside other unrelated mass changes.
• Here again replacing "Africa" with the out-of-context "Maghreb" (an Arabic name that post-dates the period that the text is referring to), reverted by another editor ().

The last three examples took place after I reported them to ANI and invited them twice to comment at that report (, ), which they ignored. So we now have a combination of likely tendentious editing, unsourced changes, and refusing to communicate. R Prazeres (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Noting that CassandaraFassi was indefinitely p-blocked from mainspace by SarekOfVulcan EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, EvergreenFir, I meant to come back here and say that, but got derailed by something else. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

~2026-57614-63

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

---

• ~2026-57614-63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While in the middle of tendentious editing and edit warring, decided to call other editors "Satanist losers", "lying... adamant and rabid about denying child sexual abuse involving ritual abuse" and announced "You cannot tell me what to do." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Indeffed, NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

As this is a temporary account and as this TA editor has committed to making new TAs I put together an RFPP report. here Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

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

User:JoyfullySmile systematic disruptive edits and reverts

I am requesting administrator review of JoyfullySmile's editing conduct across 24+ Big Brother franchise articles.

There are disputes regarding changes to the "Housemates tables," which have been ongoing. Nonetheless, no consensus has ben reached on either of JoyfullySmile's requests.[1][2] The user has continually and combatively disregarded the requests of other users (including myself) who have brought it to their talk page, to stop the edits and reverts until a consensus has been reached.[3][4][5][6] Thewealthysocialite (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I thought there has already been a consensus among the editors who already participated in the discussion and contributed by helping make the necessary corrections. While the edits may have been bold, they were also constructive and collaborative, with other editors working together to ensure their accuracy and consistency with Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother/Structure of series or season articles. They just do not like them as it is different and changed from their preferences.

Additionally, Thewealthysocialite refused to follow the edits despite their based on MOS:TV and MOS:TVPRODUCTION for the Celebrity Big Brother, like the Celebrity Big Brother 24. I believe these are all good edit and should remain as they help improve the pages to follow the Manual of Style of Reality Television shows. JoyfullySmile (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

ip back from User:User: Deanpro

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

---

~2026-58572-34 made this edit on my talk page, may be this user using another ip from his block a few weeks ago under ~2026-55738-79 for block envision. Admin mentioned on his talk page told him to go back to his original account and not use another ip for his same actions. He appears to have restarted. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

TAIV isn't helpful due to proxy use, but they have edited under Special:Contributions/~2026-58164-42 only three days ago.

It's weird for a new TA to come out of the blue with this as their first (and only) comment, though. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:37, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

This is getting to be appalling and i ask for everyone to take a step back.

" Admin mentioned on his talk page told him to go back to his original account and not use another ip for his same actions. He appears to have restarted. " - This is untrue. There was a 2 week pause given to me. I had told admins i was leaving the deanpro account. i have this written as such on that user page. the admins decided because the account was left to put a closure ban on it but i myself was not banned from future use. i was confused by this, as i knew this would lead to confusion from admins thinking there was a indefinite ban on me, when it was just to align with the account. after the 2 weeks, i began to respectfully use wikipedia again. this included seeing the hostile user not replying to admins and keeping up a still up wrongly categorized vandal list. this included that user going to revert edits without explanation (something they commonly do). i was not home and hit edit with the temp account wiki created for me. wiki users are not required to make an account. this is not under any sense of the word a block evasion. there was no telling of me to "go back to his original account" as the user above lied, because as stated, i had already told admin the original account was inactive with me scrambling the password as i was being targeted by magical, and then placing the closure on it, so an admin would not have told me to go back to a defunct account. i wrote an inquiry to an admin with a new post-2-week account on the vandals page matter about wikipedia policy when the Admin inquired with a discussion to bring peace to to the hostile vandals label and page that magical chose not to reply to the admin on. this followed all rules and was not an evasion. i used the Talk page properly to start a neutral discussion about the Grace Reiter page, rather than do the wrong thing of a revert or edit war.

one of the admins has now placed a year long ban on a shared home ip under block evasion, due to this confusion, even though no such evasion occurred or is occurring. other edits i have done have been thanked for by the community. i was resuming activity after the 2 weeks. no evasion occured. prior noticeboards about me to label as block evasion or even sock have been corrected by other admins to not be as such.

a wiki user is not required to have an account. if i need an account, i can do one. but its not required, and users are also allowed to even have more than one. the 1 year block evasion ip ban that is incorrect i ask to be fixed.

once that is fixed, how do i work on accuracy on wikipedia for pages that still need to follow wiki guidelines? i mean the Grace page i could not have more properly tried to a request for comment to engage the greater community. its a bit baffiling for admins to take magical's false charactizaterization above as truth, quickly impose a 1 year ip ban, and more. respectfully, please see the forest for the trees here. when this user doesnt agree with an admin, they stop discussion. when they are told over and over by multiple users to stop revert wars where they revert consistently without explaination written as required in their revert, when they refuse to have talk page discussions, they are acting as if they own wiki. when a user tries to start an rfc and then asks an admin what the proper policy is when the user continues to refuse to take down their vandal page its still up, and then when they mischaracterize things as they did above with their description of incident, like i'm just trying to start fresh and edit and do rfcs and ensure theres no list page up. the 1 year block in particular though doesnt match here. theres no evasion. its a fresh start. i'm not home. @Yue also said to post any notes on the deanpro page in their ban, but again that shows they missed the full story as it means they lack the context that i do not have access to deanpro and told admins as such. ~2026-58839-59 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-58839-59 You were told here that you failed to make a clean start by editing pages you were previously in dispute under. A clean start does not mean continuing disputes you were under with a brand new account. That's sockpuppetry. If you want a clean start, you must cease all disputes and edit somewhere else on the wiki. If you want to continue disputes you must appeal the indefinite block on your original account and then succeed in that appeal. You cannot do both. This was outlined to you here. - Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-58839-59: I have blocked this new temporary account of yours for block evasion. Please carefully read the last comment left by The Bushranger on the talk page of this previous temporary account of yours. You were given three options, and you picked the one that The Bushranger warned you would get you blocked on sight. I am not opposed to myself or another admin removing your IP block once you have demonstrated an understanding of your situation at hand and a genuine interest in having a clean start (either option 1 or 2), which you have not done by once again attempting to reengage with disputes through multiple temporary accounts. Yue🌙 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Japanese nationalist NOTHERE 3rd report

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

The first report resulted in block for edit warring. The second report also resulted in block for edit warring (both reported by User:Qiushufang). After the second block expired, this user removed another user NoNetouyo's comments from NoNetouyo's user page with no permission from NoNetouyo and when asked to stop it, removed the same comments from NoNetouyo's user page again without listening to other users' warnings. It violates Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_existing_content and Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages. This user is indefinitely blocked in Korean Wikipedia and also indefinitely blocked in Japanese Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. --saebou (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Would a report to SRG suffice considering the possibility of cross-wiki abuse? Beta Beta Beta - talk 09:30, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Jmtwgpad is insane. The user whose talk page they removed content from has not edited in 7 years. Qiushufang (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Please stop making baseless attacking people by labeling them "insane." Jmtwgpad (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

This one has been confirmed as using sockpuppets on Japanese Wikipedia, their block reason said that. Possibly QCU needed then CU blocked? -Lemonaka 10:54, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

They're pretty clearly only here to push a pro-Japanese POV on pages about history and culture. If a CU check is required, do it, but this editor is obviously WP:NOTHERE and should face an cban because they keep ending up at AN/I and it's always for the same reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If it is claimed that my edits violate the neutral point of view, the basis for that claim should be explained. Jmtwgpad (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Well, for instance, in one recent edit you put into an infobox that Japan won an historical battle even though the page for that battle indicated significantly differing accounts of the conclusion of the battle from Korean and Japanese sources contemporary to the incident. You did so on the basis of a single source. However the problem is not just that your edits are often non-neutral. It's that you routinely engage in edit warring to push them into pages over objections including, recently, deleting statements off an inactive editor's userpage about anti-Korean racism in Japan. And this is the third time your edit warring has led to an ANI filing. Enough is enough. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that, in that event, the Korean side was forced to retreat by the Japanese side, and I have cited the source for this. Furthermore, it is quite strange to suggest that any mention of a victory or defeat is inherently biased toward one side or the other. I also find it can’t understand to be accused of "inciting a war" simply because I made two edits. Regarding your claim of "anti-Korean racism"—please understand that a user page is not a soapbox; it is not a place to propagate unsubstantiated political arguments. Jmtwgpad (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the same problem as last time. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month for continuing this edit war with an edit summary containing "stop the editing war". The discussion below about a CBAN should continue to determine consensus there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Is there any policy that prohibits the removal of edits made by users who use their user pages as a platform to promote their own political views? Furthermore, as noted in the "user page no-ownership" principle, it is stated that user pages are not intended to serve as personal websites. Jmtwgpad (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

There is no policy whatsoever that permits you to act an as an arbiter as to what content is permitted on user pages. More so when you are clearly pushing an agenda. If there is a good reason for not imposing a cban for such behaviour, given previous warnings, I can't think of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

it is not for me to decide that. I acted in accordance with the policy that Wikipedia is not a platform for political advocacy. Jmtwgpad (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If you think there is an issue with someone's talk page, you bring it up with them on their talk page. If you still think it's against policy after talking with them on their talk page, THEN you would bring it here(ANI). The user is inactive anyways so, don't know why you felt the need to do it anyways.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:30, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Understood. In the future, I will make sure to provide a warning on the talk page before making such edits. Jmtwgpad (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

That's not the only time Jmtwgpad has edit-warred on another editor's userpage. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I restored the notice because an unrelated third party had removed it for reasons that make no sense. You should be able to see this by checking that user's history. Jmtwgpad (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of the edit history there. You tried to bring a third party to an AN/I thread about you by using a template usually used to let someone you had opened an AN/I thread about them. Another editor removed it as obvious nonsense (which it was) and you restored it and accused that editor of vandalism. Let me be very clear here: you shouldn't have templated that editor to begin with. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Clarifying you pulled a remarkable WP:NOTTHEM maneuver at AN/I and tried to say it was all the fault of that third party. This is astoundingly bad judgment. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1236#c-Jmtwgpad-20261002060700-Baseless_accusations_and_personal_attacks is the location of this lapse in judgment if anyone cares to look. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

That is a malicious interpretation. I did not make any retaliatory request; rather, I reported the user to the administrators because I deemed their behavior problematic. To level such an accusation—despite the fact that I made no retaliatory report and merely followed the rules by placing a notice on the user’s talk page—demonstrates astoundingly bad judgment. Jmtwgpad (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I have never once shifted the responsibility for my own actions onto others. While I acknowledge that I was blocked due to an edit war, that does not serve as evidence that I am aggressive. Therefore, asserting that "unnecessary" based on that premise constitutes an unfounded personal attack. Furthermore, my purpose in using Wikipedia is to maintain neutrality, and that purpose does not constitute grounds for applying WP:NOTHERE. Jmtwgpad (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Formal proposal for a WP:CBAN

Given Jmtwgpad's relentless attempts to blame their own bad behaviour on other people, after multiple warnings and two escalating blocks (the second with a warning that they were "on a very short WP:ROPE afterwards"), it seems to me that the community can manage fine without such belligerence. More so when coming from someone with an unambiguous agenda. WP:NOTHERE applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I support this, but would find an admin's INDEF to be perfectly acceptable. I have zero faith in this editor's ability to constructively resolve a dispute of any kind. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The act of baselessly labeling someone as incapable of constructively resolving the issue constitutes a personal attack. refrain from this Jmtwgpad (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

• Support Three strikes is enough here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
• Support per CoffeeCrumbs. A regular admin indef might waste a little more time dealing with frivolous appeals, but a TPA yank would solve that problem once it appears. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

• Support I'm seeing an excessive level of hostility from this editor and a lack of introspection/willingness to listen to & follow through on feedback. Things didn't need to go this far, and a different approach to conflict (even as late as this ANI report) would have caused me to feel differently.

This is a collaborative website where we all have to work together, sadly I'm not seeing evidence of that here. IMO it feels like everyone is viewed as an opponent who needs to be defended against, rather than listened to. Part of me understands why they feel this way - previous blocks and differences in views can easily put someone in an adversarial mindset - but that doesn't make it ok and it definitely doesn't change the effect that they're having on the project.

I don't know what else we can do to resolve this, honestly, because it's not stopping. I'm also sadly unsurprised to see that a further edit war notice was placed on their page only a few hours ago . I can't persuade myself to oppose a CBAN/indef and can only find reasons to support further sanctions (EDIT: They were blocked for edit warring whilst I wrote this). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:05, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. Beta Beta Beta - talk 20:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

• Should we really be wasting more time and pixels on this? Not in my opinion. I have indeffed Jmtwgpad as not being here to create an encyclopedia, per everybody above. Bishonen | tålk 21:19, 4 November 2026 (UTC).
• Support: Coming in late to the party after Bishonen's indef, but yeah. This person has just a few dozen articlespace edits (almost all reverted) and this is the third time they're up on ANI? And instead of backing down and speaking softly, they're still swinging fists? No thankew. Ravenswing 22:46, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
• Ummm Not to second-guess the motivations here, it's clearly a cromulent result, but @Pppery:, can you please either refactor your closing statement or revert your closure? This was not a community ban, it was a single-admin indef. Even in cases where there is a clear consensus with little to no oppsition, community ban discussions MUST be open for at least 24 hours, which was not the case here. If we want a full actual factual ban, it needs to be open for longer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

  I was intending to close this discussion as an enacted CBAN. I didn't read the timestamps clearly enough, whoops. I've undone my closure. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:53, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

AimiqaXerni

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

He edited a lot of unsourced details in many beauty pageant articles, so I tried to warning him on his talk page already but he didn’t stop. Can admins block him for a few month or do something that can stop him? can you check this user please, thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

AimiqaXerni Looks vividly WP:IDHT. A block then batch revert may needed. -Lemonaka 10:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I tried to use Test or Unsourced warning to let him know and reported before, but nothing happen, hope disruptive warning format will can stop him this time.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@PradaSaetiew: Why did you personally have to warn this user around ~120 times? Don't you think that's a bit excessive? XXBlackburnXx (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Oh come on, it was only 106 (including the ANI warning) Celjski Grad (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

because I just want him stop to adding unsourced details in the articles, after first warning he didn’t stop to add unsourced details and I was report in this page before but nothing happen, so I removed my warning already today after it’s too much warning and he didn’t care the warning that I tried to explain.

/anyway in Thai Wikipedia’s admin ever advised me that should warning Test1 to 4 (or other waring formats) before report to admins soon in noticeboard after Test4 or level 4, that why in english Wikipedia I was used Test1 to warning him when I was reversed unsourced edits in every pageant articles that I read and found, after then I used Test2, 3 for next steps before I report again here, but this week I tried to use Unsourced1 warning format to warning him, because he didn’t care about Test1-4 warning formats.

and because I was tried to explain to him that his edits are unsourced or poorly sourced, such as source from Youtube or Facebook, but he never care and still edited same unsourced details back into the articles.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If you said it’s too much warning, I will not do any warning to him in his talk page again, I will do only reverse or remove unsourced details in the articles with reason, not warning in his talk page.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Generally, if four warnings did not work, you should not place any more but should look at other options. There is no reason to think additional ones will help. M kuhner (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

yes, I was warning his edited for some articles to Test4 already, and some just Test1, but after Test4 he didn’t stop, and reported in this board last time it’s nothing happen, after then I just warning him by Unsourced1, 2 formats again. But now I removed it all, because it’s too much and he doesn’t care about warning.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I find it's best to give a warning then see if it continues - if there aren't any further problems after your warning then there's no need for another.

Once it gets to level four then it's definitely time to escalate for admin/community review, because they're clearly not listening.

It might be that they aren't aware of their Talk page and a short block can get their attention, or you might encounter someone who just doesn't care and more severe sanctions might be necessary. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Last time after Test4 I was reported in this board but nothing happen, then I tried to warning by Unsourced1-2 again, but still can’t help to stop him, then I try to report again this time hope admins will checking some.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

We've got this report open now, so it'll get a proper review - this is just advice in case you happen to come across something similar in the future 🙂 In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:15, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Probable block evasion by ~2026-57328-11 (talk · contribs)

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

---

~2026-57328-11 (talk · contribs) appears to be evading the blocks of:

• Yusefum The Barca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-46138-40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-45164-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-45474-91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And probably others. They are making the identical edits across multiple Carthage-related articles, replacing common names with uncommon variants.

I'm not sure if there's a better place to report this. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

FYI If it's obvious block evasion then you can make an AIV report, especially if TAIV data backs it up - just add a brief explanation, one or two diffs and/or ask the admin to check TAIV In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:09, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE, WP:UNCIVIL, WP:COI AND WP:LOUTSOCKING by User:MOUNTAINDEWWW

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

---

I don’t know if I am doing this right or not as this is my first ANI but this report is related to persistent disruptive editing, LOUTSOCKING and civility issues by MOUNTAINDEWWW (talk · contribs). The following is a selected account of MOUNTAINDEWWW's unconstructive editing, which includes an "unreferenced addition to BLP" at Salish Matter (diff) and a WP:BLP issue as well as Vandalising the lead section of Keith Ellison to "WEIRDOO" (diff). They also removed the AFC decline template from Draft:Annabella Sterling (per this diff), and responded to warnings with mockery and incivility like “nah I'm okay HAHAHAHAHA” per this diff at the bottom of the page and “SHUT UP and get a life” per this diff, now for Draft:Annabella Sterling which is where everything escalated, the user has stated the subject is their friend per their talk page and has continued pushing the draft without reliable independent sources, while also behaving like they are "not here to build an encyclopedia" rather than to promote or argue. While i was patroling the former edits of them creating Annabella Sterling as Annabella Reed i was able to find this TA, ~2026-58410-91, was created the same day to create a very identical promotional draft and when confronted, the user blatantly admits that the TA is in fact them per and behaving incivil to me. Now all of this has happened at , administrative action is requested if things escalates further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BengalMC (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Bro how tho Its not killing you 😐 MOUNTAINDEWWW (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised that MOUNTAINDEWWW hasn't already been blocked between BLP vandalism, the LLM-laden draft of a non-notable person, and the hostility. I do not believed, based on their communication (including this last one), that this is an individual with the maturity to participate on this project at all. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. Every so often one of these issues pops up on the drama boards where the closure should be "this is obviously a child". I suspect there is a draft submission that I will not link to here in their history that it might be doing them a favour to revision-delete. Beyond that this is a situation of "please contribute when you have developed the maturity to work on a collaborative project with adults." Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I agree. A temporary block is needed to prevent the continuous disruption caused. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Even I was also surprised that they were continuing the disruption even after a final warning BengalMC ^talk 15:24, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I concur, their behavior has been atrocious in the face of unending patience of other editors on their talk page. I'm convinced we're being trolled. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

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.

While I understand that tensions are running high regarding this topic, labeling my contributions as 'atrocious' or calling me a 'troll' violates the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Disagreeing on article content or policy interpretation is a normal part of collaborating here; dismissing a differing perspective as deliberate trolling is unconstructive and does nothing to resolve the actual editorial dispute.

If there are specific, policy-based concerns with my recent edits, I am entirely open to discussing them calmly. However, I ask that we keep the focus strictly on the articles and guidelines rather than resorting to personal characterizations

✌ MOUNTAINDEWWW (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The language used is substantially different to what you usually use, so much so that it's difficult to believe that it came from the same person. Please can you confirm if you used AI (e.g. ChatGPT) to help in writing the above comment? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

no i did not can you not believe i made that like can you not read..... MOUNTAINDEWWW (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@MOUNTAINDEWWW https://app.gptzero.me/documents/17b77242-8957-4d39-8fc4-c27f1a806d09 Says otherwise BengalMC ^talk 16:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Pretty clear WP:AITALK, think it's AI. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 16:05, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

PERIOd MOUNTAINDEWWW (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Listen kid, I know this is probably a pretty upsetting situation here. This is in part because you are being judged by adult standards and, from the history of your editing and personal statements about yourself, you're probably about the same age as my daughter. I think you have some growing up still to do before any significant work on this project would be a beneficial part of your development. With that being said, responding to this thread with what is obviously an AI generated statement is only going to dig you in farther here. I'm going to try and get ahead of the curve and make a proposal:

I've blocked User:MOUNTAINDEWWW indefinitely. I'm cognizant of the 6 month proposal below, and will shorten the block to 6 months if people now feel it's more appropriate. MOUNTAINDEWWW can plead their case on their ability to edit here in an unblock request at any time. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Formal proposal: 6 month block

I think it's clear this editor isn't ready to contribute to Wikipedia yet. But I don't want us to indefinitely block a literal child and I'm pretty confident that's what we're dealing with here. As such, I think the best thing to do would be to give them some time out. I also think it would likely be ultimately a kindness to this editor to delete rev-del the draft that I've alluded to and that @BengalMC referenced in their original filing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Support: I believe this is the best option as it does look like they are not mature enough for Wikipedia as of now. BengalMC ^talk 15:52, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Support clearly immature, but they might reflect and become more mature in a few months. Something tells me they're about the same age as the person they're trying to wrtie about. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 16:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Support unfortunately... I guess Draft:Annabella Sterling should be deleted as well, as it was created by the kid, and the subject of the draft seems to be a minor who, as far as I can see, has zero coverage. — Raihanur (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

From the talk page, I found some indications that they were essentially Wingmanning their friend as per the comment IDC if she isn't notable she is to me now SHUT UP and get a life😭✌,Also, I think I consider this draft as likely WP:OUTING per the unnecessary personal information which is not someone who is outside their friends circle should know BengalMC ^talk 16:23, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the draft. I don't think it was too promotional for draftspace, but it was a biography about a minor and it shouldn't be on Wikipedia for the reasons you mention. --bonadea contributions talk 16:36, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

how old even is your daughter sir like she might be 3 and why 6 months can it be 3 MOUNTAINDEWWW (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I suspect around your age. Which is why I'm being especially careful to put kindness to you in the forefront of my thoughts here. As for why six months? Because I think you'll likely need that amount of time or more before you are ready to edit collaboratively. Please don't take this for an attempt at punishment. This is about readiness. I hope this time will give you an opportunity to reflect on what you want to accomplish within this project and to read how we go about conducting ourselves so that, when you are ready, you can come back with minimal trouble. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Of note In case it gets missed from above; I've indefinitely blocked User:MOUNTAINDEWWW. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

In that case my proposal can be closed. I don't want an indef to somehow get migrated into a cban here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Support closure, NFA - They'll have to submit a convincing appeal to show they've matured over time, this is probably going to work out better than a time limit that doesn't necessarily guarantee that they've matured - we don't know how old they are so it could be months or it could be years, everyone is different. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:23, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Support. Kid needs to learn before editing out on the wild internet, it's generally not safe for kids this young to be on the internet anyways. However, I was admittedly like this on Wikipedia until I matured up, so I will out of kindness support a 6 month block. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear I'm supporting the current indef, not a six month timed block. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:05, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Good block (and good draft delete on bonadea's part). No need for a cban, as an administrator can certainly judge if someone shows enough maturity to participate here. I also support the indef, and absolutely not merely a timed block; it could be several years until this editor is capable of being productive here, and I don't want to risk more outing or the like. I don't think this editor should be able to freely edit on English Wikipedia without someone -- whether admin or the community -- actively choosing to allow it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I am willing to admit a bit of subjectivity here in wanting to go easy on the kid because they reminded me of my kid. I mentioned above that my proposal could be considered withdrawn but forgot to bold it. I don't disagree with anything that has been done here. I'm glad the draft was rev-delled - I suspect they may thank us for that in a few years even if it frustrates them now. I know Wikipedia doesn't have firm age limits - if we did I would have just used that as a rubric - but I do agree that tweens are generally not going to have a great time trying to edit an encyclopedia online. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor engaging in OR and vandalism

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

---

Saliq770 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been editing (mainly in the WP:CT/SA area) since last July, in the few edits since almost 10 warnings have been served (for disruption, contentious topics, content blankings etc.) including by me, with no response from the user whatsoever.

The OR disruption can be seen even in the latest edits , ; content blankings etc.

That the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE is also established by racist vandalism such as this (inserting an ethnic slur into article bodies).

Enough warnings and notices have been served here for sanctions to ensue. Gotitbro (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Yep, blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Draft: Marcus Hays

Hello, I have been helping my friend Marcus with his page. I disclosed at the talk page. He first made a claude written draft that was declined rightfully. When he asked me for help, I it seemed similar to writing journal papers which I have done. You cite what you say. Attribute quotation if verbatim. otherwise paraphrase with context. I also read the notability guidelines and familiarized myself and did a complete rewrite. I sought feedback here where they felt that it was still LLM written. It wasn't. Everything was addressed Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2026 October 6 - Wikipedia. Since nothing further was said I submitted the page with full explanation on notability at the talk page Draft talk:Marcus Hays - Wikipedia

Marcus (regretfully so) informed me that someone approached him posing as a moderator and claimed they could help the page get accepted. He fell for what i think is probably a scam. Someone just moved to the main page after removing all notices and comments. And then someone else came and put it back in draftspace which is right. But all my comments gone. Anyone reading the page wont see the whole history and chain of comments. That page move was triggered by the mistake marcus made and I think we are accountable for the mess. But here is my problem:

I submitted the page to AFC review. It is a process handled by people who are qualified to conduct such analysis. Hence, I was content. But the page was moved to draft space. Pending AFC gone. And a review was statement I got in haste was boilerplate. The fact that they said I probably have COI gave an impression they had not even read the trail. Further, I looked deeper, they are not a reviewer. The other draft that was going through similar trouble with same group is User talk:CedricHarris - Wikipedia. The note their makes sense.

The note I got and Marcus did, it did not make sense at all since no review was performed. In fact, the person who moved it to draft space apparently has been selective with all this. While looking at this I saw Lao Lang. It was created in June by User:Licaomu, whose nine edits here are all about Chinese music. EaglesFan37 declined it on 1 August as not neutral. About 21 hours later TurquoiseGoose copyedited it and moved it to mainspace themselves. It seemed clear that Licaomu has a connection with Lao Lang. its called single purpose account? No COI notices were sent to him. Page was moved to main space with no questions asked. I was wondering if scammers would ask for more money and if this user who moved back to draft space was part of the circuit. They dont do AFC. Why giving us reviews outside of the process?

TurquoiseGoose holds neither the new page reviewer right nor AfC participant status, and has logged about 60 draftifications. I saw someone raised a concern about this.

What I am asking

• Fair review of the draft. After mainspace move, I saw User:Mr.choppers - Wikipedia had also started cleaning it up.
• Review of how this draftification was handled, and of the COI labelling.

~~~~ JaceMal (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read the notice at the top of this page, but ANI is intended to discuss urgent or intractable behavioural issues do admins can't help with getting a draft reviewed. Your draft is in the (large) AFC queue & I'm afraid that it'll just have to wait its turn.

The person who moved the draft to mainspace has already been blocked for undeclared paid editing & their edits have been undone (reverted).

Licaomu hasn't edited for four months, but I noticed you hadn't notified them about this report - you're required to do this as explained on the notice above, so I've done this for you.

I'm also not sure what you're saying about TurquoiseGoose, but I've notified them of this report as well as they have a right to respond.

It's possible that Licaomu could be UPI/COI but they haven't edited in several months - scam accounts tend to be abandoned quite frequently so they may or may not return. Sadly it's a big problem here, but it's one that's never going to go away.

I don't know if Licaomu does have a COI or are UPE, but we'd need more than nine edits in a specific genre as evidence. Sometimes music fans write an overly promotional article because they simply don't know any better yet and are still learning how to edit Wikipedia. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:49, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

BTW You've written that I saw someone raised a concern about this.

Can you please provide a link or diff so we can see what this concern was and the context?

It's difficult to judge reports that don't contain diffs (which is why we ask for them to be included as part of reports). I can't see anything on TQ's Talk page so I'm not sure what you're looking at. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:04, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

User needs TPA revoked

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

---

Amethyst278732 here Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 18:35, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Yup. Yoink. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:36, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Ongoing bot activity from VPNGate

I'm about to leave, but wanted folks to know that an LTA is currently active; see recent hits to this filter (for anyone that has private filter access). They will also likely spam the edit filter false positive board; recommend blocking temp account and IP as a proxy, mostly likely VPNGate. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 22:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

account has alrdy been blcoked ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I noticed the spam on the EFFP board, but I am not quite sure about how it can be stopped if it's probably going to be a possibly changing IP. I actually don't know if protecting the notice board can be a solution, since non-autoconfirmed users do post there. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 00:20, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason we need blocking filters on enwiki because people like Salebot1 spam the abuse log with hundreds of entries. See this for example. Salebot1 operates from VPNGate proxies, as noted on the LTA page and the ISP of their multiple CU blocked IPs. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 00:33, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Edit summary containing allegation of crime

• ~2026-58744-25 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)

I don't know if this is the right place but it seems that we should delete this edit summary which accuses someone of a crime:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISB&diff=next&oldid=1343889925&diffonly=1 GreyZoneLife (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Done, as it's a BLP violation and (as best as I can tell) an allegation against a Wikipedia editor. The ironic thing is the actual removal in the edit is entirely appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 5 November 2026 (UTC)