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

• 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)

Ezéchiel Péquay genre-warring and logged-out editing

• Ezéchiel Péquay (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-57225-00 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-57601-31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• Nosferatu Verlaine (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

Ezéchiel Péquay has been changing a bunch of pages about punk rock to add the new wave music genre, using older sources representing an outdated understanding of the music. At the Punk rock page, Ezéchiel Péquay made two such edits, reverted by Issan Sumisu, and then the TA Special:Contributions/~2026-57225-00 came in and restored Ezéchiel Péquay's preferred edit. An accusation of socking voiced at User talk:~2026-57225-00 brought a quick response by Ezéchiel Péquay who had been pinged.

A dozen pages are affected, especially Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols at which Ezéchiel Péquay was reverted by me, followed by a logged-out revert by Special:Contributions/~2026-57601-31 pretending to be someone else. That's a violation of WP:MULTIPLE.

Note that the person now editing as Ezéchiel Péquay was previously active from 2023 through 2025 by way of an IP range, making statements about punk rock such as "Punk Rock not Rock" in the edit summary. At the same time, a parallel path of activity can be seen at Special:Contributions/Nosferatu Verlaine who insisted upon inserting punk genres from older sources. No blocks were issued back then. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend more time looking at more of the pages being affected, but noting two things. 1) The change example given by Binksternet above is a pretty clear example of using a logged out ID to be pretend to be someone other than one's named account in a dispute. (In fact, that change was so obviously intended to deceive that I was going to link to it in this comment before I realized that Binksternet had already done so.) 2) It appears that the underlying problem is that Ezéchiel Péquay does not understand how the terminology around punk rock and "new wave" was used in the 1970s, and how that differs from later usage. Virtually any punk rock band getting media coverage in the 1970s is going to have contemporary sources referring to them as new wave, because that was the usage at the time. The source that they are attempting to add to the Never Mind the Bollocks article is a perfect example: it is entirely unsurprising that the album was considered to fall under the new ware umbrella in 1977, but I cannot imagine any music criticism in the last 30 years and maybe in the last 40+ years referring to the album as new wave. CAVincent (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Our friend is not admitting to logged-out editing; the latest talk page post says the TA was "someone I know with whom I regularly discuss music." Clearly Ezéchiel Péquay is gaming the system for his own benefit. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Ezéchiel Péquay continues to edit war on Punk rock, despite an on-going discussion on the talk page. He has also taken to accusing others of vandalism when restoring challenged edits across multiple articles. See here, here, here and here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Ezéchiel Péquay is now blocked for two weeks for edit-warring across multiple pages. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

2005-Fan LLM use

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

---

• 2005-Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account was created back in 2013, but has stuck to reasonably modest edits throughout its tenure, until just a couple weeks ago. I was alerted by this major revision to a featured article, about +25k of wikitext. Looking at their contribs, I see similar edits to other Mario franchise-related articles in this time span. This is strong circumstantial evidence on its own of sudden LLM use, and I went to the user's talk page to ask about it, when I see two other people have already brought it up, User talk:2005-Fan#Mario Family. I was just going to add a third voice, when I looked at their denials, which also reek of that overconfident LLM tone. At this point, I think more is required. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Can you file an AINB case as well for analysis and cleanup? ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Done (maybe even correctly?). That's a...daunting list of open cases :(. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

also AI edit summaries everywhere e.g., Expand gameplay (moveset, cap loss, 3D castle hub, course mechanics, Secret Stars), development (hakoniwa design, swimming animation, soundtrack, localization), and re-releases (1998 Player's Choice, 2015 Wii U VC); convert Fan projects list to prose, replace unreliable IGN wiki refs, and fix CS1/markup errors per WP:VG/MOS, Comprehensive overhaul: expanded development history (Koizumi interviews, concept design evolution) and media appearances; integrated verified citations to resolve {{cleanup rewrite}} and {{original research}} tags; copyedited for neutral encyclopedic tone per MOS:VG., etc Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Note, user has replaced their user page with a retired banner, but as always, that's never a guarantee. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

It's a bit unfortunate that someone suddenly retires due to an ANI without providing their input. I honestly think there could have been a discussion and perhaps a sound resolution if they were willing to talk this out and fess up to the LLM usage. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

or, god forbid, actually read the guidelines first Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked from mainspace. They're welcome to communicate and request an unblock if their retirement is a brief one Star Mississippi 16:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Attempting to start an RFC on the ZAK SMITH page titled: How should the Zak Smith article be updated to reflect recent reporting on the conclusion of Smith's litigations?

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

---

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

---

I generated a new RFC on the ZAK SMITH talk page [Zak_Smith] which was almost immediately collapsed and deemed as AI generated by editors historically policing the page. Any help in this matter is greatly appreciated. There are new sources and the information on the page should be updated per BLP policy.

Background:

A September 2025 RFC concluded that sexual abuse allegations made against Zak Smith should be covered in Smith's biography in a truncated form, consisting of 1–3 sentences incorporated into another section, alongside an update on the litigations.  (Previous RFC https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&oldid=1313205361)

Since that RFC, the litigations, including a central litigation between Smith and his ex-wife (Morbid/Nagy) have reached final appellate outcomes and sources have reported on Smith's litigation as a whole.

From The Weekly Footnote: “Smith sued successfully over these claims five times in five different defamation suits across the world (including in Canada where Nagy now resides, Los Angeles, New Zealand, Australia and Switzerland) against Nagy and those who repeated the accusations. Many of his models testified on his behalf.“

The current wording does not reflect the final outcome of the litigation between Smith and Nagy. The question is how to incorporate that outcome (and others) while retaining the scope of the previous RFC.

Several sources covered the legal outcome of the Nagy/Smith case as well as Smith’s other legal cases:

https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/divorced-porn-stars-bring-defamation-lawsuit-to-ontario-court-of-appeal

https://familyllb.com/2025/10/09/after-separation-why-defaming-your-ex-can-land-you-in-court/

https://theweeklyfootnote.com/2025/11/26/what-is-it-like-to-be-painted-by-zak-smith/

https://artillerymag.com/at-home-in-the-chaos/

The article currently states:

In February 2019, due to allegations of sexual abuse by several women including his former wife, adult industry performer Mandy Morbid,[16][20][21] Wizards of the Coast announced that they would be removing all references to Smith from the print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition, OneBookShelf announced it would no longer work with Smith, and he was also banned from attending Gen Con.[16][22][23] Smith denied the accusations and filed defamation lawsuits against Morbid and other people.[20][24] His defamation suit against Gen Con was dismissed in May 2023 after Smith deliberately violated discovery rules by failing to respond to Gen Con's requests, a decision upheld by the Washington Court of Appeals in October 2024.[25][26]

Question:

How can the article be updated to reflect the outcome of Smith's cases?

Suggested replacement wording:

In February 2019, following allegations of sexual abuse by several women, including his former wife, adult industry performer Mandy Morbid,[16][20][21] Wizards of the Coast announced that it would remove references to Smith from the print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition, OneBookShelf announced that it would no longer work with him, and he was banned from attending Gen Con.[16][22][23] A defamation suit against Gen Con was dismissed in May 2023 after he failed to comply with discovery obligations, a decision upheld by the Washington Court of Appeals in October 2024.[25][26] Smith was never charged with any crime but responded to the resulting online harassment by successfully suing those who made and repeated Nagy and company’s allegations five times in five countries including a verdict in August 2026 against Morbid herself.” [new sources]

Londonfog999 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC) — Londonfog999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Unfortunately it looks like ECR expired just expired on this topic.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

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

I've got to say, this looks pretty bad. A guy was

• accused of some pretty heinous crimes, which we write about;
• he lost noticeable work because of it, which we write about;
• he sued in court and lost, which we write about;
• then he sued in court, and won, with a ruling that the accusations were unfounded unsubstantiated - which we don't write about?

And when he tries to complain on the article talk page, his complaint is closed, without response, and when he tries to complain here, his complaint is again closed, without response, on a technical issue? Come on, folks, this is just wrong. This is exactly what WP:BLPKIND is about. I'm going to go to the article talk page, but I have to say I am disappointed in the response he is getting here. --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

To understand the situation better, you might want to look at the previous RFC in the talk pages, the Arbcom request about it, the ARCA about it, the previous time (still on the talk page) where someone got blocked for raising this, and of course Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/FixerFixerFixer. If your assumption is correct and the person complaining is the article subject, he is evading several blocks. - MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Also with a ruling that the accusations were unfounded - that's not really an accurate summary. - MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Correct, "unsubstantiated" was the word. "Last year, Smith came out the victor. Ottawa Superior Court judge Marc Labrosse dismissed both Nagy’s defamation and sexual battery actions, after finding “Mandy (had) not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she did not consent to the sexual activity at the time and that Zak knew or ought to have known that she did not consent” ... Meanwhile, Smith was successful in his defamation suit against Nagy’s unsubstantiated charges ..." --GRuban (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Best of luck to you. I came into the last RfC trying very hard to be neutral and source-oriented and what I got for my trouble was I got doxxed. I will not touch that article again. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

We need to be very careful about using these weak sources and particularly using the court judgment as a source, since the summary you have here is not at all an accurate summary of the judgment. As I've written about this before, I'm concerned about using the court as a source. It rules that some pretty incendiary stuff was truthful, and we'd be opening the door to Smith's critics as well with it - I don't want a second wave of SPAs asking why we can use the judgment for statement A on one side of the dispute but not statement B on the other side. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

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

~2026-57880-53 content blanking and kvetching

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

---

~2026-57880-53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-57880-53 has made three attempts to remove significant sections of content from Transgender Trend, two of which were filtered automatically. They are kvetching in response to warnings on User talk:~2026-57880-53 and making insinuations which may be considered personal attacks. It is clear that they are here to try to manage the reputation of Transgender Trend, to stir up trouble and generally not here to improve Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The whole "massive red flag" text might be enough for an indef alone, my word. Beta Beta Beta - talk 01:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

(involved) I agree with DanielRigal here. This user has cast multiple aspersions, including seemingly insinuating that DR didn't care about 'vulnerable children' just because DR didn't agree with the user's edit (which the user called a 'massive red flag', as Beta Beta Beta calls out above), claimed I was 'spreading false information' for calling TT, a group labeled as anti-trans in its article lede, anti-trans in my warning message, and cast another aspersion accusing DR of not liking truth. I would support an indef, at least for the very serious accusation relating to trans children towards DR (which reminds me of a similar aspersion cast against DR by another now-blocked user). ✦Inzessin✦ ^(talk) 01:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Indef'd as NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by a TA

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

---

Hello, a TA (~2026-57859-18) has made a legal threat against me and personal attacks in a since reverted reply to a standard uw-unsourced1 warning on their talk page. Strongshorts (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat, though they are incorrect. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

In a previous revision they said "I will personally sue you'
" Strongshorts (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

This revision to be precise Special:PermanentLink/1382807719 ~2026-54957-04 (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Blocked. They did remove it from their page, but the subsequent comment doesn't really reject the threat. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The user replied to the block notification with another legal threat. Also the first one was removed by a Recent Changes Patroller, not them themselves Strongshorts (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Concerns about ConflictFan's conduct

I would like to raise three concerns about user:ConflictFan's conduct on the Lion and Sun flag article and its talk page.

1. Personal attacks: ConflictFan has called me "disingenuous" (1), "stone-headed" (2) and " disruptive", described my contributions as "slop" (3), and accused me and user:Benyamin of "sealioning" when we requested reliable sources (4). I objected to these personal attacks, but he continued making them (5). He also asked Benyamin, "Are you a sockpuppet?", without providing evidence for this suspicion (6). ConflictFan has repeatedly accused me of using AI in my contributions to this article, suggesting that I cannot form my own opinions. I have good reason to disagree. According to XTools, I have contributed more content to the fa:پرچم ایران article on Persian Wikipedia than any other editor. I made these contributions before AI tools became widely available.
2. Disruptive editing: ConflictFan requested secondary sources for the section "Standardization of the Lion and Sun". I respected his request and provided two secondary sources (Mo’tazed and FOTW) (7). To my surprise, he ignored them. On 19 October, he proposed deleting the section, claiming that it relied exclusively on primary sources (8). The following day, without receiving any response from other editors in that discussion, he removed the entire section along with its references (9).
3. Possible conflict of interest (self-promotion): ConflictFan modified Sodacan's design on WikiCommons. He then created his own website, iranflag.org, and has been promoting his modified version on Wikipedia with the help of WikiCommons. I have no objection to him running his own website, but I do object to him promoting his personal work on Wikipedia. (10 and 11 and image)

I would appreciate an administrator reviewing these concerns. As ConflictFan continued making personal attacks even after I objected, I no longer wish to engage in further discussions with him. Shfarshid (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean this comment does show some AI Signs itself. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

not really Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah there is some AI usage that should stop it seems from OP, but the (1) insult of stone headed against OP are very much problematic as well. (2) is a content dispute ill suited to ANI. (3) is problematic as well, if an editor is self promoting somehow on Wikipedia . The discussion of interest (i think) here Talk:Lion and Sun flag#h-Infobox flag designs-20261019003200 seems to have degenerated as well. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Dorud,

Your contributions on the take page and article Lion and Sun flag do count as disruptive. I explain thoroughly in this message why I believe so and asked you to be more constructive. Regarding disingenuity, you also claim that the modern designs that millions of Iranians use have no historical basis and therefore should be completely disregarded, however you made an artistic interpretation of a postage stamp and passed it off as a historical flag and want it to show up at the top of the page.

Below is an excerpt of that aforementioned talk page message for reference:

Extended content

Hello @Shfarshid. Apologies for the delayed response. Before I address what you raised, I want to first guide you to this excerpt from a guideline so that we have a chance at arriving upon a consensus:

A disruptive editor often exhibits these tendencies:

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.
2. Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.
3. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} or {{more citations needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is problematic.
4. Fails to engage in consensus building:
   1. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
   2. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
5. Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

— WP:DISRUPTSIGNS

Tendency #4 is particularly relevant, because you are selectively engaging ad nauseam. I hope you can appreciate that I try to address each of your points in my replies, but when it's your turn to comment, you do not appear to put in the same effort to ensure a constructive discussion. It becomes extremely difficult to collaborate with you when you repeat the same things while ignoring my explanations and my pointing out the flaws in yours. Therefore I ask you from hereon out to please take into account what I am writing to you and address it in your replies.

Several other tendencies in that list also coincide with your contributions, but since you are not being receptive, it is harder for you to improve on them.

Now, regarding your reply itself, I would first like to show you this:

To call a spade a spade is to describe something clearly and directly. Rather than using oblique and obfuscating language, just "tell it like it is".

While editors who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors, and editors who consistently vandalize are vandals, it is still required that editors be civil to one another. However, being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable or credulous.

— WP:SPADE

Your behaviour and contributions do indeed count as disruptive and disingenuous. There is no getting around that. If you would like to know why I believe so, I provide some explanations in this collapsed section:

Extended content

Repeated use of large language models to generate content is considered disruptive, as the amount of effort required to clean such content up is disproportionate to the amount of effort required to create it. Users who persist in doing this even after being warned may be blocked.

— WP:LLMDISRUPT

A disruptive editor often exhibits these tendencies:

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.
2. Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.
3. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} or {{more citations needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is problematic.
4. Fails to engage in consensus building:
   1. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
   2. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
5. Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

— WP:DISRUPTSIGNS

You pass off your own artistic interpretation of the wreathed flag as a historical design when all you cite is a grainy image of a stamp and you don't provide any proof showing that the design was ever used on an actual flag.

You overstate the relevancy of your preferred design, entirely overlooking real-world usage by Iranians. You purport that your primary sources (none of which include any proof that the government adopted it as the official design) are encyclopaedic while claiming that everything else is unencyclopaedic.

Partaking in sealioning: you are repeatedly asking for sources, though refuse what I provide because they are not 'reliable' even when your own aren't any better.

This taken into account, I nevertheless concur that a kinder way to phrase it would have been "While I agree Wikipedia should be implementing an automated system to combat editors who engage in a disruptive and disingenuous manner like your actions match, that system does not exist yet -- and so when presented with blatantly obvious proof of AI use, we should point it out and take action". If you wish for me to phrase things like that, that's perfectly fine and I agree to it if it means we can start focusing on finding a consensus.

I also never insulted you by calling you stone-headed; I only described your actions as such. If you read the full conversation you will understand why I deem the way you contribute to be obstinate:

Extended content

Consider this as well:

Images should be selected with care and avoiding giving undue weight.

— WP:INFOBOXIMAGE

Under due weight your flag shouldn't be present in the infobox at all. I have nevertheless compromised and suggested to show your preferred variant in addition to the two common designs. However, despite this you are still acting stone-headed and trying to get your little-used version to supplant all others. Please understand how unreasonable this is.

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lion_and_Sun_flag#c-ConflictFan-20261024080500-Shfarshid-20261021094700

You never gave any reason for why you would manually mix curly quotation marks and straight apostrophes in your message. If you had written these yourself, I'm sure you would have a reason for that.

Now I see the only secondary source you have provided is an article from Flags of the World, but it doesn't even show your design in the same rendering. Even then, it is one of the sources on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page listed as "Generally unreliable":

Extended content

Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website."

— WP:FOTW

Every other source you provided was a primary source. You also wrote an entire section interpreting primary sources without any secondary sources to back up your preferred design. When I point out the issues with that section, you did not respond.

I encourage everyone in this thread to read the full talk page to get a clearer picture of the situation. Regards, ConflictFan (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

As a slight aside - is it acceptable for a wikipedia user to update a flag an upload it to wikipedia? Also how does this differ from https://flagofiran.com/ ? Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

iranflag.org and flagofiran.com are just websites that host the flag for people to easily reference.

There really aren't any rules about updating non-official flags but I went off of precedence. The flag file itself has been updated several times over the years: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:State_flag_of_Iran_(1964%E2%80%931980).svg#filehistory. If someone comes around to make an even better version then I would update Iran Flag Project with it. ConflictFan (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

So my understanding is that ConflictFan is of the opinion that the old flag has not been standardized and they have a project to standardize it. This is interesting from a COI perspective because it appears that ConflictFan is not selling this design and has made them available under an open Creative Commons license. As such I am unsure whether that constitutes a COI. However it does raise a WP:RS question concerning the standardization of this flag. If there is, in fact, no standard for it then I don't really see a problem with using whichever flag best represents what we can see in use. If there is a standard that should have a citable source saying so. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@ConflictFan: Hmmm. So, if someone were to say you are acting like an asshole, fucktwat, dipshit, shit-for-brains...it's ok because I'm describing how you're acting, not how you are? Note: I am NOT saying you are or are acting like any of these. I am highlighting that your distinction between "acting" vs. "are" is not an appropriate line in the sand. WP:NPA is quite clear about this; "Comment on content, not the contributors.". Please stop making such statements about anyone. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah those are beyond acceptable, and in a ctop area as well! User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hammersoft you raise a valid point, I definitely could have phrased that in a much less antagonistic manner and I apologise to Shfarshid for that. ConflictFan (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 (Just to provide historical context about this subject): there was never any single standard of the Lion and Sun flag at any point in history. Shfarshid's preferred variant was one of several in use by some government agencies during the 1970s but it never fully caught on and most Iranians until the 2010s used traditional designs. In the last decade two new designs (1) (2) emerged and those are what the majority of Iranians use nowadays. For whatever reason flag manufacturers really liked to mess with the proportions of the lion, and so I made that website and a construction sheet so that the design could be more consistent. As you said it's all public domain and I won't ever make a dime off of this. ConflictFan (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Shfarshid You've said: ConflictFan has repeatedly accused me of using AI in my contributions to this article, suggesting that I cannot form my own opinions. I have good reason to disagree. According to XTools, I have contributed more content to the fa:پرچم ایران article on Persian Wikipedia than any other editor. I made these contributions before AI tools became widely available. Apologies, but how does that prove you didn't use it here?

I have strong suspicions that you've been using AI relatively recently (within the past year), e.g. this Helpdesk request and, more concerningly, this ANI report, which resulted in a warning.

Are you currently using AI, LLM or chatbots to write here at Wikipedia?

You say you have reason to disagree with the allegation, but I'm afraid I don't find your reason very compelling - with this in mind, I'd like to ask you directly. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Just adding that all your comments at Talk:Lion and Sun#Infobox image selection and caption clarification appear to have been AI-generated. Additionally, the introduction that's currently on your User page is almost identical to those I've seen on other accounts that use AI to edit, both of these examples are from January 2026. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:09, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I did not use AI to write this ANI report. On 10 April 2026, before I had read Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of AI, I used an AI in writing a discussion about the Lion and Sun talk page. Having read the guidelines on Wikipedia, I have opened another discussion without using AI. Shfarshid (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming - it wasn't clear from your original post, so it's always best to check with these things. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:10, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

AntiHitPeace whitewashing and kvetching

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

---

AntiHitPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AntiHitPeace is an SPA, with a username which implies a POV or battleground attitude, who has been trying to whitewash the article James A. Lindsay to remove or attempt to explain away significant facts about the subject.(diff) That's just worth a warning but the real action is on various Talk pages where they have responded poorly to those warnings (See User talk:AntiHitPeace) and issued bogus warning template looking messages on other users' User Talk pages (diff and diff). I also feel that this edit, reinstating the bad content, has an edit summary which steps over the boundary into outright dishonesty. There is no realistic way for anybody, even a fan of Lindsay, to interpret that edit as "Reverted back to political neutral phrasing". Now they are kvetching at Talk:James_A._Lindsay#Abusive_references_to_Wikipedia_rules, which is at least the correct venue, but not in a constructive way. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

That was an easy NOTHERE, indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

Consistent LLM use by User:Ալբինա Կարապետյան

Ալբինա Կարապետյան (talk · contribs) is a persistent violator of WP:LLM who, unfortunately, has ignored all attempts at discussion, as a look at their talk page and contributions will quickly demonstrate. I tried twice to warn this user and was ignored both times, and other users have as well. Revolution Saga (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

It looks like based off their lack of talk page engagement they're either completely unaware of how talk pages work/how to talk to other editors, or they're deliberately ignoring you. If they fail to engage in this ANI it might honestly warrant a block until they discuss their alleged LLM usage. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

On the Armenian wikipedia they did use an article talk page. Here they have not used any talk pages. They also have triggered the LLM paste editcheck multiple times, which is a reliable indicator of LLM use. Because of the large volume of LLM use, I'll block now from article space instead of waiting, and give them an opportunity to reply and change their behavior. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Smasongarrison is falsely accusing me of edit-warring.

I made this edit to American Society for Legal History. It was in the category "Scientific organizations established in 1956". I removed this category, because I believe that law, and legal history, are not sciences.

But, because of that one edit, User:Smasongarrison posted this edit in which they accused me of edit-warring. I pointed out that an edit war is making more than three reverts in a 24-hour period, and that in no way does my removing one category constitute edit-warring. I also started a discussion on Talk:American Law Institute and Talk:American Society for Legal History about whether legal organizations should be categorized as scientific organizations.

But User:Smasongarrison doubled down on their criticisms of me. on Talk:American Law Institute, they said, "Please don't duplicate conversations like this. I've already explained that learned societies redirects to scientific organizations." I thought that User:Smasongarrison's threatening, condescending tone was inappropriate for Wikipedia, in addition to their falsely accusing me of edit warring simply because I removed a category.

I have again removed "Category:Scientific organizations established in 1956" from American Society for Legal History. This will be my third revert, so that is permissible under the WP:EDIT WAR rules. But per the rules, this will be my last revert of this text within this 24-hour period. IGAEB (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

See The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. You are being cautioned that you are slow-motion edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Please provide me an explanation of how removing the category: "Scientific organizations established in 1956" was edit-warring the first time I removed it. User:Smasongarrison accused me of edit-warring after I removed the category the first time. How, pray tell, is that edit-warring, even slow-motion edit-warring? I've removed categories from many, many articles, and no one has EVER accused me of edit-warring after removing a category. I demand an explanation. IGAEB (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

On Talk:American Society for Legal History, User:Smasongarrison wrote, "Scientific organizations include academic societies. You've had this pointed out to you repeatedly that the the categories redirect. ... Please see this conversation User talk:~2026-28417-94#July 2026 about this same issue when you were an IP." I was not ~2026-28417-94. It is true that ~2026-28417-94 also removed category "Scientific organizations established in 1956" from this page. User:Smasongarrison reverted that, and then I made the same edit. User:Smasongarrison is falsely inferring that I was ~2026-28417-94, and is falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry.

The only way that my removal of the category: "Scientific organizations established in 1956" from the American Society for Legal History page the first time, could have been edit-warring, is if I was ~2026-28417-94. But I was not, and the fact that I agree with ~2026-28417-94 that law and legal history are not sciences, is not edit-warring. IGAEB (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) , ; this is edit warring, even if you didn't breach 3rr. You aren't holding off on your preferred version and discussing on the talk page; you're insisting your preferred version be the live version. WP:BRD: Make your change once, and once someone reverts you... even if one other person agrees with you, bring your point to the talk page and discuss. - Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:07, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I've brought this point to the talk pages of both articles. I've also started a discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Should_legal_organizations_be_categorized_under_"scientific_organizations"? IGAEB (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Have you achieved consensus there yet? If not, you shouldn't be reverting. - Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:14, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

No, I've not achieved consensus there yet. I believe that there should be consensus, which is why I started the discussion. My edits to American Law Institute and American Society for Legal History (in which I've removed the "scientific organizations" category) remain current. No one has reverted them, but if someone does revert them, I won't revert them back unless and until consensus has been achieved. I started the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Should_legal_organizations_be_categorized_under_"scientific_organizations"? a few minutes ago. If you have an opinion on this topic, I'd encourage you to participate in the discussion. IGAEB (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You need to read the edit warring policy again. Any repeated reversion can be edit warring. Not only can it be edit warring but you can be blocked over it. Even making a single revert can be edit warring e.g. if other editors were also reverting and yes you can be blocked over it. More when three reverts in 24 hours is just a bright line which barring when those limited exceptions apply is always edit warring and therefore generally always results in a block when the editor is aware the they aren't allowed to edit war. It is by no means the definition of edit warring and in fact the edit warring page makes this clear enough that you must have really skimmed it to be confused in this way IMO.Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Categories are another WP:OWN sewer and have been for years. I see an issue with Smasongarrison leaving edit summaries that are really a gobbledegook string of text that does nothing to describe the edit in question. This came across my watched pages recently when it concealed a category that was emptied and subsequently deleted, when it should have been deleted after discussion and consensus. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS I'm happy to chat about your concerns with my edit summaries on my talk page. I'm open to a better suggested default summary if you have ideas. ^SMason_Garrison 03:29, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

When I removed the category:"scientific organizations established in 1956" from American Society for Legal History, I was totally unaware that an IP had made the same edit several months ago, and that User:Smasongarrison had reverted it. (Perhaps I should have looked at the edit history, and if I was wrong in that respect, I apologize).

Since I has been unaware that these prior edits had been made, when I saw User:Smasongarrison's condescending comments in response, and their accusations of edit-waring against me, what it looked like to me was that User:Smasongarrison was trying to push a position on which there was not consensus, and that they were trying to force this position by bullying and making accusations. That was why I posted this discussion on WP:ANI. If I was wrong for posting this discussion, I also apologize.

The fact is this: three editors: me, Temporary account ~2026-28417-94, and now User:BD2412 have posted comments saying that legal organizations do not belong in the category "scientific organizations". See User:BD2412's post, here. Furthermore, User:Marquardtika thanked me for removing the category "scientific organizations" from American Society for Legal History. If you're going to accuse me of sockpuppetry for posting comments that agree with ~2026-28417-94, then, by extension, you'll have to accuse User:BD2412 and User:Marquardtika of sockpuppetry too. Perhaps User:Smasongarrison should consider whether there really is sockpuppetry going on, or whether the users who disagree with them actually have a valid reason for doing so, and that "great minds think alike."

I think that now, we should look beyond the behavior of me and User:Smasongarrison, and focus on the real meat of the discussion: whether legal organizations belong in the category "scientific organizations". IGAEB (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

ANI is for behaviorial/conduct related concerns. You should review Wikipedia:BOOMERANG, because this is not where content is discussed. ^SMason_Garrison 14:02, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Continuously vandalising the pages, removing the valuable information and including the false information and providing "fake" revisions

The User Ramjee nakka (talk · contribs) has been vandalising the pages in objective of "ethnic supremacism" and involved in removal and inclusion of false information under the pages related to the topics like history and individuals

I hereby request any wiki administrator to take this into notice and take required action ~2026-57947-82 (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please provide diffs of this vandalism as required at the top of the page. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

While this vague complaint doesn't help much, something is going on. Most of the editors' edits have been reverted, and the edit summaries seem to be deceptive, e.g., "minor typo" for Special:Diff/1382957445. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:47, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't correcting a typo: Simonm223 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

This edit with ES "typo" actually was changing a lead fact to contradict cited content in the body. DMacks (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's a good number of us seeing issues. I'm going to block from Article space to stop further problems and invite them to reply to this concern. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:12, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA/Vandalism-Only Account: User:Ribbit789

I am bringing Ribbit789 (talk · contribs) to the noticeboard due to persistent, long-term disruption that has bypassed standard user escalation boundaries. This account behaves entirely as a single-purpose account (SPA) / vandalism-only account (VOA), having made over 25 disruptive edits exclusively to the Gaelan Connell article.

The user has received multiple notices, including a Level 3 warning today, but has consistently ignored them. Because the account holds confirmed status, standard semi-protection on the article is insufficient to mitigate the behavior. Given the account's editing history consists almost entirely of disruptive behavior targeted at a single page, I request an indefinite block or a topic ban from Gaelan Connell to protect the page from ongoing disruption. MagpiePiper (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you using an LLM? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi - I'm a new editor dealing with this vandal in real-time (I used an LLM to help me with the coding part (not my strongest suit!) and to make sure I followed the noticeboard rules. Can confirm the the case against the user is real, and the vandalism is ongoing. MagpiePiper (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

And you've just shown why you should never use LLMs. While this edit is bad enough that I'd be fine with an editor calling it vandalism (the subject's site doesn't say anything about male pattern baldness), the recent 3 edits don't seem to be. They're poor edits sure since IMDb isn't an RS but the 3.7 rating there is real. So there's no ongoing vandalism. As far as I can tell no editor has explained to them anything about RS so it's impossible for themto understand were they're going wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

By using an LLM you're breaking the rules, MagpiePiper. Hellbus (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi apologies. I am a human editor (just a new one) to be clear - I did not realize that using an LLM to help format a noticeboard post was completely against the rules. That was completely my mistake and I apologies! Moving forward it will not happen again - I understand the rule now.

Was hoping to protect the article - this user has only edited one article and it's a mix of bad faith and/or vandalism (like you said above). Will give them a reliable sources warning if that is the next step. MagpiePiper (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Crab417 ignored final warning

• Crab417 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Crab417 has been warned multiple times for disruptive editing, mostly by ignoring what is stated at Template:Infobox song#Released: Generally, later releases or in secondary markets, reissues, on compilations, etc., should only be included in the body of the article. Examples include , , . I have stated this on their talk page, yet they continue to ignore warnings, including two final warnings by different users (one myself, as the final chance). I brought this here instead of AIV due to these acts not being obvious vandalism. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Filip dewinter

I was updating the article on Filip Dewinter when another editor User:Beyhive_Navy suddenly reverted all of my edits, claiming that I had failed to use reliable sources. This is simply not true. The text I added was translated from the Flemish Wikipedia article, which is from Filip Dewinter's native country, and I used the same references cited in that article. Furthermore, I was still in the process of adding and completing the references when my edits were reverted. There was no apparent reason to undo all of my contributions. I therefore question the justification for this wholesale reversion and suspect that it may have been an act of editorial sabotage rather than a genuine attempt to improve the article. ~2026-58120-23 (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-58120-23, your changes were almost entirely unsourced. The Flemish Wikipedia may have different verification standards than we have here. Your best bet is to add references at the same time that you add the information. If you do not already have references for the information you are adding to a BLP, then do not add the information to the BLP. TonySt  14:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not born yesterday, i was still editing, there is no single reason to turn it back, and also the things that were sourced were turned back, so this is not about editorial rules, this is something else ~2026-58120-23 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-58120-23 Like I stated on your talk page, you did not have to make a necessary report to ANI. You could have discussed this with me and reporting here will and can escalate the situation. Your changes were mostly unsourced and I removed it because Wikipedia has policies on adding content and it should be verifiable with reliable sources. Per the diffs I provided to you, you did remove sources. Please, take some time to read what I told you on your talk page. Beyhive Navy (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, and i am sure you will find all kind of rules that support your behaviour. ~2026-58120-23 (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-58120-23 Your additions did not include attribution to the Flemish Wikipedia article, which is a legal obligation. See WP:TFOLWP for how to add this attribution when translating from another Wikipedia in another language. If you have made other translations like this before and not attributed the original text to its source, please add this retroactively, as described at WP:RIA. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I was and still am editing. But ofcourcve if some guuy turns back everything, every 5 minutes, then i can never finish the job. ~2026-58120-23 (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You're supposed to put the attribution into the edit summary of every concerned edit. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Besides this, there's no point telling us here that The text I added was translated from the Flemish Wikipedia article and expecting it to change how other editors respond to your edits (which did indeed remove references and add unsourced statements), if there's no way for those other editors to tell in the first place that you're adding translated text. That's like saying, "It's from a newspaper that I read yesterday," on the talk page but not adding a citation. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I finished the translation, and as you can read yourself, it is a balanced article, with all the proper tags (i think) and 40+ references. ~2026-58120-23 (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-58120-23, I'm afraid there's still a problem with the attribution of the translated material. In this edit, you added {{Translated page|nl|Filip Dewinter}} to the page, with the edit summary Content translated from the Dutch Wikipedia article at nl Dewinter; see its page history for attribution. That edit summary only refers to the content of that specific edit, not to your other edits today. The template itself is only a supplement to the proper attribution.

Could you please make a dummy edit (just add a space at the end of a line) and save it with an edit summary like this?

Content in the edits between 13:12 UTC and 16:12 UTC, October 31, 2026 is translated from the existing Dutch Wikipedia article at [[:nl:Filip Dewinter]]; see its history for attribution.

Feel free to adjust the times depending on when exactly you were adding translated text vs. adding extra references. (And sorry, I know this is fiddly.) Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that! About the references: I haven't checked the sources in detail, but what I spot-checked looks good, well done. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

{{In use}} can be used if you are making a major change involving multiple edits. The template will alert other editors that you are in the middle of incomplete work. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 31 October 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)

Bondi Beach Article

I noticed that Marcus Markup (talk · contribs) reverted a perfectly-reasonable edit on the Bondi Beach article, and that he left a notice on the third editor's page where Marcus Markup stated the edit constituted vandalism. I responded on his page writing that he was misrepresenting the policy on vandalism and biting a newcomer. He responded by reverting the edit yet again and calling me ad hominem names such as "jackass". I do not witness any effort to behave civilly.

Sobelone96 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I talked to him about using that language, your welcome. As for the vandalism/newcomer situation, I don't really want to respond to that because I don't know exactly the context of the situation and I don't really see and vandalism. ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

There no more context than what I have shown you. He accused frivolously accused another editor of vandalism, bit a newcomer, called me a jackass. And just this very second he has broken the Three Revert Rule on the Bondi Beach article. Sobelone96 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

There’s a few things happening here. The content is subject to 1RR protection because of the IS/syria contentious topic, which both editors have violated, a few times over.

The mitigating factor to not block Sobelone is that the content is well-sourced and is copied from the first sentence of the event page, Bondi Beach shooting. The wording has been discussed in great detail at the event page with none at all at the place page and is the product of consensus at the event page.

Normally in this situation, I would just copy the full sentence from the event page and its sources over to the event section of the place page and call it a day, but in this instance, I expect that solution is impossible until Marcus either accepts consensus or is blocked from the page. Mikewem (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You are correct, I see no reason to block Sobelone, but I do see a reason to block Marcus. ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware there was a one-revert rule for certain topics and was just abiding by the global three revert rule, which Marcus Markup has just surpassed with his 4th revert. That's in addition to biting a newcomer, using ad hominem language and misrepresenting the vandalism guidelines. Sobelone96 (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion at User talk:Marcus Markup#Bondi Beach Article, especially these personal attacks made shortly after receiving an admin warning for NPA, I’m concerned about this editor’s ability to contribute constructively to a collaborative project.

They have since (I guess) accepted responsibility for and acknowledged the edit warring, but not for the post-warning personal attacks. Mikewem (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

While the protection stops the edit warring which as has been said is not acceptable from either side, I'd note that the first attemp at discussion seems to have been from Mikewem after finding out about the dispute here. This is a particularly terrible sign when there is an edit war. So for anyone involved in the edit war earlier, please do better. And no I don't care about any discussions held on User talk pages nor about how you interpret onus or burden or BRD or whatever else. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne I am a relatively new editor with less than 400 edits and this is my first time in an edit-warring dispute. So I really don't know what you mean when you just tell me vaguely to "do better!" and that my thoughts about "onus" and "BRD" are irrelevant to you. My thoughts on those topics are irrelevant to me as well, because I don't even know what they are. I feel in general that experienced editors here are not very good at relating to the perspective of someone who doesn't have a JD in Wikipedia policies. Frankly, I mean you too @Hammersoft: I think your messages toward me felt more like blame than explanation. Sobelone96 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

You were aware of WP:3RR enough to think that it allowed you three reverts in a day. I explained to you that it does not, that it is a bright line rule; i.e. nobody is going to contest a block that is made because someone violated 3RR in most cases. I'm not sure what more I could have done. It should be self evident, even without knowledge of our edit warring policies, that editing in a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia isn't furthered by people undoing each other's edits over and over and over again. Imagine sitting around a table with several other people at the table and you and another person begin saying "did so!" "did not!" "did so!" "did not!". Do you think other people around the table would tolerate that for long? Do you think other people at the table would be happy with you saying "Well, I haven't said it three times yet today so I get to say it again!" Do better, indeed. I grant that Wikipedia is a potentially daunting environment with a ludicrously large amount of policies and guidelines. I'm sorry that it is so. Most of us are quite happy to help editors who are making good faith efforts to improve the project. It's ok to be new. It really is. It's not ok to engage in behavior that should be self-evidently bad. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I was reverting to cancel out a frivolous claim of vandalism, and only after I tried to engage them collaboratively and was called a "jackass" in response. To me it's not self-evident that that would be a block-worthy sin. And I did not appreciate the tone of the message you left on my page: it felt very condescending and unwelcoming. You literally used ALL CAPS, bold, and italics when you could have just left me a simple message saying "Hey, I see you're an inexperienced user and it seems like you're misunderstanding the three revert rule." Sobelone96 (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Plus also writing "I will place a copy of this on your talk page so there's no way to claim you never saw it." Really seems like you're assuming I'm a malicious, bad-faith actor, Hammersoft. I don't appreciate this way of welcoming newcomers. Sobelone96 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I stand by my actions. As I said, it should have been self evident that your actions were out of line in a collaborative environment, but even more so since you were well aware of 3RR already. You claim innocence of newness to the project and also claim knowledge of 3RR so it's ok you were edit warring. You can't really have it both ways. The warning stands, with caps, with bold. It was a custom warning intended to clarify the situation to you rather than issue something like {{Uw-3rr}}, which by the way also uses bolding. The point of placing it on your talk page as well was to remove any potential doubt that you were aware of the warning. It wouldn't have been appropriate for me to make a warning to you on someone else's talk page and then expect you to hold to that warning. The proximate issue appears to be ended. It's time to drop the stick and move on. As a piece of advice from an experienced editor to one relatively new; things rarely work out perfectly in line with your expectations here. That's the nature of a collaborative environment. See also number three. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Lol Sobelone96 (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Sobelone96: I'll be blunt if by 400 edits you still aren't aware that edit warring isn't acceptable here or that you need to discuss disputes on the article talk page and no we don't care who initiates the discussion then perhaps a collaborative project isn't the best fit for you. 400 edits means you're nearly extended confirmed and expected to be able to edit all contentious topics without concern. These are extremely basic parts of editing here that frankly editors should know within their first 50 or so edits at most. And there are plenty of places you can seek help like WP:Teahouse and WP:Help Desk or just asking editors who warn you for clarification when you confused. (WP:ANI isn't of course a place to seek help when you are confused by editing norms.) No one can teach you if you aren't willing to learn. And the assumption is going to be you aren't willing to learn if instead of seeking help when as you seem to now be acknowledging there's a lot you don't know, you proceed like a bull in a china shop and make 3 reverts or whatever it was WITHOUT even opening a talk page discussion and when people also tried to warn you that you needed to stop. And the dispute clearly wasn't one where there was any urgency in getting it right. Your messages here also seem to demonstrate an unwillingness to learn since instead of asking for clarification for anything you still don't understand or acknowledging you were wrong, you're blaming others for what you didn't know or for not being clear enough. If our comments are confusing to you but you don't feel like we'll be able to help you, you're again welcome to visit places like the Teahouse or Help Desk to seek help rather than just blaming us for you not understanding stuff. BTW, no one should give a fuck whether something is block worthy when assessing their actions. I mean okay yes we all make mistakes but by and large we should be considering whether our actions are okay under the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and whether they're improving the encyclopaedia. Even if we're sure we won't be blocked, we still shouldn't be doing something if our actions are wrong. (Obviously no editor should do something which is block-worthy, that goes without saying.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

User:Sobelone96 and User:Marcus Markup have both been engaging in edit warring on Bondi Beach. I've fully protected the article for 24 hours due to the content dispute and issued a final warning to both of them. Hopefully that puts an end to this. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Due to User:Marcus Markup making personal insults despite being warned, I have blocked them for 24 hours. Hopefully that ends their desire to insult people. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Wait, I thought we already resolved this ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

User:Jumiluvo1092 potential spam

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

---

Jumiluvo1092 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is one of multiple users creating articles about NEXROC, Inc. (and SVCV, Inc.) on multiple projects. After I tagged two articles that they created ('The NEXROC Group' and 'SVCV, Inc.') for deletion under G11, they started accusing me of vandalism (diff). They reported me at WP:AIV (diff) and requested page protection for both articles mentioned above (diff). They were told that tagging for speedy deletion is not vandalism on AIV and WP:RFPP. After the articles were deleted, they accused me of harassment under the report I made on meta-wiki here (diff). In that same message they also said, "If the pages get deleted like some already did I will recreate them because they MEET the website's requirements and will proceed to request protection from vandals and abusers like you." Since they were clearly disregarding policy, I checked to see if they did recreate the article after this. On English Wikipedia 'The NEXROC Group' was salted so they couldn't recreate it there. But on Spanish Wikipedia, where I had also requested speedy deletion (not for spam but for recreating a recently deleted article ), es:The NEXROC Group had been recreated by a temporary account (while I was writing this it was deleted again). This temp account also requested page protection similar to Jumiluvo1092 (diff), this was denied. I believe they're using multiple accounts when recreating the article to avoid being blocked, iirc @TonySt blocked ~2026-57699-36 per WP:LOUTSOCK after they removed the speedy deletion tag on 'The NEXROC Group' so this is highly plausible. Additionally, their block log on Portuguese Wikipedia indicates that they were blocked after a CheckUser determined they were abusing multiple accounts (block log). Streetr4 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theexclusiveco filed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:24, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for Administrator Intervention Regarding User:Streetr4 — Alleged Wikihounding, Harassment, and Disruptive Conduct

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.

• • Editor reported:** Streetr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am requesting an independent administrative investigation into the conduct of User:Streetr4, concerning what I believe to be a pattern of targeted harassment, wikihounding, repeated deletion activity, and potentially misleading accusations directed against my contributions.

1. Alleged Wikihounding and Targeted Harassment

I am concerned that Streetr4 has been systematically scrutinizing my editing history and targeting pages associated with my contributions.

This raises serious concerns under WP:HARASS and WP:HOUNDING, particularly if the editor's activities demonstrate a sustained pattern of following my contributions for the purpose of challenging or disrupting my participation.

• • Evidence to be supplied:** [Diffs and contribution-history comparisons demonstrating repeated targeting.]

2. Repeated Deletion Activity and Potential Abuse of Process

I believe Streetr4 has repeatedly pursued the deletion of material I created or contributed to, without adequately considering whether the material could be improved through sourcing, correction, or ordinary editorial procedures.

Wikipedia's deletion processes exist to enforce content standards, not to serve as instruments of personal disputes.

I request an examination of whether these actions were independently justified by policy or represented a disproportionate pattern of activity directed toward a particular contributor.

• • Evidence to be supplied:** [Links to deletion discussions and actions involving Streetr4.]

3. Allegedly Misleading Statements and Misrepresentation

I am also concerned about statements that may have misrepresented the nature, sourcing, eligibility, or intent of my contributions.

There is an important distinction between insufficient sourcing, factual mistakes, disputed notability, and deliberate fabrication. Accusations of intentional deception should be supported by evidence.

I request that administrators review the accuracy of Streetr4's statements and determine whether any materially misleading representations were made.

• • Evidence to be supplied:** [Exact statements and corresponding evidence contradicting them.]

4. Alleged Disruptive Repetition and Intimidation

I request an assessment of whether Streetr4's repeated interactions with my contributions constitute disruptive conduct or an attempt to discourage my continued participation.

Repeated legitimate policy enforcement is not automatically harassment. However, a demonstrated pattern of targeting an individual rather than addressing content concerns may warrant intervention.

5. Requested Administrative Remedies

I request that uninvolved administrators:

• Examine Streetr4's contribution history and interactions with my edits.
• Assess the conduct against WP:HARASS, WP:HOUNDING, and WP:DISRUPTIVE.
• Review whether deletion procedures have been used appropriately.
• Evaluate any documented misleading allegations or personal attacks.
• Consider a formal warning, interaction restriction, or other proportionate measures if misconduct is established.

• • This complaint concerns editor conduct, not a request to exempt my contributions from Wikipedia's sourcing, verification, or notability requirements.**

I request a neutral, evidence-based review and appropriate action to prevent any substantiated continuation of targeted harassment.

Jumiluvo1092 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

More LLM material? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

is it illegal or agaisnt the rules to use ai to help formatting your messages? I thought it was not allowed on WIKI PAGES not on discussion. You bullies are running out of accusations to harass me Jumiluvo1092 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:AITALK. And, please, no personal attacks. We're trying to help you follow the rules here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

And you forgot to fill in the bracketed sections the AI left for you to complete. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:39, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

you feel in for me you are clearly more invested. Thanks Jumiluvo1092 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

We very much prefer to communicate with a person and not a machine. With obvious LLM output, we don’t know who or what we are conversing with. Now, how about some diffs to support your allegations. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, already blocked. I’ll move on... — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Note the open discussion involving same editors above: #User:Jumiluvo1092 potential spam. Schazjmd (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

1. User:Schazjmd potential spam

Jumiluvo1092 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

1. User:Schazjmd potential spam

Jumiluvo1092 (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing. SPI ongoing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of any checkuser findings in the SPI, I've deleted the article as a simple hoax. Links to imaginary people, dead links everywhere, unrelated puffery, and nothing but PR/paid sourcing. Looks more like a scam. The LLM material above is just continuation of a trend. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Temporary Account Creating Unsourced Drafts Reporting Deaths

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

---

This temporary account has created and submitted five drafts reporting the deaths of actresses, with no references. The drafts are probably hoaxes and are not verifiable. We don't know if the women exist or existed, but these are violations in any case. The drafts are at MFD and are trending to delete, but the unregistered editor needs blocking.

• ~2026-58096-49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Draft:Zoe Baker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Alice May (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Matilda Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Maddy Waters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Jennifer Goff-Collings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

These are evidently hoaxes. According to the 'Matilda Green' filmography, she was in one production nine years before she was born. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Block evasion of User:~2026-35205-53. Blocked. Articles speedy deleted G5. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Misleading and disruptive removal of issue templates

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

---

To keep this brief, Rimonhasanmusic (talk · contribs) keeps removing the notability and citation templates which were given by another editor on the Dhaka Sentinel article, which they have created. I would have normally proposed the article for deletion, but they keep removing the templates.

Though they persist in removing the COI/Notability templates, they have edit summaries such as

"Fixed issu" (which they did not fix the issue)

"Added content" (where they in fact removed tags)

and

"Fixed typo Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 00:00, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

The user also seems to only write COI articles like Draft:Rimon Hasan about themself or Dhaka Sentinel whose publisher is "Rimon Hasan". Laura240406 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

@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)

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)