Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Asilvering (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 1198
|algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}
{{stack end}}<!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE -->
== User:The Banner ==
Ok so, {{userlinks|The Banner}}, an experienced editor with 130k+ edits and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog%2Fblock&page=User%3AThe+Banner a history of apparently refusing to engage in discussion, harassment, etc.], has decided to join this dispute on the [[Socotra Airport]] article after this new editor ([[User:Mitchp10]]) started a [[Talk:Socotra Airport#"Flights have been operated illegally out of the airport to transfer Israeli tourists to the island following the occupation of the airport by the United Arab Emirates."|talk page discussion]] after I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socotra_Airport&diff=next&oldid=1307677211 reverted] this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socotra_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1307677211 edit of theirs], where they attempted to make the wording "[[WP:FALSEBALANCE|more neutral]]". (Gotta admit that I did come a bit hot in there)
Now, The Banner, who clearly didn't read the sources cited ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socotra_Airport#c-The_Banner-20250825033900-Mitchp10-20250825032900 because if they did, they would've found out that the same source that they decided to label as "Palestinian-leaning" clearly calls it unauthorized]), decided to revert my edit but didn't explain why, and to which I've obviously reverted. Now, what sensible thing to do in this situation other than reverting me again, templating me, and labeling my edits as "POV-Pushing", two times ofc [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abo_Yemen&diff=prev&oldid=1307752340] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abo_Yemen&diff=next&oldid=1307753048], instead of engaging with my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socotra_Airport#c-Abo_Yemen-20250825140300-The_Banner-20250825033900 two] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socotra_Airport#c-Abo_Yemen-20250825140300-The_Banner-20250825033900 attempts] at going on with the discussion. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 15:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:Why are you escalating your difference of opinion with a longterm editor to ANI instead of continuing to talk it out on the article talk page or going through Dispute Resolution? What about this disagreement is a "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems"? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 15:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Liz|Liz]] Would'nt have done this if they've replied to my messages on that talk page instead of [[Talk:Socotra_Airport#c-The_Banner-20250825144600-Mitchp10-20250825032900|ignoring them altogether and saying whatever this is]] <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 15:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:I still call it plain POV-pushing based on non-neutral sources. But he thinks that being [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abo_Yemen&diff=prev&oldid=1307756884 rude (see summary)] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socotra_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1307760281 bringing me to boards] makes his edits neutral. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 16:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry for telling you to stop harassing me on my talkpage with your templates ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abo_Yemen&diff=prev&oldid=1307753048 after what I think that this reply should've made it clear that I didn't like the first template that you've placed]) and to focus on the discussion on that talk page. Also, wouldn't it be convenient for all of us to label sources that we don't like as "non-neutral" <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 16:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::But the discussion has been going on less than a day. If there is not immediate disruption happening, why escalate it to ANI? To pressure the editor to respond? Why not give the discussion more time or go to Dispute resolution? You shouldn't come to ANI with every dispute you find yourself in. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 16:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Liz|Liz]], they both [[WP:GOAD|goaded]] themselves to here as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socotra_Airport#%22Flights_have_been_operated_illegally_out_of_the_airport_to_transfer_Israeli_tourists_to_the_island_following_the_occupation_of_the_airport_by_the_United_Arab_Emirates.%22 talkpage discussion] shows, that's ultimately why this topic exists rather than alternative solutions. It looks self-explanatory at this point. If there is consensus to take it to here, even if not the correct venue, then this isn't a question for one editor. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 16:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I see that the ''Middle East Monitor'' has been discussed several times before, resulting in [[WP:MEMO]]. This discussion can be put to bed if a better source is found. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 17:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Liz|Liz]] what am I supposed to do when they are making me look like a desperate ex trying to get a reply from them? They should be replying instead of casting aspersions. If they're not willing to engage in the talk page, then a request from [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard|DRN]] would get rejected due to the lack of proper talk page discussion, and a 3o request would get declined since we're more than 2 editors in that talk page. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 18:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm not really impressed by this report, especially not the introductory link to The Banner's block log. It's true that they have a history of many blocks; but only two of those blocks are later than 2015, and none are later than January 2023. The one block that mentions "harassment" is from 2012. This block log shows a user who has been here a long time and who ''used to'' edit in an angry way with much edit warring, rather than showing a user who does that ''now''. Also, if anybody looks battleground-y in the talkpage discussion at [[Socotra Airport]], it's certainly you, {{u|Abo Yemen}}. I also have a lot of trouble figuring which edits on article talk you are referring to above — AFAICS, The Banner ''is'' replying to you. Please make proper diffs for the convenience of people trying to figure what it is you're arguing, AY (see [[Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide]]).
::::::The only move by The Banner in this context that I find objectionable, and also ridiculous, is their posting of noob templates on Abo Yemen ("{{tq|Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]]. You can find information about these at our [[Help:Getting started|welcome page]]}}", etc, blah blah blah, you're embarrassing yourself there, The Banner). IOW, neither of the combatants is covering themselves with glory, but if anything, a boomerang for AY seems more appropriate than any sanction of The Banner. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 21:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC).
:::::::@[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], I largely agree here, but did you see the edit they're arguing over? {{tq|The Palestinian-leaning Middle East Monitor calls the flights illegal.}} This is an article about an airport in Yemen that's being occupied by the UAE. Calling the source "Palestinian-leaning" in this case is astonishingly undue, to the point that I'd call it a pretty clear pov lean. I don't think what was there earlier was a good use of wikivoice either, but at least that sentence was coming from the source directly.
:::::::@[[User:Abo Yemen|Abo Yemen]], @[[User:The Banner|The Banner]], if you'll take a suggestion, mine would be to change that sentence to "The UAE runs a once a week charter flight to the airport from Abu Dhabi; however, this flight has not been authorized by Yemeni officials." That follows from the sources (I checked) and avoids both pov-leans. My next suggestion would be that you both go your own separate ways after that and avoid this article. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 23:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I can live with that suggestion.
::::::::But aside from that, let me quote the intro [[Middle East Monitor]] to show where my phrase "Palestinian leaning" is coming from: ''The '''Middle East Monitor''' ('''MEMO''') is a [[Nonprofit organization|not-for-profit]] [[Media monitoring service|press monitoring]] organisation<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Vorhies |first1=Zach |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=faA4EAAAQBAJ |title=Google Leaks: A Whistleblower's Exposé of Big Tech Censorship |last2=Heckenlively |first2=Kent |date=2021-08-03 |publisher=[[Skyhorse Publishing]] |isbn=978-1-5107-6736-2 |pages=90 |language=en}}</ref> and [[lobbying group]]<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zeffman |first=Henry Zeffman |date=August 21, 2018 |title=Jeremy Corbyn referred to watchdog over 2010 Hamas visit |language=en |work=[[The Times]] |url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/jeremy-corbyn-referred-to-watchdog-over-2010-hamas-visit-hlm3mlvtw |access-date=2022-09-19 |issn=0140-0460 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920215215/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-referred-to-watchdog-over-2010-hamas-visit-hlm3mlvtw |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=August 21, 2018 |title=Corbyn met terror leaders, but not Jews, on trip to Israel in 2010 — report |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/corbyn-met-terror-leaders-but-not-jews-on-trip-to-israel-in-2010/ |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[Times of Israel]] |language=en-US |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920185034/https://www.timesofisrael.com/corbyn-met-terror-leaders-but-not-jews-on-trip-to-israel-in-2010/ |url-status=live }}</ref> that emerged in mid 2009.<ref name = "Legit">{{cite book |author=Ehud Rosen |url=http://www.jcpa.org/text/Mapping_Delegitimization.pdf |title=Mapping the Organizational Sources of the Global Delegitimization Campaign against Israel in the UK |publisher=[[Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs]] |date=2010 |pages=33–35 |isbn=978-965-218-094-0 |archive-date=19 September 2014 |access-date=14 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140919215022/http://www.jcpa.org/text/Mapping_Delegitimization.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> MEMO is largely focused on the [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]] but writes about other issues in the [[Middle East]], as well. MEMO is [[pro-Palestinian]] in orientation,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Smyrnaios |first1=Nikos |last2=Ratinaud |first2=Pierre |date=January 2017 |title=The Charlie Hebdo Attacks on Twitter: A Comparative Analysis of a Political Controversy in English and French |journal=Social Media + Society |language=en |publisher=[[SAGE Publishing]] |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=7 |doi=10.1177/2056305117693647 |s2cid=151668905 |issn=2056-3051 |doi-access=free |url=https://ut3-toulouseinp.hal.science/hal-03631470/file/The%20Charlie%20Hebdo%20Attacks%20on%20Twitter.pdf |archive-date=1 March 2024 |access-date=1 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240301160817/https://ut3-toulouseinp.hal.science/hal-03631470/file/The%20Charlie%20Hebdo%20Attacks%20on%20Twitter.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rosenfeld |first=Arno |date=2021-10-07 |title=Nike isn't boycotting Israel — despite reports to the contrary |url=https://forward.com/news/476428/nike-isnt-boycotting-israel-despite-reports-to-the-contrary/ |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[The Forward]] |language=en |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920172759/https://forward.com/news/476428/nike-isnt-boycotting-israel-despite-reports-to-the-contrary/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Altikriti |first=Anas |author-link=Anas Altikriti |date=2010-04-27 |title=Muslim voters come of age |url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/27/general-election-muslim-vote |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[The Guardian]] |language=en}}</ref> and has been labelled by some commentators as pro-[[Islamist]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Black |first=Ian |author-link=Ian Black (journalist) |date=2011-06-29 |title=Sheikh Raed Salah: Islamic Movement leader loathed by the Israeli right |url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/29/sheikh-raed-salah-islamic-movement |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[The Guardian]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Levy |first=Eylon |date=August 20, 2018 |title=EXCLUSIVE: Jeremy Corbyn's secret trip to Israel to meet Hamas |url=https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/182208-180820-exclusive-jeremy-corbyn-s-secret-trip-to-israel-to-meet-hamas |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[i24news]] |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920181331/https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/182208-180820-exclusive-jeremy-corbyn-s-secret-trip-to-israel-to-meet-hamas |url-status=live }}</ref> pro-[[Muslim Brotherhood]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cook |first=Steven A. |author-link=Steven A. Cook |date=October 16, 2013 |title=Egypt: Reductio Ad Absurdum |url=https://www.cfr.org/blog/egypt-reductio-ad-absurdum |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[Council on Foreign Relations]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Knipp |first=Kersten |date=September 30, 2016 |title=The flight out of Egypt |url=https://www.dw.com/en/the-flight-out-of-egypt/a-35933694 |access-date=2022-09-20 |website=[[Deutsche Welle]] |language=en-GB}}</ref> and pro-[[Hamas]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Yorke |first1=Harry |last2=Tominey |first2=Camilla |author-link2=Camilla Tominey |date=2018-09-21 |title=Jeremy Corbyn's allies drawing up emergency plans amid fears he may be suspended over 'undeclared trips' |language=en-GB |work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/21/jeremy-corbyns-allies-drawing-emergency-plans-amid-fears-may/ |access-date=2022-09-19 |issn=0307-1235 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920173328/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/21/jeremy-corbyns-allies-drawing-emergency-plans-amid-fears-may/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-05-26 |title=Qatari media incites boycott of Bahrain's Palestinian workshop, but ignores leaks about own regime attendance |url=https://www.arabnews.com/node/1502356/media |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[Arab News]] |language=en |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920173219/https://www.arabnews.com/node/1502356/media |url-status=live }}</ref>''.
::::::::Have a nice day. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 01:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::God forbid that there are hamas tunnels under the Socotra airport that are just justifying the mention of memo’s “pro-Hamas views” (or anything related to Palestine) <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 02:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::But... why is Palestinian leaning even relevant in this context? [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 08:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It shows that the source is not neutral in this case. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 12:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sources are not required to be neutral. As Abo Yemen pointed out, their "Palestinian-leaning" stance is irrelevant in the context of a Yemeni airport where the UAE exercises a degree of control. The illegality of the flights also seems like a straightforward conclusion, since government officials explicitly called them illegal and accused the UAE of violating international law and Yemeni sovereignty. Even if this were solely MEMO's position (which it is not), the in-text attribution could still be phrased in a more neutral manner. [[User:Paprikaiser|Paprikaiser]] ([[User talk:Paprikaiser|talk]]) 21:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::How is it not relevant? The source expresses the opinion (not a fact) that a weekly flight ''used by Israeli tourists'' is illegal. The headline is "<u>Israeli tourists</u> in Yemen's Socotra <u>on holidays illegally</u> run by UAE".
::::::::::::The fact that the source is pro-Palestinian makes anything they say against Israeli tourists just a little suspect, right? It's in the same mental category for me as writing "The Democrat-leaning newspaper called Trump's latest executive order illegal" or "The Republic-leaning newspaper said Biden's executive order is illegal". Sources are allowed to be biased, but our presentation of those sources needs to be neutral, and sometimes that means [[WP:INTEXT]] attribution that identifies a partisan source as being biased or partisan. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No, it is not relevant. The headline, which is not pertinent per [[WP:HEADLINE]], reads: "Houthi gov't slams UAE over Israel tourists on Socotra and air base on Mayun island." The article quotes the National Salvation Government's Tourism Ministry, which issued a statement declaring that transferring Israeli tourists to the island was illegal. MEMO further explains: "As the UAE have been running tours, including direct flights and issuing visas without the permission of the Yemeni authorities, including the internationally-recognised government, such trips are deemed illegal and a violation of Yemen's sovereignty." It is the Ministry making the claim that the flights are illegal; MEMO is simply reporting on their statement, which can be corroborated by other sources. Stating "The Palestinian-leaning Middle East Monitor calls the flights illegal" is misleading, as it implies MEMO itself is making a legal judgment, when in fact it is reporting an official government condemnation. [[User:Paprikaiser|Paprikaiser]] ([[User talk:Paprikaiser|talk]]) 20:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{outdent|1}} the case of there being Hamas tunnels under that airport? Yeah I'd agree, if that was the case <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 14:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::that would be good enough, as long as The Banner's deletion of other stuff like the removal of the footnote from the airport's destinations box <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 02:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, you added the illegal stuff twice. And the part in the destination table was superfluous and double. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 12:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{outdent|7}} Adding cited content that is not being challenged by other sources is a bad thing now? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 14:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia is neutral, not taking sides. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 22:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Is there a reason this apparent debate over content is taking place on ANI? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]], I tried to point the OP to an article talk page or Dispute resolution when this complaint was originally posted. I don't like the trend of ANI becoming a frequent first stop in discussions whenever an editor meets with opposition in a dispute. It's supposed to be the last stop before arbitration, not the first. I think this discussion should be closed as I don't see conduct that violates policies. If there was, I'd recommend editors head to [[WP:AE]] instead if that makes more sense given the dispute. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm cautiously optimistic it is not a longterm trend, Liz: we just occasionally get a glut of such overzealous filings; in any system that runs long enough, you will get such statistical artifacts and I believe (although admitting that our assessments are impressionistic by nature) we've seen that wax and wane many times before. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 01:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
== I believe that a page is being used as a suspected battleground ==
This is a notice that I believe that user page Zak Smith is being used as a battleground.
A court case has recently concluded, where he prevailed against his accuser. There is an open RFC to remove contentious material.
There is serious and well-documented harassment of the subject off-wikipedia. I'm unfamiliar with the protocols, but I wanted to place this notice here since I have been threatened that I would be reported here for suggesting the page was being used as a battleground.
Evidence this morning that was posted to spur canvassing: https://bsky.app/profile/silveralethia.puppygirls.online/post/3lxa32x4l3k2u <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Slacker13|contribs]]) 16:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
:It might be worth extending the page protection of the article. It seems the RfC is being handled well, especially with the notice at the top. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 16:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]], that is very clearly not a {{tqq|notice for active canvassing}} as you termed it on [[User_talk:ToBeFree|ToBeFree's talk page]] -- it's a reply to a person alleging that sockpuppets are {{tqq|trying to get the 'sexual abuse' section of his wiki article removed.}} Anyone who's given even a cursory glance at [[Talk:Zak Smith|the article's talk page]] would probably agree that sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is not the most unreasonable suggestion given the sheer volume of new editors arriving to !vote (see [[Talk:Zak_Smith#Canvassing_summary|this canvassing summary]] by [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]]), including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZak_Smith&diff=1307034445&oldid=1307026439 this blast of] mostly new or returning users showing up within the space of about an hour. [[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(240deg,#56C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 16:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Slacker13]], please provide some diffs or, at least, a link to the page you are concerned about. It's part of the job of the complaint filer to provide evidence to support your claims if you want editors to respond here. If you can't be bothered to do this, why do you think other editors should do it for you? Also, that link you shared is useless unless an editor has an account to this app and I think many editors will be reluctant to click on it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 16:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Hi Liz, [[Zak Smith]].
::The link I provided is only one. There are more, but I may not post them. He's fairly unknown except to a niche audience, and there is, as I've said documented proof of extensive harassment off-wiki. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 16:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Some quick background: the [[Zak Smith]] article & its talk page have long had an issue with socks ([[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive|see SPI]]); there was a [[Talk:Zak Smith/Archive 1#RfC: Allegations of Rape Sourced to Game Blogs and Fanzines|2020 RfC]] which determined there was "{{xt|a consensus to include allegations of sexual assault to the extent necessary to provide context for subsequent biographical developments}}". Smith had a recent court case which seems to have spurned a push to have these allegations removed. There is now a new RfC which replaced the non-neutral RfC Slacker13 created. I'll add something with clearer diffs below in just a moment. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 16:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::<b>Correction.</b> What was seen as non-neutral language, I actually ran by an Admin to make sure it was appropriate. I even asked for suggestions from others and was willing to change the wording to accommodate. Instead -- the RFC was taken down. It is true that I seem to be the only editor in opposition to the views of historically active editors of that page. It's my first time touching the page, and I'm doing so based on three things:
:::1. The inclusion of contentious material was a violation of BLP. Wikipedia allows for editors to remove the information and lays the burden on those that want it reinstated -- that burden has not been met.
:::2. There is a new active RFC that I am participating in.
:::3. (I will speak to this more at the bottom): I am not trying to bludgeon. I am trying to correct inaccuracies and inform of a situation that is playing off-site in order to not have the page controlled by parties who may be biased.
:::Am I doing this perfectly? lord no. But it is will honest intentions. Every mistake I've made, I've owned up to and tried to correct. There is clear evidence of that. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 18:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:And now, edit warring with the comment: {{Tq|Not reverting Ad Orientems revert}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307844047] - literally while reverting Ad Orientem. While an ANI discussion (and an RFC) is open. I'm not sure which is worse, the judgment displayed here or that of whomever thought sending SPAs to ANI would help their 'side' come out on top. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 01:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::Slacker disruptively [[WP:GAME]]d the system by waiting out the protection to remove the section, and, yes, ToBeFree [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slacker13&diff=prev&oldid=1307845565 allowed it to happen] by locking the page back up again. There was already a consensus that satisfied [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:BLPRESTORE]] under the previous RfC. The current RfC instigated by a bunch of sock/meatpuppets was to determine if consensus had [[WP:CCC|changed]]. The section should be restored! [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::The page should not have been fully protected again, instead, once the first full protection expired, and an editor, Slacker13, starts edit-warring (again), approximately 30 minutes after the expiration, to their preferred version, knowing that there is an ongoing RfC, this is clearly a behavioral issue that should have resulted in a block, but of course when an admin tells them they won't block them for exactly what they did, what can you expect. Looks like to me that Slacker13 got exactly what they wanted, their preferred version of the article, and no consequences for their disruptive behavior.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 08:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I find this thread interesting. Brilliant illumination of Wikipedia culture and managed group-think.
:Really stellar work by well-intentioned collaborative Wikipedians.
:I am not able to participate, as I have a conflict of interest, and will thus stay off-book. Reading this thread, I wonder what Zack would say, if he were here participating, advocating for himself.
:Musing, [[User:Augmented Seventh|<span style="font-family:Curlz MT; color:#0F6 ;text-shadow:blue 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em;">''Augmented Seventh''</span>]] 05:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::I'm curious, why do so many people have a conflict of interest with this person? [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 11:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Knowing the answer to that question would also explain why this thin article on a marginal personality will continue to have ''significant coi issues''. [[User:Augmented Seventh|<span style="font-family:Curlz MT; color:#0F6 ;text-shadow:blue 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em;">''Augmented Seventh''</span>]] 16:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Augmented Seventh|Augmented Seventh]], I'm very surprised to hear this sarcasm. I'm guessing I'm far from the only one here who has never heard of this person, and I assure you those of us in that boat are deeply disinterested in their legal affairs or lack thereof. Like presumably most uninvolved editors here, I have not looked into the disputed content, have no idea whether it should be included or not, and as such will not be participating in [[Talk:Zak Smith|that content dispute]]. The only thing at issue in this thread is ''conduct'' at that talk page and tangentially the obvious canvassing by persons unknown; by contrast, content disputes happen all day long on Wikipedia and their participants do not typically bludgeon their way into an ANI boomerang. I am not sure what insight Zack would have regarding user conduct on Wikipedia, which is the only thing at issue at this board. [[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(225deg,#76C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 15:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::The kudos to the team wasn't sarcasm; genuine appreciation for the work being done here.
:::My keeping my distance is due to minor business knowledge of some of the personalities involved.
:::I have my own thoughts about the swarm of suddenly-activated, rabidly interested editors; analysing, addressing and eventually solving this problem, site wide, is mine own primary reason for following along with this editing session.
:::Thanks for the note on sarcasm, btw. Mandy Rice-Davis applies. [[User:Augmented Seventh|<span style="font-family:Curlz MT; color:#0F6 ;text-shadow:blue 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em;">''Augmented Seventh''</span>]] 16:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: listed at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests#Administrative discussions]]. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 18:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:Also as an FYI, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=1308501510&oldid=1307208820 Slacker13 has now challenged] their topic ban at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case]]. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 21:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Slacker13 [[WP:RGW]] and [[WP:CIR]] ===
Since Slacker13 has decided to make yet another mess in this situation, and after my last warning, I'm afraid I have to formulate this report. This editor brings a combination of [[WP:RGW]] and [[WP:CIR]] to their actions that makes for a particularly problematic blend. Their comportment during the RfC over Zak Smith has included [[WP:ADMINSHOPPING]], a severe failure of [[WP:AGF]], spurious [[WP:COI]] taggings, and spurious [[WP:3RR]] taggings. Here's some diffs to present the problem:
On August 20, this editor attempted to remove a section about sexual assault allegations from the [[Zak Smith]] page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=1306977530&oldid=1290152352] Smith is a BLP and the inclusion of this information had been contentious, leading to a 2020 RfC that found a consensus to include. After their edit was reverted another editor, who is not the subject of this posting, made two further reversions whereupon the page was fully locked to prevent edit warring. However Slacker13 attempted (and failed) to create a [[WP:3RR]] notice about one of the editors who reverted this edit - {{U|Sariel Xilo}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sariel_Xilo&diff=prev&oldid=1306992995][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1306992797] Slacker13 also opened a SP investigation about Sariel Xilo [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sariel_Xilo&oldid=1307008796]. At article talk the page lock opened a floodgate of obviously canvassed parties coming around with remarkably similar arguments mostly hinging around the spurious claim that Mr. Smith was low-profile. However the concerns expressed by these canvassed parties and by Slacker13 were sufficient to allow that a new RfC should be formulated. Slacker13 was advised by multiple editors, including myself, to wait a few days for the canvassed party activity to die down before formulating an RfC but went ahead and created an obviously non-neutral RfC [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZak_Smith&diff=1307488782&oldid=1307488419] which was promptly closed as out of process while other editors got to work on crafting a neutrally worded RfC.
As this RfC progressed Slacker13 insinuated that they had evidence that long-term editors on the page had conflicts of interest [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307533289] They then tagged {{U|MrOllie}} and Sariel Xilo with CoI notices. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&diff=prev&oldid=1307542014] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sariel_Xilo&diff=prev&oldid=1307542133] They then approached {{U|Polygnotus}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polygnotus&diff=prev&oldid=1307615465] claiming to have off-wiki evidence of canvassing. Polygnotus attempted to give them good advice on the appropriate handling of this. Another editor from among the canvassed set, meanwhile, posted comments to the RfC that were obviously machine generated. I criticized this comment for inaccurately interpreting Wikipedia policy and another editor mentioned it was machine generated. A third editor then collapsed the machine generated content whereupon Slacker13 posted not one but two malformated [[WP:3RR/N]] notices about me. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1307757242] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1307758178] They also approached the admin ToBeFree claiming I was edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&diff=prev&oldid=1307758575]. I approached them and advised them both that a single collapse of an AI comment was not edit warring and that I had not done so. I had made several previous and increasingly urgent attempts to encourage them to show [[WP:AGF]] toward other editors and indicated that these spurious reports of myself were a last straw. Please note that I cannot share any diffs of me collapsing this comment because I did not do so. However Slacker13 has reverted that collapse twice. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307758812] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZak_Smith&diff=1307766403&oldid=1307764202]. I cautioned them that I would report their comportment to this page if they continued on the course they were on. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1307763937&oldid=1307655220] Slacker13 then asked the admin {{U|Chetsford}} to close the RfC on the basis of a thread between two individuals with no known connection to Wikipedia discussing the issue on Bluesky. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1307764777] This is a borderline attempt at outing as Slacker13 has claimed this is evidence that a "hate mob" is mobilized on Wikipedia and seems convinced that these two social media users are active on the page. They then made a malformed report here at [[WP:AN/I]] to try and head off my report at the pass. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1307770287]. Slacker13 has created multiple malformed 3RR reports, opened a thread at [[WP:COI/N]] that was promptly closed as off-topic, has engaged in borderline outing, admin shopping and has generally made a big mess everywhere they went. While there is no evidence that either Bluesky account has any tie to Wikipedia, there is clear evidence of canvassing supporting Slacker13's edits and it's clear their participation is [[WP:RGW]]. That they demonstrate no understanding of how to use Wikipedia at a basic technical level means this is compounded by a rather serious [[WP:CIR]]. Their activity has become disruptive. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:I was typing the below as Simonm223 posted, please forgive any duplication of diffs.
:If anyone is treating this as a battleground, it is Slacker13. They have been bludgeoning [[Talk:Zak Smith]] - 113 edits there in less than a week. Many of these are not discussion so much as flat denials: {{Tq|No he's not.'}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307001373] or {{tq|No they are not.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307022435] They opened a baseless SPI [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sariel_Xilo&diff=prev&oldid=1307004104] - which was deleted with an edit summary of {{Tq|this isn't even worth archiving}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sariel_Xilo&diff=prev&oldid=1307201546]. They've baselessly accused others of having conflict of interest [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&diff=prev&oldid=1307542014], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sariel_Xilo&diff=prev&oldid=1307542133], and opened a COIN case [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1307608984] which stated (again, without evidence) that the editors who disagree with them on this issue are engaging in coordinated harrassment. They opened an RFC that had to be closed for a blatantly non-neutral statement. The latest is edit warring with other users on a second replacement RfC who are trying to collapse AI-written comments.
:They're aware the subject is under contentious topic restrictions. I think a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] topic ban from Zak Smith is needed here. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 16:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' Similar to MrOllie, it appears we were all putting something together at roughly the same time. I outlined the overall [[Talk:Zak Smith#Canvassing summary|canvassing issues at the talk]], but I'll focus here on Slacker13. While Slacker13 has posted a random bsky link in their ANI report, they didn't disclose that they also decided to edit Smith's talk page due to social media. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1307013671&oldid=1307012654 They stated on 21 August] that they discovered this issue via an Instagram story made by Smith (other low edit count editors who jumped in at Smith's talk similary said they also saw something releated to this on social media). Slacker13 has been forum/admin shopping rather than just letting the RfC process play out:
:* {{ping|ToBeFree|p=}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZak_Smith&diff=1307508520&oldid=1307508398 noted] that after Slacker13 was blocked from emailing them, their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1307078629&oldid=1307012496 exchange was then made public] on Slacker13's talk page which is when they disclosed the Instagram post.
:* Slacker13 then jumped to emailing {{ping|Ad Orientem|p=}} (Ad Orientem [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZak_Smith&diff=1307194378&oldid=1307181787 disclosed this])
:* When I opened a SPI investigation (given the historic & DUCK seeming issue), Slacker13 did a retaliatory SPI accusing me & MrOllie of being socks (it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FSariel_Xilo&diff=1307008796&oldid=1307006412 closed] "{{xt|''with'' prejudice}}").
:* When their RfC received pushback (most editors responding with "Bad RfC"), they jumped to accusing editors of having a COI against Smith:
:** [[Talk:Zak Smith#This Page used as a Battleground for Off Wiki Harassment from people involved with RPG. Editors with ties to that scene should divulge it.]]
:** Slacker13 also went to various editor talk pages to either accuse them of not disclosing a COI or argue that proof existed somewhere: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&diff=prev&oldid=1307542014],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASariel_Xilo&diff=1307595908&oldid=1307465687], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polygnotus&diff=prev&oldid=1307615465]
:** And then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=1307608984&oldid=1307577692 they went to] the COI Noticeboard, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=1307720134&oldid=1307720053 which was closed] a few hours ago as not a COI issue.
:* After being asked by multiple editors to AGF & let the new RfC process play out, they instead jumped to ANI because I assume they're unaware of the [[WP:BOOMERANG]].
:I agree with others that Slacker13 should be topic banned from Zak Smith. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 17:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': Slacker13 is becoming a bit of a bull in a china shop. I would not object to a time-limited TBAN of 60-90 days, long enough to let the current RfC run its course. They seem to be activated by a certain immediate need that may dissipate once they become familiar with our deliberate and more slow-moving approach. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 17:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::They have certainly made their views clear in the current RfC and such an action might give them time to do the necessary exercises to build the necessary technical competence to avoid CIR problems. I'll be honest, I just want to see the current disruption curtailed and they seem unwilling to take a step back so a minimal remediation would not be something I'd object to. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I am willing to take a step back. Logging off. No need for remediation. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 19:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:<b>Comment.</b> This is a repeat from what is posted below. Not to bludgeon, but because I'm unclear if every section needs to be addressed by me. Still learning the protocols so please don't bite the newcomer.
:I imagine I'm allowed to come to my defense here.
:1. I am not trying to bludgeon. I'm attempting to correct inaccuracies when they are presented as fact.
:2. I am attempting to keep the discussion civil, so that comments are deleted or hidden based on guesses of someone being a bot.
:3. Regarding the reporting to 3rr, i admit, I may have jumped the gun and I tried to correct the mistake as soon as I was made aware that I was wrong and even offered to make a public retraction on a forum of their choosing.
:4. Regarding the admins. I did contact @Tobefree with my concerns of the page. And lord, if there was a way to add screen shots to this platform, I'd be more than happy to make my case. They suggested I do an RFC. I contacted Ad Orientem (who had been part of the previous RFC on the page) and asked for advice about an RFC since I wasn't confident that the parties (other editors) involved in the page would be able to be neutral and that the RFC (and page) would turn into a disaster.
:That is exactly what has happened.
:And now, it is requested that I be banned.
:I see this as wholly unjust and as a way of silencing one of the only editors with a dissenting opinion (with some edits under their belts) from touching the page. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 18:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::so that comments are *not* hidden or deleted. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 18:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::<b>Regarding accusation for Forum Shopping</b>
:::I'd like to address this as well as I believe this is factually inaccurate.
:::1. I never tried to remove someone for conflict of interest. That is factually incorrect. I did mention that I thought there was COI. What i asked for was for editors to divulge their involvement with a scene that was known to be biased towards the subject of the article.
:::2. I removed my notice at 3RR immediately as soon as I was corrected. The notice was placed based on what I perceived as bad form by editors collapsing opinions during an active RFC. The intention was to keep things civil and unbiased, not to remove editors. Plus, from what I understand -- reporting and editor to 3RR doesn't get them removed from the discussion. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 19:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
===Propose topic ban for Slacker13===
{{atop
| result = By consensus of the Wikipedia community, {{np2|Slacker13}} is indefinitely topic banned from [[Zak Smith]]. Consensus for a site ban did not develop, but there was significant support for one. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{not a vote}}
This was already mentioned a few times above, but to consolidate, I'm opening this section to formally propose that {{user|Slacker13}} is issued a '''topic ban from [[Zak Smith]]'''. --[[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(255deg,#56C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 17:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as proposer. As documented above, Slacker13 has bludgeoned this topic across various noticeboards, admin talk pages, article talk pages, and everywhere else feasible, including filing a retaliatory SPI. Multiple people above were apparently independently preparing to open discussions at AN/I regarding their behavior. This is a timesink for the community, and Slacker13's own time would also be better spent elsewhere on the project. --[[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(255deg,#56C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 17:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support 60 day TBAN''' An indefinite TBAN serves no real purpose as the central issue seems to be the editor's belief in the manipulation of the RfC, which will probably be closed well within 60 days. Bans should be narrowly tailored to effect protection in the least restrictive way possible. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 17:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support CBAN with TBAN as condition of unblocking''' <s>I am indifferent on whether it's indefinite or time-restricted but lean toward time-restricted as long as Slacker13 takes the time to address learning how to properly use Wikipedia in the interim. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)</s>
*:I've been giving this a lot of thought and there's something that really bothers me about this whole situation - and the more I think about it the more bothered I become. Frankly I think we're being played for fools. Slacker13 said that they were going to step back from editing and that we didn't need to apply sanctions. They then sat and waited for the page protection to expire and then edit-warred their changes in. This makes their previous displays of incompetence all the more alarming. They seem quite capable of using Wikipedia's tools when it suits them. They have declined to commit to respecting the RfC process and, in fact, asked {{U|Chetsford}} to unilaterally close the RfC. Instead they've engaged in edit warring. This is not just a matter of [[WP:RGW]] or [[WP:CIR]]. This is [[WP:NOTHERE]] behaviour. We ''know'' there is coordination of the meatpuppet accounts per the words of one of the meatpuppet accounts. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AItstheschist&diff=1307821030&oldid=1307820377] If we are dealing with this coordinated attempt to disrupt a BLP page from a group of activists and one of these activists has, through their actions, made it clear they have no intention of respecting Wikipedia's processes or their fellow editors then they should be shown the door. And, if they want back in to resume their work creating pages about other visual artists then an understanding they are not to touch Zak Smith related material should be a condition of them returning to the project. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per my comment above. I would support a time-restricted version only if Slacker13 provides some indication that they will respect the outcome of the RFC, whatever that might be. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 17:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support indef TBAN''' Unlike the majority of editors in the canvassing summary, Slacker13 is not a dormant editor with a low edit count. They've been active since February 2023 with just under 1500 total edits. At this point, they should have a basic understanding about Wikipedia's editing norms such as don't admin/forum shop & don't make malformed and/or retaliatory reports on noticeboards. For example, neither edit war report they made this week ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1306992797 20 Aug] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=1307780693&oldid=1307769363 25 Aug]) was formatted correctly with diffs & the second one was even aimed at the wrong editor; their report here also doesn't include diffs. Multiple admins have given Slacker13 advice about how to handle the RfC process (mostly that there's no urgency so they should just let it play out) & instead they've gone around [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]] & bludgeoning the process. They seem to be textbook [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] & I haven't seen anything in their edit pattern this week which suggests they would accept RfC results they disagreed with which is why I think indefinite is the better approach. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 18:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:<b>Comment</b>. Still learning the protocols so please don't bite the newcomer. I imagine I'm allowed to come to my defense here.
:1. I am not trying to bludgeon. I'm attempting to correct inaccuracies when they are presented as fact.
:2. I am attempting to keep the discussion civil, so that comments are deleted or hidden based on guesses of someone being a bot.
:3. Regarding the reporting to 3rr, i admit, I may have jumped the gun and I tried to correct the mistake as soon as I was made aware that I was wrong and even offered to make a public retraction on a forum of their choosing.
:4. Regarding the admins. I did contact @Tobefree with my concerns of the page. And lord, if there was a way to add screen shots to this platform, I'd be more than happy to make my case. They suggested I do an RFC. I contacted Ad Orientem (who had been part of the previous RFC on the page) and asked for advice about an RFC since I wasn't confident that the parties (other editors) involved in the page would be able to be neutral and that the RFC (and page) would turn into a disaster.
:That is exactly what has happened.
:And now, it is requested that I be banned.
:I see this as wholly unjust and as a way of silencing one of the only editors with a dissenting opinion (with some edits under their belts) from touching the page. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 18:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Straightforward question: If the RfC goes against your view do you intend to respect its outcome? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] I'm sorry for being a pest but this will be material as to whether I end up supporting a time-limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban and I know that since I asked this question you have made comments in this thread as well as seeking advice as to the definition of forumshopping and a few other items so I want you to understand that the answer to the question of whether you intend to respect the outcome of the RfC regardless of the specifics of the outcome is rather critical information here. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I guess [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307839735 this] is the answer to my question. Based on this I support an indefinite topic ban and would also probably support stricter measures too. This is [[WP:HOLES]] in action. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 01:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support indef <s>TBAN</s> CBAN''' per [[WP:BLUDGEON]] which is happening here also and [[WP:OWN]]. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 18:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::After the duplicitous stunt that Slacker13 pulled in "not" reverting Ad Orientem,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307844047] I move for a '''CBAN''' based on [[WP:NOTHERE]] and [[WP:CIR]]. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. So far that I could see, Slacker13 is open to discussion with the other party at the article Talk page, as suggested by [[WP:DR]]. While this is the case, I see no necessity in topic ban. [[User:White Spider Shadow|White Spider Shadow]] ([[User talk:White Spider Shadow|talk]]) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC) <small>— [[User:White Spider Shadow|White Spider Shadow]] ([[User talk:White Spider Shadow|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/White Spider Shadow|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::'''Comment'''. Since I voted here, there have been additional claims of "bludgeoning", which probably should be addressed.
::There have been a lot of comments posted on the Talk page in question, from people who present different points of view and offer different solutions to optimize the page. In my opinion, and in the spirit of [[WP:BURO]], it's a necessary dialogue that helps to reach consensus. I did not see Slacker13 engaging in personal attacks. They did actively argue in support of their opinion. So did others, like MrOllie and Sariel Xilo. It does seem like claims of bludgeoning/canvassing/personal attacks etc serve to quiet one side, and decrease the chance of an actual consensus. [[User:White Spider Shadow|White Spider Shadow]] ([[User talk:White Spider Shadow|talk]]) 07:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, claims of bludgeoning serve to quiet the side that is relentlessly repeating the same statements over and over again while ignoring policy and any responses to them.
:::That’s the reason for pointing out when someone is trying to bludgeon a discussion. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 14:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''OPPOSE''' While @[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] may be actively trying to watch that this talk remains civil and factual and based in Wikipedia policies. This person has a lot to say, but it seems that they are correcting factual errors in the comments. Which is not a [[Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process|WP: BLUDGEON]] . [[User:Friendlypup13|Friendlypup13]] ([[User talk:Friendlypup13|talk]]) 19:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Friendlypup13|Friendlypup13]] ([[User talk:Friendlypup13|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Friendlypup13|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
:* '''Oppose.''' This editor seems passionate about the topic but that alone should not get them banned. They may not be following perfect protocol and formatting but they seem to be trying their utmost to follow policies as best they can and have responded very constructively to feedback from other editors.
:[[User:Ansible52|Ansible52]] ([[User talk:Ansible52|talk]]) 19:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Ansible52|Ansible52]] ([[User talk:Ansible52|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ansible52|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
*'''Support TBAN:''' at the least, but this flood of sock/meatpuppets suggests we need to get a bit tougher than that. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 19:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I'm not going to !vote one way or another as I am involved in the discussion. I will confine myself to a few observations. First, most of the comments on the proposed TBan are also coming from involved parties. And secondly, I can confirm that I too have become concerned that Slacker13 appears to be too personally invested in this issue. Whether intentionally or not, I think some of their communications have been straying uncomfortably close to the line with respect to CANVASSING. WP:RGW seems to be a pretty common theme here. Mr. Smith does not strike me as a man who engenders a lot of indifference among those who know him, or of him. As Slacker13 has made their comment on the RfC, I would suggest that they step away from this topic and let the RfC run its course. And in particular, they should avoid any more private communications on the matter. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 19:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support indef CBAN'''. We're only having this conversation at ANI because Slacker13 brought us here to complain about user behavior at Talk:Zak Smith. My brief behavioral experience with Slacker13 makes it clear 1) they have very strong feelings about this subject, 2) they claim to lack competence with many sorts of procedures, 3) this morning they twice reverted my collapsing of clear LLM use, 4) they filed unfounded 3RR reports on [[User:Simonm223]] this morning, retaliating for my collapsing, 5) they made 113 edits to Talk:Zak Smith in last five days, 82% of their 138 career total user talk page edits. Based on something I was reading the other day, volunteer time is Wikipedia's most important resource. Some users repeatedly make personal attacks against discussion disagreement, fail to assume good faith, forumshop, draw coordinated editors, and fail to learn something of AGF in over three years of contributions. Such extreme users are demonstrating themselves a net negative, that is, the sorts of wikipedians which draw unduly on volunteer time. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 19:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' @[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] seems like they are doing their best to follow the policies as bet they can and has been open to discussion with the other parties. This seems to be a more contentious topic than what they are used to editing and banning them from the process is severely limiting their ability to understand and participate more in the future. [[User:Sombodystolemyname|Sombodystolemyname]] ([[User talk:Sombodystolemyname|talk]]) 19:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)<small>— [[User:Sombodystolemyname|Sombodystolemyname]] ([[User talk:Sombodystolemyname|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sombodystolemyname|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::This account was warned for BLP and socking by ToBeFree on the 20th. <span style="font-family: Kode Mono; color:rgb(112, 10, 1);">'''[[User:Nathannah|Nathannah]]''' • [[User_talk:Nathannah|📮]]</span> 20:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support indef T-ban''' I don't think this will prejudice the discussion at all, the editor began repeating themselves some time ago and has not changed any of their arguments. If they are not T-Banned, suggest it be with the understanding that they cannot keep repeating the same things over and over, and that they must read what others say before responding. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 20:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Oppose''' Ignorance of the rules or policies does not excuse one from them; but I don’t think it would be accurate to claim @[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]]'s actions merit a topic ban. @[[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]], and @[[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] both make points stating that @[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]]’s actions indicate they would not adhere to the result of an RFC, and I have not gathered that from my limited exposure – I have seen @[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] respond to policies, refer to policies, and follow suggestions from others. For instance, @[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] said {{tq|Yes. Excellent advice. Live and learn. I should have gone to the teahouse.}} and {{tq|I'd be happy to amend. Do you have suggestions? I tried to keep it pretty basic.}} I considered making this a '''Comment''' because I have been interacting with all this on the relevant talk page, but seeing as there are votes on both sides coming from people interacting on the talk page, I think this comment should take the form of a vote, and should present a stance. [[User:Cairnesteak|Cairnesteak]] ([[User talk:Cairnesteak|talk]]) 20:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:*:They notably declined to answer the question: {{tq|Straightforward question: If the RfC goes against your view do you intend to respect its outcome?}}
:*:And they keep talking about living and learning or amending things, but by the time they've repeated the same things over and over, and are now at the point of repeating "I'm not bludgeoning, I'm just replying to everything" (paraphrase mine), also over and over, maybe it's time for them to take a break and let the discussion happen? We already know what they are going to say, they have said it. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 22:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:*::Note that after being blocked for repeated BLP violations which continued after several clear warnings, Slacker13 is now arguing with the blocking admin on their talk page and continuing the same behavior. I see zero sign of any hope for a change.
:*::I looked and it appears that the only 'oppose' comments in this section are from the SPAs. Suggest a [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause|WP:SNOW]] close. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 17:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support T-ban''', disclosure, I have voted in the RFC on the article talk page. It might be advisable to also mention to @White Spider Shadow to stop bludgeoning as well. At least 42 edits in less than 5 days on the article talk page is over the top. I won't do it myself as I have responded to their bludgeoning at the RFC. [[User:Knitsey|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">Knitsey</span>]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]) 20:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' The editor is posting relevant responses and banning from a topic will result in a less relevant discussion. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Itstheschist|Itstheschist]] ([[User talk:Itstheschist#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itstheschist|contribs]]) 21:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> <small>— [[User:Itstheschist|Itstheschist]] ([[User talk:Itstheschist|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itstheschist|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
*What an amazing number of "oppose" votes by people who don't do much of anything here outside this one topic. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:* {{unrelated}}, and I'm frankly stunned by that. I figured there had to be at least one sock pair in the group. But nope. [[WP:CHECKUSER]] is not magic pixie dust. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 21:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::*{{U|Yamla}}, thanks for checking; I wasn't going to ask anyone because, as MrOllie suggests, there's other factor at work here. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 22:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::*:Interestingly, all these accounts were created a while ago and remained dormant, but suddenly came back a few days ago to bludgeon the RfC. Most social media campaigns involve new accounts being created, not what's happening here. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 00:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::*::Apparently, about a year ago, Mr. Smith gave a bunch of people copies of his book in exchange for making sleeper accounts to be activated at a later date and upon request. This has been going on across other platforms too. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::*:::I'd send any evidence to ArbCom immediately. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 11:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::*:::Simon, is this just speculation/rumor or do you have evidence? [[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(165deg,#76C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 11:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::*::::I am currently seeking more conclusive evidence than what I've been shown which I found insufficient. If requested by an admin I will strike the original comment. When I have conclusive evidence I will give it to ArbCom. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:*:Historically there has been a fair amount of socking (see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive]]), but it seems that this time around rallying support on social media is doing the job. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 22:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support t-ban''' and I am involved in the talk page discussion, and whatever duration is fine with me. There's no need for me to pile on with more diffs, as it has already been clearly demonstrated that Slacker13 is only here to RGW about Mr. Smith. And you can see from the oppose !votes here the meatpuppetry that is also taking place on the talk page, they all just parrot one another. And the notion that MrOllie and Sariel Xilo [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sariel_Xilo&oldid=1307008796 are socks] is just plain ridiculous; because MrOllie still wears those white tube socks with red stripes at the top, while Sariel Xilo is more comfortable with dress socks.😏[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 01:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:'''Note''' - Slacker13 was [https://en.wvikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1308240265&oldid=1308224076 blocked for BLP violations] for edits at the talk page of Zak Smith. The edits to the talk page were [[WP:REVDEL|RevDeleted]], so I can't provide the diffs.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 09:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*::According to the blocking admin @[[User:Bilby|Bilby]] it was for serious BLP violations regarding the author of one of the academic publications being discussed in the RfC. This seems to suggest either that Slacker13 isn't concerned with BLP as a policy so much as the reputation of just one BLP or it is another data point toward [[WP:NOTHERE]] levels of CIR. Considering Bilby removed a prior BLP violation and warned them and their response seems to have been to disregard that warning (I also have not seen the diffs that were removed) perhaps it is indicative of both. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::And in addition to the serious BLP violation, they have continued to bludgeon the talk page at Zak Smith, despite saying below - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Slacker13-20250826160300-TonySt-20250825172000 Was I a bit overzealous? Yes, and I'd be happy to curtail that]. They have not curtailed anything, and as can be seen on their [[User talk:Slacker13#Blocking|talk page here]], they are aching to get back to the RfC discussion to bludgeon even more. Can we please put a stop to this editor's obsession with this subject.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 17:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I've provided an explanation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1308246564&oldid=1308234902 here]. The specific edit falsely stated that an academic had been convicted of defamation. The issue was not so much that it was added, but that it was added again after it was reverted, and that the same issue occured yesterday with some questionable BLP claims that were again added back after being reverted. I understand that there are strong emotions in this, which is why I was hoping not to block, but I am getting the impression of an editor who is having trouble modifying their behaviour based on advice, so maybe a short block is a better option. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 10:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support indef CBAN''' per [[WP:CIR]] and [[WP:RGW]]. Stepping back from editing will reflect how Slacker will do better in the future. I advise avoiding any further private communications on the matters. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 03:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support a topic ban''' at a minimum, '''Weak support''' for a cban. I'm pessimistic that it'll work, but I'm not positive the conduct here is ''so'' Wikigregious that there's no chance this editor may be able to act in a collaborative process on an article that isn't ''so'' important to them. But I'm also not so confident in this editor that I'm against a cban if the editors supporting it feel firm in their opinion. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:For the record, I would withdraw my request for a CBAN if Slacker13 publicly states they will respect the outcome of the RfC and submits an edit request to self-revert their removal of the contentious section. These actions are what make me think a TBAN is insufficient. If they are able to recognize the mistake they have made and course-correct I would be satisfied with a TBAN. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I have no confidence they will respect the outcome of the RfC, when they refused to respect the RfC as it was ongoing, and instead, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=1307839735&oldid=1307834789 edit warred] to their preferred version, and when an admin, said no, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=next&oldid=1307839735 this is disruption], they ignored that warning, and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=next&oldid=1307840096 pretended like they weren't edit warring again].[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 15:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support indefinite topic-ban at minimum''' but I won't be heartbroken if consensus is that a siteban is warranted given the behaviour on display. At the very least Slacker13 needs to be yoten out of the Zak Smith topic area for the [[WP:GAME|blatant attempts at subterfuge and apparent canvassing]]. I would also '''support a topic-ban from Zak Smith to everyone who was canvassed to the discussion''', albeit time-limited to, say, six months, to encourage those who want to stay on Wikipedia to find a topic that ''isn't'' the target of an off-wiki campaign. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 15:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support topic-ban''' at a bare minimum. The constant [[WP:BLUDGEON]]ing and [[WP:ASPERSION]]s are more than enough reason for a topic-ban; they've turned the entire talk page into essentially an endless argument between them and everyone else. In less than a week, they made nearly ''a hundred'' talk page comments on [[Talk:Zak Smith]]. They've honestly been given more [[WP:ROPE]] than most people would be if they behaved this way (because BLP concerns ''are'' serious) but enough is enough. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*<b>Request to the admin</b>. It is difficult to defend oneself against an onslaught. All I ask is this (and I recognize it is a BIG ask because there is a lot): Before making your ultimate determination on weather I be warned or banned for a first offense -- you read through my contributions. All of them regarding this topic, including all of the talk page, my responses to other editors, the messages sent to editors and admins, and the topic I posted here. Was I a bit overzealous? Yes, and I'd be happy to curtail that. I do ask that you read though, and come to your own determination. Please and thank you. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 16:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Why did you ignore an admin warning that your edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307840096 was disruptive] and then pretend like you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=next&oldid=1307840096 were not reverting], when you actually did revert?[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 16:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support CBan for AT LEAST Slacker123''' - Reading through this I can only come to a conclusion regardless of whether I AGF or not and it's clearly off-wiki social media based editing alongside a clear inability to follow rules to a degree I'd support it as [[WP:NOTHERE]] on RGW grounds. The fact this discussion has been flooded by obvious off-wiki meatpuppeting with no/low editors opposing the proposal also has me considering whether there should be an examination of those accounts on the same grounds. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 16:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
===Propose ECP===
I also propose that the article [[Zak Smith]] and its talk page be ECP'd indefinitely due to the sheer amount of sock/meatpuppetry as a BLP CTOP remedy. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 21:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:[The article is already extended-confirmed protected for a year, the talk page semi-protected for 30 days. ECP for the talk page is something I didn't dare to apply; I trust the closer to discount canvassed votes. But by all means, feel free to vote for this.] [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. Smith and his sock/meatpuppets have been edit warring on this issue for six years. They will continue to do so long after. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 23:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's easy to predict this won't be the last ANI chapter for this article, but hopefully we can delay it with this protection. <span style="font-family: Kode Mono; color:rgb(112, 10, 1);">'''[[User:Nathannah|Nathannah]]''' • [[User_talk:Nathannah|📮]]</span> 00:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' not putting a !vote here because I haven't made up my mind, but this is a pretty extreme remedy. Meatpuppets are annoying but, excepting the subject of this thread, none of them have been that disruptive. Just annoying. I would like to think we can tolerate annoying rather than putting ECP on a talk page. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 00:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Last night's system-gaming from Slacker13 has made up my mind. I am concerned that there is both coordination between the meatpuppets and a willingness to go to extreme lengths to get their way. I worry that, if Slacker13 is prohibited from editing the page, another meatpuppet account will take their place. After all, it's quite clear that they have no interest in retaining their privileges as long as this one biography says what they want. <s>On this basis '''Support''' indefinite ECP of both the page and talk.</s> [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 08:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm back on the fence here. Since Slacker13 got a 24 hour block the page has quieted down substantially. While I remain concerned about the other zombie accounts it seems like one account may, in fact, be the principal locus of disruption. I want to wait and see here so I'm withdrawing my support... for now... while we see whether a new disruptive account arises or whether the worst is behind us. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::The socks/meats are silent because they already have their preferred version in place for now. If that wasn't the case, they would still be at it. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 20:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::They'll probably start acting up again once the RfC closes and the content is reinstated. I'm not sure why ToBeFree didn't revert, but it's always best to be safe than sorry, I guess. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 21:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Considering the antics I just saw on the page the socks seem to have regrouped. And that's not even counting the poorly advised arbitration request. I don't know. I am really uncomfortable with the idea of putting ECP on an article talk page but if it's that or constant textwalls of machine generated text and desperate wikilawyering this could become a real time sink to maintain. I'd rather not have to spend that much time on one RPG artist. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 22:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Would a system like that on [[WP:ARBPIA]] articles work better? Where non EC users are only able to make edit requests? [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 22:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::It might be technically possible to impose such a restriction under the [[WP:CT/BLP|BLP]] contentious topic. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 22:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I suggested a word limit per discussion (option listed at [[WP:CTOP#Standard set]]) but Jéské Couriano noted below that there's no way to automate enforcement. So it would require an uninvolved admin to moderate every time the talk page heats up. However, the last time the talk page was really active was mostly 5 years ago leading to the 2020 RfC so maybe this won't be an ongoing issue after the current RfC is resolved. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 22:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Simonm223, still haven't changed your mind back given the continuing time sink? How about an ECP for 30 days to let the RfC quiet from the AITALK? [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 23:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I might be willing to countenance '''support for a time-limited ECP''' on the article talk page just as a fire gap. I honestly don't like it. I've been back and forth on this issue because I do not at all like the idea of ECP on an article talk page and would prefer never to do it... but it might be needed here. Frankly this entire situation makes me deeply uncomfortable - as of this morning we've now got one of the canvassed parties putting up a second !vote and this RfC has become such a mess of broken wikilinks, machine generated text and other [[WP:CIR]] problems that I feel sincerely bad for whoever needs to close it. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I don't know what's going on at that talk page, but it has to be put to a stop. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 00:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
* <s>'''Support for the article'''.</s> At the very least, the disruption happening on the article should be stopped, hopefully for good. I don't think an ECP would work well on the talk page, likely leading to its own set of issues. Perhaps semi-protection would work better? [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 00:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:The talk page is already semi-protected, and no, it isn't helping since the sock/meatpuppeteer is using autoconfirmed accounts to facilitate the disruption. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 01:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Yeah, I see now. Changing my vote to a '''support for the article and talk page'''. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 01:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support, retroactive to August 23''' The Talk page is so inundated with comments from zombie accounts it will be utterly miserable to coherently determine the outcome of any active discussion unless ECP is interpreted retroactively [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 06:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*I'm involved and thus won't comment on the topic ban suggested above, but I '''fully support''' this. There's so much puppeting going on I feel like I'm in a [[Jim Henson]] production. [[User:NekoKatsun|NekoKatsun]] ([[User talk:NekoKatsun|nyaa]]) 14:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Question''' - Is this the type of situation where adding a word limit per discussion on the talk page (per [[WP:CTOP#Standard set]]) would a) be applicable & b) be automated? Theoretically, it would allow newer editors to participate in good faith while limiting the ability of other editors to bludgeon a discussion. But if it can't be auto enforced, then it might be less useful than ECP. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 15:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The talk page of this article looks like it was written by George A. Romero. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support XCP for article (indef) and talk page (time-limited)''' simply based on the [[WP:CANVASS|sheer amount of low-activity accounts crawling out of the woodwork above]] in defence of Slacker's behaviour. And to answer your question, Xilo, word limits can't be automated, else ArbCom would have automated it a while ago (Arbitration has pretty much always had word/diff limits, which are manually enforced). Article should be indef XCP, talk page should be given a long-ish XCP term, no longer than about a year. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 15:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The level of meatpuppetry / external canvassing targeting the article is too much. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - clearly some form of off-wiki canvassing is happening given how many low activity and long dormant accounts have awoken to argue over an incredibly niche figure's wikipedia page. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 16:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for talk page''' indefinite ECR on a talk page needs to be justified by a whole lot more than what is likely to just be a short-term burst of activity. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 01:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose for talk page''', indifferent on article page. Talk page protection is an extreme measure and should only be used in the short-term for overwhelming vandalism and disruptive editing, or persistent addition of oversightable BLP violations like libel. I trust the community to see through the meatpuppetry, I trust the closer to identify and disregard canvassed !votes for the RFC, and it has not been demonstrated that talk page protection is necessary or required past the short term. --[[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(225deg,#76C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 15:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ECP for ''any'' talk page unless and until we witness repetitive and dedicated disruption. Nothing like that here. I've been watching this discussion since the beginning. Two issues prevented me from ECPing the page: 1) ToBeFree had already applied semi-protection (this bold action likely kept much more static out of the discussion) and 2) when I apply any level of protection to any talk page, I do so with much regret. Wikipedians (even low edit-count and new editors) need the ability to shout sometimes, and page talk is one neutral place to vigorously disagree without undue personalization. I do hold the OP should face a serious boomerang, but that's no reason to keep out good faith interested parties. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 21:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' also per BusterD. (and Tony, and the extremely old and still fairly absolute community consensus that locking down talk pages, as compared against public-facing content namepsaces, should be considered only for the most absolutely egregious and otherwise impossible to manage cases of disruption.) ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Suggest upgrading Slacker13's TBan to CBan ===
As has been raised in the original section, Slacker13 has now taken this matter to ArbCon. However while doing so they have posted the following.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=1308507226]
<br>{{tq|My argument is: most, if not all, of the editors who voted to ban me, have links and ties to the RPG (role playing) community -- a community which has banned Smith and actively harasses him (based on, now disputed, allegations of sexual abuse). '''I know because I looked them all up (and can provide links)'''}}
<br> I believe this now escalates to threats of [[WP:OUTING]] the identity of editors who disagree with them and believe they therefore are well outside the norms of behaviour we expect from editors here and therefore believe they should be removed as a matter of urgency. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 22:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' as proposer. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 22:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::Not only that, {{U|Slacker13}} also stated at ArbCom: {{tq|I am the '''only''' editor involved in the RFC (with some edits under their belt) with a dissenting opinion who does not come from a community in which Smith (the subject of the article) is banned.}}
::This is blatantly false as, {{U|Chetsford}}, {{U|Gamaliel}} and {{U|Traumnovelle}}, also had dissenting opinions. And with the above statement, they are casting aspersions against a boatload of editors in the RfC that support inclusion, approximately 15 by my count, that we are all involved in this "community", and that is our motive for participating in the RfC. Speaking for myself, I'm not worried about OUTING, as Slacker13 has no evidence whatsoever that links or ties me to this "community". Having said that, threats to OUT any editor must be taken seriously, and I earnestly wonder if this editor has the competence that we require to be a part of this project. If they are not indeffed by an admin first for this egregious behavior, I '''support''' a cban.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 23:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I suspect from the grammar problems {{tq|I believe that a page is being used as a suspected battleground}}[sic] we've seen, Slacker13 was trying to say that all of the editors who disagreed with her came from a community where Smith is banned.
:::Sometimes that can also happen when you reword a few times and leave part of an old version in (or use AI). [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 23:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::For the record the only platform I make any use of on which Mr. Smith is "banned," to my knowledge, is Wikipedia. Here he is currently blocked for the abuse of multiple accounts. So, despite having some interest in Dungeons and Dragons I would strongly dispute that I had any connection to Mr. Smith or his unfortunate personal circumstances beyond recognizing his name. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 23:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::<s>This is to say I '''Support a CBAN''' as it's getting to the point where Slacker13 has crossed the boundaries of [[WP:NPA]] has insinuated they intend to engage in [[WP:OUTING]], is constantly demonstrating [[WP:ABF]] and is, frankly, dragging me back into a dispute that I had hoped had finally calmed the heck down. Enough is enough. </s>[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 23:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Looking at the oppose !votes I do find myself having a second thought. When Slacker13 launched the Arbitration case I told them I thought the best case scenario was a prompt closure and a prompt closure was what we got. I also said in response to the Arbcom case that I hoped that Slacker13 would return to the productive editing they'd been doing before the Zak S affair. I don't have great faith they will abide by their tban - and I don't think they should be unblocked until they commit to dropping the stick. But I do trust admins not to be fooled by an inappropriate unblock request. The ideal course of action would be for this once-productive editor to return to productive endeavors. I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that simply because they had made a nuisance of themselves. I am frustrated and personally insulted by the argument that my participation in a hobby, which includes easily-found professional writing on the topic, implicates me in a hate-mob. As I said before my only significant engagement with Mr. Smith as a figure in TTRPGS or in fine art (a world I also have a toe in) is fully visible within the edit history of Wikipedia. However I don't want my personal affrontery to interfere with appropriate process. I hope Slacker13 takes some time off to examine their actions and then commits to doing literally anything else on Wikipedia. If they can bring themself to do that then that is enough for me. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support CBAN''' It's common in Arbcom cases to offer certain COI information to the Committee to be sent confidentially (though it's normally wikispeaked into "private evidence" or whatever, as opposed to {{tqq|I looked them all up}}). If you're seeking to silence them as a {{tq|matter of urgency}}, a cban proposal is not what you're looking for, as they typically take several days. However, a frivolous Arbcom case is an absurd escalation directly after their block -- a block they mostly spent sealioning on their own talk page. Their actions demonstrate they are not compatible with this project, though I would welcome to be proven wrong on appeal in many months. [[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(345deg,#96C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 23:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:TonySt|TonySt]] to be honest I expect it'll get quicker action from an admin to begin with, but this is more of a backstop in case it doesn't. This whole thing is well beyond the pale at this point compared to what I've seen earn an Indef before. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 00:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:No comment on Slacker13's overall behaviour but the 'outing' claim here is stupid. Providing evidence to Arbcom is not outing and when you are dealing with such material sending it to Arbcom is exactly what is suggested. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 23:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::If you read the ArbCon filing it's already been noted by ArbCon that they had sent attempted proof of COIs to them in this response from one of the members:
::{{tq|applicant sent a near-4000 word missive to our mailing list originally (before being sent here, as there is no private information involved), which included links to how they allege the editors are all "involved"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=1308510257]
::As a result the need to mention '''publicly''' they have alleged links (after having been told before about how unacceptable such attempts to find out editor identities due to disputes here is) can only lead me to regard it as the veiled threat of public OUTING. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 23:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::That quote explicitly suggests the information in question is perfectly acceptable to post on wiki and likely just revolves around on Wiki edits/diffs. Even if I entertain the notion that it is private information – well Arbcom can deal with that. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 00:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{pb}}Neither ArbCom requests nor any other context permits '''any''' disclosure of offline identities/activities of other users over public channels on-project, however broadly the label is applied and regardless of whether or not the claims would bear up under close scrutiny. The outing policy is robust and exhaustive for many important reasons reflecting aspects of user safety and project stability, and represents some of the most absolute and vigorously applied community consensus in the history of the project. This user could have easily provided information to support their case through the normal processes reserved for such with regard to sensitive ArbCom cases, if they in fact had anything of substance. Their choice to instead make that statement publicly would be enough to validate an indef even without the considerable extra context suggesting they represent a substantial net negative at this point. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 23:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::For context, they've made these sorts of claims before. The 'evidence' against me turned out to be that I had removed some junk links from our article on [[The Elder Scrolls]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&diff=prev&oldid=1307576094 see comment]) as part of recent changes patrolling. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 23:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I mean, I am 99% certain based on both the substance of their claim and the content of the discussion above (to say nothing of general common sense about this project and the world at large) that these claims are either willful misinformation or credulous and dubious assumptions (or something in between the two categories of on uncredible statement). But we don't take chances with user privacy on this project, and this user has shown they are willing to flippantly disregard such weighty concerns. And there's a non-trivial possibility that they are speaking truthfully about at least one or a few of the editors they took it upon themselves to "investigate" off-project. So they have to go. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
: <s>'''Support CBAN'''. Frankly, this is ridiculous behavior, and the fact they escalated it to ARBCOM doesn't fill me with confidence they will stop being disruptive, even if the case gets declined.</s> <small>withdrawn </small> [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 23:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support.''' Coming on top of the rest of the problematic behaviour discussed above, this flagrant violation of [[WP:OUTING]] is more than sufficient to carry [[WP:CIR]], [[WP:HARASSMENT]], and just simple pragmatic analysis of the risks vs. benefits of allowing this user to continue to comment on-project into the red. And, at the risk of upsetting the apparently all-powerful secret D&D cabal (and all joking aside, no genuine offense intended to any user reading this, but...), I personally find people playing make-believe with dice well into adulthood to be one of the more embarrassing developments of the culture of the twenty-first century, so Slacker can rest assured that this !vote comes purely as a consequence of their displaying behaviours which make them fundamentally incompatible with this project, and not because I am a member of a Zak Smith counter-subversive reputational hit squad. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 23:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::What? I still play [[Monopoly (game)|make-believe with dice]], and I take my role as the Top Hat very seriously, as I used to wear one back in the 70s (true story).[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 00:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC) :)
:::Haha, when you put it in those terms, any air of idiosyncratic judgment on my part should be contextualized in light of a many-decades-long love affair with Risk. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::What about those of us who played Pathfinder once and found it unbelievably impenetrable? Is there a secret club I'm missing out on? [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 00:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't know: I assume that initiation in the secret role-player's cabal involves doing a roll to check for basic social competency, and if you fail, you're in. ~That most irrepressible rogue, '''Snow the Bold''' runs for cover, but doesn't bother to hide a cheeky grin~ ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Sir, I protest. I resemble that remark.
::::(Also, always take Australia first) [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 01:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::My friend, you speak as mantra a truth which cannot be contested. ;) ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 03:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support CBAN''' - As in the prior section, WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE; and add WP:BATTLEGROUND [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 23:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' I would be loathe to see someone banned because they appealed a tban once to ArbCom. The appeal may be ill advised and unsound, but so far the disruption since the tban is just an appeal. I'd like to see more cause to raise this to the level of a cban so soon after the decision not to apply one. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 00:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Try something else first''' like a one month block or a three months block. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 00:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*Comment - my quote is mentioned above, so I'll be explicit here - no links to external information or anything has been provided at all, either on-wiki or via email. All links were to on-wiki pages or diffs etc. The justification proposed of "outing" is incorrect. The community can take action as it sees fit for battleground editing, or NOTHERE, or anything of the sort, but I will speak to the editor's defence and pretty directly say that the accusations of outing are totally misplaced and errenous (to this point, at least). It was probably a clumsy choice of words by the editor in their filing on-wiki. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 00:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Thank you for the clarification. Nonetheless, {{U|Slacker13}} has insinuated that several editors are involved in the RPG community that has harassed Mr. Smith, without providing any evidence to support these spurious allegations, which is one of many reasons I am supporting a cban.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 01:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The ArbCom thing is a bit ambiguous IMHO because it's important that editors be allowed to appeal and seek relief through the proper channels; but there is a point where their requests are ''so'' far beyond what's reasonable that it becomes a conduct issue, and the fact that their appeal to ArbCom involves wild [[WP:ASPERSION]]s goes past that line. The fact that they didn't out anyone isn't really exculpatory in this context because that means they've been making extremely wild retaliatory accusations against several editors that clearly have ''no'' basis in evidence or policy - if there was any credible basis at all I'd say they have the right to seek relief and we have to err on the side of caution, but their accusations seem to be so utterly unsupported that they breach the presumption of either competence or good faith. And while there's usually some leeway for newly-topic-banned editors who may not know the full scope of their topic-ban, and it's mitigated by the fact that users keep approaching them, stuff like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1308408088&oldid=1308367247&title=User_talk:Slacker13] and their responses [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slacker13#Some_advice here] are still not allowed. More to the point, all of this collectively suggests that Slacker13 will still not [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] even after a topic-ban, which makes a cban necessary. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 01:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
* Comment - {{ping|Ivanvector}} just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1308547971&oldid=1308546957 indef blocked Slacker13]. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 03:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Honestly I didn't see that this CBAN discussion was happening, I watch [[WP:AC]] and saw their "everyone's out to get me" case request name in my watchlist. There I saw an editor banned from a topic still arguing about that topic on their talk page, and filing a report to Arbcom continuing to argue about the topic while also alleging that the many editors disagreeing with them are a cabal of roleplayers conspiring against them. There's nothing [[WP:HERE]] about any of that, and it needed to stop. I didn't intend to supervote this discussion. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 04:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I don't know that it is the appropriate solution in this situation, but for what it is worth, I would have supported this as an admin action, had it transpired that you made that decision before this discussion. I actually meant to say something along the lines of "if an admin had unilaterally blocked here, I would have supported it." much earlier, but neglected to. {{pb}} I for one still do endorse your choice of action, though I suspect the community will want this discussion to run its course regardless. Afterall, the effect of a CBAN on top of your block would be that an unblock request would need to be put to the community, not an individual admin. Alternatively (though i think unlikely) the community may want to reverse your block. Perhaps most likely of all though is that they squeak by without a formal CBAN, but your indef is left in place pending the normal administrative appeal process. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 07:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I'd like for this editor to get the opportunity to find other subjects she could focus upon. It won't happen overnight but I think after some weeks, she could return to regular editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*:They can not return to editing until they acknowledge, and apologize, for making up allegations against me, and numerous other editors, as being part of the RPG community that harassed Mr. Smith. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I would be involved in such despicable conduct.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 06:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose CBan for now''' on the grounds that any more carrying on in this vein in an unblock request will almost certainly be a summary decline, and attempting to escalate an unblock request to ArbCom is more likely to result in them ''confirming'' the block than lifting it. No sane admin is going to lift a block based on topic ban violations when the unblock request is basically the same arguments and behaviour that got them banned except they're now written in [[Blackletter]]. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 05:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*:To be perfectly fair, the cost-benefit to them of their selected strategy is even more negative than all of that. Because, unless I am forgetting the results of some fairly monumental ArbCom case, the committee does not expressly have the right to overturn a CBAN. Now, on the other hand, this community has been pretty consistent about rubber stamping whatever decision ArbCom makes which grants itself a new institutional power (frankly to a problematic extent, if I am honest). So in that sense, ArbCom can virtually do whatever it wants. But it's not going to break new ground on that issue on these facts, I think we can be fairly confident. {{pb}}So yes, in that sense, all slacker accomplished was to put themselves into even poorer standing with the community. But (and this is intended everyone who has opposed the proposal on the basis that Slacker should not be penalized for an ArbCom case that happened to not be meritorious in anyone's eyes but their own), I don't think anyone is actually arguing for a CBAN on the basis of a frivolous RFAR filing alone. Rather, I believe the concern is with all of the specific behaviours within, and around, and in service of that effort. Afterall, this is a user who, after facing the kind of scrutiny they came under in the above discussions, decided that their best approach immediately after being sanctioned was to do opposition research into the off-project activities of their perceived foes and then try to leverage what they felt they had found against those editors in what was either a blatant violation of [[WP:OUTING]] or a set of spurious [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]. As others have pointed out above, it is either one or the other, and literally can't be neither. Bluntly speaking, there are just layers of incompatibility issues from both [[WP:NOTHERE]] and [[WP:CIR]] at work here. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 07:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*::ArbCom indeed can't overturn CBANs. However - and this is important if Slacker intends to keep trying to work ArbCom - [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Block of Rp2006|they ''can'' take control of an indefinite block and make it an Arbitration siteban]] if a CBAN discussion doesn't result in a consensus to ban. This is all academic in any event because Slacker is, for all intents and purposes, effectively CBANned already as no admin is going to unblock him as long as he continues his threats of doxxing and general harassment of other editors. (And if he wants to try and evade the ban, [[WP:3X|he's just committing to digging himself deeper]].) —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 07:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I supported the TBAN. I also have no ties to the RPG community and am, in fact, generally despised by them due to the multitudinous AfD nominations I've made of game designers. But exercising one's right to appeal is not cause for a CBAN. And the allegation of outing has been explained to my satisfaction by [[User:Daniel|Daniel]]. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 06:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*Yeah, the ArbCom thing was bizarre, but people at ANI do bizarre. And since a sitting arb has confirmed that "The justification proposed of 'outing' is incorrect", this should now be discounted. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 14:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I'm the one that blocked them after their case request (see above) which was labelled a ban appeal but was so obviously not a genuine appeal but an effort to keep arguing about the topic that I wonder if those saying otherwise actually looked at it. All of this should be treated as a topic ban violation, and a ''first'' violation at that, which we normally handle with blocks, not jumping immediately to sitebanning. I agree that they should have the opportunity to demonstrate they can edit constructively in other topics, but first they need to show that they finally will [[WP:STICK|drop this stick]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*:For me it's not so much the tban violation, but what they said at ArbCom: {{tq|most, if not all, of the editors who voted to ban me, have links and ties to the RPG (role playing) community -- a community which has banned Smith and actively harasses him ... I know because I looked them all up (and can provide links)}}. This is a complete falsehood, as it pertains to me, and probably the rest of the editors who participated in the above tban discussion. I don't know Mr. Smith, not have I ever harassed him, and then to say they have evidence in the form of "links" (another falsehood), plus the behavior that got them tbanned, bludgeoning, making false claims about sources, spurious [[WP:COI]] taggings, and spurious [[WP:3RR]] taggings. This doesn't strike me as someone who can contribute constructively, or collaborate with fellow editors, if they are willing to just make shit up when they are involved in a content dispute.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 17:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::This editor edited constructively before this "Zak Smith episode" happened. I don't think an editor should only be judged by their most negative moments. When an editor thinks the problem is righting great wrongs, they become blinded to ordinary rules and policies. Let's wait to see if the fog clears here. And I'm sorry if you feel injured that they made false allegations about editors who sought to block them. I think much of what happened was being "caught up in the moment". If our community thinks they can not make a positive contribution here in the future, I'm sure they will make their voices heard loud and clear. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::We've indeffed for threatened doxxing before as well as actual doxxing that was wide of the mark. It doesn't matter whether or not he has the links he claims to; the fact he is actively accusing these editors of off-wiki harassment of a subject and threatening to provide proof is enough. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 03:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::From what I've seen so far on Wikipedia, the "links" mentioned by the editor was correlating individual editors and their participation editing in RPG articles and RPG WikiProjects. It was nothing that could be considered "outing" or very investigative. For instance, if I was included in this list, it would be a mention of me, Liz, as an editor and information that I edited some RPG articles in some point in my 12 years here. Not very persuasive evidence of a COI, I think. I mean, it's kind of creepy but anyone can review my Contributions right now and assess where I've spent my editing time. It didn't involve off-Wikipedia websites. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just because an editor might have edited a RPG article doesn't automatically mean that editor has {{tq|links and ties to the RPG (role playing) community}} and was involved in actively harassing Mr. Smith, which is what Slacker13 was clearly implying. And then to act like these "links" prove what they are saying, at least in my case, is utterly absurd, which is why I believe they were not acting in good faith when they listed me as a party in their ridiculous report at ArbCom.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 08:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Everyone agrees the “COI” stuff is absurd and ridiculous. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 12:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I certainly did not get the sense from the filing or their other commentary that the digging was confined to Wikipedia, but let's put the outing issue to the side for the moment. There's still just ''so much'' going on here that thwarts any reasonable hope that this user is about to do an about-face and start respecting community behavioural norms such as to make them capable of contributing non-disruptively here. I tend towards the optimistic side on such questions myself (I think there are posts on this very board right now that demonstrate as much), but here we are talking about an editor who, just days ago (and days after their TBAN) was [[User_talk:Slacker13#Some_advice|still demonstrating that in their view, their ideological objectives trump any and all considerations of process or consensus on this project]], and still showing no signs of being able to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]]. {{pb}}And in continuing to advocate for this moral crusade, they once again were pushing blanket accusations against their rhetorical opposition: {{tq|"and as far as the community, if they were neutral parties, I guess I would feel differently -- but most if not all of the people historically editing his page, come from the RPG space where there is a history of harassing the subject."}} And can we take a beat to appreciate just how extreme an example of [[Conspiracy_theory#Rhetoric|conspiratorial thinking]] moon talk these accusations are? If their go-to reaction to opposition to their position is to see a massive on-project conspiracy, that's a fundamental [[WP:CIR]] issue. Nor is their pre-occupation with such accusations as Zak Smith faced a one-off: one of the very few contributions they made this year before prosecuting this push to remove the sexual abuse allegations from the Smith article was engagement on [[Talk:Russell_Brand]] for substantially the same purpose. And there too, they quickly fell into attacking their opposition as a "sockpuppet" created for some sort of secret ulterior motive, despite the fact that said account was older than their own. {{pb}} This is a user who gives every impression of being fundamentally unable to comply with [[WP:FOC]] and [[WP:AGF]], no matter how many times they are explained to them. Anyone who opposes their perspective (at least when it comes ot men accused of sexual abuse) is perceived as, at absolute best, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1308516416&oldid=1308516149 someone who lacks their ethical clarity and is willing to promote harm out of reflexive indifference], or, much more likely, a secret foe of the subject operating in bad faith as part of a clandestine take-down campaign. And it's pretty clear from their response to the community at every stage of the attempted intervention here that the narrow page ban is not going to be sufficient to contain their disruption on the over-arching topic of sexual abuse allegations next time they take an interest in such. {{pb}}Look, I'm very much one for second (and often third, and fourth) chances when we are given indications that the contributor understands where they have departed from this project's basic behavioural expectations and is actively trying to converge their views with said rules. But sometimes you have to call a spade for a spade. And this user clearly just does not get it, and when it comes to the community's concerns, they can only conceive that they have fun afoul of them by positing that they are the victim of a conspiracy rather than considering that any of that criticism is legitimate. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== Arivgao hasn't heard us at all over years of disruptive meatbotting ==
{{atop|result=Editor indeffed from mainspace. [[User:The Corvette ZR1|<b style="color:#ff6600;">'''''The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1'''''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:The Corvette ZR1|<b style="color:#0a0a0a;">''(The Garage)''</b>]]</sup> 17:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Arivgao}}
Wow, I think Avrigao may have the world record for most 4/4im warnings delivered to their talk page without an actual block. They have an unusually high edit count, and seemingly slip from scrutiny each time, all while never having made a single edit in user talk space. It seems almost certain they [[WP:CANTHEARUS]], but if they can, I actually imagine it's most likely that they think the final warnings are odd but ultimately disconnected from their behavior. At least in this most recent era, they do almost nothing but disruptively violate [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] and tendentiously remove every instance onwiki of the phrase "Roman Catholic"—even from direct quotations.{{diffs|1307579561}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:Remsense, you have plastered their User talk page with templates but you don't specify in your complaint what misconduct you are alleging here that needs a response. Please be specific and include diffs, don't just identify an editor as a problem. The one diff you include doesn't warrant sanctions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 17:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::I am not sure what to say, other than I have done these things. I have clearly both made bespoke posts on their talk page trying to make them aware of what specifically they were doing wrong, and I have also clearly laid out here what they are presently doing to be disruptive—with said described behavior comprising nearly 100% of their recent contributions history.
::While I realize my here are sometimes unclear, I am genuinely at a loss as to the particular difficulties we seem to have in communicating about incidents, other than maybe we just have particularly incompatible communication styles. I dislike making reports here at present, because each time I do I manage to frustrate you somehow, though like I said I have tried to learn from previous hiccups and better communicate issues like you would like me to. I want to avoid making your admin work harder and I wish I were better at this, sorry. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 18:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I looked at recent contribs for Arivgao and every one I checked was mostly removing the word 'Roman' from the phrase 'Roman Catholic'. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Likely [[WP:COMMUNICATE]]? Warned for 30 times on the talk page and has not responded to any of them. The only edit in the talkspace is on [[Talk:Taylor Swift]] six years ago. There are 6 notices about using edit summaries and their [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/editsummary/en.wikipedia.org/Arivgao use of edit summary] is basically 0% for the last two years. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 19:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Looks like they were [https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=86120276#Arivgao indef'ed]<sub>[zh]</sub> on zhwiki six months ago for disruptive editing of mass replacing religious terms. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 20:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::On their contribs page, you have to go back almost 100 edits to find one that hasn't been reverted. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 20:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well, [[User:Northern Moonlight]] and [[User:MilesVorkosigan]], thank you for investigating this and providing some information we can use to look into this editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 21:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Liz, I also provided much of the above information in my original post, just articulated in a different way. I really do think it's largely a matter of communication style at this point. I'm not asking you to do anything specific, but if it would make you less frustrated I would be fine if you felt no pressure to engage with reports I file here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Well, that's a surprising comment. The comment that I left at the beginning of this discussion is similar to others I regularly post here because many editors do not include diffs with their original report. It's meant to be a nudge to get more information because other editors on ANI are more likely to respond to the OP if they have adequate details. It was nothing personal. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Editor [[WP:Not here]]...... Impossible for the community to get anything done if they're unwilling to discuss anything with anyone. Overall a net negative if they're unwilling to engage with the community. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 23:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Liz|Liz]] I feel like the issue being discussed between Remsense and you boils down perhaps to having a significant administrative workload and not feeling like there is necessarily enough time to really sit down and do more than skim the report and try to quickly spot the issues. I get that, I spent the last 3 years doing just that, and I really don’t fault you for it. But at the same time, I think that people find it frustrating when they have provided carefully crafted statements detailing the issues only to be told that they are “insufficient.” [[User:Insanityclown1|Insanityclown1]] ([[User talk:Insanityclown1|talk]]) 04:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Liz, perhaps you should reconsider these posts, as many editors have no problem with opening posts like the one in this (or many other) sections and are quite capable (or even prefer) to look for themselves instead of requiring to be spoonfed a truckload of diffs. I also replied to a post you made at the UtherSRG report (03:01, 22 August 2025) which was just unhelpful. In many cases your posts seem to be more bureaucratic red tape and just making it harder for people to make a report and have a meaningful discussion about it. See on this page your stricken post of 18:56, 13 August 2025. Or see your post of 07:59, 23 August 2025, where you demand diffs because, er, the reported editors have very ''few'' edits (to be precise, 7 in total). After which the OP replies by listing all those edits as diffs. What have you achieved here? Just creating more work for others.Or your 02:49, 24 August 2025 comment, where you warn an IP to "I can see you and they have a content dispute, please do not let this veer into edit warring." when the IP opened the ANI report because the other editor was edit warring, and where the IP explicitly stated already that they stopped after one revert. The IP had filed protection requests, and the pages got protected, but your comments were patronizing and besides the point.
:::::::::In the "TheCreatorOne" report on this page, you start of well enough, but then you seem to slide back into the "reply without actually reading the previous posts" routine. You actually linked previously to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Disruptive_nationalistic_editing_by_TheCreatorOne this] complaint about TheCreatorOne, which is about nationalistic POV editing about Albanians and Kosovo, edit warring, and PAs. Other similar previous ANI reports were listed as well. E.g. there was a link to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#TheCreatorOne_edit_warring_on_Nis_page,_breaking_of_1rr_on_that_page this] where you had responded as well, while the opening post of the current section had a paragraph on "In the Niš article, they repeatedly inserted the same contested info, sometimes months apart" (with diffs). And still you then come back with "Are the problems you bring to ANI today similar to these previous reports?"
:::::::::In the 271rpm section, the OP posted a lengthy report with plenty of diffs showing behavioural issues, as indicated by multiple edtablished editors quoted in the report. Your reply? "Looks like a simple content dispute. Why does this need administrator intervention? " Luckily other admins looked at it, and the reported editor was PBlocked.
:::::::::Please reconsider your approach to ANI reports, as way too often it is more distracting, bureaucratic and dismissive than actually helpful. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I hear what you are saying. But often, I'm the only editor or admin who replies to many complaints that get posted here at ANI. I thought a short response was at least an acknowledgment that the complaint had been seen. But if no response would be better than the type of responses I provide, I'll reconsider where I spend my time as an administrator. It would also help if other admins stepped up and we had more admins patrolling and responding on our noticeboards. I'm not trying to deflect criticism of myself, it's just that I often step forward with an incomplete response when I see no respones coming from anyone. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::You shouldn’t have to worry about “deflecting criticism” here, this was 100% a normal admin reply of “okay, diffs?” and “please expand?”
:::::::::::The page instructions are very clear on that. And nobody should be using this report to bring up unrelated complaints. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 03:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Remembering back to when I was a newbie and also when I was helping out at the teahouse, I would absolutely agree that a standard acknowledgement is much much better than no acknowledgement. At the very least, it gives one an admin to ping with questions about how it's going. That would remain the case even if the responding admin would sometimes appear to have missed something already mentioned in the report or ask diffs or details about things one thought one had already made clear. One can take it as a learning experience as long as one has comfort in the knowledge that the issue is being looked at by an admin. Liz has an exceptional demeanor for it as seen in the very threads highlighted by Fram, which is a plus.<br/>But I can also see how that may not be always be appreciated by experienced filers who need and may want no help or courtesy except for the intervention that they're seeking. In those threads, it may be advisable to respond only if you've taken the time to investigate the situation reasonably thoroughly even before you make the first comment. They would know how to proceed if no one does that and their thread remains unanswered, be it adjusting how they craft their report, the evidence they include or a perhaps a change of venue.<span id="Usedtobecool:1756266749678:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]''' [[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 03:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::::::::@[[User:Liz|Liz]], in this case your response came less than 15 minutes after this thread was opened. You could let them wait for a little longer before worrying that no responses are coming from anyone. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 05:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::[[User:Asilvering|asilvering]], message received. But I do wish we'd have more admins showing up here on a daily basis. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:Liz|Liz]] don't we all. Time to get recruiting. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Well, you've done a great job tonight closing discussions, [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]]. It's amazing what can be accomplished in an hour when you set your mind to bringing long-winded discussions to an end. Many thanks! You earned a day off on Sunday. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}Looks like the editor is being disruptive and certainly CANTHEAR, but this might be them improperly implementing [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2025#RfC on dropping preemptive disambiguation|a recent, related RfC]]. I think there's enough to warrant a block to get their attention—especially considering the zhwiki block—but there might be some good faith going on here. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 02:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:A mild trout for Remsense might also be appropriate, with indiscriminate reversions that include edit summaries like {{tq|ffs}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=1307703625]) on reversions of actually wholly productive edits. Obviously, the biggest issue here is we have an editor making mass (no pun intended) changes without communicating. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 02:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::The same seems to be true for Northern Moonlight: unexplained mass reversions that include things like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chile&diff=prev&oldid=1307805389 this], where improper capitalization was restored. It would seem that the vast majority of Avrigao's edits are actually totally fine on this matter. Some aren't perfect or, as reported above, may alter quotes. But the primary issue is their lack of communication, and the immediate move towards mass-reverting their edits seems to have been hasty and counterproductive. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::My apologies for restating the improper capitalization. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 05:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Pbritti}} I think you may be missing the wood for the trees: Arivgao's blanket changes are not "totally fine" on the whole but tendentious, especially when they insist so vehemently on their preferred terminology as to change a quote. The reverts were after multiple attempts to engage them on their talk page, and I've now fixed the capitalisation at [[:Chile]], including in a passage where it had remained untouched as "Roman Catholic church"; someone may have legitimately followed the established usage on the page. At [[:Religion in Germany]], I initially deferred to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=1307857188 your preference] for [[Latin Church]] as more correct, but to a non-expert in Catholic internal politics it reads like a euphemism, and after looking into where that link goes, I can't see the justification for that level of precision and disagree that Arivgao's change was "wholly productive". [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I quite clearly stated that there was an issue with the editor's lack of communication despite objections, but imprecise mass reversion is a solution generally reserved for edits by banned editors. Use of ''[[Latin Church]]''—which, when called by the common nickname of the ''Roman Catholic Church'', is often conflated with the body as a whole—has been discussed at length. As for claiming that term ''Catholic Church'' is a neutrality issue, that's a content discussion that does not align with longstanding consensus. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:The RFC was to remove the term "Roman Catholic" from a small number of article titles, if their implementation is to remove it indiscriminately from article prose (including quotes) then that is a CIR issue, to be frank. Their mass changes are a [[WP:FAIT]] issue. [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] [[User talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|<span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#fff">talk</span>]] 09:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I've indeffed them from mainspace until they begin to communicate and respond to the issues raised with their editing. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 11:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== User:GoddessWrath ==
{{atopr|1=TPA revoked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 17:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)}}
{{atop|1=Indef'd. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|GoddessWrath}}
Continuous edit warring at [[Dmitri Shostakovich]], [[Fyodor Dostoevsky]] and [[Leo Tolstoy]] relating to whether to include "Russia" or "Russian Empire" in the infobox, followed by numerous personal attacks. At [[Talk:Dmitry Shostakovich]], they made multiple false accusations of vandalism, for example: {{tq|you Magnus and your minion Nikkimania are vandalising the article}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dmitri_Shostakovich&diff=prev&oldid=1307197165] Now they've left this comment at [[Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky]] and the other talk pages (under the heading "More vandals joining in and vandalising the article"): {{tq|Only complete morons fail to comprehend this simple fact}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fyodor_Dostoevsky&diff=prev&oldid=1307851928][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dmitri_Shostakovich&diff=prev&oldid=1307852860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leo_Tolstoy&diff=prev&oldid=1307852248]
I recently gave them a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307274636 warning] for personal attacks and another editor left a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307789190 comment] on their talk page asking them to not make false accusations of vandalism. They now decided to remove the warnings on their talk page with edit summaries like: {{tq|Removed vandalism by User:Remsense}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307850762] {{tq|removed bullshit}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307850958] and {{tq|Removed further bullshit by vandals}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307851051] [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 07:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I see that their last 17 edits include a personal attack. Either in the summary or the actual edit. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (solidly non-human), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 17:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307853193]: [[WP:TPO|Inappropriate editing]] of other editor's message. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 17:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::Well, it's not exactly [[WP:COMMUNICATE]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 18:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
'''Blocked'''. Sometimes we seem to have infinite patience with users whose persistent attacks, aspersions and insults suck all the oxygen out of the room, making them a net negative. I've indeffed. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 19:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC).
{{abot}}
:Due to their inability to be civil after being blocked and insulting another two editors, Bishonen and S1mply.Dogmom, I removed their talk page access. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (#1 deranged ****head), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 20:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Poonam Singar ==
{{atop|result=Editor has been indefinitely blocked on username grounds. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|Poonam sengar}}, the user who keeps "spamming" about "wrong information" in the article {{Pagelinks|Poonam Singar}}. The article in question has been protected since November 2024. They even used [[Talk:Poonam Singar|its talk page]] for a malicious edit request and using them for soapboxing after being given 4 warnings. I've tried notifying a few times. [[User:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|CreatorTheWikipedian2009]] ([[User talk:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|talk]]) 12:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:They should have been blocked outright for blatantly violating username and COI. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 13:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::Now this user continues claiming that they're the public figure. Diff for that: {{diff|User_talk:Poonam sengar|1308264345|1308264345}} [[User:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|CreatorTheWikipedian2009]] ([[User talk:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|talk]]) 13:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::We have [[WP:BLPEDIT]] which provides some guidance; after all they might actually be the subject of the article. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 14:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::They're saying to "delete info about them". Is that normal? [[User:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|CreatorTheWikipedian2009]] ([[User talk:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|talk]]) 15:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's not uncommon. Some people don't want articles about them, especially when they can't control the content. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|<span style="color: darkred;">Ravensfire</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 15:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::They say career starts 1998year I m born 1990 hv submit my government id to Wikipedia wat proof they want [[User:Poonam sengar|Poonam sengar]] ([[User talk:Poonam sengar|talk]]) 17:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::The information you're looking for is at [[WP:BLPCOMPLAIN]]
::::::Thank you for trying to keep the encyclopedia accurate. [[User:Augmented Seventh|<span style="font-family:Curlz MT; color:#0F6 ;text-shadow:blue 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em;">''Augmented Seventh''</span>]] 17:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Pls help [[User:Poonam sengar|Poonam sengar]] ([[User talk:Poonam sengar|talk]]) 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Excuse me, what did you mean by "hv submit my government id to Wikipedia"? Please don't do that, as uploads and edits are public. [[User:Padgriffin|<span class="mw-no-invert" style="color:#CBB08E">Padgriffin</span>]] [[User Talk:Padgriffin|<sup><span class="mw-no-invert" style='color:#FCD200'>Griffin's Nest</span></sup>]] 19:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I have the impression we are talking about different people here; even the names aren't completely identical, but that might be a transcription problem. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8109:9C99:B600:E936:8412:212E:C880|2A02:8109:9C99:B600:E936:8412:212E:C880]] ([[User talk:2A02:8109:9C99:B600:E936:8412:212E:C880#top|talk]]) 18:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I have soft blocked them for the username violations.
:I feel like we have a language issue here compounding the COI issues and would prefer not to hard block although I will if I have to. @[[User:Poonam sengar|Poonam sengar]], Wikipedia does not rely on what an editor says about themselves or what document they provide. We need independent reliable sources. If you are Singar or someone who works with them, please use [[WP:Edit requests]] on the Talk page for content changes you'd like to see. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 19:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Concerning edits ==
{{atop|result=If there was a problem that needed addressing, it's no longer present. If you are thinking of posting here in the future, ask yourself, is this problem "ANI-worthy"? If you have doubts, consider approaching the editor one-on-one instead. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|Sikhpride38}}
The user (the POV name may also be noted), with very few edits to note, suddenly appeared after years of inactivity at the AfD for a racial slur. Then proceeded to repeatedly revert the standard-SPA 'very few edits' tag. If this didn't ring enough alarm bells, the user then proceeded to repeatedly add in a clearly POV way racist tropes [at the article under AfD]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308378973]/[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308382580]/[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308386985].
From the looks of it, this is clearly not a new user [already quite familiar with AfDs, SPAs and COI]. That such behaviour has been engaged in raises serious sanctionable concerns. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 05:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Why should I not remove the SPA tag when it was incorrectly smeared along my comment? I haven't said anything shocking since nearly everyone there is opposing your bad nomination. :I have already described 2 times even on talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308392722] that the summary is supported by the source, yet you are still alleging me of COI when there is none. [[User:Sikhpride38|Sikhpride38]] ([[User talk:Sikhpride38|talk]]) 06:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:This is not a legitimate noticeboard discussion. What [[User:Sikhpride38|Sikhpride38]] did is fully within the bounds of Wikipedia and is generally good behavior. The added sourced information is not at all derogatory or racist in any way and merely explains the slur and its stereotype, in a neutral manner, which is helpful information. I would even argue it is against such racism given the source [[User:EarthDude|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkviolet">'''EarthDude'''</span>]] ([[User talk:EarthDude|<span style="Color: cyan">''wanna''</span> <span style="Color: green">''talk?''</span>]]) 06:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|EarthDude}} If you are [[Wikipedia:Hounding|hounding]] me around, I would suggest you drip the schtick quickly. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 13:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::First you made false allegations of COI and now you are making false allegations of Wikihounding. Obviously Earthdude is not wikihounding you since he has edited this noticeboard before, right getting reported by you weeks ago.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1302548364] <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-size:100; style=color:blue"> '''THEZDRX'''</span> <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:92; style=color:black"><sub>([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | </sub></span><sub>([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]])</sub> 14:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::A perfectly legitimate report, with the policy vios noted by different admins. As for hounding, that the user popped up at different enwiki spaces right after I had made edits there is telling in and of itself: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Firstpost&diff=prev&oldid=1308209098], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Firstpost&diff=prev&oldid=1308385856], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308386138]. So spare me if I do not assume good faith with these.
::::"False" is quite a statement to use to defend the clearly unjustified behaviour of Sikhpride38 (and the same goes here). I have clarified my usage of the jargon above, though I would never know why such a defence of clear SPAs is being made here. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 15:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::At this point you are simply trying to derail this thread to distract away from the scrutiny of your own edits and false accusations while trying to blame someone else, your accusations of hounding falls flat when that discussion of Firstpost was advertised on [[WT:INB]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&oldid=1308389571#Firstpost] and AfD was a public discussion with everyone commenting there for the first time. Despite facing the scrutiny here you are still doubling down on your false characterization of an editor editing a number of topics as SPA. You are not doing any favor for yourself. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-size:100; style=color:blue"> '''THEZDRX'''</span> <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:92; style=color:black"><sub>([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | </sub></span><sub>([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]])</sub> 15:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Let's clear some air about the SPA. A "number of topics" were barely some edits here and there with dormancy following the immediate springing up at a contentious topic and contentious edits. If you particularly cannot see this questionable behaviour, I cannot help you.
::::::"Derailing", "false" and "distract" are quite a stretch, I noted my single-line objection to EarthDude's springing up at disparate forums to direct aspersions, immediately after I had opened those threads and I stand by what I perceived these to be. If there has been anything egregious here I will let the admins decide that. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 16:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*I'm not seeing concerning behaviour here, the content they added appears is backed by the source. After being reverted, they have proposed a new wording at the talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308392722] which looks neutral. Removing SPA notice is not wrong because they are not a single purpose account as they have edited over the years over multiple topics such as history, linguistics and pop music.
I do find OPs bludgeoning of the AfD along with inaccurate aspersions of COI quite concerning[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308384534]. They were apparently already called out for their misrepresentation of [[WP:COI]] but they are still misusing this term while not even elaborating on what COI is even present here. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-size:100; style=color:blue"> '''THEZDRX'''</span> <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:92; style=color:black"><sub>([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | </sub></span><sub>([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]])</sub> 06:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Do editors ever read P&G before citing them, a single revert and comment noting that a newbie editor has repeatedly removed tags (added by other uninvolved editors) is apparently bludgeoning. "They were apparently already called out for their misrepresentation of WP:COI but they are still misusing this term while not even elaborating on what COI is even present here." Called out by by whom or for what exactly, as this never happened. COI is when an editor themselves proceeds to remove SPA tags for them added by other users, this should never be done.
:The source that has been used directly challenges the racism that was dumped into the article, the supposed proposal at the Talk page is no better. To selectively pick out a source to only add negative racist tropes is quite something. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 06:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::No comment on whether the bludgeoning accusation is fair but by my count you've replied 6 times in that AfD so it seems way more than a "Single revert and comment noting that...". I did not count your opening statement in support of the AfD nor your reply to someone asking you to stop bludgeoning. I don't think removing the SPA tags was right assuming they're justified but I don't understand the CoI accusation at all. This is a very weird subject for someone to have a CoI. I guess someone who was involved in creating the original meme would have a CoI and maybe those who have written about it, but who else would have a CoI and why do you think that this applies to anyone involved? [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Most of the replies [largely clarifying sourcing] are unrelated to the SPA tag removals which was seemingly being portrayed above as the entirety of them. COI may not be the perfect term as what I meant was that it is unethical to repeatedly remove SPA tags applied to an editor by the editor themselves i.e. where one is involved is the subject of dispute in the first place. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 11:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::There is nothing in THEZDRX's statement that suggests their bludgeoning concerns related to SPA tag removals. They just called out what they perceived as bludgeoning point blank. I don't see how an editor can "repeatedly remove SPA tags applied to an editor by the editor themselves". They can only do it once unless someone else is edit warring to add them back which is equally problematic. Also per [[WP:Aspersions]] words do matter. Do not accuse an editor of having a CoI unless you have reasons to think they have one as falsely accusing an editor of having a CoI when they don't have one is a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]. If you don't know what to call something then just avoid calling it anything and describe it. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Having looked into this more, I don't know why people were to desperate to keep the {{tl|spa}} template when it only seems to have been applied to a single editor and the template documentation itself says "{{tqi|Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sockpuppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead.}}" I appreciate that the article has a history of socking and another editor has just been blocked over their editing on it, but for the AfD there's currently only seems to be one editor who could be considered a SPA. I don't know how Sikhpride38 found the AfD but so far no one else seems to have came to it. If there is evidence Sikhpride38 may be a sock, that would nee to be presented at [[WP:SPI]] otherwise unless a bunch of other new editors show up, seems it was always best just to leave it be and especially once the template was objected to even if just by the editor it was applied to. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I reealize that my colloquial use of wiki jargon (COI) was not apt and lead to confusion, apologize for that. The main point of concern was the involved removal of tags, which were added by different users probably due to similar concerns. While I am confident this is not a new user, the concern that was sought to be highlighted here was not one of socking but of editorial behaviour as a whole including POV ones at as serious a topic as racial slurs. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 13:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
*A user with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sikhpride38 23 overall edits, 11/23 of which] are limited to an article (and its AfD and TP) with a persistent [[WP:SOCK|socking]] problem. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308361432 8th edit overall, first since July 2022] is to vote in an [[WP:AfD]] discussion about said article with persistent socking and sock-restoration issues. Removes [[WP:SPA]] tag added by (two) different uninvolved editors ''twice'' ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308364775], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308372882]). --[[User:UnpetitproleX|UnpetitproleX]] ([[User talk:UnpetitproleX|talk]]) 16:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I've looked into the situation a bit, and it seems the slur was reappropriated by [[Caste|South Asian social groups]] for use against each other. This is probably why we have so many trolls ([[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgelovespoopiedoopie]]) and sockpuppets attempting to push a specific POV (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308408886], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1308419648], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1307912704], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1307682847], etc.) The [[:wikt:pajeet|Wiktionary entry for "pajeet"]] had to be protected so that only autopatrolled users can edit it, and if kept, we should ECP the article under [[WP:CT/SA]] to slow down disruption. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 17:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Param Sundari: Removing WP: ICTF approved reviews and summary based on them ==
{{atop|result=It looks like this has been moved over to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User khogen2410i nvolved in Edit warring (Result: Page protected)]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi Admins
Diff pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308446946&oldid=1308444415
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308440403&oldid=1308425273
Talk page link: [[Talk:Param Sundari (film)]]
User @[[User:Khogen2410|Khogen2410]] has been removing my WP: ICTF approved review entries.
He has deleted my entries from Deccan Herald, Amar Ujala (2x) without giving any good reason at all
He has also removed the summary change from Mixed -> Mixed to negative (2x) based on the reviews in the page without giving any good reason
I have also put topic entries in the talk page as a courtesy (which I really needn't have since my entries were from WP: ICTF approved sources) and tagged him.
But he has not replied there and deleted my edits giving no reason after I asked to discuss in talk page.
Request you to warn him for Edit warring and restore my changes
Regards
Computeracct [[User:Computeracct|Computeracct]] ([[User talk:Computeracct|talk]]) 14:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks for taking at this @[[User:Liz|Liz]] and putting a note on @[[User:Khogen2410|Khogen2410]] 's talk page.
:Your note there was at 18:04 PM GMT, 29th Aug
:After this and at 18:44 PM GMT, @[[User:Khogen2410|Khogen2410]] has deleted another review I added, this one from Outlook India, which is a reliable source as per ICTF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308480773&oldid=1308470966
No note in the revert. No reason given.
[[User:Computeracct|Computeracct]] ([[User talk:Computeracct|talk]]) 19:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::First, I'm not sure what "urgent, intractable behavioral problem" is that you have brought to ANI to discuss. Secondly, what resolution are you seeking to whatever problem is that you are describing? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::# Problem: My perfectly valid wiki entries sourced from WP: ICTF approved sources have reverted or deleted by @[[User:Khogen2410|Khogen2410]] in [[Param Sundari (film)]] page multiple times as I mentioned above. No reason given. No reply in talk page either. This is edit warring. WP:EDITWAR
:::# Resolution requested: Warning to @[[User:Khogen2410|Khogen2410]] for edit warring and ensure he/she acknowledges. Else request to temp ban him/her for edit warring.
:::[[User:Computeracct|Computeracct]] ([[User talk:Computeracct|talk]]) 01:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::[[WP:ANEW]] then if they violated [[WP:3RR]] [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 04:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. I put the entry over there. [[User:Computeracct|Computeracct]] ([[User talk:Computeracct|talk]]) 17:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Dahawk04 and undisclosed AI use ==
{{atop
| status = enough
| result = Dahawk04 has been pblocked from mainspace. We're done here. [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{Userlinks|Dahawk04}}
After posting [[Talk:Annunciation Catholic Church shooting#Dahawk04's edits]] regarding an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annunciation_Catholic_Church_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1308437331 out-of-the blue, unnecessary, and bad total rewrite with a misleading edit summary] (the user asked the chatbot to "update" content and the chatbot came up with totally rearranged text, for the worse), I have investigated the matter further and have determined that Dahawk04 is an AI-using editor who evades scrutiny by quickly manually archiving messages on their talk page, which they began doing after an earlier concern regarding LLL misuse seen in [[Special:PermanentLink/1298633346#AI/LLM Usage in edits & contributions?]]. Hallucinated references also seen in [[Special:PermanentLink/1295241064]] (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/us/politics/california-lawsuit-troops.html, https://www.courthousenews.com/2025/06/12/california-tro-hearing.htm, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68574831/1/newsom-v-trump/, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68574831/2/newsom-v-trump/). [[WP:AITALK]] evident in [[Special:PermanentLink/1300455763#User conduct report: User:Some1]]. Dahawk04 should commit to stop using AI for article content and in discussions for the time being, as they lack experience to use AI effectively for these purposes. Ping earlier concerned editors to help with this report as they are familiar with the problem, and I'm on the move and my editing capacity is very low: {{ping|Boud|EEng}} thanks. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Yup, I noticed he knows too much about Wikipedia for a newbie, and writes too professionally. See [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive_109#The Philosophy of Freedom]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 16:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::When [[User:Irruptive Creditor]] noticed the problem with Dahawk04's [[WP:AIFAIL]] content and reverted, Dahawk04 reported him for edit warring [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive496#User:Irruptive Creditor reported by User:Dahawk04 (Result: )]]. In their replies Dahawk04 manifested [[WP:MARKDOWN]] mixed with wikitext and [[WP:AICURLY]], signs of AI use and in combination near-irrefutable proof of AI use. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::So, what bothered me wasn't that he was wrong (he wasn't wrong), but he was right about a complicated issue much too soon for a newbie. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Can you see what a strange comment that is? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 17:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Search all pages for "learned so quickly". You will see some precedents for my point. It's a perennial trope at en.wiki. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{talk quote|How is it possible that a newbie, with only 23 edits, knows about [[WP:BIASED]], [[WP:OWNERSHIP]], and [[WP:CON]]? And why do we have ''again'' this discussion about the hustorical reliability of the gospels? Maybe [[WP:DENY]] applies here? [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 05:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)}}
:::::{{talk quote|While I think people do throw this accusation around often and it is undoubtedly true in some cases, I doubt it is here. '''[[User:Malinaccier|<span style="color:#003153">Malinaccier</span>]] ([[User talk:Malinaccier|<span style="color:#003153">talk</span>]])''' 19:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::Quoted by [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::So tropes equate to guilt? <span style="background:#39FF14;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Dahawk04</b>]]</span> <span style="background:#1F51FF;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User talk:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Talk 💬</b>]]</span> 18:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Your guilt has already been proven through the evieence in my report. It is time to show remorse and make the needed commitments and assurances. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 18:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::To tell is as it is: I never trust editors who write ''too'' professionally inside talk pages. It's a telltale sign that something is wrong.
:::::::As in: you're talking to normal people, not writing your PhD thesis. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 18:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::https://qr.ae/pC1n7Y [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 19:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::How is this wrong in any way? There is literally an admin on that thread that takes my side and says I did nothing wrong. You are grasping at straws there. <span style="background:#39FF14;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Dahawk04</b>]]</span> <span style="background:#1F51FF;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User talk:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Talk 💬</b>]]</span> 17:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:1. "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages
:2. Picking an article that was edited in June is quite a stretch considering I have made a lot of edits since then. Sure, in the past I may have made mistakes editing articles but that hasn't been in an issue in quite some time.
:3. The fact that you didn't agree with my proposed edit doesn't mean that it was Ai generated at all. I edited the section in a way I thought made sense. Wikipedia is a democracy and I respected your change. Nothing in that edit was hallucinated or incorrect.
:4. You already created a talk page comment about this and gave no chance for me to reply before creating a noticeboard complaint which seems like overkill to me.
:5. I've created a bunch of articles since the Newsom V Trump that you are citing that have obtained a B class rating with no complaints about hallucination or AI generation.
:6. I actually created a script to help detect broken links on articles not including my own which suggests the correct link if they are broken. Feel free to have a look here https://www.codebin.cc/code/cmex39y7y0001ld0310doh5c9:3Lf3n9Xcy2yN4STDK7Qy57fXKi2DNK9JGZE3iunKz859 <span style="background:#39FF14;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Dahawk04</b>]]</span> <span style="background:#1F51FF;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User talk:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Talk 💬</b>]]</span> 17:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry, but you said {{tq|Wikipedia is a democracy}} which is just objectively not true. See [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]]. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 17:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I think you're missing the bigger picture of what I was saying. I thought the edit was better and they didn't - that doesn't make anyone objectively wrong. <span style="background:#39FF14;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Dahawk04</b>]]</span> <span style="background:#1F51FF;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User talk:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Talk 💬</b>]]</span> 17:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Generating AI slop and using hallucinated news sources is the problem here. It's wasting a lot of people's time, maybe respect that? [[Special:Contributions/172.58.12.249|172.58.12.249]] ([[User talk:172.58.12.249|talk]]) 23:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::You are misusing LLMs and are evading scrutiny. When Irruptive Creditor noted your non-policy-compliant unreviewed AI-assisted edits (see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive496#User:Irruptive Creditor reported by User:Dahawk04 (Result: )|diffs you posted yourself]]), you started this nonsense report against him to defend your AI editing and you used AI-generated slop to further your case: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive496#User:Irruptive Creditor reported by User:Dahawk04 (Result: )]]. Administrators failed to intervene and block you until there is reason to start believing that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Alternatively, you could commit to stop using AI for article content and in discussions for the time being, as you lack experience to use AI effectively for these purposes. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 17:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Again, that was two months ago. I am not evading anything and the suggestion otherwise is false. If I was, I probably would delete user page comments and not archive them making them easier to find. <span style="background:#39FF14;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Dahawk04</b>]]</span> <span style="background:#1F51FF;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User talk:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Talk 💬</b>]]</span> 17:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLUDGEON&redirect=no WP:BLUDGEON] <span style="background:#39FF14;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Dahawk04</b>]]</span> <span style="background:#1F51FF;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User talk:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Talk 💬</b>]]</span> 17:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You haven't admitted to misusing AI yet. Your AI misuse has been proven. Now is the time to commit not to use AI in articles and on talk pages. If you cannot do that, you should be indeffed. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 18:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Dahawk04 also created an [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1194#User_conduct_report:_User:Some1|ANI report against me using an AI chatbot]] (and by the way, that AI-generated "Summary" is riddled with errors, which shows you how much thought went into that "report"), and their claim that {{tqq|none of [their] comments have been AI-generated}} received pushback from multiple experienced editors. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 17:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, as I said above I have made mistakes in the past, but have not done anything wrong recently as this evidence by my talk page. I actually received a thank you for one of my edits on the page that the poster of this is actually complaining about. <span style="background:#39FF14;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Dahawk04</b>]]</span> <span style="background:#1F51FF;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User talk:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Talk 💬</b>]]</span> 17:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Well [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annunciation_Catholic_Church_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1308437331] was <del>less than</del> <ins>just over</ins> 24 hours ago so whatever you mean by not "recently" it's unlikely it's one the community shares. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC) <ins>18:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)</ins>
::::And can you point to what was violated by rephrasing something? I’m done commenting in this thread. So far it’s seems that I am being accused of knowing too much when I correctly rejected an edit request and rephrasing something which upset someone. I admitted and apologized for things in the past and if there’s a desire to rehash that it’s not one I share. If there’s something sanctionable that I did here I’m happy to respond to an admin otherwise I’m not sure what this is about besides bludgeoning <span style="background:#39FF14;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Dahawk04</b>]]</span> <span style="background:#1F51FF;padding:4px;border-radius:.3em;">[[User talk:Dahawk04|<b style="color:#fff">Talk 💬</b>]]</span> 19:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::You're hellbent on misusing AI, are not editing responsibly, you do not want to come clean, and want to keep using AI without any consequences, you are not responding to editors' concerns on your talk page and are evading scrutiny: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dahawk04&diff=prev&oldid=1300381511 You were again warned about AI and removed the message without acknowledging the problem]—you should be blocked. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLUDGEON&redirect=no WP:BLUDGEON] [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 21:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::[[WP:BLUDGEON]] does not mean what you think it means. They're trying to converse with you, not disrupt the discussion with repetitive or unrelated comments. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 21:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Agree. At 19:17, very slick-written answer, but very much not to the point. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 22:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I truly don’t see how their comment was at all conversational and not repetitive of their own previous points. [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 22:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Some people are trying to tell you something, and it seems that you cannot understand what they're telling you.
:::::::::You got the benefit of doubt several times. This time [[denialism]] means the end of your editing. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 22:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:This report is a clusterfuck. Everyone is competing for who can [[Gish gallop]] faster into irrelevant shit (excuse my language, I don't want to look like I'm talking too ''professionally'') or be more dismissive of everyone else. Nothing productive is being accomplished.
:However, there is an actual complaint here, which is AI use, whether it happened, and why. Rather than the copyedit -- which honestly is pretty weaksauce as something to complain about -- the more pertinent issue is the news articles that don't appear to exist. For example, the New York Times article mentioned above does not exist. The URL does not lead anywhere, and the supposed author, Matt Stevens, [https://www.nytimes.com/by/matt-stevens#latest has not written anything about this topic]. The Court Listener link is also broken, and docket number 68574831 -- the number from the URL -- appears to be something [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68574831/newsom-v-trump/ entirely unrelated].
:Given that (oh fuck oh fuck am I writing too professionally): Dahawk, where did those URLs come from? Did you use any kind of writing or citation formatting tool? [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 23:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::Writing too professionally is a ''hunch'' about [[WP:LLM]]. If I already had evidence then, I would have presented it. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 23:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Hunch or not, bringing it up is just going to derail the whole thread into what is and is not a believable amount of knowledge or professionalism, until everyone is debating what [[WP:BLUDGEON]] means instead of addressing the complaint.
:::Anyway, back to the links. I took a look at that Python script mentioned above, but it's just a SerpAPI integration for Google search so it wouldn't turn up links that flat-out don't exist. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 23:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::I’m lost here a little bit. Are you asking about links in [[Annunciation Catholic Church shooting]]? That’s what the complaint was about. [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 00:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Not the original poster, but this isn't really about one specific edit so much as a pattern across edits. But what I'm referring to here are the various references you've added to articles to sources that don't seem to exist -- for example, the New York Times and Court Listener references added [[Special:Diff/1295241064|here]]. Where did those links come from? Were you looking at something else, or did you use some sort of tool to come up with the URLs? [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 00:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Honestly I don’t remember. It was back in June and I don’t remember what I was doing when I edited it. I know I created several pages recently that were reviewed and rated B class. I don’t think there’s a pattern of anything. If the links in the Newsom article were wrong I apologize but I truly don’t remember what I was looking at 3 months ago when I edited it. [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 00:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Cool, and do you remember what you were doing [[Special:PermanentLink/1307467165|on 23 August (permalink)]], when you added the hallucinated reference #27 (<code><nowiki><ref>{{cite news |title=Partners moves 4,200 workers to Somerville |url=https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/12/09/partners-healthcare-moves-thousands-of-employees-to-somerville/ |work=Boston.com |date=December 9, 2016 |access-date=21 August 2025}}</ref></nowiki></code>) -- https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/12/09/partners-healthcare-moves-thousands-of-employees-to-somerville/? That was a bit less than 7 days ago.{{pb}}Or maybe you remember what you were doing [[Special:PermanentLink/1306591625|on 18 August (permalink)]], when you added the hallucinated reference #81 (<code><nowiki><ref>{{cite journal |last=Shanmugarajah |first=Karthik |title=Kidney Xenotransplantation in Two Living Recipients |journal=The New England Journal of Medicine |date=2025-05-16 |doi=10.1056/NEJMoa2502791 |url=https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2502791 |access-date=18 August 2025}}</ref></nowiki></code>) -- https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2502791 (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kidney+Xenotransplantation+in+Two+Living+Recipients%22) ... but maybe that was too long ago for you.{{pb}}You have wasted a lot of my and other editors' time. Ask your chatbot what follows. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 01:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::The correct link for the Boston.com article is https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/07/14/partners-healthcare-settling-new-somerville-home/ and the kidney one is https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39794882/ the incorrect citation was for another report titled Kidney Xenotransplantation in Two Living Recipients with the wrong link. The Boston.com link was old and I believe was changed but I could be wrong. If two references being wrong is the worst I did so be it. The content surrounding them was correct and easily fixable. [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 01:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You were lying that you did not remember what happened in June, because for the past several months you have consistently been editing in the same way, exhibiting the same pattern of malformed citations through LLM hallucination, just like you lied to Boud in July, in [[Special:PermanentLink/1298633346#AI/LLM Usage in edits & contributions?]] when you said that you inputted:{{blist|https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/Situation-of-HR-Ukraine-2022-03-26<br />as a "placeholder" for https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/HRMMU_Update_2022-03-26_EN.pdf|https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/Report-40<br />as a "placeholder" for https://ukraine.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/2024-10-01%20OHCHR%2040th%20periodic%20report%20on%20Ukraine.pdf|https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/Report-41<br />as a "placeholder" for https://ukraine.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/2024-12-31%20OHCHR%2041st%20periodic%20report%20on%20Ukraine.pdf|https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/children-rights-2024<br />as a "placeholder" for https://ukraine.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/2025-03-21%20OHCHR%20Report%20on%20Children%27s%20Rights%20in%20Ukraine.pdf|https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/Occupied-Territory-Report-2024<br />as a "placeholder" for https://ukraine.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/2024-03-20%20OHCHR%20Report%20on%20Occupation%20and%20Aftermath_EN.pdf}}
:::::::Are you now going to say that https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/12/09/partners-healthcare-moves-thousands-of-employees-to-somerville/ is a placeholder for https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/07/14/partners-healthcare-settling-new-somerville-home/, just like you said in that discussion?
:::::::The problem is not the two links being wrong, the problem is your systematic dishonesty and your misuse of AI. For being faced with concerns about it multiple times (for example, [[Special:Diff/1294584421|on 8 June 2025]]) and refusing, multiple times, to explain the cause of the problem with your editing, for refusing to be honest about the AI use, and for failing to commit to stop using AI for article content and in discussions for the time being, because you lack experience to use AI effectively for these purposes, you're going to get blocked. You are willing to fight to the end and get blocked, instead of adjusting. That shows that if you cannot edit in the exact way in which you want to edit, you would rather be blocked. This is characteristic of people who are [[WP:NOTHERE|not being here to build an encyclopedia]]. If you had actually cared about the encyclopedia you would have started showing signs of adjustment by now. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 02:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You want to cherry pick examples that fit your case which is understandable. Why didn’t you include [[2025 Fall River assisted-living fire]] which I wrote and has great sourcing? If I wasn’t here to build an encyclopedia I wouldn’t have written that article myself. I didn’t say I was perfect and haven’t made mistakes but have worked to create articles that are accurate and detailed. [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 02:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Great, are you going to admit now, and to apologize for the dishonesty?{{pb}}Edit: By the way, that article which you mention also has a broken link degraded by hallucination: I am sure that you do not remember what you were doing [[Special:PermanentLink/1301203270|on 18 July (permalink)]], when you added the hallucinated reference #19 (<code><nowiki><ref name="B25Kickback">{{cite news |title=25 Investigates: Gabriel House owner paid $950k settlement to state over kickback allegations |url=https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME/ |work=Boston 25 News |date=July 14, 2025 |access-date=July 18, 2025}}</ref></nowiki></code>) -- https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME (an LLM-entropy-degraded version of the functional link https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME){{pb}}Are you now going to say that https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME was a placeholder for https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME, just like you said in that discussion?—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 02:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I’m going to say that the link was changed to move under /25-investigates. I don’t really see how that’s even a hallucination the link literally just moved one directory. Lmao [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 03:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that the address changed. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 03:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Also you could note that’s 1 of 58 links [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 03:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Based on your userpage and the above evidence, I'm convinced you're using a large language model to write some, if not all, articles. Please be honest. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 03:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It would have been a [[HTTP 301]] to the functioning link, not a 404, and the page was already at the functioning link as opposed to your non-functioning link on 16 July ([https://web.archive.org/web/20250716213751/https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME/ proof]), two days prior to your adding your non-functioning and obviously hallucination-degraded link [[Special:Diff/1301203270|on July 18]]. Now is the time to admit and to apologize for the dishonesty. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 03:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Maybe ''he'' does not use a LLM. Meaning that somebody else does, and he copy/pastes their text. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 03:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yeah I was dishonest when I correctly added fifty three links and one of them missed a sub folder in the link but had the exact right title and publication date. If you want to say that was hallucinated go ahead. The other 53 links probably would have been too but that doesn’t matter if one link was changed I suppose. [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 03:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Apples and oranges: the text to be verified wasn't a hallucination, but the link was. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 03:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Thanks for being honest. Why are you using LLMs when you're clearly asked not to? [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 03:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::E.g. [[User:RiverstoneScholar/sandbox]]: initially, the bot got the facts right, but hallucinated the sources. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 03:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Sorry to keep going back to the New York Times article, but it's the clearest example. If the New York Times didn't write any article like that on that date, and the author in the ref also didn't write any article like that, then where did it come from? This isn't a matter of the link rotting or the headline changing, it's that the article you cited literally does not seem to exist in the world. So I guess what I'm stuck on is, how did you end up mentioning a nonexistent article? Are you writing the text yourself and then using a tool to search for citations for it? Did the link come with the text? Even if you don't remember exactly what you did in June I would assume you'd remember totally changing up how you write articles.
:::::::::::::As far as "only one link was hallucinated" -- unfortunately, this is the kind of thing where one fake source is one too many. It also raises questions about the rest of the citations, because someone reading the sources would have spotted that one of them was fake immediately. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 03:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*Given the obvious hallucinated references in pages created/edited by the user, and the continued [[WP:IDHT]]/[[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]] about the use of LLMs, I've pblocked Dahawk04 from articlespace indefintely. If and when this is resolved to the community's satisfaction, anyone can remove the pblock. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I don’t see how that is reasonable solely because out of 2 articles 1% of sources had an issue. I’m not sure what the “community” is looking for. I am happy to be more thorough with checking the sources and using this draft space before publishing. I’ve focused on the quality of the content which has been accurate and not disputed. Again, I am happy to be more thorough and rigorous when checking the sources. [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 11:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*::In the past I did use LLMs which resulted in hallucinations of totally made up citations. That was pointed out and I stopped using it for that purpose. The two links in the MGB article and the link in the Fall River Fire article weren't hallucinated at all - they just had the wrong link. I can't prove that I didn't use LLM's for those articles because well there isn't anything I can show you. A link missing /25-investigates isn't something a hallucination would do while getting everything else right. If you want to judge when I started editing sure there's plenty of mistakes - but I think think there has been a lot of improvement. [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 11:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::If you want me to sit here and say the MGB and Fire articles were LLM hallucinations I won’t because they’re not and that’s not stonewalling I’m just not going to lie. I’ve already acknowledged I made mistakes in the past but I don’t think it’s fair to say I am stonewalling because I won’t lie. I went through Wikipedia commons myself to find photos for the MGB article. I can show you my web history if that would appease you. It probably would have been easier to use an LLM to find them but I didn’t. [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 12:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::And saying I was guilty for knowing rules that I shouldn’t have because I was “new” [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 109#The Philosophy of Freedom]] is dubious. Because someone took the time to read the rules and understand them before responding to comments is somehow attributable to guilt even when I asked and admin to review. If I was doing something fishy I probably wouldn’t have tagged an admin. Not sure how I can dispute being guilty of a “trope” without “stonewalling”. [[User:Dahawk04|Dahawk04]] ([[User talk:Dahawk04|talk]]) 13:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::For what it's worth I think people are hyper-focusing on the Boston 25 thing, it's a month old. It's possible that the AI hallucinated by picking up an old path structure -- the site is not very consistent with those and doesn't always categorize "25 Investigates" stuff into that folder. But I don't know why everyone is grilling this guy, it's already established AI was used.
*:::That being said, do you remember the general ballpark of when you switched over to not using AI?
*:::(The crowning irony of all this: the Boston 25 article itself reads like AI.) [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== User:AbhinavAnkur ==
{{atopg|status=resolved|1=If there ''is'' a validly cromulent use case for LLMs while editing Wikipeida, AbhinavAnkur has found it. There doesn't appear to be any outstanding concerns here. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)}}
{{user|AbhinavAnkur}} had recenly created a page, which I ran through a AI checker which turned out as around 70% made by AI, so I nominated it for speedy deletion which got rejected, then they had a contested deletion section on the talk page which I also ran through an AI checker which came out as 100% artificially created, so I asked them about "why they were using AI" and they kept denying that they were using it. So I decided to come to here
Pagelinks:
*{{Pagelinks|Sasaram subdivision}}- checked this just recently, 78% generated by AI.
*{{Pagelinks|Banmankhi subdivision}} also checked this recently, likely generated by AI.
*'''{{Pagelinks|Bhabhua subdivision}}''' Page this AI debacle is all about, 70% generated by AI.
*{{Pagelinks|Talk:Bhabhua subdivision#Contested deletion}} AI generated contested deletion which I closed. [[User:EditorShane3456|shane]] ([[User talk:EditorShane3456|talk]]) 19:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:I'm not saying that AbhinavAnkur didn't use AI, but AI checkers are notoriously unreliable. The speedy deletion criterion G15 only applies if the page contains one of the unambiguous signs listed at [[WP:G15]]: nonsensical/nonexistent references, or communication intended for the user. [[User:Helpful Raccoon|Helpful Raccoon]] ([[User talk:Helpful Raccoon|talk]]) 20:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:They didn't deny that they were using AI, they said they were using AI "grammar/formatting." Unfortunately that could mean any number of things, none of which are great but only a few of which are bad faith. Was it a ChatGPT prompt? If so, what was that prompt, and how was it interpreted? (It seems like English may not be this user's first language, which will affect the prompt.) "Copy editing" tools like Grammarly/Quillbot going beyond copy-editing to insert slop? And if it's that, did the tool do it against the user's will, did the user specifically request that level of writing, or was the user simply unaware of the difference between copy editing and content generation?
:Whichever it is, you're not going to get the answer by accusing them of lying. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 22:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:EditorShane3456|shane]], you are very adversarial. At one point, you state {{tq|are you a AI then?}}. Clearly, you are not accusing them of being a bot. Even when new editors are using LLM tools in a way we don't find helpful, they are still people here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:EditorShane3456|EditorShane3456]], @[[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]], @[[User:Helpful Raccoon|Helpful Raccoon]], @[[User:Liz|Liz]],
:Hi everyone, I just wanted to clear up some concerns about my recent edits and the use of AI. English isn’t my first language, so I’ve only used AI tools to help with grammar and formatting. All the content, research, and references are written and double-checked by me personally. If AI checkers say otherwise, that’s just a limitation of those tools—they aren’t always accurate. I always try to follow Wikipedia policies and make sure everything is accurate and properly sourced. I really appreciate any feedback and am happy to improve anything if needed. [[User:AbhinavAnkur|AbhinavAnkur]] ([[User talk:AbhinavAnkur|talk]]) 03:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::Do you have enough reliable sources? I recommend to manually restructure the text to avoid problems. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 03:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]], Yes, I have enough reliable sources. I’ll go through the text and restructure it myself to make everything clear. Thanks for the suggestion! [[User:AbhinavAnkur|AbhinavAnkur]] ([[User talk:AbhinavAnkur|talk]]) 04:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for responding here, [[User:AbhinavAnkur|AbhinavAnkur]]. I'm not sure what outcome [[User:EditorShane3456|shane]] was seeking when he filed this complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi @[[User:Liz|Liz]], thanks for your note. I’m not entirely sure what @[[User:EditorShane3456|EditorShane3456]] was expecting with the complaint. My main goal has always been to keep the content accurate, well-sourced, and in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I’m happy to clarify anything or make improvements if needed. [[User:AbhinavAnkur|AbhinavAnkur]] ([[User talk:AbhinavAnkur|talk]]) 06:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::Hi, thanks for responding here. Could you let us know which AI tools you're using and how you're using them -- any prompts you might enter, or any features of the tool? Thanks. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 06:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi @[[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]], I use ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini only to help with grammar and formatting. I prompt them with “Check this for grammatical errors” for grammar, and “Make this clear and properly formatted for Wikipedia style” for formatting. I do all research, writing, and referencing myself, and I don’t use AI to generate content. Everything is reviewed by me to ensure accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia policies. [[User:AbhinavAnkur|AbhinavAnkur]] ([[User talk:AbhinavAnkur|talk]]) 06:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Using AI for grammar checking can sometimes rewrite it using your prompts. [[User:EditorShane3456|shane]] ([[User talk:EditorShane3456|talk]]) 00:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::And that would ruin the quality of writing style. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 01:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]], I understand. That’s why I always read everything again before saving. If the style doesn’t look right, I just leave it out. [[User:AbhinavAnkur|AbhinavAnkur]] ([[User talk:AbhinavAnkur|talk]]) 02:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:EditorShane3456|EditorShane3456]] Yes, sometimes it changes more than just grammar. I don’t use those changes, I only keep the small grammar or formatting fixes. [[User:AbhinavAnkur|AbhinavAnkur]] ([[User talk:AbhinavAnkur|talk]]) 02:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You can't trust that the AI is only changing the grammar and not affecting the meaning. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 02:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]], That’s true. I don’t trust it fully either. I always check myself so the meaning stays the same as what I wrote with the sources. [[User:AbhinavAnkur|AbhinavAnkur]] ([[User talk:AbhinavAnkur|talk]]) 02:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*Unless anyone comes forward with evidence that {{u|AbhinavAnkur}} is obviously not checking the LLM output, there's nothing to do here. Are there falsified references? Hallucinated facts? If not, they've clearly addressed the concerns above. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Disruptive editing by IP: 2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0 ==
{{Userlinks|2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0}}
User has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing on {{Pagelinks|List of Tamil films of 2025}} by removing content supported by reliable sources and reverting multiple times without seeking consensus. The dispute revolves around box office figures, where the user dismisses established sources such as [[India Today]] and [[The New Indian Express]] as “unreliable” while insisting on their preferred numbers.
This has led to multiple reverts and edit-warring behavior, despite the availability of reliable sources and the need to maintain a balanced range when figures vary. --[[User:Tonyy Starkk|Tonyy Starkk]] ([[User talk:Tonyy Starkk|talk]]) 08:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:India Today reported ₹80 crore on 6 May 2025<ref>https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/karthik-subbaraj-on-his-next-after-retro-want-to-make-an-indie-film-2720434-2025-05-06</ref>. But reported ₹100 crore on 8 May 2025<ref>https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/suriya-donates-rs-10-crore-from-retro-profits-to-agaram-foundation-2721542-2025-05-08</ref>. On 26 May, After 20 days from 6 May, India Today again reported ₹80 crore<ref>https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/retro-ott-release-when-and-where-to-watch-suriyas-gangster-drama-2730606-2025-05-26</ref> It clearly shows their inconsistency. Then New Indian Express came and copied India Today's article, showing their poor fact-checking.
:[https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/tamil/2025/May/26/suriya-and-pooja-hegdes-retro-to-stream-on-netflix-from-may-31 New Indian Express] source is copied from inconsistent [https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/retro-ott-release-when-and-where-to-watch-suriyas-gangster-drama-2730606-2025-05-26 India Today] source.
:Both sources have similar plot summary with character names and actors names in brackets.
:Both sources states about themes of "love", "loss", and "redemption".
:Both sources states grossed "over Rs 80 crore worldwide".
:Both states about "mixed" reviews.
:Both sources states “Coming Soon” section.
:Hence it fails fact checking. [[Special:Contributions/2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0|2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0]] ([[User talk:2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0|talk]]) 08:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::IP, please share this on the talk page of the article instead, and don't edit-war. For now, I've protected the article, but you're welcome to make an edit request on the talk page with your changes. Showing that one source is copied by another is a pretty good indication that they're ultimately all derived from press releases, so you're likely on to something here. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
== User:Spokiyny ==
*{{userlinks|Spokiyny}}
This editor primarily edits population figures. They have received several [[User talk:Spokiyny#June_2025|warnings]] for unsourced changes but they not only do not respond to the warnings, they just continue making unsourced changes (other times they do cite sources but sometimes they cite unreliable sources). See for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miass&diff=prev&oldid=1305682741 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Krasnohorivka&diff=prev&oldid=1305715666 this] from earlier this month. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borysivka,_Odesa_Oblast&diff=prev&oldid=1308289003 This] unsourced change was made after I gave them a final warning a few days ago and I am not sure where they got this figure from (there is no date even). Courtesy ping [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]]. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 09:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:This could be a case of [[WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU]]. The user is editing from a mobile and has never used a talk page. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::They [https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Обговорення_користувача:Spokiyny&diff=prev&oldid=45281029 responded] to a message left on their talk page on another project, but for some reason they are unable to respond here. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 10:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I see. Then this user is at least aware of the possibility that a talk page might exist, which is better than some people. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:I’ve gone through and reverted over fifteen unsourced changes, and that’s only back through Aug 13. [[User:Celjski Grad|Celjski Grad]] ([[User talk:Celjski Grad|talk]]) 12:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:I've pblocked from main. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::I'd be interested in seeing some statistics about whether such "attention-getting" pblocks work. Do people subjected to them tend to find talk pages or just decide to quit Wikipedia? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]], I haven't kept track of my own and it would be easy for me to underestimate the number of people who never return (since I'd have nothing reminding me they exist), but I'd guess from memory that it's about 50:50 for the ones I've done. Many of them are likely to be sockpuppets being caught for the same thing they were blocked for the first time, so I'd further revise that to say that most good-faith contributors do end up finding a talk page when forced like this. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
== Master106's tendentious editing pattern ==
{{atop
| result = Master106 has been blocked for one month [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{userlinks|Master106}}
I am reporting Master106 for repeated [[WP:TENDENTIOUS|tendentious editing]] and [[WP:POVPUSH|POV pushing]] on Pokémon articles.
Back in June 2023, they began moving [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1161763320] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1161884107] Chloe from the "Supporting characters" section to "Protagonists" on [[List of Pokémon anime characters]], saying she's a protagonist. After being reverted, we had a [[Talk:List of Pokémon anime characters/Archive 2#Chloe isn't a protagonist|long discussion]], but no consensus was reached. However they were [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master106&diff=prev&oldid=1173760085 blocked] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master106&diff=prev&oldid=1200103464 twice] for edit warring on that article. In July 2025, after the List of Pokémon anime characters page was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon anime characters|redirected per AfD]], I added only the characters listed as "Protagonists" on [[Pokémon (TV series)]] They started adding Chloe again, repeating the same arguments from before. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1302140093][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1302234053]
* They misrepresent sources: the [https://web.archive.org/web/20221205021550/https://www.pokemon.co.jp/tv_movie/anime/ official source] lists Ash and Goh as the dual protagonists under "Introducing the main character and Pokémon" (主人公・ポケモンの紹介) while Chloe and Professor Cerise are under a separate "Characters" (登場人物) section. They said {{tq|"Introducing the main characters" is intended for all characters on the page. Chrysa and Ren aren't on the page.}} [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1303944938], {{tq|If it were to introduce every Journeys character Chrysa and Ren among others would be on there. They are obviously meant to be listed as main characters.}} [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1163911541], and {{tq|The "character section" was clearly a mistake in the Javascript code, the coder forgot to take it out. They only listed those characters because they are the main characters.}} [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1164171216]
* They also keep reusing marginally reliable/unreliable (BTVA and Screenrant) sources across multiple discussions [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_Journeys:_The_Series&diff=prev&oldid=1303115727][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_Master_Journeys:_The_Series&diff=prev&oldid=1302852702][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_Ultimate_Journeys:_The_Series&diff=prev&oldid=1302852712] which an admin has already stated are weak sources. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1171045067]
* They also push their POV. For example: {{tq|I think the second suggestion is a fair compromise. I am not willing to include any more characters if it excludes important characters such as Chloe.}} [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1308550789] and {{tq|I disagree. If you pick the first option, Chloe has to be on the list.}} [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1304680078] They have consistently insisted on including Chloe, even when sources do not support her inclusion as a protagonist.
* They've also [[WP:GAMING|tried to game]] 3RR/1RR. For example, they said {{tq|Look at the page List_of_Pokémon_anime_characters, I followed the 3 revert rule. Ajeeb Prani violated the rule and did 4 reverts.}} [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master106&diff=prev&oldid=1173760452] and {{tq|You came here and blocked a person that followed the 3 revert rule after a long talk discussion, for someone who broke the rule.}} [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master106&diff=next&oldid=1173761128&diffonly=1] An admin corrected them "You do not need to violate 3RR in order to be edit warring." [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master106&diff=next&oldid=1173761446&diffonly=1] In a recent report they said {{tq|Every revert I made under 1RR was followed by an invitation to discuss.}} [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1303119279] while making one revert per day, which could be interpreted as attempting to circumvent the 1RR. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Master_Journeys:_The_Series&diff=prev&oldid=1302572789][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Master_Journeys:_The_Series&diff=prev&oldid=1302847910][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Master_Journeys:_The_Series&diff=prev&oldid=1303062868][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Master_Journeys:_The_Series&diff=prev&oldid=1303114898][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Ultimate_Journeys:_The_Series&diff=prev&oldid=1302848118][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Ultimate_Journeys:_The_Series&diff=prev&oldid=1303063116]
* After one of the blocks, they said {{tq|I understand now that I messed up, accidentally caused an edit war, and was not careful enough to not break the rules.}} in [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master106&diff=prev&oldid=1173932664 unblock request] but after around half an year they again edit-warred and got blocked.
I'm pinging [[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]] and [[User:Sergecross73|Sergecross73]] who have previously issued blocks or warnings to Master106. [[User:Media Mender|Media Mender]] ([[User talk:Media Mender|talk]]) 10:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks for the ping. They've had their indefinite edit warring block from me already; I'll let others handle this. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 11:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:This activity is not tendentious nor POV pushing. Also the other thing is not GAMING either, I only reported you because you broke the rule. 11:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC) [[User:Master106|Master106]] ([[User talk:Master106|talk]]) 11:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::I even offered you a suggestion I would accept without Chloe and you disagreed with it. [[User:Master106|Master106]] ([[User talk:Master106|talk]]) 11:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:I support further blocks. Their "ongoing arguing over trivial things to actual contributions" ratio is just awful. They've spent months arguing arguing over whether or not a character is a "main character" or not. I've asked them to disengage multiple times but it doesn't seem they can. I don't think they're ready for editing Wikipedia. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 12:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Sergecross73|Sergecross73]], I have been trying to build a consensus with them and I even reached consensus with them on the article after they broke 3RR. We have both received a warning. This is a different discussion than what we discussed before since it is about which characters to include in the article. Although, they brought up the same discussion again and I explained why I stand by the sources I provided, I had allowed them some leeway to give their own thoughts and provided many different suggestions which they shot down all of them. Including the ones that did not include Chloe. After that I asked the other editor that joined the discussion for their input. And now for some reason @[[User:Media Mender|Media Mender]] reported me for pushing POV and tendentious discussion when I have been civil. [[User:Master106|Master106]] ([[User talk:Master106|talk]]) 12:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::According to your contributions, your arguments about whether or not "Chloe is a main Pokemon character" (??) has spanned three separate years now. That is not constructive to building an encyclopedia, full stop. Stop wasting peoples time on this sort of nonsense. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Well, even though the current discussion is not exactly the same as previous discussions. I will not bring up the debate again and if they bring it up, I'll shut the discussion down to make the discussion more constructive. How do you suggest I should move forward because we still have a discussion going on about what characters to include? [[User:Master106|Master106]] ([[User talk:Master106|talk]]) 13:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::This is a content dispute - use the dispute resolution processes laid out at [[WP:DISPUTE]]. If it's only the two of you, the next step is likely getting a third opinion ([[WP:3O]]). [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 16:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::You're right. Actually before @[[User:Media Mender|Media Mender]] put this report up, another editor joined the discussion and I asked that editor for their opinion. [[User:Master106|Master106]] ([[User talk:Master106|talk]]) 22:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:Even after being told by an admin to [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1308610888 stop the character inclusion debates], the user has [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1308784145 continued discussing] adding characters (such as Chloe) on the talk page. Adding this here in case it helps with review. [[User:Media Mender|Media Mender]] ([[User talk:Media Mender|talk]]) 13:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::That's exactly why I have no hope in the editor contributing constructively. They directly told me they'd stop, and couldn't even stick to that for 24 hours. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::If you clicked the link, you'd see I didn't continue the discussion with Media Mender. [[User:Master106|Master106]] ([[User talk:Master106|talk]]) 13:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::[[WP:WIKILAWYERING]] wins you no points here. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::Asking for them to clarify is continuing the discussion? WP:LIE [[User:Master106|Master106]] ([[User talk:Master106|talk]]) 13:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::As I already mentioned, I find it problematic that you've continued to obsess over this trivial point for multiple years (and running, apparently.) You need to find a more constructive thing to do on Wikipedia. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 14:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd like to mention that I let go of the point a year and a half ago up to the deletion of the article. And I only brought it up when Media Mender told me to recently. Plus I have been skimming what mainly was the Konosuba and Pokemon articles to see what things are there to edit since then. And now Media Mender is reporting me and just now said a falsehood about me. The discussion was not even about it, I really do not understand why they cannot let go of the debate. I repeatedly tried to shift them away from it in the discussion. [[User:Master106|Master106]] ([[User talk:Master106|talk]]) 14:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::You directly brought up Chloe again, without anyone else mentioning them, after saying you would {{tqq|not bring up the debate again}}. Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
In case anyone's wondering, I haven't personally blocked Master106 myself because I saw myself as potentially involved. I was not part of their dispute directly, but tried to mediate a solution between the two of them for a period. That generally devolved into me issuing warnings to Master106 instead. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 14:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:Blocked Master106 for a month. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
==Stalker/vandal/troll back again==
{{atop|status=Fista-gone|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 17:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)}}
The oh-so-clever and brave stalker toll vandal is back again, this time under the name {{Userlinks|Swole Fistagon 1}}. He's been blocked, but could someone redact the edit summaries please. Thanks - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 10:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}}. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 10:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::That's very good of you and is much appreciated. Cheers - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 10:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Is the recent (2024-) sock group actually FiveSidedFistagon or some kind of imitator? [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 15:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::As far as can be established, this is FiveSidedFistagon - or at least s far as I am aware. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== User:KashifAhmad2003 failing to adhere to ECP restriction of CT/SA ==
The articles dealing with the topic of ''Indian military history'' are presently subject to the extended confirmed restriction under the [[WP:CT/SA]]. Since {{User|KashifAhmad2003}} do not meet ECP, they were alerted about the CT/SA on their talk page and cautioned against continuing their editing in these topics,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKashifAhmad2003&diff=1308595461&oldid=1308588615] but they have ignored the same and have continued to edit these restricted pages. (e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Dograi&action=history]). [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 19:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:Blocked 31 hours for ECR violations. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
== IP 46.97.170.0/24 clearly NOTHERE ==
* {{userlinks|46.97.170.0/24}}
Previous ANI's: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78]] (2020) and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#46.97.170.0/24]] (2021)
This user barely contributes to article pages, editing mostly in talk pages. This wouldn't be an issue by itself, but they seem to be using talk pages like [[WP:FORUM|forums]] and [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] their viewpoints without ever mentioning policy or reliable sources. Recently they seem especially bent on denying [[Christianophobia]] as a genuine phenomenon and dismissing it as a generic form of "religious intolerance", and claiming — [[Wikipedia:I just don't like it|based on nothing but their own opinions]], and most of the time irrelevantly to the subject at hand — that it is not comparable to [[Islamophobia]] or [[antisemitism]]. Such views often contradict the sources cited in the articles, making such discussions pointless, pedantic and a clear case of soapboxing.
I first noticed this user on a discussion started by them in [[Talk:Annunciation Catholic Church shooting#Anti-Catholic hate crime?|the talk page for the recent shooting of a Minnesota Catholic school]] (which had to be closed) which expressed such views, denying the shooting's status as a possible hate crime solely because the targets were Christian and Catholic, with the logic that because they are not minorities, they cannot be victims of a "hate crime", which again, contradicts sources, [https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes including the FBI]. Impertinent, unproductive soapboaxing.
Their most recent instance of bludgeoning was [[Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment#Victim olympics|in the talk page]] for the article [[Anti-Christian sentiment]], where they continued to deny Christianophobia as a unique phenomenon even in countries where persecution of Christians is well documented.
In yet another instance of bludgeoning this month, on [[Talk:Cultural appropriation#The criticism section, part deux]], they attempt to revive a discussion which they admit having started ''four years ago'', inquiring why their objections weren't yet applied to the article (which I see as quite presumptuous) and again, baselessly discrediting sources and their addition based on nothing their own opinions on the matter. Indeed, what was their last instance of actual editing of an article since 2024 was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_appropriation&oldid=1306152648 the near-blanking of an entire section which contradicted their beliefs] in that very article.
It's also worth mentioning their comments in [[Talk:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Why does the title no longer contain "Moral Panic"?]] in June. Here's an excerpt that caught my eye: {{tq|If there's a poster child of group based sexual abuse of children in the UK or anywhere else in the world, it's the catholic church, and not '''"muh pakistani grooming gangs"'''}}. Never mind the relevancy of the comment in its whole (thought it's also certainly problematic), just note the use of [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Muh "muh"] to disparage the opponent and their views, clearly showing a lack of interest in a serious, respectful, productive discussion.
An editor being strongly-opinionated on a given subject normally isn't the end of the world, neither is occasional impoliteness or name-calling, and talk page contributions are still contributions. But when we're talking about an IP that has a history of belligerence in talk pages and hardly makes meaningful contributions to articles themselves, I believe some attention is needed. In previous incidents they expressed some regret and were given chances, but their behavior hasn't changed. In my opinion, this is clearly a case of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. --'''[[User:DannyC55|DannyC55]]''' ([[User talk:DannyC55|Talk]]) 00:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:I first encountered this IP over at [[Talk:Calvin Robinson]] (a touchy subject with some implications for politically active conservative Christianity). There, the IP {{diff2|1300507093|admitted}} some difficulty avoiding {{tq|going off topic and making venting frustration at all of wikipedia}}. I would give them a bit more credit than that and suggest they seem to get a bit overzealous only on matters related to Christianity. The [[Talk:Annunciation Catholic School shooting]] discussion was ''bad'', but I'm not sure we can hand down a block based on these last few incidents. I'd say giving them some [[WP:ROPE|ROPE]] is probably the best course of action here. <small>(Off topic, but I get a tad anxious that the primary metaphor behind ROPE might not be the best language; something to be discussed another day, perhaps...)</small> ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 00:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::IMHO they've been given ROPE plenty of times in the past, and it clearly hasn't worked. 5 or 4 years since the last ANI's and they seem to be exhibiting the same kind of behavior; although I'll concede that they seem to have mostly let go of blatant name-calling. But even if they occasionally show self-awareness and admit that their behavior is inappropriate, that's not enough if they continue to be disruptive. '''[[User:DannyC55|DannyC55]]''' ([[User talk:DannyC55|Talk]]) 01:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Some specifics would be helpful here. To start with, one recently used account is [[User:46.97.170.26|46.97.170.26]]. Any others you can identify, [[User:DannyC55|DannyC55]]? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::The individual IP responsible for the problematic discussion that took place in [[Talk:Annunciation Catholic Church shooting]] is that one you linked. Others are listed [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#46.97.170.0/24|here]]. 46.97.170.26 appears to be the most recent iteration of that IP range. '''[[User:DannyC55|DannyC55]]''' ([[User talk:DannyC55|Talk]]) 03:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I will say that comments like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Christian_sentiment#c-46.97.170.26-20250830151000-Bibbloti-20250830071600 this] where they decide AGF can be tossed out when someone disagrees with them might be indicative of the NOTHERE behavior described in the OP. Judging from recent prolonged discussions, I think the project has a higher tolerance of "combative, inflammatory, but not outrageous" statements than I would expect. That said, this is an IP with a history stretching back a few years, so perhaps my initial ROPE appraisal shouldn't apply. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::They seems to have stopped talking on the [[Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment]] page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Christian_sentiment&diff=next&oldid=1308934513 here], still annoyed that our concerns had supposedly already been addressed. It does really feel like [[WP:NOTHERE]] behaviour with how continuously confrontational and hostile they are, and after years of this behaviour it might be worth doing something here, whatever that may look like. [[User:Harryhenry1|Harryhenry1]] ([[User talk:Harryhenry1|talk]]) 07:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== Possible [[WP:PGAME]]ing attempt by Louiskk23 ==
{{atop|reason=Concerns addressed --[[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(45deg,#16C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 03:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC){{hr}}{{center|<small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>}}}}
{{userlinks|Louiskk23}}
This user has been rapidly editing their [[User:Louiskk23/Sandbox|sandbox]], making small adjustments each time. They appear to have previously made productive contributions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_El_Jobito&diff=prev&oldid=1173282263], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_El_Jobito&diff=prev&oldid=1173282600] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lucky_Block_(online_casino)&diff=prev&oldid=1248007305], but their current activity appears to be an attempt to get extended confirmed rights. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 01:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Apology for recent edits
:'''
:Hello, I would like to apologize for my recent high number of edits. I want to clarify that it is not my intention to seek any additional user rights or permissions. I am a user from the Spanish Wikipedia (eswiki) and I am still learning how to properly use the English Wikipedia (enwiki). I was conducting some tests to understand the editing system here better.
:I realize that my actions were disruptive, and I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused. I can assure you that I will not repeat this behavior. I will focus my contributions on other, more constructive tasks.
:Thank you for your understanding, and please forgive me for this incident. [[User:Louiskk23|Louiskk23]] ([[User talk:Louiskk23|talk]]) 02:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::I would have liked a previous warning on my discussion page before escalating this incident... I am learning day by day and I really did not do it with bad intentions, I apologize again. [[User:Louiskk23|Louiskk23]] ([[User talk:Louiskk23|talk]]) 02:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I apologize for not bringing it up on your talk page at first. I have seen a fair number of vandals who rapidly edit in order to gain permissions, who then go on to vandalize other pages. As such, I mistakenly assumed you were one of them, which I apologize for. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 02:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You are absolutely right, and seeing my edit history now, I would have assumed the same thing. I apologize again.
::::On the Spanish Wikipedia (eswiki), I also used to fix simple spelling errors, which could result in many edits. I even used the official "replacer" tool there to correct mistakes with capitalization (for example, when a common noun was incorrectly capitalized as if it were a proper noun).
::::This leads me to a question, as I want to edit correctly here: I would like to know approximately what is considered an acceptable number of valid edits per day/week on enwiki? I have several draft articles I want to work on (mostly about video games), but I do not want to create a flood of edits and be disruptive. Thank you for your guidance. [[User:Louiskk23|Louiskk23]] ([[User talk:Louiskk23|talk]]) 02:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::There is no limit to the number of edits. The only concern was that you might have been attempting ot game the system to reach extended confirmed status, and that concern appears to have been addressed. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 02:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
== LucyGermanDog's editing pattern to infoboxes ==
{{userlinks|LucyGermanDog}}
I am reporting LucyGermanDog for repeated [[WP:TENDENTIOUS|tendentious editing]] and [[WP:POVPUSH|POV pushing]] on the infoboxes of articles pertaining to the War of 1812. Many of their edits have been reverted, and they still persist in making edits that run counter to wikipedia policy. There have been requests made to stop this, which are being ignored, [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]]. I propose a temporary ban, to warn them to stop, and to reconsider.[[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 13:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:removed duplicated line.
:The user has had their edit at [[Battle of Caulk's Field]] reverted twice. For a third time, they have made the same edit, thereby bloating the infobox. Were I to roll-back, this would be a third revert, so am loath to participate in what would be an edit war with this editor.[[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 13:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::There has been more disruptive editing being carried out, and yet nothing is being done to stop this. why?[[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 06:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*{{U|LucyGermanDog}} has just over 80 edits. Almost all of these are in the topic of the [[War of 1812]]. Almost all of these are edits to infoboxes. Almost all of these have been reverted by perhaps half a dozen different editors. See also [[User talk:LucyGermanDog#August 2025]]. This ''should'' be sending a pretty clear message that more experienced editors do not view their edits as constructive and in accordance with prevailing P&G. Infoboxes are a CTOP ([[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes]]). They are not the best place for a novice editor to learn the ropes of WP. While I am conscious of not biting the newbies, because they don't appear to be ''getting it'', it may be appropriate to consider a TBAN from editing infoboxes until they gain more experience as an editor (eg 500 edits). [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 09:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*:What you propose sounds a good approach. Yet another case of more bloat being added to an infobox, and it's [[Fort Bowyer]] yet again.[[User:Keith H99|Keith H99]] ([[User talk:Keith H99|talk]]) 21:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
==Gaming to gain ECP==
{{U|M.Furqan Baig}} is gaming the system for gaining [[WP:ECP]] after he was told that he must be an ECP user before editing Indian military or caste history. Take a look at his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Graves_(announcer)&action=history edits on this page]. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-size:100; style=color:blue"> '''THEZDRX'''</span> <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:92; style=color:black"><sub>([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | </sub></span><sub>([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]])</sub> 14:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:I am really sorry, I am new, I just joined Wikipedia a month ago and I had no idea that gaining edit number from this method is prohibited in Wikipedia. [[User:M.Furqan Baig|M.Furqan Baig]] ([[User talk:M.Furqan Baig|talk]]) 16:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::Why would we have a restriction to prevent people from editing in contentious topics if flooding articles with unhelpful edits was a legitimate method for getting around that restriction? And yes, flooding articles, already tagged as having citations needed, some from a decade ago, with a dozen citation needed flags in <em>every single paragraph</em> is completely unhelpful. The speed with which you were going from article to article, usually within a minute or two, makes it obvious that this was pretextual, not a good faith attempt to add tags that were needed.
::My opinion here is that your ECP userright should not be automatically granted at 500 edits. That would resolve the issue cleanly, and give you plenty of opportunity to demonstrate your good faith. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 16:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I have done the 'grant and revoke [[WP:XC]]' thing to their account so it will not be automatically granted. They may, once they meet the criterion through legitimate editing, request XC at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
== Non-collaborative and authoritarian behaviour of [[User:I'm not perfect but I'm almost|I'm not perfect but I'm almost]] on national football/soccer teams' pages ==
{{userlinks|I'm not perfect but I'm almost}}
The user [[User:I'm not perfect but I'm almost|I'm not perfect but I'm almost]] never bothers to discuss on talk pages' articles or leave a message in the edit summary, and simply reverts any user who wishes to amend an article relating to national football teams. In the past, they have also threatened their detractors with sanctions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoftReverie&diff=prev&oldid=1225834760 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martopa&diff=prev&oldid=1227458051 2 with this sentence "So shut up and stop reverting me or, again, I will get an admin to block you."] (on both occasions, they simply told their detractors, who had cancelled them only once, that they were engaged in an edit war, without leaving any message in edit summaries [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan_national_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=1225832276 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan_national_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=1227454432 2]). They don't hesitate to engage in edit wars themselves, repeatedly deleting several users in order to impose their versions, and act unilaterally, they do it again in other article this time with IP user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia_national_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=1307341315 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia_national_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=1308385675 2]. '''Telling someone to ‘shut up’ is unacceptable in itself'''. {{ping|SoftReverie}} for helps. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A0D:E487:124E:DC30:4145:50A1:A355:F787|2A0D:E487:124E:DC30:4145:50A1:A355:F787]] ([[User talk:2A0D:E487:124E:DC30:4145:50A1:A355:F787#top|talk]]) 15:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
:Looks like a routine [[WP:IDLI]] / edit war between an IP and I'm not perfect. Very bizzare that they are "thanking" SoftReverie who as been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SoftReverie&oldid=1242978877 retired 1 years ago], it smells a bit like [[WP:MEAT]]. The only recent diff above was two "AGF reverts" 6 days apart; everything else is from last year from inactive users. No recent uncivil behavior. Looks like an IP editor who is in a routine edit war and is trying to stir up unnecessary controversy from an uncivil comment over a year ago directed towards someone else. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']] [[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 04:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== [[User:GiantSnowman]] mass-changing "committed suicide" including in quotes, against consensus ==
GiantSnowman is currently making hundreds of automated edits in which they remove all instances of "committed suicide" and replace with "die by", even in contexts where this is inappropriate, or in quotes. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Jones&oldid=1308802671 this edit] he changed a ''quote by Jim Jones'' to read "die by" suicide when Jones, in justifying his ''mass murder'', said committed; this is part of a string of hundreds of automated edits removing every single instance of "committed suicide" against the consensus of contributors, even when we're talking about fictional movies where the characters said committed. Past discussions have come to no consensus to mass remove these ([[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide]]); of course, this can be removed on a case by case basis, if one individually decides this is not appropriate (many cases should and can use ''die by'', but not all, as evidenced by previous consensus) which is not what GS is doing. After discussing this on their talk page they refuse to stop. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 15:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:I ''am'' reviewing the edits, this is pure ABF from this editor. You will note I am editing alphabetically - yet have skipped e.g. [[Kurt Cobain]], because that was a quote. The Jim Jones was a mistake, which I owned up to immediately. The guidance in [[WP:Committed suicide]] applies. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 15:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::That is a user essay and is against community consensus from ''this year.'' The other example I reverted you on was also an indirect quote from a fictional character ''in a screenplay'' - the only other one I looked at! I have concerns you are not checking the language properly on such a sensitive subject. They were also falsely marked minor edits. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 15:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::The VP discussion you post appears not to have been closed and there to be no consensus? Stop trying to mislead other editors. As I have already asked you: this is an old fashioned terminology which is increasingly out of favour. What's your problem with replacing it with acceptable wording? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 15:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::That there was no official closure does not mean you cannot gauge a rough community consensus. In fact, the MOS explicitly says the words ''committed suicide'' are not forbidden, though it may not always be optimal, which you are going against with your blanket removals. My heading was "stop the automated edits", so yes, I did ask you to stop, and there were at least 2 instances of you altering a direct or indirect quote from 1) a mass murderer and 2) a fictional character, in the only 2 instances I checked. There is no consensus to keep it in every case and there is no consensus to remove it in and the last time someone tried this it led to that VP discussion.
::::My problem is that in many cases "died by" gives an extremely misleading impression. In cases such as mass murder or mass murder-suicide (like your Jones edit) the suicide was in fact part of a crime, and committed is the correct verbiage. If someone kills 5 people and then themself as part of the crime "died by" seems absurd. Died by also gives the bizarre impression that it was something that merely happened to someone rather than what they did, which is appropriate in cases where it was something like depression but not in cases where someone did it as the direct result of another action. Other verbiage may be preferable, like simply "killed themself", but "died by" is bad in many situations. Marking these edits minor when this language is also very contentious is problematic. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 15:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::We had a long RFC that established the language "committed suicide" is acceptable, now incorporated at [[MOS:SUICIDE]]. So mass changing these away from "committed suicide" is inappropriate. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::Also, for the avoidance of any doubt, I have stopped pending this discussion. I dispute that PARAKANYAA asked me to stop, and I dispute that I am editing against consensus. There is no policy to ''remove'' the wording, but there is no policy to ''retain'' it either. It's awful, old fashioned language that is a hangover from when suicide was a criminal offence. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 15:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::See [[MOS:SUICIDE]]. There's zero reasons to remove it. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You mean the MOS:SUICIDE which says "style manuals have come to avoid 'commit suicide', which is now considered insensitive because of its association with crime or sin. There are many other appropriate, common, and encyclopaedic ways to describe a suicide, including [...] died by suicide" i.e. ''fully'' supporting my edits? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::"The phrase committed suicide is not banned on the English Wikipedia..." so switching the term without seeking consensus on a mass scale is disruptive. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:42, n31 August 2025 (UTC)
::If the guidance in [[WP:Committed suicide]] applies, then that includes "editors should not systematically remove all uses of that phrase from Wikipedia". [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 16:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*This is a content dispute. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:No, because the issue is the automated mass changes on hundred of pages against consensus. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 16:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::It would have been preferable to link to [[MOS:SUICIDE]] or [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_164#RFC:_%22Committed_suicide%22_language|this RfC]] (which is clearer than the recent discussion). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::....probably, yes, but I was rushing because the edits were ongoing. My bad. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 16:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:When did "committed suicide" become a terminology to avoid in articles? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::Since [https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/news/why-language-matters/rethinking-language-suicide this] and [https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-matters-why-we-dont-say-committed-suicide this] and [https://shiningalightonsuicide.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Language-guide-for-talking-about-suicide.pdf this] and so many others. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::But the terminology is <u>not</u> barred on Wikipedia. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Mind the gap between "not barred" and recommended, encouraged, endorsed, etc. It is language that bothers some editors, some readers, and nearly all relevant professionals. I don't love "died by" (I'd suggest trying something like "[[killed himself]]" or a separate sentence, "The [[manner of death]] was [[suicide]]"), and I don't love mass editing, but there's nothing wrong with a copyedit that just happens to change the disputed and drama-prone "committed" language to something that doesn't draw complaints. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, well, quite aside from that I don't get to rewrite language on Wikipedia to suit what bothers ME (I would certainly cut a large swathe when it came to diacritics and capitalization), demonstrably GS's actions are drawing complaints. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 08:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::It's generally preferred that editors act in accordance with en-wp's own guidelines rather than external advice sites. Ours are formed and governed by consensus; theirs aint. Mind you, WT:MOS might be open to an RfC to change MOS:SUICIDE as it stands, of course. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 16:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::See above - MOS:SUICIDE specifically talks about alternate wording. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure that principle is true, even in theory. Sure, if we have a specific rule rejecting it (e.g., [[MOS:TRADEMARK]] rejects some companies' trademark capitalizations or styles), then you should follow our style guide. But when our style guide doesn't disagree with the external advice, then why not follow both? It is possible (even easy) to comply with the [[MOS:SUICIDE]] guideline, the [[Wikipedia:Committed suicide]] explanation, ''and'' the professional external style guides at the same time. So why not? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::In 2010, maybe. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 14:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*Any argument that relies on "but the guideline says it's 'not banned'", when the guideline also explains there are a variety of reasons to prefer an alternative, is fundamentally a very weak argument. That there is not a mandate to change it doesn't mean there's a mandate to retain it. As long as Snowman catches the quotes and any other context where a change would be problematic for basic policy reasons, I don't see a problem with leaving this to be disputed at the level of individual articles. I would hope that anyone reverting would have a reason why "committed suicide" is ''better'' than "died by suicide" other than "it's not banned" or "[[WP:DRNC|no consensus]]" though. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 16:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:This mirrors my stance as well. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I have no problem with getting rid of "committed suicide", but GS is not catching the quotes and any other context where a change would be problematic. This is not a content dispute, but an admin carelessly running scripts and falsifying quotes. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::You are attributing malice on my part here where there is none. [[WP:AGF]]. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::We have taken steps against editors using mass editing tools carelessly, even if the goal was in good faith. (Anyone remember BetaCommand?) [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::In fact, not to be dragging up old history, but GiantSnowman has been cautioned about the careless use of scripts [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman#User_scripts|before]]. ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 19:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*Just had one of these on my watchlist: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Baader&curid=146039&diff=1308801359&oldid=1306753076]. It does not look like GS is putting a lot of care into these edits; the phrase "weapons they used to commit suicide" should be changed to something like "weapons they used for their suicide", not "weapons they used to die by suicide", if it is changed at all. Additionally, there is a "committed [..] suicide" that was not changed, so this particular edit seems like a net negative. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 17:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:My script is ''very'' limited, literally just 'committed suicide → died by suicide' and 'commit suicide → die by suicide', hence why the second one was not picked up. Editors are obviously more than welcome to tidy up wording further. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Seems your script isn't good enough then. It is your responsibility to clean up your mass edits, not anybody else's. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 17:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::If you insist on making this change (as it happens, I think you are wrong to, but that's besides my point) rather than using an automated script that produces errors and poor wording, you should work by hand, avoiding these pitfalls. It's not the responsibility of others to clean up the mistakes made by your "very limited" script and haste to make this change. ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 17:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::You seem to be utterly careless when running this script. I have reviewed fewer than 20 edits and found the following: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Turing&diff=prev&oldid=1308801321] is '''vandalism''' (falsifying a quote is unexcusable). "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Forsythe&diff=prev&oldid=1308801245 he has died by suicide by hanging himself]" is not "correct terminology", but bad English. "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adnan_Farhan_Abd_Al_Latif&diff=prev&oldid=1308801271 he tried to die by suicide]" is also not the usual terminology, which is "he attempted suicide". If you were not an admin, I would '''pull AWB access''' over this amount of carelessness. I would suggest to mass-revert all of your recent edits and to do them properly if you think they are worth doing. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::{{tq|Editors are obviously more than welcome to tidy up wording further.}} It would be strange if they were unwelcome to do so. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 18:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Given the issues raised by Kusma and others I won't be proceeding with this script. Apologies for any inadvertent disruption (such as accidentally catching quotes), clearly not intentional. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::While your script has problems, it is correct to act against consensus to remove "commit(ted) suicide" from articles where it is not in quotes. The dictionary definitions of "commit" in this sense clearly have negative connotations, in violation of [[WP:NPOV]], which "{{tq|cannot be superseded by editor consensus.}}" [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 18:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Neutral point of view does not mean we cannot describe things negatively, but "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It is a rather mainstream view that suicide is a regrettable thing! It may not be appropriate for all cases so removing it manually while considering the situation is one thing, but mass removals without regard for context are another. Going against consensus is, in fact, bad. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 18:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::PARAKANYAA you are yet to actually highlight any 'consensus'. Repeatedly saying something does not make it so. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::[[MOS:SUICIDE]] "The phrase committed suicide is not banned on the English Wikipedia" and [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: "Committed suicide" language]] "The result is to not change policy, which allows "commit suicide," therefore no change is needed".
*:::::::Other versions are allowed, even suggested in some context but using a defective script to enforce one single (poor) variety of several allowed without regard for context, options, quotes, fiction or reality, and expecting other people to clean it up is bad. If you had manually changed a few in contextually appropriate situations (not mass murderers or movie scripts) that is another thing entirely. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 19:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Then your issue is with the ''method'', not the intent. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::My issue is with both, because removing it in ''all contexts'' is bad. "Committed" is appropriate in some situations. But the automated issue is why I took it to ANI. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 19:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::The RFC that led to the addition of the MOS:SUICIDE language clearly dismissed the concern that "commit suicide" may be seen as POV, which is why the term is still acceptable to use. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Citation needed. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 20:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::[[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: "Committed suicide" language]] "The result is to not change policy, which allows "commit suicide," therefore no change is needed. In each article a multitude of word choices are allowed and editors can make editorial decisions through the normal process as to what sounds most natural, most informative and reads the best in each specific situation. A minority of editors think "commit suicide" is archaic, and if some other equal or better formulation exists and a change is made, we should not tendentiously revert it. Likewise, I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found. Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation. This will naturally cause us to track whatever trend exists in society. The issue could be revisited a year from now (to choose an arbitrary unit of time) to ensure we have the latest style, while avoiding discussion fatigue". Don't go around removing every instance but decide what is best in each individual case. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 20:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::That decision doesn't speak to NPOV. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 21:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::You're operating under the assumption that "committed suicide" necessarily violates NPOV, which is a position that does not have consensus. ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::There is no consensus either way, so WP:BOLD is the correct action, because all of the RS say "commit" in this context has negative connotations. "Committed suicide" has become universally disapproved of by style guides and RS over the past ten years: {{Collapse top|RS showing "commit suicide" violates NPOV}}In 2015 the Associated Press states in part:
{{tq2|Avoid using ''committed suicide'' except in direct quotations from authorities. Alternate phrases include killed himself, took her own life or died by suicide..."Committed in that context suggests possibly an illegal act, but in fact, laws against suicide have been repealed in the US, at least in certain states, and many other places".
}} [https://www.cjr.org/first_person/dont_forget_these_changes_to_the_ap_stylebook.php ''Columbia Journalism Review'']
:The American Heritage Dictionary also advises against "committed".[https://web.archive.org/web/20250114224127/https://consciousstyleguide.com/conscious-language-american-heritage-dictionary/] The dictionary definition of "commit" in this sense clearly has negative connotations, in violation of [[WP:NPOV]], which "{{tq|cannot be superseded by editor consensus.}}" Also per [[MOS:MED#Careful language]], "Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people". Appropriate means medically accurate and not expressing negative/disparaging attitudes. Lastly, we have our own style guidelines; we do not use the style of the RS which we happen to cite, per [[Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy]] (reliable sources style fallacy).
:The negative connotations are specific:
:#Cambridge Dictionary: "to do something illegal or something that is considered wrong", for example: "She tried to commit suicide by slashing her wrists." [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/commit]
:#Lexico: "Perpetrate or carry out (a mistake, crime, or immoral act)", for example: "he committed an uncharacteristic error". [https://www.lexico.com/definition/commit]
:#American Heritage Dictionary: "To do, perform, or perpetrate", for example: "commit a murder". [https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=commit]
:#Wiktionary: "To do (something bad); to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault", for example: "to commit murder". [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commit]
:#Chambers Dictionary: "to carry out or perpetrate (a crime, offence, error, etc)." [https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=commit&title=21st]
{{Collapse bottom}}
*::::::::::[[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 01:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::That RFC considered what external style guides and medical journals stated, as well as the concern about "committed" implying a crime. And the results are as that RFC closed - that there's POV issue with using the term, that there are other ways to say it, but no mandate to require moving from one or the other. We're not here to reargue the close of that RFC, and it should be accepted the community very much understands what issues do exist with the term but also know how often it still is used today. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::The RfC close did not discuss NPOV beyond person opinions. It did not discuss RS claims that it is not NPOV. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 10:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::+1. "NPOV", like many other concepts on Wikipedia, is in the eye of the beholder. I expect that for every person who's hot under the collar at the purported pejorative nature of the phrase, there are two people convinced there's an actual issue at stake here far weightier and graver than picking fights over nomenclature. Never mind that style guides "universally" follow your preferred wording? What, every style guide known in the English language? Want to back that up with a bit more than just two examples? [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 08:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Every style guide which mentions the phrase advises against it?
*::::::::::::[[Wikipedia:Committed_suicide#External_links]] [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 19:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::... you mean "every style guide" represented in that table? Fair enough. But if you're going to wage war over nomenclature, keep your own clean. You want "widely," not "universally." [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 01:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*::::Thank you. Can you try to clean up your edits? This really doesn't seem to be suited for simple scripts; very often some other rephrasing than a simple replacement is required. And quotes really, really need to be left alone. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I 100% agree that the quotes being caught was an error and should not have happened. I will do a sample audit to check if others have been caught and correct accordingly. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I did a sample check last night and only found 1 that was clearly error, and a few more where the new wording was fine but not ideal. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
* In the end, there is absolutely no problem removing "committed" in those cases where (a) they refer to a real person and (b) there is no overriding reason to keep the wording (I think these would be quite rare). Unfortunately, I suspect the complexity of this means that the only really efficient way of doing it is by manual examination of each edit; even using categorisation to restrict the types of articles, I can think of many situations where an automated change would run into problems. I absolutely support the removal of this language where possible; I do not think an automated script is the best way to do it. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
* Given the speed that these edits were performed, and the level of errors gone undetected (such as changing quotations, errant grammar, etc) -- this seems to be exactly the sort of behavior the policy regarding automated/BOT edits is addressing. Even if there was consensus for these sorts of edits (which there does not appear to be), this script should have undergone a trial before being more widely used for mass changing. With regards to {{tq|attributing malice on my part here where there is none}} - the problem here is that it seems like scapgoating the "script made me do it" is the reason why this behavior should not be a problem. As a reminder per the arb case GS was involved in {{tq|Users are responsible and accountable for all their edits or actions, whether they are assisted by user scripts or not. Users are expected to take appropriate additional care when contributing with the assistance of a user script.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman#User_scripts] and it seems like this "appropraite additional care" was not taken here.[[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']] [[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 20:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
**I had started typing out "To GS' credit, they do appear to have stopped the script immediately upon noticing that this thread had been opened" which, while true, having checked their talk page I see that they were notified originally there that inappropriate changes to quotes were being made but allowed the script to continue running regardless at that point, which is ''not good''. This isn't the first time, as mentioned above, that GS has had...issues...with automated editing tools. I don't think we need, at this time, an explicit ''prohibition'' of use of automated tools by GS, but they should bear in mind that "once is an accident, twice coincidence, but three times is a pattern" and this is <small>at least, that I am aware of</small> the second time - they ''must'' take more care with the use of automated editing tools, because a third recurrence will likely see a sanction proposed with regards to automated tool useage. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
* My two cents is that this all seems to be a case of hamfisted editing and some stubbornness on GS's part rather than malicious disruption. I believe a formal, final warning would suffice for this situation. As for the "Committed" vs. "Die by" discourse, IMO "commited" should be kept in the context of quotes and in cases like mass killers and terrorists (since those are playing an active role in criminal activity, and thus in their own deaths, rather than being individuals who happened to be dealing with long-term mental illness), and "died by" should be reserved for biographies of otherwise regular persons and perhaps fictional characters. --'''''[[User:DannyC55|DannyC55]]''''' ([[User talk:DannyC55|Talk]] ★ [[Special:Contributions/DannyC55|Contributions]]) 01:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*:Sorry, in my defence - having already held my hands up here - there were only 3/4 'mistakes' highlighted (although 3/4 too many, of course!) - people are acting like every single edit was fundamentally wrong and disruptive, which is not the case and entirely unfair. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*::Using an automated tool to make these edits was, in fact, fundamentally wrong and disruptive. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*The prior wording “committed suicide” was agreed upon and used on the articles, [[Adolf Hitler]] and [[Death of Adolf Hitler]] when they passed GA. And it is the wording used in the [[WP:RS]] sources as to the circumstances of his death. While consensus can change, at the very least, it should been discussed on the talk page prior to change and consensus of the local page editors, reached. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek|talk]]) 02:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*:Neither [[Talk:Adolf Hitler/GA1]] nor [[Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler/GA1]] contain any discussion about that language, so I don't think we can say it was "agreed upon" in the GA reviews (as if such an agreement would be binding on all subsequent editors, more than a decade later anyway). It might be fair to say that it was "accepted", but based on the total lack of discussion, someone could equally conclude that it was simply "overlooked". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Fait accompli]] seems to apply here (one editor making many controversial edits). It doesn't seem appropriate, [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: %22Committed suicide%22 language|considering the RFC]], and [[MOS:SUICIDE]], for these edits to be automated or accomplished via script, presenting Wikipedia with a ''fait accompli''. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 08:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*The n-grams show [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=committed+suicide%2Cdie+by+suicide%2Cdied+by+suicide&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 that 'committed suicide' is overwhelmingly used.] "Died by suicide" seems awkward to me, so checked n-grams. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 10:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*Mass style/word-choice changes are never a good idea and don't end well. However, whenever this discussion turns up, the usual false claims are made: {{tq|"We had a long RFC that established the language "committed suicide" is acceptable"}}, {{tq|"There's zero reasons to remove it"}}, {{tq|"The RFC that led to the addition of the MOS:SUICIDE language clearly dismissed the concern that "commit suicide" may be seen as POV, which is why the term is still acceptable to use"}}. None of these tendentious claims are true. We have a lack of consensus about this, not a consensus to retain forever more. In my opinion, through mass edit or individual edit, the phrase "committed suicide", outside of historical quotes, will die out on Wikipedia as it has already done in quality writing and in usage by health experts dealing with the matter. Those fighting that are, simply, [[King Canute and the tide|wasting editor time on a battle they will lose]]. Find something else to do so. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
==Bahamian Creole/Bahamian Dialect==
Disruptive editing pattern by [[User:Wolfdog]] on [[Bahamian Dialect]] and [[Bahamian Creole]] articles. Related interference from [[User:Pineapple Storage|Pineapple Storage]], which doesn't itself arise to disruptive but is coincidental.
I'm seeking guidance on the contributions involving two editors following the merge proposal regarding [[Bahamian English]] and [[Bahamian Creole]] language. [[User:Wolfdog]] in particular is problematic.
Background: I developed the [[Bahamian Dialect]] page years ago, which was redirected to [[Bahamian Creole]]. Since that time, another page - [[Bahamian English]] was created that overlapped substantially as there was no clear distinction between the two pages. I initiated a merge proposal, which was opposed by [[User:Pineapple Storage|Pineapple Storage]].
Following a merge proposal, I compromised by rewriting the [[Bahamian English]] to cover the varieties of English spoken and written in the Bahamas.
Despite that [[User:Pineapple Storage|Pineapple Storage]] seems determined to police by behaviour by giving me unsolicited advice. Both he and Wolfdog have followed up my substantial sourced edits by making minor changes as if they are checking my behaviour.
Having changed the [[Bahamian English]], I procdeded to revise [[Bahamian Creole]] page, which seems to have incurred the ire of Wolfdog.
Despite admitting that he is not well versed in the matter, he has reverted my changes and insisted that I discuss them on the talk page, despite the fact that they reflect the literature, are sourced, and include substantial quotes.
Pineapple Storage has made similar silly edits like changing the lead of the [[Bahamian English]] page to refer to "spoken" English but leaving the body to discuss both.
[[Bahamian Dialect]] is what the language is called in the Bahamas. Since the 1980s, it's been suggested that it's a creole language although this was still being discussed as late as 2015.
Both [[User:Pineapple Storage|Pineapple Storage]] seem to have some stake in the language being called Bahamian Creole when it is only the creolised varieties that constituted Bahamian Creole English
'''Concerns:'''
'''[[User:Pineapple Storage]]''':
* Repeatedly provides unsolicited advice
* Makes condescending suggestions
* Dismisses evidence of independent reliable sources, such as newspaper sources showing 2-1 usage patterns in favor of academic sources only
* Continues giving advice rather than engaging substantively with content, which is strange considering he has looked up source material
'''[[User:Wolfdog]]''' (acknowledged early on that he was "not well-versed on the matter")
* Kept out of any further discussion, however, as soon as I pointed out that the Bahamian Creole page has only ever referred to Bahamian Creole in the title and in the body to Bahamian Dialect throughout, immediately changed the first line to say that Bahamian Creole is Bahamian Dialect without any proof
* Reverted my edits and insisted on a discussion for information that was sourced and reflected the literature
* Unilaterally changed Bahamian Dialect to Bahamian dialect (despite it being a proper name) and then told me I should go to the talk page if I wanted to change without following his own advice
* Acting with apparent ownership over articles despite limited expertise.
'''Pattern''': Both editors seem invested in enforcing "creole" terminology despite acknowledging limited knowledge, while avoiding substantive content contributions. When I've attempted to incorporate reliable sources, they've responded with process manipulation rather than content discussion. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mmemaigret|Mmemaigret]] ([[User talk:Mmemaigret#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mmemaigret|contribs]]) 15:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
:I'm afraid Mmemaigret is heading down the road to [[WP:PETARD]]. Administrators will have to make their determination. [[User:Wolfdog|Wolfdog]] ([[User talk:Wolfdog|talk]]) 16:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:Not sure why this has been brought here, when [[WP:DRN]] would probably have been a more suitable venue. I haven't made a single edit to [[Bahamian Creole]] (see [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Pineapple+Storage&page=Bahamian+English&max=700&server=enwiki here]) and have only made one edit ([[Special:Diff/1308601987|diff]]) to correct an obvious error in [[Bahamian English]] (see [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Pineapple+Storage&page=Bahamian+English&max=500&server=enwiki here]), so I'm not sure what Mmemaigret means when {{pronoun|Mmemaigret}} says...{{bq|Pineapple Storage has made similar silly edits like changing the lead of the Bahamian English page to refer to "spoken" English but leaving the body to discuss both.}}...{{nbsp}}and... {{bq|Both [Pineapple Storage] and Wolfdog have followed up my substantial sourced edits by making minor changes as if they are checking my behaviour.}}My only involvement has been commenting on the various discussions that Mmemaigret has started on the relevant talk pages:{{olist|[[Talk:Bahamian English#Merge proposal]]|[[Talk:Bahamian Creole#Page move proposed]]|[[Talk:Bahamian Creole#Bahamian Creole vis a vis Bahamian_Dialect]]}}What Mmemaigret calls {{tq|unsolicited advice}} and {{tq|condescending suggestions}}, I would call "giving my opinion as part of a [[WP:CONBUILD|consensus-building]] discussion". I have tried throughout to remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]], despite some [[WP:TPNO|inflammatory comments]] from Mmemaigret such as:{{blist|"unlike you having your cute theoretical arguments{{nbsp}}[...] since you know more about this language that you don't speak" ([[Special:Diff/1308119349|diff]])|"It's like you insisting that a tomato is in fact a fruit so we should maintain two pages - one for tomato fruit and one for tomato vegetable and finding some sources that refer to tomato the fruit and some that refer to tomato the vegetable and arguing with a person who grows tomatoes that they must in fact be different because the 'literature' refers to them differently, when you've never seen or tasted, much less grown, one." ([[Special:Diff/1308122794|diff]])|"I created the Bahamian dialect page years ago, which was renamed Bahamian Creole by someone (I suspect a lot like you) who decided they knew better." ([[Special:Diff/1308569590|diff]])|"I speak this language that you think it a theoretical exercise.{{nbsp}}[...] You'd know that if came from the Bahamas." ([[Special:Diff/1308793704|diff]])|"You not of fan of linguistic diversity - that's what you tell yourself but that's not true. / All of the research says there are multiple varieties of Bahamian English and Bahamians call our language Bahamian Dialect. But you keep glossing over that. Now it's obvious why, you think the stupid native don't realise they need to be decolonised.{{nbsp}}[...] we don't need you to erase our varieties because you're on a crusade." ([[Special:Diff/1308804235|diff]])}}Also, while we're on the topic of {{tq|condescending suggestions}}:{{blist|"But since you know more about this language that you don't speak, maybe you indicate what the criteria is for distinguishing between the creole and the variation of English, so that editors can easily determine what goes on which page. Maybe you could indicate how may varieties there are on this spectrum." ([[Special:Diff/1308119349|diff]])|"If you read my last version and the sourced material and quotes, that would be clear." ([[Special:Diff/1308792044|diff]])|"Why don't you go and read all of the sources that you added on the talk page?" ([[Special:Diff/1308793704|diff]])|"Does that seem definitive to you?{{nbsp}}[...] Does that seem definitive to you?{{nbsp}}[...] Have you looked at a map of the Bahamas and seen how big it is?{{nbsp}}[...] Again, is this definitive?" ([[Special:Diff/1308804235|diff]])}}These are just the comments that were directed at me; Wolfdog might point to other examples.{{pb}}Also, a very minor point: Mmemaigret says {{tq|Both he and Wolfdog}}, but I haven't given any indication that [[Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns#Across-the-board practices|my pronouns]] are he/him. [[User:Pineapple Storage|Pineapple Storage]] ([[User talk:Pineapple Storage|talk]]) 17:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::Also, I've been accused of {{tq|giving advice rather than engaging substantively with content, which is strange considering [I have] looked up source material}}, but I doubt that Mmemaigret would have preferred me to barrel in and start making contentious edits ''without'' engaging in the discussions (that {{pronoun|Mmemaigret}} {{themself|Mmemaigret}} initiated), presenting my arguments and providing sources that support these arguments. [[User:Pineapple Storage|Pineapple Storage]] ([[User talk:Pineapple Storage|talk]]) 18:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry to come back to this again, as I would really prefer to put this whole thing behind us as soon as possible, but I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving some of Mmemaigret's accusations unchallenged. Given that she has not responded to this discussion since initiating it, I had a look at [[Special:Contributions/Mmemaigret|her contributions]] and saw that she has opened [[User talk:Liz#BC/BD|a discussion]] ({{diff|diff=1308927446|oldid=1308713797|label=diff}}) at @[[User:Liz|Liz]]'s talk page ([[WP:TALKFORK|talkfork]]?) regarding this issue. She says:{{bq|At the same time, the other user kept going on about trying to get me to move a discussion about a proposed name change to another forum when I told him I was happy to leave the discussion on the talk page. He even proposed making a requested move himself because I wouldn't.}}(Aside from the pronouns, which I have already pointed out [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Pineapple_Storage-20250831173600-Mmemaigret-20250831155300 above]...) Mmemaigret continues to [[misrepresent]] me; I never {{tq|proposed making a requested move [my]self because [she] wouldn't.}} In fact, I considered doing this, decided against it for the sake of diplomacy, and then ''specifically'' did not make that suggestion. Instead, I laid out ({{diff|diff=1308415389|label=here}}, {{diff|diff=1308603109|label=here}} and {{diff|diff=1308781478|oldid=1308625314|label=here}}) my concerns about the potential problems with a move discussion happening outside of [[WP:RM]], one of which is the fact that the article's move history makes it a [[WP:PCM|potentially controversial move]], so official guidance is to use RM.{{pb}}I will say, also, that in searching for policy and guidelines that might be relevant to this ANI discussion, I stumbled across [[Wikipedia:WikiBullying]], and the [[Wikipedia:WikiBullying#Forms of WikiBullying|forms of WikiBullying]] listed there really feel like they could apply to some of the comments that have been made. [[Wikipedia:WikiBullying#False accusations|Inaccurate claims]] have been made about my editing, and [[WP:ASPERSIONS|aspersions]] have been cast; [[Wikipedia:POV railroad#False narratives|false narratives]] have been used to discredit me;<ref>For instance, the suggestion that I have some sort of [[decolonial]] [[savior complex]] and that I'm {{tq|on a crusade}} ({{diff|diff=1308804235|label=diff}}), or the several comments (listed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Pineapple_Storage-20250831173600-Mmemaigret-20250831155300 above]) suggesting I was trying to assert myself as some kind of authority on the subject, when AFAIK all I was doing was giving my opinion based on my own reading of reliable sources.</ref> and the very fact that I've been included in this report—to ANI, which is supposed to be used to address {{tq|urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems}}—(despite having made no significant edits to the articles involved) ''could'' be interpreted as an attempt to [[Wikipedia:POV railroad#Brand, discredit and ban|brand and discredit]] me, if I weren't [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]]. [[User:Pineapple Storage|Pineapple Storage]] ([[User talk:Pineapple Storage|talk]]) 11:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC) [[User:Pineapple Storage|Pineapple Storage]] ([[User talk:Pineapple Storage|talk]]) 11:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:I'm only seeing one condescending person here, and it's not Pineapple Storage or Wolfdog. Maybe a read of [[WP:OWN]] would help. All participants should discuss the articles on the talk pages in good faith, which means being prepared to accept that consensus might be against you. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Mmemaigret]], this discussion should be occurring on the article talk pages or on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject (if one exists), the only reason I see for you bringing this disagreement to ANI is because you are seeking sanctions against the other editors. I see some disagreement between editors but that happens on a regular basis all over this project which is, after all, a collaborative editing project. We don't "vet" editors and require a certain level of personal familiarity with a subject before they can weigh in with their opinion on changes to an article. I think it would actually be more unusual if all involved editors actually agreed with each other! You may not like the "tone" of another editors' remarks but I don't see any actions involve policy violations. I'll echo Phil's comment that everyone involved has to dismiss any OWN behavior and be willing to discuss any significant changes in an article regardless of any editor's specific level of experience with a subject. You are not writing your own article, book or encyclopedia here so I think it would be best to move some of these discussion points to the article talk pages where all editors (and maybe some new ones) can be involved in developing article content.
:If you want to have an article version that is 100% yours, I'd suggest creating your own blog or website where only your editorial opinion matters. I'm sure there are plenty of subject knowledge experts on Wikipedia who maintain their own sites off-Wikipedia where they don't have to edit according to the strict policies and guidelines present on this platform. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:+1 to Phil (well, and Liz too!). Mmemaigret, you've been on Wikipedia a long time, however much your edits were few and far between up until three years ago. In that time, you should have absorbed a few concepts. Besides what's been pointed out to you as far as [[WP:OWN|article ownership]] or [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] goes, there's another basic principle: we have no way of knowing whether your self-professed expertise is accurate, any more than you actually "know" that the editors you're dealing with are wholly ignorant. You have to have seen, over those years, that many editors exaggerate their expertise/credentials, a large factor in why [[WP:OR]] is a core policy of Wikipedia.<p>Take a look at my user page. I list a number of credentials there. And for all you know, I'm ''lying about all of them.'' That's why I don't barge into hockey talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. That's why I don't barge into legal talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. My having published or contributed to a dozen [[RPG]] books doesn't mean I get to barge into RPG talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 08:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}
== Use of unreviewed LLM content by User:Wikiwizardinho ==
{{atop
| result = Articles are at AfD. No further action needed unless further problematic edits occur [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
}}
*{{userlinks|Wikiwizardinho}}
On a random look at the New Page feed, I came across articles created by the user. When I read the paragraphs with keen eyes, the lines that caught my attention were:
On this page — [[Molela terracotta]]
1] {{tq|Characterized by vividly painted, wall-mounted plaques, the tradition is practiced predominantly by the Kumhar community of potters and holds both artistic and ritual significance.}}
2] {{tq|This miraculous event established the religious foundation of the Molela craft and the devotion to creating deity plaques.}}
3] Designers and craft researchers {{tq|have begun adapting Molela motifs for use in contemporary textiles, interior décor, and fashion,}} helping sustain the craft in modern markets.
All the lines I showed have a subjective behavior and emotiveness, which is mostly the nature of AI chatbots.
The next page to move on to is — [[Jhalana Amagarh leopard conservation reserve]]
1] The two forests are separated by a national highway, {{tq|posing challenges for wildlife movement and necessitating the development of ecological corridors.}}
2] The reserve offers guided jeep safaris, {{tq|providing visitors with opportunities to observe leopards and other wildlife in their natural habitat.}}
3] The proximity of the reserve to Jaipur {{tq|makes it a popular destination for both domestic and international tourists.}}
See in this — [[Raiyoli Fossil Park]]
1] {{tq|Researchers working in Raiyoli have determined that Gujarat contains one of the largest known clutches of dinosaur hatcheries in the world.}} At least thirteen dinosaur species nested there for more than 100 million years until their extinction around 65 million years ago.
2] {{tq|Excavations at Raiyoli continue under supervision, and local outreach efforts emphasize both heritage preservation and community involvement.}}
3] Following the excavations, tourism officials of Gujarat branded the area "Dinosaur Tourism." Aaliya Sultana Babi—popularly known as the {{tq|"Dinosaur Princess"—conducts guided tours of the Raiyoli Dinosaur Fossil Park, blending paleontological interpretation with local folklore.}} The tours have further increased visitor interest, drawing scientists, students, and tourists from across India and abroad.
The fact is that AI chatbots have a habit of using unnecessary dashes in paragraphs, which is also mentioned in [[WP:AILIST]]. It clearly fits the case here.
Moving further to some more articles where a heavy amount of LLM content was used without reviewing, please take a look below:
On here — [[Dholpur—Karauli Tiger Reserve]]
1] Geography
{{tq|The reserve covers a landscape characterized by dry deciduous forests, scrublands, and riverine ecosystems.}} It lies within the semi-arid region of Rajasthan and supports diverse flora and fauna. The topography is marked by low hills, seasonal rivers, and grasslands, {{tq|providing a conducive environment for large carnivores such as the tiger.}}
The whole of this paragraph appears to be LLM-generated and violates [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]].
2] {{tq|It plays a crucial role in maintaining genetic diversity and mitigating human–wildlife conflicts.}}
I would like to request Admins to kindly check [[User:Wikiwizardinho]] editing history and take appropriate actions regarding LLM content. Thanks! [[User:JesusisGreat7|<span style="color:#FFD700;font-weight:bold">Jesus</span> <span style="color:#B0B0B0">isGreat7</span> <span style="color:#fff">☾⋆</span>]] | [[User talk:JesusisGreat7|<span style="color:#F5F5DC;font-style:italic">Ping Me</span>]] 10:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq|This miraculous event}} (1st point 2 above). Really? [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 17:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:They're llm creations, but I'm not seeing previous discussion with Wikiwizardinho about the matter. There was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikiwizardinho&diff=prev&oldid=1291425393 one notification] by [[User:Jlwoodwa|Jlwoodwa]], but it looks like it may have been overshadowed by an IP block and never received a reply. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:JesusisGreat7|JesusisGreat7]], you can also ask for assistance from [[WP:WPAIC|WikiProject AI Cleanup]] (which I am a member of) by posting on the [[WP:LLMN|large language models noticeboard]]. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 18:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::Or just send them to AFD. We should have zero patience for AI-generated garbage, whether the topic meets notability criteria or not. '''Edited to add:''' I sent these articles to AFD. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 18:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Part 5 (Continuing to Bludgeon Talk Pages) ==
{{userlinks|Newsjunkie}}
Hello everyone. I'm really sorry to do this, but I'm having to file a fifth report on this user. (Past reports: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#Disruptive_editing_and_slow_edit_warring_against_consensus][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Renewed_edit_war][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1186#Part_3][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#Newsjunkie_Part_4]) To summarize, Newsjunkie has a history of adding unreliable sources to articles, edit warring, and [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] talk pages with [[WP:WALLSOFTEXT]]. While in this instance she has not reverted other than one time, the bludgeoning from this user and the unreliable sources continues primarily on the Tolkein fandom talk page, as she went on to make multiple replies, edit them to add more content, and try to argue her point numerous times in lengthy replies even though consensus was pretty clear against her edits, which is a [[WP:NOTLISTENING]] problem. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tolkien_fandom#c-Chiswick_Chap-20250821175800-Redlisted_sources,_edit-warring,_off-topic_additions,_and_pointless_gossip] @[[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] (who left her a final warning on her talk page), along with @[[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] have warned her about edit warring and bludgeoning. @[[User:Butlerblog|Butlerblog]] along with {{Noping|Wound theology}} have also warned her in the past. I used the cite highlighter script, and out of the 20 references listed in the now closed first talk page discussion (all from Newsjunkie), 8 of them are red. According to [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Tolkien%20fandom/2025-08-21/2025-08-26 this], she has made 71 edits to the first discussion, along with 26,628 text added, we're talking around 70% for both. A second discussion (currently open),[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tolkien_fandom#c-Chiswick_Chap-20250829173300-Criteria] shows Newsjunkie bludgeoning the second discussion [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Tolkien%20fandom/2025-08-29] with 13 edits and 6,927 text which is around 50% for both. Here's another example of bludgeoning, even though @[[User:MapReader|MapReader]] has explained to her. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Cumming#Dual_Citizenship][https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Alan%20Cumming/2025-08-23/2025-08-31], with Chiswick Chap providing a further explanation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newsjunkie#c-Chiswick_Chap-20250831082700-August_2025] Newsjunkie also doesn't seem to quite understand that [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] is not a valid argument, and a recent edit stated on the tag got a tag that she added a blog site.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Works_inspired_by_Tolkien&diff=prev&oldid=1308775143] [[User:NacreousPuma855|NacreousPuma855]] ([[User talk:NacreousPuma855|talk]]) 16:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:My chief concern is the recurrence of the same issues. I wish I had a good suggestion of what to do. Newsjunkie has some good contributions which outweigh the bad. They are a major timesink, but only for a few articles. Here, the bludgeoning walls of text, treating fansites and blogs as reliable, and not understanding [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns is almost identical to those in the first ANI report. They've done good work, but haven't fully aligned themselves with the purpose of Wikipedia, despite many attempts to guide them. An indef seems far too harsh, but a page block or topic ban is too narrow as the disruption spreads to other topics. Bludgeoning restrictions rarely work, but some sanction is clearly necessary. Does anyone have an idea for an appropriate sanction? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::My original proposal was a one week block from all pages, however a 31 hour block may be more ideal. A topic ban may be more sufficient however this would require admins to detect the bludgeoning that could come across over several months. I understand that Newsjunkie is trying to do a good job, however the bludgeoning has gone too far. [[User:NacreousPuma855|NacreousPuma855]] ([[User talk:NacreousPuma855|talk]]) 17:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry this has had to come here. I have spent a deal of time, both on the article's talk page and on Newsjunkie's talk page, trying to encourage her to edit more moderately and explaining that folks were finding her conduct very trying. I am afraid that after a pause, she started all over again. I had been hoping that some explanation from me, or perhaps a serious word from an admin might help, but some sort of restriction on her editing may now be needed. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 17:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::That is all very charitable and all, and maybe I should be giving more weight to the recommendations of editors who have to deal with the actual disruption, but as an outsider looking in, I can tell you that I am beginning to feel that it may be time for something much more substantial, including possibly a CIR indef pending major acknowledgments of issues and a commitment towards correcting their approach. I have no direct experience with Newsjunkie that I can recall, but I have seen some of the above-linked discussions over recent months, and there is obviously a very consistent consensus ac cross them that when it comes to the standards for inclusion of certain types of (generally [[WP:TRIVIA]]-adjacent) content and related issues of appropriate sourcing, NewsJunkie has a...well, let's be generous and say "idiosyncratic position on" rather than assume "poor grasp of" the relevant policies. While a number of other issues seem to be involved, the primary concerns seem to be (and others can correct me if I am wrong) [[WP:OVERCITE]] and reliance on non-RS fan community sources to support content. I looked into the complaints with regard to two of the previous threads, and found them to be substantially grounded in reasonable concerns. {{pb}}Further, I will note that the close of the last discussion, by an Admin and Arb, classified the result as a "final warning". So I think a sanction with teeth should at least be considered on the table. On the other hand, the fact that even the editors whose time is most taxed by NJ's approach speak of her as a net positive is compelling argument for applying something lower on the escalating block process. But my feeling is that it needs to be something that is going to underscore that patience is wearing thin for the high-volume/low quality approach that many people seem to feel that NJ is bringing to bear on articles about particular types of media. Personally, I am less concerned about the particular bludgeoning that inspired this report: it's far from the worst examples I have seen, and NJ, if obviously the most vocal single party, is not the only one speaking with significant verbosity in those discussions. And to the extent that their specific perspectives/approach was called out as the subject of one of those threads, it's to be anticipated that they would have a lot to say. But at the same time, I also can't be entirely dismissive of that complaint, as it is obviously an issue that is being raised as part and parcel of the longterm [[WP:IDHT]]/sealioning concerns. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 01:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::I would appreciate any guidance from anyone on how to balance responding and trying to improve my suggestion with what is considered bludgeoning. My main goal in responding was trying to develop a better proposal with better sourcing, the majority of the sources in my second proposal were all reliable news sources, the "community sites" I acknowledged in the discussion from the beginning would only be appropriate if considered to be a subject matter expert in this case and weren't included in this original edit, which was a reliable news source as others also acknowledged and some primary sources, which I then supplemented/replaced with additional reliable news sources with additional context as part of the subsequent discussion. [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 01:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::I reread some of the previous reports to see if I was remembering right. I think you have the right of it, SnowRise. To quote three different editors:
:::::* This pattern was identified as chronic and not changing months ago: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1186#c-Butlerblog-20250504122100-Wound_theology-20250504100000 {{tq|q=y|at this point there is a pattern here that is not changing.}} (May 4, 2025)]
:::::* Newsjunkie was warned that this behavior could lead to a site block: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#c-Cullen328-20250426003800-Butlerblog-20250425222900 {{tq|q=y|<nowiki>[Newsjunkie]</nowiki> has been advised to be aware that if this behavior pattern occurs on other articles or pages, they may be subject to a sitewide block.}} (26 April, 2025)]
:::::* The aforementioned final warning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#c-CaptainEek-20250604075500-Newsjunkie_Part_4 {{tq|q=y| lets chock this up as a final warning.}} (4 June, 2025)]
:::::In the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#Newsjunkie_Part_4 last ANI thread], there was some modest support for an indef as a regular admin action, the idea being that Newsjunkie could appeal and, if they showed that the problem behavior was understood and promised to not do it again, they could return promptly.
:::::Re: Net Positive: to clarify, I have not interacted with these positive edits. I just cruised the contribs and saw lots of unreverted ones, so I figured we should avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I wouldn't oppose an indef, I just don't have the experience to be comfortable jumping right to it when it's a gray area. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 02:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::If there any specific conditions I should abide by, I would be happy to consider them. While the initial edit may not have been ideal in terms of sourcing, I added several additional acceptable sources as the discussion continued and was always clear that the criticized sources were an optional suggestion (which were in part used by another editor in a separate but related addition during this discussion). [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 02:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Alright, I'll give it a try. Here are some suggestions:
:::::::# If someone tells you you're bludgeoning, you're bludgeoning.
:::::::# [[WP:BLUDGEON#Dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process|{{tq|q=y|If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process}} ]]
:::::::# If you ask a question, and are told it has already been answered, you're bludgeoning.
:::::::# If you're bludgeoning, Leave at most a short (<100 words) reply and immediately stop contributing to the topic.
:::::::# If you encounter overwhelming opposition (more than two-to-one), consider that your idea may be a poor fit for Wikipedia and drop the subject.
:::::::# Address one point at a time; each reply doesn't have to be an omnibus. Instead, aim for short clarifying questions, and only once one point has been settled move on to the next. [[WP:KEEPCONCISE|If you write more than 250 words, your reply is likely too long.]]
:::::::I doubt these are sufficient conditions, but they'd be a step in the right direction, I think. Provided links have explained this many times, so I still believe a block is needed, but perhaps this will help guide them when they return. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 14:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I really do appreciate those suggestions. I did try to at least respond shorter in the second thread. Do you have suggestions for the best way to discuss Synth/Original Research concerns or proposed additional sources? What seemed to most lead to long comments in this case was feeling like the only way to clarify whether a source reflected what a proposed statement said was to include quotes from the sources. [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 15:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::My strong recommendation ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1308991617 re-iterated below]) would be to stay away from trying to add sources. The long-term pattern of talk page disruption stems directly from your inability to discern overciting, synth, and what makes a source worthwhile, which is further evidenced by your own responses here. Even with the volume of responses to you in various article talk page discussions already, there remains a deep disconnect in your understanding. Your best option is to do something that doesn't get you into that mess in the first place. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 17:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::If the goal is to improve and get better at it eventually though, never adding them without any positive/non-feedback or negative feedback doesn't seem like the totally right way either though. Just reading the guidelines or even looking at existing sources on pages where even I recognize imperfect sourcing many times isn't really a replacement for that either. It does seem realistic to focus on minimizing the need for conversations and how to have healthier conversations, since at least some source discussion is part of the normal process. [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 17:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Notice what just happened: you asked for recommendations, they were given, and you started arguing. I understand that you want to know what exactly was bad so you can avoid it, but in doing so you create a new timesink, which is also a problem. I think any more advice I give would not be helpful, so I'll just say I agree with ButlerBlog above: avoid sourcing at all. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I suppose a 31 hour block is worth a try. I suspect the behavior won't take long to return, but reblocks are cheap, and maybe it'll be the wake-up call that's needed. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:I clearly have stopped replying on that talk page there now. My frustration was that I was trying to to respond to specific points that were being made and I felt that efforts I made to address specific concerns to make an improved suggestion were being completely ignored with others only seeming to see the initial proposal. After an initial suggestion, I made a second suggestion with better sources and was trying to find consensus by addressing the points in question. I think my second suggestion was stronger and better as a result of trying to respond to concerns, so how does one determine the limit between responding to address concerns to improve one's suggestion, and bludgeoning? I was not insisting on the original edit, but was bringing up other news sources that fully supported what the initial suggested statement said. When another editor made a suggestion for a list and there was firm consensus against that, I also made clear that I respected that, but wanted to see if there was another solution.
:To address the synth concerns, I was trying to illustrate what the news sources were actually saying in quotes, but then of course some of the responses got too long. There were no fansites or blogs in the original edit, it was something I repeatedly said during the discussion should only be included if it was seen as an appropriate appropriate expert source in the specific context in addition to other sources, which were all reliable news sites. (and one of the suggested sources initially inspired a different editor to make another addition on the page same using the same source) Once the discussion started, I didn't edit war on the page itself. When initial specific criteria were outlined in the second discussion, I specifically asked how my suggestion did not meet those specific criteria to see if there was some agreement on one point, but I never got a reply, which was why I was hoping for an RFC to get broader feedback and for the discussed criteria on the same page to be applied consistently. [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 18:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::First of all, we don’t have time to reply to every comment, that’s just how Wikipedia works sometimes which is why you were getting ignored, as we have clearly stated why your points were objected to. And I would suggest you read those 2 xcloud links that showed you were bludgeoning. [[User:NacreousPuma855|NacreousPuma855]] ([[User talk:NacreousPuma855|talk]]) 18:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I am not going to deny the percentage of comments or number of replies, I was trying to explain how it got that way and that what I was saying was not blindly repetitive without regard for what other people were saying or without trying to improve my suggestion and incorporate what people were saying. [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 18:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|I clearly have stopped replying on that talk page there now.}}: Newsjunkie has (for the moment) indeed stopped talking on [[Talk:Tolkien fandom]] - having left some last words there after everybody else. Instead, yesterday she added materials much like the disputed additions to [[Tolkien fandom]] to two other Tolkien articles: [[Works inspired by Tolkien]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Works_inspired_by_Tolkien&diff=prev&oldid=1308775143 diff] and [[The Lord of the Rings (film series)]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(film_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1308765975 diff], though she decided to self-revert the latter of these. This behaviour could be thought evasive, after two lengthy discussions which didn't go her way; it certainly doesn't suggest she has changed her attitude. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 07:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::I added it rewritten a bit to a different page because I thought that was possibly the more appropriate page for it, maybe it would have been the more appropriate page to begin with especially since it already mentions more different individuals and is less focused on the communal idea of fandom as discussed. In one of your responses, you mentioned that one of my additions might be better off in a different article so I was looking at whether there was another page that might be more appropriate. With the exception of the last sentence, which I have no objection to removing, all the content in that paragraph is from reliable news sources plus two new additional book sources. Also totally open to it being shortened. Since I got no replies when I previously asked for specific feedback on how to meet the criteria, there didn't seem to be an opening to ask whether another page would be more appropriate, so I just did a bold edit. I also considered the popular culture section of the [[Impact_of_Tolkien%27s_Middle-earth_writings]], but this one seemed more fitting for the reasons I mentioned. (I self-reverted the other page because I realized I had already added that content there months ago in another section with no objection and had honestly forgotten.) [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 07:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's much too long, and more than half off-topic. I'll trim it now. The issue is your continual special pleading, bludgeoning (including here), and unwillingness to take "no" for an answer even when it comes from the whole community. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 08:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Both here and on the other thread I was always open to feedback and compromise and my only reason for responding was trying to address directly the specific concerns that were raised and understand the criteria and exact sticking points to see if there was any compromise version of a better proposal that could work. I do apologize for the multiple replies, but the back and forth also led me to better sources and shouldn't that be the ultimate goal, rather than either not trying to improve an imperfect version or having a perfect version to begin with? [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 09:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You have a reply to everything. I note that you wisely reverted one addition, and that the other was a dump that had more to do with your Colbert-as-fandom view than anything to do with parody, which was the subject of the section where you dumped it. It is hard therefore to avoid the view that you were simply seeking a target rather than trying to improve Wikipedia. I have been bending over backwards to assist you to edit more constructively but I don't see any improvement. I therefore favour a block. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 09:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You and others raised some legitimate substantive concerns in the initial thread, but then it also felt like there was nothing or no source I could propose to address those concerns and that made it difficult for me contribute constructively. [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 12:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Your troubles are a twofold problem, with one leading consistently to the other. The inclusion of low-grade sources, primary sources, and [[WP:OVERCITE]]ing is where it starts. Just because something exists on the Internet - regardless of reliability & verifiability - [[WP:VNOT|does not make it suitable for inclusion]]. Your inability to course-correct there is what leads to bludgeoned discussions.
::::::::::@[[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] provided some [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-EducatedRedneck-20250901143700-Newsjunkie-20250901024300 sage advice on how to stop bludgeoning]. I would add that your best option is to find a way to contribute that does not involve sources - at least for a time, since that's what ultimately results in bludgeoned discussions. Perhaps copyediting or something else for a while. Show that you can contribute productively in some other area before attempting to come back to this. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 15:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== User UtherSRG ==
{{atop
| result = This is really a nothingburger. [[User:Heronils|Heronils]], please just follow [[WP:DR]], since this is nothing but a content dispute. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 18:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
I want to bring to your attention that [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198#h-Disruptive editing/ vandalism-20250819101300|this user]] just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=prev&oldid=1308805062 reverted this edit] after four minutes. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=1308807936&oldid=1308805062 reverted his edit with a detailed explanation]. He then did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUtherSRG&diff=1308809238&oldid=1308632452 hide a section "Your vandalism"] on his own discussion page, and then [[User talk:Heronils|contacted me on my discussion page]], telling me to revert myself, discussing it on the discussion page. Well, I gave a great explanation in the edit message and the user is free to start a discussion himself if he wants to. But just being the first who reverts a good change (e.g. fixes an error) does not ''not'' make one a vandal. [[User:Heronils|Heronils]] ([[User talk:Heronils|talk]]) 17:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:That section on UtherSRG's talk page wasn't intentionally removed; [[User:Lowercase sigmabot III|a bot]] automatically [[WP:ARCHIVE|archived]] it since it had received no comments for ten days.
:Also, you should probably notify the user of this ANI discussion. You appears to be involved in a content dispute on the [[Human]] article, since you have reverted to restore your preferred version several times. Please try other methods of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] besides ANI before posting here since ANI is usually a last resort. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 17:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
=== User UtherSRG, again ===
{{archive top|result=Still a content dispute, just like it was a few hours ago. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)}}
Sorry for insisting. You closed my original report quite fast. I feel you missed the point because you did not open my first link: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198#h-Disruptive editing/ vandalism-20250819101300|UtherSRG has already been reported here]]. Which is why I posted here. Quotes from that link:
''You've inappropriately labeled many good-faith edits "vandalism". You've used rollback inappropriately to revert those edits. You've edit warred with those other good-faith editors, which makes you involved, and then you've used other tools like protection and blocks inappropriately. You've missed at least a couple recent opportunities to absorb related feedback and correct course.'' – Firefangledfeathers
''I've no doubt he's a conscientious and good admin. But it's also clear there's an issue here with inappropriate reverts and involved actions which can't be explained just as routine mistakes during prolific editing and which need to be addressed.'' – Amakuru
''The best I can do is say I'll slow down and try to put more consideration into everything I do''. – UtherSRG (he reverted my edit after four minutes)
I am reporting his behavior here, and you are ''ignoring'' it, after such comments you made?
[[User:Heronils|Heronils]] ([[User talk:Heronils|talk]]) 19:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Heronils|Heronils]], UtherSRG did not rollback your edit and did not accuse you of vandalism, but rather simply undid it with an explanation. That's permitted. That's a content dispute and is not going to lead to sanctions '''on {{them|User:UtherSRG}}'''. What you're doing, on the other hand, is inflaming a content dispute and refusing to drop the stick after you've been told that your report is groundless.<span id="Salvio_giuliano:1756670400618:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 20:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
:: Quite. The report just above was closed because it is a content dispute, which admins don't act upon unless there is a conduct issue, which there doesn't appear to be here. Your addition was reverted; at this point you should [[WP:BRD|discuss]] the issue. I note that you have been reverted by another experienced editor apart from UtherSRG. As for the rest of this filing, what administrator action are you asking for? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::The proper reaction would be, in my opinion, that the user gets a last warning before excluding him from Wikipedia. And that this change (which is not even my own, I just fixed things) gets restored. Okay. That said, bye! [[User:Heronils|Heronils]] ([[User talk:Heronils|talk]]) 20:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
{{ab}}
== Unsourced sportswear "sponsorships" again. ==
{{atop
| status = Blocked
| result = Editors blocked. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> [[User:Fabvill|<span style="color: black;">'''Fabvill'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Fabvill|Talk to me!]])</span> 10:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
}}
*{{userlinks|Alessio Pasquinelli}}
*{{iplinks|87.19.176.59}}
Last week, I made this report [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1197#Huge_unsourced_%22Sponsorships%22_sections_on_many_sportswear_manufacturers_articles here], and the editer was indeffed.
Today, an IP turned up with an remarkably similar interests, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.19.176.59 editing habits], ie adding huge chunks of unsourced "sponsorships" to sporting goods manufacturer articles.
I have no evidence except the above to support my contention that the IP is the same guy, logged out to avoid his ban. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 18:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
* Blocked. I hope we don't have to play whack-a-mole here, but we will see what happens. The IP range they're on isn't the busiest, which is promising. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== FPSfan3000 ==
{{atop|result=<small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> {{u|FPSfan3000}} blocked for 2 months. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 20:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
*{{userlinks|FPSfan3000}}
Despite numerous warnings and two previous blocks, this user persists in violating core content policies by adding original research and citing unreliable, user-generated sources. They have ignored all feedback and show no intention of collaborating constructively. Examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ninja_Resurrection&diff=prev&oldid=1304388485][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_Jack&diff=prev&oldid=1305734932][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Tate&diff=prev&oldid=1306978602] Their talk page contains a long history of these warnings, and given their prolonged refusal to comply with the site's guidelines, I believe this is a clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Xexerss|Xexerss]] ([[User talk:Xexerss|talk]]) 20:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:I have provided sources to back up my claims. All you are doing is gas-lighting and abusing your authority. You don't even have any accountability, nor will you admit when you are wrong. [[User:FPSfan3000|FPSfan3000]] ([[User talk:FPSfan3000|talk]]) 20:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|FPSfan3000}} Slapping your source in the edit summary is not [[Help:Referencing for beginners|citing]] that source. URLs in edit summaries are unclickable anyways. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 20:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::"URLs in edit summaries are unclickable anyways."
:::No they're not? literally all you need to do is highlight them and copy and paste them into your urls. I love how you guys are basically admitting you don't bother to look at the sources I provide. [[User:FPSfan3000|FPSfan3000]] ([[User talk:FPSfan3000|talk]]) 20:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::[[User:FPSfan3000|FPSfan3000]], reddit is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], regardless of where you cite it.<span id="Salvio_giuliano:1756672710647:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 20:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::I'm not referring to reddit specifically [[User:FPSfan3000|FPSfan3000]] ([[User talk:FPSfan3000|talk]]) 20:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You are being asked to add citations to the article, not to your edit summaries. Speaking of which, what part of not citing user-generated sources don't you understand yet?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urotsukidōji&diff=prev&oldid=1308841524] MyAnimeList, Fandom and ANN encyclopedia are all unreliable user-generated sources. [[User:Xexerss|Xexerss]] ([[User talk:Xexerss|talk]]) 20:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:FPSfan3000|FPSfan3000]], sources do not go in edit summaries -- they need to go into the article as [[WP:IC|inline citations]] adjacent to the statement they're supporting. If you're just pasting a URL into the edit summary and aren't providing a reference in the article then your changes are considered unsourced and are likely to be removed. [[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(300deg,#16C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 20:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::: If you don't provide an inline citation (it's not difficult to do - see [[Template:Cite web]]) your addition is effectively unsourced. It's all very well saying "it's in the edit summary" but that requires someone to go hunting through the entire history of the article to find it - what if your addition was 1000 edits ago? This is a core content policy ([[WP:V]]). Secondly, websites like the Anime News Network Encyclopedia or other Wikipedias aren't reliable sources anyway, because anyone can add information to them - see [[WP:UGC]]. And Reddit posts ''definitely'' aren't reliable. If you're going to keep doing this after multiple warnings not to do so, I suspect your time here will be limited. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:@Xexerss I think it's pathetic you have to get all your friends involved. Are you not able to debate with others on your own? [[User:FPSfan3000|FPSfan3000]] ([[User talk:FPSfan3000|talk]]) 20:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*Since FPSfan3000 was edit warring on [[Violence Jack]] and continuing to demonstrate that {{they|FPSfan3000}} do not understand our policies concerning verifiability, I have just blocked {{them|FPSfan3000}} for two months. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 20:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Remsense ==
{{atop
| result = You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{User|Remsense}} is edit warring with me over a close I made to a [[Talk:Fall_of_man#Requested_move_24_August_2025|requested move he initiated]] that didn’t go his way. ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 22:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:The RM, which considers a comparatively complex discussion of the article's scope, was in the middle of a live discussion when closed, between direct questions asked of me and my ability to reply. It's pretty likely that the original proposal is not the best solution for what to do, that's my opinion at this point—but we were still discussing what to do. Just leave it alone instead of artificially cutting the discussion off, thanks. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 22:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]]: the way to deal with this would have been to go to the closer's talk page and ask them to reopen the discussion, not to edit war over the close. Calling an editor acting in good faith a {{tq|!vote-counter bot}} ([[Special:Diff/1308858329/1308858766]]) is also not appropriate. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::<del>Do I really need permission from someone who couldn't write a word of engagement to continue a substantive talk page discussion I was engaged in? I wasn't going to invoke this, but they have something of a pattern of doing this from what's already been posted on their talk.</del><span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 22:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I don't see a "pattern". Other than [[Special:PermanentLink/1308858678#Another bad close at Talk:Fall of man|your comments]] (which assume bad faith on the part of the closer), I see a request to reopen from [[Special:PermanentLink/1308858678#Hot dog|June 2025]], which was resolved, and a [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 August#1952 Dallas mid-air collision (closed)|move review]] that was speedy closed. Instead of snapping at Jess, you could have politely explained that you and another editor were still discussing the issue. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::<del>Not that I can tell the future, but the position of their reply seems to me they would've been happy to keep the existing discussion closed, just as I thought I was hitting upon something everyone could be happy with to fix a clear problem not only I recognized.</del> It's really difficult to get eyes on discussions in this space for some reason, but I will restore the closure if you want me to. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 22:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Struck things I said that are insubstantial or immaterial here. My own less-than-civil frustration with the sense of being interrupted midstream is getting in my way more than anything else right now, but I just want to be able to complete this discussion without staring at a brick wall unable to establish consensus for anything. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 23:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you for striking those comments. @[[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]]: are you okay with the discussion remaining open so that Remsense can try to discuss the issue with other editors and gain some sort of consensus? [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 23:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That’s fine. If he’d have asked instead of reverting me and chiding me on my talk page this could’ve been avoided. ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 23:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree with that, and I hope my apology adequately comes off as sincere. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 23:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Thank you ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 23:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== User:Camilasdandelions ==
{{Userlinks|Camilasdandelions}} has been blocked two times this year and been involved in several "incidents" after the last block. I've been one of the users who have tried to discuss and/or warn them on their talk page, yet some of the attempts resulted on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Camilasdandelions&diff=next&oldid=1293688768 reverts], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Camilasdandelions&diff=prev&oldid=1293188174 nonsensical edit summaries], and even a [[User talk:CatchMe/Archive 2#Warning|copy-paste to my own talk page]]. Other topics where they don't seem to be following WP policies include [[Talk:Bite Me (album)]], [[Talk:That's Showbiz Baby]], [[Talk:Something Beautiful (Miley Cyrus album)]]... Most about non-issues that lead to plenty of reverts. Recently, I was one of the three users who reverted their edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ego_Death_at_a_Bachelorette_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1308640023 here], and when giving more details [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ego_Death_at_a_Bachelorette_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1308821296 here], the user decided to just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ego_Death_at_a_Bachelorette_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1308852821 revert again and repeat what I said] (?) It's becoming kind of a fix loop; when you finally get to the end of the issue, they just repeat it over and over again in similar topics. I really don't think they are here for constructive reasons at all. [[User:CatchMe|CatchMe]] ([[User talk:CatchMe|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/CatchMe|contribs]]) 00:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:People can clean there discussion page up after they checked. I [irregularly] remove / clean talk sections in my talk page. (except which should not be removed: such as block warning; they are then moved to my archives) So the case of removing CatchMe's talk section can be regarded as kind of this process. For [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Camilasdandelions&diff=prev&oldid=1293188174 my "Copyedit" sunmary], I was misunderstanding what "Copyedit" means, and now I almost realized the meaning of it, apologies for my imprudentness before.
:CatchMe user has continuously reverted most of my edits in various articles. (which (s)he referred in here) For [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1308821296&title=Ego_Death_at_a_Bachelorette_Party this edit summary], I couldn't understand it in my common sense and (s)he removed my non-problematic edits (such as <code>| title</code> in [[Template:Music ratings]], [[Template:Singles]]) just because it is "unnecessary". Furthermore, this user also said "I can go on" in edit summary, which sounds odd and nonsensical, so I reverted that edit back. And I was planning to open discussion if CatchMe user reverts this edit again.
:As I know, this case doesn't violate [[WP:3RR]] rule (I'm sorry if it does, I'm still not adjusted in Wikipedia) and the user didn't even warn me in my talk page. But I admit that I was imprudent and postponed to open discussion in ''[[Ego Death at a Bachelorette Party]]'', I apologize for that, I will try to be more cautious in such situations. [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 01:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::This seems like a random assortment of problematic edits but I'm not seeing a coherent argument for what the policy violations are here that might warrant a sanction. I see some awkward editing but those blocks were back in January, not recently, so they aren't really relevant for whatever claims you are making here, [[User:CatchMe|CatchMe]]. Unless there is systemic and continued disruptive editing, I just see some imperfect editing which isn't a strong argument for bringing an editor to ANI. But if I'm missing something big here, I'm sure that I'll be corrected. To [[User:Camilasdandelions|Camilasdandelions]], I'll just say, please try to learn from your mistakes so they aren't repeated. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== Disruptive editing by User:Kyrgyzthefan ==
{{atop
| result = Indeffed as a sock <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 07:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{userlinks|Kyrgyzthefan}}
Kyrgyzthefan has been warned all week for their disruptive behavior, with no signs of improvement, such as [[Special:Diff/1308892485|this obvious case of page move vandalism]], unhelpful/nonsensical comments on talk pages ([[Special:Diff/1308874285|1]], [[Special:Diff/1308642207|2]]) and their [[Special:Log/upload/Kyrgyzthefan|persistent uploading of non-free images]] without proper attribution (not own work).
I am also unable to find evidence of the existence of the many flags of uploaded by this user. The only evidence that I could find were from Fandom wikis, which are [[WP:FANDOM|not reliable sources]], so these images are likely hoaxes. The user also appears to be an LTA on simplewiki per [[:simple:Special:redirect/logid/3086534|this block log]], so with that said, I think an indefinite block may be warrented here.
{{Collapse top|Potentially fictitious flags}}
*[[:File:Flag of Kunar.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Khost Province, Afghanistan.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Khost.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Kapisa.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Kabul Province.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Faryab.webp]]
*[[:File:Flag of Farah.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Jowzjan.webp]]
*[[:File:Flag of Daykundi.webp]]
*[[:File:Flag of Bamyan.webp]]
*[[:File:Flag of Ghazni.webp]]
*[[:File:Flag of Ghor.webp]]
*[[:File:Flag of Herat.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Balkh.webp]]
*[[:File:Flag of Helmand.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Tamanrasset.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Baghlan.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Badghis.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Antigua.png]]
*[[:File:Flag of Badakhshan.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Uttar Pradesh.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Guangxi.jpeg]]
*[[:File:Flag of Coral Sea Islands.jpeg]]
{{collapse bottom}} Thanks, [[User:Quebecguy|'''<span style="color:#005EFF">quebecguy</span>''']] ⚜️ ([[User talk:Quebecguy|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Quebecguy|contribs]]) 03:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:I'd like to hear [[User:Kyrgyzthefan|Kyrgyzthefan]]'s response to this complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:Likely a sock of {{u|Tajikthefan}}/{{u|CBeebies1288}}. --[[User:Minorax|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C">Min☠︎rax</span>]]<sup>«¦[[User talk:Minorax|'''talk''']]¦»</sup> 05:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:Im still standing here [[User:Kyrgyzthefan|Kyrgyzthefan]] ([[User talk:Kyrgyzthefan|talk]]) 06:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::<s>What is up with your reply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tajikthefan&diff=prev&oldid=1308922532 here]? The account is globally locked, you saying that doesn't do anything.</s> '''Edit:''' As TurboSuperA+ pointed out, this was bitey. I apologize for that, {{no ping|Kyrgyzthefan}}. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 06:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::They're obviously new/inexperienced, [[WP:BITE]]. @[[User:Kyrgyzthefan|Kyrgyzthefan]] just say you'll stop adding flags sourced to fandom and that you'll read Wikipedia's policy on reputable sources. That should be the end of this. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 07:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
=== All of these flags ===
Is from https://vexillology.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page, check it out! [[User:Kyrgyzthefan|Kyrgyzthefan]] ([[User talk:Kyrgyzthefan|talk]]) 05:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
{{Collapse top|fandom}}
And these pages from https://vexillology.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page:
*https://vexillology.fandom.com/wiki/Flags_of_country_subdivisions
*https://vexillology.fandom.com/wiki/Proposed_flags_of_provinces_of_China?so=search
{{Collapse bottom}} [[User:Kyrgyzthefan|Kyrgyzthefan]] ([[User talk:Kyrgyzthefan|talk]]) 05:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:* fandom.com is not a [[WP:RS|reputable source]] because it is [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]]. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 05:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Topic ban violation of User:BunnyyHop ==
{{userlinks|BunnyyHop}}
In March 2021, [[User:BunnyyHop]] was given a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1010229350&oldid=1010228311 6-month topic ban] for "Marxism/Leninism, broadly construed". In August 2021, this topic ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#h-Topic-ban_violation_by_user_'BunnyyHop'?-2021-08-05T17:40:00.000Z was extended to indefinite]. The user never appealed the ban. Afterwards, the user's activity on Wikipedia declined to zero, starting in October 2021. This is until today, when BunnyyHop [[Special:Diff/1308899230|made this edit]]. This is on the page of the [[Portuguese Communist Party]], which is Marxist-Leninist. [[User:Brat Forelli|<span style="color:Goldenrod; background: white">'''''Brat Forelli'''''🦊</span>]] 06:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:Two IP editors have also tried to remove the same information as BunnyyHop recently, possibly indicating [[WP:LOUTSOCK|loutsocking]], [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppetry]], or just an unfortunate coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/2601:18E:C481:1E70:0:0:0:0/64|2601:18E:C481:1E70:0:0:0:0/64]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1306280032][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1306304405][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1306397145][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1306495828][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1306496325][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1306523785], [[Special:Contributions/24.62.243.117|24.62.243.117]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1306604170], and {{np|BunnyHop}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1308899230]. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 06:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::There does appear to be a kind of mobilization against the particular piece of content that BunnyyHop happened to break their 4-year Wikipedia break (and topic ban) for. It started with an IP editor [[Special:Diff/1306280032|making the same exact deletion]] and claiming that they {{tq|read their [the Portuguese Communist Party's] publications daily}} before [[Special:Diff/1306519388|retorting to personal attacks]]. BunnyyyHop, as an editor topic-banned from Marxism-Leninism (broadly construed), may or may not be connected to this, as they edited Portugal-related articles too: [[Special:Diff/1010484149|1]], [[Special:Diff/1009827049|2]], [[Special:Diff/1009704412|3]], [[Special:Diff/1009703454|4]], [[Special:Diff/1009703382|5]], [[Special:Diff/1009703339|6]], [[Special:Diff/1009694818|7]], [[Special:Diff/1009692071|8]], [[Special:Diff/1009691892|9]], [[Special:Diff/1009691820|10]]. [[User:Brat Forelli|<span style="color:Goldenrod; background: white">'''''Brat Forelli'''''🦊</span>]] 08:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I've blocked them; I think this is some offsite campaign rather than LOUT socking. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 20:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you for handling the situation! Let's hope this relatively short block is enough. It's unfortunate the user broke their t-ban for this. [[User:Brat Forelli|<span style="color:Goldenrod; background: white">'''''Brat Forelli'''''🦊</span>]] 08:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== [[Special:Contributions/203.54.128.0/17|203.54.128.0/17]] ==
{{atop
| status = Range blocked 4 years
| result = Anon only, account creation enabled. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 06:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{iprange|203.54.128.0/17}}
This large IP range in Australia seems to be used almost exclusively by many public schools across the country, judging by the nature of its edits, even though it's geolocation information just mentions [[Telstra]], Australia's largest phone company. Per its block log, it's been blocked for a total of five years and one month, three years of which were because of a block by me in 2022. Ever since the expiry of my block, the range has gone right back to its old editing pattern. Out of its [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/203.54.128.0/17&target=203.54.128.0%2F17&dir=prev&offset=20250820032218&limit=100 last 100 edits over 11 days at time of writing (permalink)], 93 have been reverted. I asked {{ping|ToBeFree}} (with whom I'd previously discussed this range) to re-block it in [[User talk:ToBeFree#103.226.161.212|this thread on their talk page]], but they said that due to the size of the range they'd prefer a wider discussion about it at this board first, so here I am. Per my talk page message, I'd suggest that this range be re-blocked for at least another three years with account creation and talk page access enabled. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 10:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:This mirrors a discussion I had on Discord about the same range. Very broad, but overwhelmingly kids doing kid things. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 11:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::It can't really be narrowed either. I've gone through [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/203.54.128.0/17&target=203.54.128.0%2F17&dir=prev&offset=20220628065407&limit=345 all 345] of their edits from the expiry of their block in late June to the time of writing (quite a high number of edits for two months considering that during that time schools across the country have had two-week winter breaks), ignoring all edits tagged as reverted before I got there; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=all&start=&tagInvert=1&tagfilter=mw-reverted&target=203.54.128.0%2F17&dir=prev&offset=20220627031609&limit=35 only 35] are not tagged as reverted, counting the edit filter reports. There are a couple of false positives either way, but they cancel each other out and from the two lists it's safe to say that over 90% of their edits have been undone. Here are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Graham87&target=Graham87&offset=20250901145020&limit=42&namespace=0 my relevant main namespace contribs] where I cleaned up after that range; some of those are quite yikes (as in they shouldn't have lasted so long), but looking at just my list of contribs probably puts the range's edits in too flattering a light. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 15:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, there have been 15 block actions on single IP's within that range since the expiry of my rangeblock, per [[quarry:query/59816|this database query]]. To all editors looking into this sort of thing: if you see an IP with large gaps in its contributions, it's often a good idea to search for a rangeblock relating to that IP. I know that will become a huge amount more awkward soon with temporary accounts ... [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 16:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Off-topic comment: Well, we have a little more time now since temporary account deployment on enwiki has been pushed back to the week of October 6 per [[phab:T340001|Phabricator]]. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 20:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
: Well, I personally don't think it's a big deal to block a wide IP range when it's got account creation enabled. Putting a trivial barrier in front of people is often enough to discourage them from impulsive actions. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 20:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::I have somehow overlooked / not really realized the requested block was not just anon-only but also with account creation enabled. I think it will still prevent password reset requests from being sent, which is something Wikipedia-unique; normally, the "e-mail disabled" flag does that. But perhaps even that is allowed for such blocks. I'm not sure where that all is documented; I stumbled upon it as a feature implemented on request on Phabricator years ago. As there seem to be no objections, I'll re-block the /17 as requested. Thanks! [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 01:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Found it at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T109909 , although I'm now unsure whether it's really Wikipedia-only and if anon-only account-creation-enabled blocks are affected. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 01:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks, that works for me. I've also [[Special:Diff/1309114434|reverted one of their recent vandalism edits]]. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 06:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Please revert and delete this edit ==
{{atop
| result = User indeffed and TPA revoked by Lofty abyss. '''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 12:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
}}
[[User:I hope someone cuts Iggy Azalea to jump off a cliff|I hope someone cuts Iggy Azalea to jump off a cliff]] has created his user page, and used the f slur too which I find very inappropriate, can an admin or oversighter delete the edit please. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 12:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:There is also evidence of this on the talk page, various insults. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 12:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== User Kironshikder NOTHERE ==
{{userlinks|Kironshikder}} seems to be [[WP:NOTHERE]]. They first drew my attention after I [[WP:G11]]'d an obviously promotional article they had written ([[Bangladesh Debate Federation]]), and seemingly in retaliation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Examination_hell&diff=prev&oldid=1308914540 they reverted what was at the time my most recent edit] without explanation. In addition to the deleted article, the user has a history of adding promotional verbiage to articles, for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussain_(Chhatra_League)&diff=prev&oldid=1305392174], as well as creating other articles which are wholly promotional ([[Abdun Noor Tushar]], in addition to the previously mentioned debate federation article). Looking at their talk page also reveals a number of other indiscretions, including recreating AFD'd articles, misusing speedy deletes (and then gloating when the page is later deleted), and other unbecoming conduct. [[user:wasianpower|🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸]] ([[User talk:Wasianpower|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wasianpower|contribs]]) 15:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:They have continued to attempt to retaliate by spuriously nominating [[PWHL Seattle]], an article listed on my user page as one that I started, for deletion ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PWHL_Seattle&diff=prev&oldid=1309039440]). [[user:wasianpower|🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸]] ([[User talk:Wasianpower|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wasianpower|contribs]]) 21:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:Aye, their Talk page is studded with warnings and complaints, and going over the contribution history, there's more of the same. I'd almost suspect them of trying to run to extended-confirmed (499 edits and counting) if they hadn't started this rampage last year. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 15:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== Twister Swagger ==
*{{userlinks|Twister Swagger}}
Looks like the vast majority of this user's edits should be reverted. In the past, I would have simply used rollback and been done with it, as well as warned them. However, since I've significantly reduced my rollback use, I figured to post here for support on this. Thanks! - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 15:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
* I saw [[Special:Diff/1308970196]] on my watchlist, and it's hard to understand on its face. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:I see some constructive edits, or edits that could reasonably be seen as being done in good faith, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_a_Perfect_World_(Kanye_West_album)&diff=prev&oldid=1308986560], and most of their edits adding cleanup tags. New user, possibly not used to typical standards/policies/guidelines here, like [[MOS:APOSTROPHE]]. I think we AGF and let them know to read up on the MOS (assuming there isn't something I'm missing).
:Now I'm scrolling further back and see reverts that shouldn't have been done. But I'm assuming newbie mistakes. I think we let them know to read up on the MOS and think before reverting. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 16:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::All (I think) of the reverts are of cite bot. There's rarely a need to revert that bot. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 16:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah, saw that later since it's not in their past 50 edits. Well.. at least they stopped? Presumably? I wouldn't call for a block/ban since it seems like a mistake. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 16:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Would you say that rolling back all of their edits would be appropriate? Asking for a friend. ;) - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 16:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Ah. I mean, sure. Sorry, misinterpreted your intentions a bit. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 16:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::Most of their tags are on stubs. There's nothing valuable in putting "cleanup rewrite" or "lead missing" on a stub. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 16:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I wanted to highlight the issues in these stubs to bring attention to areas that may need improvement or further expansion. I apologize if my contributions have caused any issues. That was not my intention, and I’ll make sure to be more mindful moving forward. [[User:Twister Swagger|Twister Swagger]] ([[User talk:Twister Swagger|talk]]) 16:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I’m still not entirely sure how my edits may have impacted negatively the articles. My intention was simply to highlight areas that seemed to need more content so they wouldn’t remain stubs. If anything I did caused harm, I apologize, as that was never my goal. [[User:Twister Swagger|Twister Swagger]] ([[User talk:Twister Swagger|talk]]) 17:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
== User:LateFatherKarma ==
{{atop
| result = The user has been blocked. This can be handled through the unblock process now. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 08:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{Userlinks|LateFatherKarma}}
Suggest indef for LateFatherKarma on grounds of either trolling or CIR. They refuse to use their talk page for communication ("[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LateFatherKarma&diff=prev&oldid=1308972964 I do not want anything on my talk page]", "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LateFatherKarma&diff=prev&oldid=1308970639 Please do not post on my talk page]", "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LateFatherKarma&diff=prev&oldid=1308173084 I remove everything from my talk page. I don't like double spaces, on pages]", etc) all with a dubious (to say the least) story of harassment from 15 years ago (see UP). If they are trying to avoid harassment, then leaving multiple {{tl|connected contributor}} notes at talk pages of articles they're only peripherally connected to ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stalking&diff=prev&oldid=1308970996], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Reeves&diff=prev&oldid=1308699306], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keir_Starmer&diff=prev&oldid=1308701580], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derry_Irvine,_Baron_Irvine_of_Lairg&diff=prev&oldid=1308693827]): as {{u|Acroterion}} [[Special:Diff/1309008167|put it]] "For someone complaining about stalking, they seem to be making a point of drawing attention to themselves". This led to a [[Talk:Stalking#Reverting_Good_Faith_Edits_-_Complaints_and_Stalkers|bizzare discussion]]. And then [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:LateFatherKarma|another]]. And now they've filed [[Special:Diff/1309008167|a request for arbitration]]—albeit without actually explaining what they want, and without notifying any of their proposed parties that they have done so. Either they're taking advantage of our proactive sympathy in allegations of stalking in order to disrupt the project, or they honestly don't see a problem with wasting editors' time ("our most precious resource"). [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 17:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:Just as a quick note re: ArbCom, they are unsure of how to file and have asked for assistance in that regard (see [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Help:_Removing_connected_user_disclosure_and_stalking_article_content|the Clerks talk page]]). [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks {{u|Primefac}}; have they been advised to withdraw it? It would probably help their case if they did so voluntarilly rather than ask assistance to continue. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 17:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Not as of yet, but it has only been about 15 minutes and I think some of us are waiting to see what gets posted as an official statement. Goodness knows if they are taking their time making the proper notifications they will likely not see any request to withdraw until they are done anyway. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Well, they've also asserted they're connected to [[Angela Rayner]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angela_Rayner&diff=prev&oldid=1308704781], [[Rachel Reeves]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Reeves&diff=prev&oldid=1308699306], [[Derry Irvine, Baron Irvine of Lairg]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derry_Irvine,_Baron_Irvine_of_Lairg&diff=prev&oldid=1308693741], and [[Keir Starmer]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keir_Starmer&diff=prev&oldid=1308701580], who somehow was supposed to have been involved in McDonalds. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 18:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Starmer was part of the legal team of the defendants in the [[McLibel]] case. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 19:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::And to the [[Fixated Threat Assessment Centre]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fixated_Threat_Assessment_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=1308644063], plus these [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mental_distress&diff=prev&oldid=1308476032], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation&diff=prev&oldid=1308178901], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Housing_Ombudsman&diff=prev&oldid=1306050979] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Network_Homes&diff=prev&oldid=1309019450], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winsor_%26_Newton&diff=prev&oldid=1309019293], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reeves_and_Sons&diff=prev&oldid=1309019232] ''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 18:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Are we sure this isn't an elaborate troll? [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 19:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::Whether they are or not, I'm of the opinion a user concerned about being identified and harassed off-wiki should [[Streisand effect|never ''intentionally'' put themselves in a situation where the connected contributor tag is necessary]], especially with the reckless abandon they've been posting it. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 23:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::I’ve indeffed them. See the response to their ArbCom request.[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Removing connected user disclosure and stalking article content: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>]] [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 19:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::Good block. I don't think that it matters whether this is a lack of [[WP:CIR|competence]] or an elaborate troll, because either way that were [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to be constructive]] and were disruptive. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::I have said in the past that ArbCom is maybe the only forum where the [[Wp:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] principle does not apply. I had never before seen an editor blocked for a disruptive ArbCom filing, but this wasn't just a case of a disruptive ArbCom filing, but other competence issues. It wasn't a complete ArbCom filing anyway, but an incomplete ARbCom filing. Most ArbCom filers at least have the complaint written when they file. Oh well. One doesn't get blocked for a bad ArbCom filing, but being in the process of a bad ArbCom filing isn't a get-out-of-indef card for other problems. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::There was one only a few months ago: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1286464266 case] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog%2Fblock&page=User%3ARhobabwe block log] — {{tq|abuse of process (filing an edit-warring report and filing an arbitration request)}}. Didn't go back any further than that. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 22:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think TPA might need to be yanked [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 23:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think we should only remove Talk page access from blocked editors if an editor is being destructive or making vandalistic edits and this editor is just communicating with unblock requests. We are much too eager to remove TPA, I think. We shouldn't try to just silence editors who have complaints about the project and the way they were treated. Some times their comments have truth in them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hi, I do not wish to withdraw it and instead have asked for help. Now someone kindly gave that, all users have been notified. You posted this within minutes of me submitting it. Please allow a new user time and the opportunity to ask for assistance when they do something for the first time. It is my personal choice to remove comments on my talk page, whilst that may be deemed unhelpful, it is allowed. I do read them and respond. There is a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard and I tried to listen to more experienced users and it is clear I then made changes in response to others concerns. I am now going to focus on my arbitration case statement. [[User:LateFatherKarma|LateFatherKarma]] ([[User talk:LateFatherKarma|talk]]) 18:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
==User:Livelikemusic AI photo editing and false vandalism warnings==
{{atop|status=Filer blocked|result={{opblocked}} {{np2|MissWaissel}} indefinitely for sockpuppetry, per {{slink|Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz#01 September 2025}}. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 21:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)}}
{{disdis|MissWaissel|spi=ZestyLemonz}}
<s>The [[User:Livelikemusic]] has continued to revert new updated photos on [[Kat Slater]] and [[Zoe Slater]] when the replaced images were far clearer and the photo uploaded by Livelikemusic for the latter was digitally edited. This user then accused [[User:XxLuckyCxX]] of vandalism here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XxLuckyCxX&oldid=1309033052] when this user did the exact same thing overwriting files with images that were less clear and/or darker. [[User:MissWaissel|MissWaissel]] ([[User talk:MissWaissel|talk]]) 21:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)</s>
: Uhm, '''none''' of the images I have uploaded are via use of A.I.; that is an unfounded accusation. They came directly from the episodes, as uploaded to [[BritBox]]. '''<span style="font-size:95%;">[[User:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#2980b9">livelikemusic</span>]]</span>''' <span style="font-size:95%;">([[User talk:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#8e44ad">TALK!</span>]])</span> 21:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
: User is likely a blocked account of {{Userlink|ZestyLemonz}}. {{Userlink|Ponyo}} they are back! '''<span style="font-size:95%;">[[User:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#2980b9">livelikemusic</span>]]</span>''' <span style="font-size:95%;">([[User talk:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#8e44ad">TALK!</span>]])</span> 21:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
* Blatant sockpuppet account. Any administrator should close this B.S. immediately. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 21:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:: <s>[[User:Bgsu98]] It’s got nothing to do with you - stick to changing reality show table formats, which by the way I will be changing back once you’ve been blocked eventually [[User:MissWaissel|MissWaissel]] ([[User talk:MissWaissel|talk]]) 21:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)</s>
:: <s>To the closing admins, do not let these users stop you from investigating Livelikemusic over the fake vandalism warnings. [[User:MissWaissel|MissWaissel]] ([[User talk:MissWaissel|talk]]) 21:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)</s>
:: <s>[[User:Livelikemusic]] has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of [[User:ZestyLemonz]] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:MissWaissel|MissWaissel]] ([[User talk:MissWaissel#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MissWaissel|contribs]]) 21:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--></s>
{{abot}}
== Please delete this user sandbox ==
[[User:Gina Bohorquez1/sandbox]], the user has been only using it for vandalism and triggered a lot of filters while doing so, the user has been blocked, but the page needs deleted. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 21:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:The speedy deletion criterion you need is [[WP:G3|G3]]. I went ahead and tagged it.
:Also, this is probably [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salebot1|Salebot1]], an LTA who likes to [[WP:PGAME|game extended confirmed]]. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 21:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::Ok, that makes sense, thank you so much! [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 22:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::If you see this happen again, ''immediately'' report them to [[WP:AIV]] and add {{tlx|db-g5}} to their sandbox; that apparently breaks their script and slows them down enough to get blocked. ([[WP:G5|G5]] is the speedy deletion criterion for creations of banned or blocked users and/or their sockpuppets in violation of their ban or block.)
:::Another tip: if you ever create a page by mistake, put {{tlx|db-error}} on it. Pages created in error are eligible for [[WP:G6|G6]] speedy deletion. You can read more about the specific speedy deletion criteria at [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion]].
:::If you [[WP:ACCOUNT|create an account]], you can use a tool called [[WP:TW|Twinkle]] to fight vandalism once you're [[WP:AUTOC|autoconfirmed]]. Twinkle makes many tasks (like tagging pages for speedy deletion) much easier; I would definitely recommend getting it (if you want to make an account).
:::Happy to help, and thank you for your contributions! [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 22:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Your welcome, and thank you for the advice. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 08:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== ModernDaySlavery disruption (and now, probable socking by VPN-hopping) ==
{{Userlinks|ModernDaySlavery}} has a primary interest in copyediting article leads. Unfortunately, they don't listen when others object to their changes.
Over the last three weeks, they have been asked by multiple editors to stop messing with the prose in the lead of [[Logic]], a recent FA, without consensus. They initially refused{{diffs|1306173354|1308398219|}} then were given clear reasons why their idea was disputed after going to talk,{{diffs|1308754560}} and immediately kept going, not as if they hadn't heard a thing, but as if they had gotten consensus for a slightly different idea, as if they are entitled to keep trying until they have their prints on a page.{{diffs|1308757153}} I have been perennially miffed with their stubbornness, and am unable to understand it at all. It also doesn't mean I haven't tried make them aware what the issues are, because their talk page should at least verify how I've tried repeatedly.
I wouldn't be here if this was new behavior, I have been flummoxed by their tact on [[Science]], where they have had some issue with the phrasing of a particular sentence which I have not been able to understand for nearly a year,{{diffs|1254879984|1257716749|1258136857|1260169423|1271468651|1276473369 }} despite trying to ask them about it on talk, and even going to [[WP:3O]] a few months ago about it because I thought I was losing my mind.{{diffs|1308241290}} Months later, they casually blew past and tried to "fix it" again.{{diffs|1307619441}}
I try not to be this blunt, but they really do not have good instincts for diction, but the real issue is that they do not seem to care one iota about what other editors say if they can help it. I consider the result more often than not to be real, particularly visible damage for our readers. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 18:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
----
—actually! I withdrew this thinking the inciting incident just wasn't worth the trouble, but no. I'm sure this time.
On at least three articles recently engaged with by ModernDaySlavery, there have been sudden bursts of one-off activity from geographically random IPs, making similar kinds of edits (sometimes the same edits!) and leaving similarly written summaries. The most egregious are [[Logic]], [[Red pill and blue pill]], [[Template:Life imprisonment overview]]—just look down the recent edit histories! This one-off tag-team on [[Forecasting]] is as convincing once you notice the others and their general pattern of behavior.{{diffs|1291897156|1291897357}} Either they somehow aren't aware VPN-hopping isn't allowed, while editing as if they're tens of different users, or they care even less about doing things the right way than I thought they did before. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Logic&diff=prev&oldid=1308645535 {{tq|ChatGPT also agrees with me}}] fills me with neither confidence nor enthusiasm. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 08:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
* In addition to the above, user's chosen moniker combined with their obsessive addition of obscure incel jargon to pages such as {{xt|[[Incel]]}} and {{xt|[[Red pill and blue pill]]}}, often with bogus sourcing, suggests a [[WP:NOTHERE]] mentality. (Incels want to literally [https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1557085119896415 enslave women].) —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 22:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*:I would also point to the [[User_talk:Sangdeboeuf#Honest_question|discussion]] that ModernDaySlavery started on Sangdeboeuf's talk page, where they seem to think very highly of LLMs as potential sources of knowledge. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 23:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
*:About the {{tq|user's chosen moniker}}, they likely used the name "ModernDaySlavery" because they initially wanted to edit a section about modern-day slavery ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery&diff=prev&oldid=1160548248].) [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 00:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*::Regardless, they seem heavily invested in "[[blackpill]]" ideology, based on their commentary on my user talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sangdeboeuf&oldid=1308795190#c-ModernDaySlavery-20250804010400-Honest_question] and edits to {{xt|[[Men's rights movement]]}} by one of their suspected sockpuppets, literally called {{noping|Blackpiller}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1157096264] —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 15:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170#h-User:ModernDaySlavery_inflating_edit_count_for_extended_confirmed-20241101035200|Previous report]]. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 23:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:I agree they're using proxies and LOUTSOCKing, for example see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communication&diff=prev&oldid=1164659739] vs [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communication&diff=prev&oldid=1164659875] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&diff=prev&oldid=1251024010] vs [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&diff=next&oldid=1251024160]. They also gamed autoconfirmed to edit [[Slavery]], and it seems they use this account when the article they want to edit is protected. Also see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease&diff=prev&oldid=1252822725] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease&diff=prev&oldid=1298563504], where they try to get articles unprotected, presumably because they want to use proxies to edit it instead of their account. There's something interesting going on here indeed. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 23:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::Some confirmed proxies:
::* {{userlinks|2.220.19.153}}
::* {{userlinks|186.214.138.66}}
::* {{userlinks|99.93.63.193}}
::* {{userlinks|95.9.79.66}}
::* {{userlinks|71.190.209.208}}
::* {{userlinks|14.175.43.217}}
::* {{userlinks|97.204.240.74}}
::* {{userlinks|122.175.33.42}}
::* {{userlinks|168.70.79.91}}
::* {{userlinks|138.112.55.246}}
::* {{userlinks|88.213.221.9}}
::* {{userlinks|93.35.165.93}}
::* {{userlinks|2.1.131.155}} (got [[Wikipedia:Books]] protected by disruptively editing it, see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Books&diff=prev&oldid=1181566625], where they use their account to make the same edit after the protection)
::Likely:
::* {{userlinks|75.83.3.253}}
::* {{userlinks|68.199.106.61}}
::* {{userlinks|206.255.82.34}}
::* {{userlinks|37.24.69.42}}
::* {{userlinks|95.87.89.56}}
::...and several others I'm not bothering to list here. They sometimes use proxies to make null edits to the redirects they create with their main account (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Risk_return_ratio&diff=prev&oldid=1179350740] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Risk_return_ratio&diff=next&oldid=1179350740]) almost as if to let everyone know they're using that specific proxy. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 00:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Filed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uni3993]]. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 01:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Wow, you really did start tunneling through the encyclopedia catacombs farther than I could be bothered and didn't stop till you broke into the old haunted mineshaft we wanted. Genuine props. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 01:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! ModernDaySlavery would be blocked soon, but they would surely be back, and they're probably still using proxies to edit in places we have never seen. All we can do is be vigilant of POVPUSHing in Incel and other alt-right topics. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 01:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::The fact they've got a pretty good VPN means I should be less apprehensive for RPP than usual. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 01:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That's why I suggested we should block whole groups of proxies on sight, but [[User:Izno|Izno]] clarified we don't have access to raw proxy data to do that. Once temporary accounts roll out, this is going to be more problematic than ever, so perhaps we can have a protected AbuseFilter that automatically flags new temporary accounts with a bad [[:wikitech:IPoid|IPoid]] score. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 01:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== User ShayonD19 ==
{{Userlinks|ShayonD19}}
AIV report declined with pointer to ANI, so here we are.
User is repeatedly changing the number of remaining [[Sears]] stores as of August or September. Some of the edits are unsourced [[WP:OR]], and some are [[WP:SYNTH]], calculating the number of remaining stores based on a sourced count as of July 23, 2025, combined with sources about the subsequent planned closure of individual stores in August. Not only is this [[WP:SYNTH]] but the individual store closing refs are not acceptable sources to show that the stores '''have''' closed, rather than that the closures are or were planned.
This has been discussed on the article's talk page [[talk:Sears#number of locations]] and on the user's talk page in [[User talk:ShayonD19#August 2025]] and [[User talk:ShayonD19#September 2025]]. Despite multiple warnings and very extensive explanations the user continues to make these edits, all marked as [[WP:MINOR]]:
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sears&diff=prev&oldid=1305533404] (unsourced OR)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sears&diff=prev&oldid=1305649404] (SYNTH using deprecated July 25 source about future event)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sears&diff=prev&oldid=1308713038] (unsourced OR)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sears&diff=1308939885&oldid=1308936615] (SYNTH using July 9 source about future event)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sears&diff=1308953216&oldid=1308940787] (SYNTH using July 9 source about future event)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sears&diff=prev&oldid=1308974165] (unsourced OR, and actually removed the latest source we have for a total count)
The user simply either does not understand, or will not accept, that we cannot claim that a store has closed base on ref for a future closure, and that we cannot combine those future predictions with a sourced count to generate a new count: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShayonD19&diff=prev&oldid=1308945734], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShayonD19&diff=prev&oldid=1308951587],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShayonD19&diff=prev&oldid=1308972977]. The "isn't that proof enough that the store count should be reduced to 5 even if no source says so" from the final diff pretty much sums it up. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 23:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:User is still adding improper sources and SYNTH even after this ANI thread was opened: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sears&diff=1309134276&oldid=1309050310]. User claims https://www.lagradaonline.com/us/sears-closes-last-store-in-burbank/ is an August 31 source but is clearly actually dated August 11. User added a nonRS personal YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcNSC6z9YGM and used it as justification for changing the number of open stores. The third ref is paywalled and I have not been able to check it, but after seeing the first two my [[WP:AGF]] is done. This is either [[WP:IDHT]] or [[WP:CIR]]. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 09:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:The editor is now using "go check Google AI" as a reliable source. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 10:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
==COI Rollback - Jennifer Doleac==
I was going through and trying to pick off some of the easy COI requests. I went to go look at [[Jennifer Doleac]]'s page and noticed that someone with a noted COI had done significant editing to the page all the way back to July 16. This needs to be rolled back. How would I go about doing that? Is this a vandalism noticeboard issue?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_Doleac&action=history| history page for context]
[[User:Meepmeepyeet|Meepmeepyeet]] ([[User talk:Meepmeepyeet|talk]]) 02:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hello, [[User:Meepmeepyeet|Meepmeepyeet]],
:You are a very new editor yourself. For these sorts of issues, I'd rely on a more experienced editor to assess a situation like this and not just "rollback" a great number of edits. This isn't vandalism but you could go to [[WP:COIN]] and raise the issue there if you want some more feedback from editors experienced with COI issues. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::I'll raise the issue over there. Thank you! [[User:Meepmeepyeet|Meepmeepyeet]] ([[User talk:Meepmeepyeet|talk]]) 03:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== AI accounts causing confusion ==
[[User:Jozaf dyny]] and [[User:Meltonmarry]] are both very overt AI accounts, as well as [[Special:Contributions/103.57.224.193]]. A quick look at their extremely short contribution history shows that they only reply to talk pages (some of which are discussions from 15+ years ago), consistently write in an AI-like manner, and seem to summarize the content above them.
One such example is this post on {{Diff|Talk:Flash of unstyled content|prev|1305294462|Talk:Flash of unstyled content}}, where Meltonmarry responds to a talk page comment about whether the page is meaningful 18 years later as if they are just editing it for the first time.
Another such example, and the place I found the other two, is on {{Diff|Talk:Zero-width space|1308478842|1243696118|Talk:Zero-width space}} - inexplicably, all three accounts responded to this 2009 talk page post as if it were about including the zero-width character on the page as copyable text.
They then show up in Talk:Geometry Dash, where Meltonmarry responds to {{Diff|Talk:Geometry Dash/GA1|prev|1309003712|Talk:Geometry Dash/GA1}} as if it is their GA review AND while leaving the quotes in, a common marker of AI. Jozaf dyny then replies to the {{Diff|Talk:Geometry Dash|prev|1305976566|label=Geometry Challenge redirect section}} with a response that's evidently meant for the GA review.
Meltonmarry also links their user page to a Spanish font website. I'd hazard a guess that this is meant to drive traffic to it, but that's speculation.
Userlinks:
* {{Userlinks|Jozaf dyny}}
* {{Userlinks|Meltonmarry}}
* {{Userlinks|103.57.224.193}}
I don't know what precedent exists for fake users like this, but they're adding significant confusion to Talk pages that are actively in use (Geometry Dash) as well as those of historical record (Zero-width space). [[User:Corsaka|Corsaka]] ([[User talk:Corsaka|talk]]) 09:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:I'm interested in AI, but honestly, I find it very hard to see what you're asking here. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 09:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::Either a warning or a block for the three editors? We don't want AI comments in general, but we certainly don't need AI comments to long-stale discussions, and by seemingly meat-or sockpuppets. At best they are acting independently and are being guided to these discussions by some incorrect newcomert task, in which case that task needs disabling or adjusting. But it certainly seems like a good case to raise here, so admins can look at it and people can chime in if they have noticed similar behaviour by other accounts. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::AI is getting more popular these days but I never heard of something like an AI account on Wikipedia, this feels like something new to Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 09:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I think they mean AI-generated responses being copied in by humans. That has happened before. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:B15F:8000:F48E:23D:2BEE:5BB|2001:8003:B15F:8000:F48E:23D:2BEE:5BB]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:B15F:8000:F48E:23D:2BEE:5BB|talk]]) 11:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::no idea why a human would do this to random tak pages at random times of day, but either way it's a problem [[User:Corsaka|Corsaka]] ([[User talk:Corsaka|talk]]) 11:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::"Random times of day" isn't indicative of anything, different time zones exist. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 15:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:It's probably just a spam campaign, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Meltonmarry&oldid=1305976239 one of their userpages]. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 12:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::I [[WP:BOLD]]ly removed one overtly spammy comment so it wouldn't get archived by the bot, because once it gets archived, people will complain if you try to remove it even if it's spam.
::The other comments, whatever. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 15:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== User:AzanianPearl ==
{{atop
| status = CONTENT DISPUTE
| result = This is a content dispute, and ANI doesn't focus on content disputes. Please consider other means of [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] first before posting <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> [[User:Fabvill|<span style="color: black;">'''Fabvill'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Fabvill|Talk to me!]])</span> 13:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
}}
This user keeps persistently adding [[Wikipedia:No original research|WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]] to the [[Mogadishu]] article. They are also removing sourced content that they don't like for no apparent reason. I originally removed their original research, but now they've added it back and are keep inserting their disruptive edits. The source they are citing from does not mention much of what they've included. Nothing about a "QDSH" or "Sarapion" or a specific temple. I've already previously mentioned exactly what the source states, but they prefer to add in their own claims. Also in their edit comment, they referred to the other editors as "idiots". I don't think this user is willing to seriously engage in good faith editing. [[User:Limegreencoral|Limegreencoral]] ([[User talk:Limegreencoral|talk]]) 10:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:My material was present prior to you adding [[folk etymologies]], some even completely without a source. I have cleaned up the page and kept it to the bare minimum. This is the current clean and basic form, which cannot be accused of either OR nor SYNTH:
:''Etymology
:: <!-- Do not place folk etymologies here and mind the lenght, it must be brief. -->
::The name Mogadishu appears in early [[Arabic]] sources as Maqdīshū (مَقْديشو), which closely resembles the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] word מִקְדָּשׁ (Miqdāsh), meaning “holy place” or “sanctuary”. The [[Semitic root]] [[Q-D-Š]] relates to holiness, sanctity, sacredness.
:: <!-- Do not place folk etymologies here and mind the lenght, it must be brief. -->
::The 16th century explorer [[Leo Africanus]] knew the city as ''Magadazo'' (alt. ''Magadoxo'').
::''Hamar'' or ''Xamar'', the local [[nickname]] of Mogadishu, likely derives from a [[Somali language|Somali]] word for "[[red]],"
:For the sources, see the current page.
:I sense the reasoning why the [[Q-D-Š]] etymology upsets you is either out of [[antisemitism]] or [[nationalism]]. [[User:AzanianPearl|AzanianPearl]] ([[User talk:AzanianPearl|talk]]) 10:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::I suggest reading [[Wikipedia:Casting aspersions|WP:ASPERSIONS]] before accusing me of having some sort of hateful beliefs. That is a strange thing to say. You've consistently added in your own research and assertions onto the section. [[User:Limegreencoral|Limegreencoral]] ([[User talk:Limegreencoral|talk]]) 10:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::You have been in prior conflicts with other wiki editors regarding [[nationalist]] or [[tribalist]] disputes, so my sense that either [[antisemitism]] or [[nationalism]] being behind why the Semitic etymology upsets you is justified. Let a neutral administrator be the judge. [[User:AzanianPearl|AzanianPearl]] ([[User talk:AzanianPearl|talk]]) 10:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:This is a content dispute which should be resolved (hopefully amicably, without accusations of antisemitism or nationalism) at [[Talk:Mogadishu]]. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::I would agree also, that this is usually the sort of thing that is resolved in the talk page, but like I said, I don't think the user is willing to engage in good faith behavior. They've insulted other editors labeling them as "idiots", and now even accuse me of having prejudiced beliefs for some reason. They've removed sourced content proposing different theories that they don't like and kept adding in original research. I come to the ANI because I'm not sure a productive discussion can be had. [[User:Limegreencoral|Limegreencoral]] ([[User talk:Limegreencoral|talk]]) 10:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I have started to engage on the talk page and hope [[User:Limegreencoral]] resolves this amicable there. As for 'idiots' having been used, that was an unfortunate typo which was meant to be edits (similar words with D and Ts). I immediately self-reverted that and clarified it, so kindly do not bring that up again as I never meant to use that word. [[User:AzanianPearl|AzanianPearl]] ([[User talk:AzanianPearl|talk]]) 10:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
* This is a content dispute, and to that end—and before I saw this report—{{Diff|Mogadishu|prev|1309150935|I reverted back to the pre-dispute version from 20 August|diffonly=yes}}. Since this is a content dispute, I strongly suggest that no changes in this area be made until after consensus is reached at the article's talk page. Since both parties here have demonstrated awareness of edit warring policies, I have no qualms issuing a [[WP:3RR|3RR]] block for any further reverts. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 11:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
* Behaviour note: [[User:Limegreencoral]] {{Diff|Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents|prev|1309151812|attempted to remove the entire thread to this point, including other editors' comments|diffonly=yes}}. They have been advised that such actions are disruptive. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 11:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*:As I mentioned in the talk page, I did not remove the discussion for a disruptive or malicious reason. I assumed that since you made your revert on the page and stated a consensus needed to be reached on the talk page which was similar to the other users comment above that this was the resolution of the ANI and we had to use the talk page. A complete misunderstanding which I apologize for, I did not even see that you commented. I would not have removed the discussion if I saw a new comment. [[User:Limegreencoral|Limegreencoral]] ([[User talk:Limegreencoral|talk]]) 11:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*::Close it I guess [[Special:Contributions/37.186.35.158|37.186.35.158]] ([[User talk:37.186.35.158|talk]]) 12:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== [[User:ClarkKentWannabe]] ==
{{userlinks|ClarkKentWannabe}}
This editor has insisted they include a list of members of city council at [[Homer Glen, Illinois]].
This list was removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homer_Glen,_Illinois&diff=prev&oldid=1305840982 here] with the edit summary "unnecessary, per [[WP:USCITIES#Government]]", which states "Avoid listing all city council members, because this information becomes obsolete fairly quickly since a subset of the members typically changes every 1 or 2 years, wrong information is worse than not having it."
ClarkKentWannabe reverted it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homer_Glen,_Illinois&diff=prev&oldid=1305917250 here].
I reverted it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homer_Glen,_Illinois&diff=prev&oldid=1305920552 here], stating "please discuss on talk page before editing against consensus".
ClarkKentWannabe started two discussions:
* [[Talk:Homer Glen, Illinois#RfC about listing all current members of Homer Glen's Village government (closed; please disregard)]].
*[[Talk:Homer Glen, Illinois#Should the "Government" section contain a listing of all current members of Homer Glen's Village government? (Closed; disregard)]]
Neither discussion established a consensus to include the city council in the article.
ClarkKentWannabe's frustration level seems to have increased to the point that an intervention may be needed:
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uraveragejoe&diff=prev&oldid=1306094289] - Asked an editor "how long have you had to wait before you were successfully able to re-insert the wikitable about a municipality's elected officials without getting blowback from inconsistent editors like Magnolia677?"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uraveragejoe&diff=prev&oldid=1306094902] - Asked an editor "care to point out where Magnolia677 has been criticized in the past for his inconsistency?"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Glman&diff=prev&oldid=1306103271] - Canvased an editor to comment on my "blatantly misusing & misinterpreting WP:USCITIES to justify information about Homer Glen's government being removed."
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Glman&diff=prev&oldid=1306159995] - refers to three editors who disagreed with their edit--[[User:Reywas92]], [[User:Sbmeirow]], and myself--as "the three idiot editors".
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uraveragejoe&diff=prev&oldid=1306160127] - "I just decided to close the discussion & take your advice to wait maybe a week in the hopes that the three idiot editors will have eventually forgotten about the Homer Glen article".
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uraveragejoe&diff=prev&oldid=1306296512] - Asked another editor if other editors "need to be called in to deal with Magnolia, Sbmeirow, & Reywas92?"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline&diff=prev&oldid=1306478672] - a rant against [[User:Reywas92]], [[User:Sbmeirow]], and myself.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline&diff=prev&oldid=1308749229] - Advises [[User:Reywas92]], [[User:Sbmeirow]], and myself: "I would '''strongly''' advise you to cease & desist in the removal of content about government officials other than the Mayor in the "Government" section of articles for municipalities smaller than cities up until someone from this WikiProject can set the record straight as to which side (myself/Uraveragejoe/Marcus Markup/glman, or you/Reywas92/Magnolia677) is in the right on this issue. However, should you not wait for the final word on this issue & proceed anyway in removing content before it is known whether or not it's allowable, I will respond to what I see as article vandalism by you, Magnolia, & Rey by going straight to the administrators' noticeboard, letting them know what's going on, and then recommending/suggesting that all three of you receive temporary editing blocks in order for the three of you to have time to re-consider how you interpret WikiProject guideline vs. Wikipedia guideline (especially how project guidelines do not apply site-wide), as well as understanding when a WikiProject's frontpage directly states that abiding by said WikiProject guideline isn't a requirement when it comes to editing Wikipedia articles."
This editor continues to re-insert the city council at [[Homer Glen, Illinois]].
Thank you. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 11:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:And now, to describe the situation here much in the same way I described it at the WP:USCITIES talk page...
:There is some content under dispute related to articles about municipalities ([[Homer Glen]], [[Orland Park]], [[Midlothian, Illinois|Midlothian]], etc.), and so far, discussions opened about the content have reached a stalemate, due to two groups of editors having conflicting opinions.
:The content under dispute, relating to the "Government" section of articles of some municipalities, is a wikitable listing the current elected members (Mayor, Clerk, Trustees, etc.) of certain smaller municipalities (smaller than cities).<br><br>
:Now, in one discussion in July on Magnolia677's talk page ([[User talk:Magnolia677#Consensus|here]]), [[User: glman|glman]] had reprimanded them, stating that [[WP:USCITIES]] guideline is a '''WikiProject''' guideline, not '''Wikipedia''' guideline (as in, USCITIES guideline does not extend to the site as a whole). Magnolia677 was also reminded by glman that the "frontpage" for WP:USCITIES itself states ''While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing''.<br>
:And, in another discussion earlier this year (May), also on Magnolia677's talk page ([[User talk:Magnolia677#What, exactly, is your issue with Dolton?|here]]), [[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] had reprimanded them for removing relevant information from the article for [[Dolton, Illinois]] about the scandal concerning former Dalton Mayor & former Thornton Township Supervisor Tiffany Henyard.<br>
:As of recently, through engaging in a discussion about the disputed content launched on Homer Glen's talk page ([[Talk:Homer_Glen, Illinois#Should the %22Government%22 section contain a listing of all current members of Homer Glen's Village government? (Closed;_disregard)|here]]) by me (where both myself & [[User:Uraveragejoe|Uraveragejoe]] proceeded, in a way, to reprimand Magnolia677 a seemingly third time for, apparently, once again misusing & misinterpreting policy on here), Magnolia677 attracted the attention of [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]] & [[User:Sbmeirow|Sbmeirow]], who proceeded to agree with Magnolia677's stance on WP:USCITIES guideline.
:So, it would seem Magnolia677 insists on engaging in disruptive behavior by blatantly misusing (& therefore, misinterpreting) policy on here to argue, and therefore themself determine, what content does & does not belong in Wikipedia articles.
:In fact, on my talk page ([[User talk:ClarkKentWannabe#August 2025|here]]), Magnolia677 has accused me of "plotting" against themself, Sbmeirow, & Reywas92 by simply discussing with Uraveragejoe how to deal with the three of them ([[User talk:Uraveragejoe#Your input is being sought...|here]]; I admit I wrongly engaged in a personal attack towards Magnolia677 in the discussion on Uraveragejoe's talk page (by referring to Magnolia677, Sbmeirow, & Reywas92 as "the three idiot editors"), and on the request of Magnolia677, I have since removed the personal attack, but I will not apologize for consulting with other Wikipedia editors in order to figure out how to deal with what I consider to be disruptive behavior (misuse of policy) by disruptive editors.<br><br>
:And, as I even stated to Sbmeirow on WP:USCITIES talkpage...
:The thing is, as it's been pointed with the USCITIES WikiProject:
:1. What takes priority above everything in WP:USCITIES (meaning what content WP:USCITIES allows in articles about municipalities) is how, in the main USCITIES article at [[WP:USCITIES]], the lede section states (and I quote): "''While it is just a guideline and there are '''no requirements''' to follow it in editing''" (my emphasis added). So, right away, *any* argument about it being necessary/required/etc. to abide by what WP:USCITIES states in the body of the article is already neutralized by the direct wording of the lede section of USCITIES itself. So, Magnolia677 stating that WP:USCITIES *must* be adhered to is already wrong; the main article itself actually directly states otherwise. And, to make the additional point that USCITIES is a *WikiProject*, and therefore, any guideline stated in the USCITIES article is a *project* guideline; that means it is applicable *only* to the particular project, not to the entire website (meaning anything outside of WP:USCITIES is outside of WP:USCITIES's jurisdiction). That was what glman pointed out to Magnolia677 in the reprimand on Magnolia's talk page that I referenced.
:2. WP:USCITIES#Government states: ''This section should include a description of the local city government, '''such as the mayor's office, city council or legislature, city manager (if applicable),''' and how these entities interact. For larger cities, you might include information on the local government politics as well. Avoid listing all city council members''. Now, if you notice, the recommendation/suggestion about *not* listing *all city council members* comes *after* WP:USCITIES#Government starts talking about *larger* cities (like New York City, Los Angeles, & Chicago, for example), and that makes sense, because large cities (like those I referenced) will tend to have a large city council (NYC has 51 council districts, LA 15 city council districts, & Chicago 50 wards). But, nowhere else other than in referencing *larger cities* does that recommendation/suggestion about not listing all members of a municipality's legislature appear. And, the sizes of the legislatures that I pointed out for NYC, LA, & Chicago is likely why.<br><br>
:And, one thing I find interesting is how Magnolia677 seems to have no problem when Uraveragejoe seemingly kept reverting their reversions, re-inserting the information in the Orland Park & Midlothian articles that I'm trying to put back in the Homer Glen article. In fact, from my awareness, Magnolia677 hasn't filed an ANI complaint against Uraveragejoe. But, for whatever reason, Magnolia677 seems fit to go after me for reverting their reversions, going so far as to take this course of action.
:And, I also find it funny that Magnolia677 saw fit to omit in their comment the information I pointed out in mine.<br><br>
:So, if the result of this ANI complaint is a finding against Magnolia677 on account of their misinterpretation, and therefore misutilization, of WikiProject guideline across Wikipedia, then I am recommending/suggesting their account receive a permanent edit block for the whole of the USCITIES WikiProject. [[User:ClarkKentWannabe|ClarkKentWannabe]] ([[User talk:ClarkKentWannabe|talk]]) 12:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::Commenting just to clarify I do not agree with the characterization of Magnolia and I's discussion as a "reprimand". Magnolia and I are both editors, and we were having a discussion. We disagree on how strictly [[WP:USCITIES]] should be applied, but our discussion was just that, a good faith discussion between two editors who disagree. [[User:Glman|glman]] ([[User talk:Glman|talk]]) 14:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*Sorry but the idea that we can't list councilors in an article because they "may change every year or two" is laughable. Should we do away with movies' box office receipts, active rosters of sports teams, charting information for music, all of which change more frequently? How about state and national legislators? ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 14:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*:Agreed - if the information is sourced, it certainly seems notable. [[User:Glman|glman]] ([[User talk:Glman|talk]]) 14:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*::I personally find the local consensuses of wikiprojects often become vexing when they assume that editors editing within the scope of a project but outside its auspices say, "no that's silly." See also the wikiproject that declared that certain sources found at RS/N to determine box office totals reliable ran afoul of RS/N participants saying these same sources seemed unreliable for anything. Generally the consensus of a wikiproject is useful right up until it encounters editors who are not members to that project and then consensus should be based around policies and guidelines and around the local consensus of editors at that page. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:Neither editor is covering themselves with glory here, but Jessintime is exactly right: there are many areas where frequent changes of information are ubiquitous. Nor does a WikiProject's non-binding advice to avoid such lists constitute a blanket prohibition of such magnitude as to meet the level of "'''urgent''' incidents and '''chronic, intractable''' behavioral problems." I suggest Magnolia677 drop the stick. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 14:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::+1. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== SchroCat ==
{{atop
| result = The consensus is that, fundamentally, we have a content dispute. However, per impartial, seasoned commentators:
* [[User:FaviFake]] is '''warned''' over their [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]];
* [[User:SchroCat]] '''reminded''' of [[WP:3RR]]; and
* Concerned parties are '''advised''' to seek alternative methods of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]].
Cheers, [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 14:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
}}
I'm requesting assistance in dealing with user {{Userlinks|SchroCat}}. The following is a summary of the events as I have witnessed them (I have not looked at discussions that took place outside this article; see below):
;Background
* [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] edited the page [[Saint Valentine's Day Massacre]] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1307253240 clarify a link], to remove the pipe from 2 links in the "See also" section.
* [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=1307253240 added the pipe back] for the first of the 2 links, so [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=1307255381 clarified that same link] using {{tl|slink}} instead of the pipe.
* [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=1307743245 reverted the edit] per [[WP:EASTEREGG]], so [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=1307752110 modified the link] and added a note about the page, citing [[WP:EASTEREGG]] and [[MOS:SEEALSO]].
* [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=1307743245 reverted the edit], only saying {{tq|Maybe the talk page would be the best place to stop the edit warring?}}
;Talk page
* [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] started a thread at {{sectionlink|nopage=yes|Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre#See_also_-_List_of_organized_crime_killings_in_Illinois}}, arguing in favour of their version and the discussion started.
*In the discussion, [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] kept [[WP:STONEWALL]]ing Ames, only citing [[WP:STATUSQUO]] in their replies (even though the SQ wasn't being changed during the discussion), while [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]], provided excerpts from different policies and guidelines.
* I then [[Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre#c-FaviFake-20250902082600-Mitch_Ames-20250828131300|replied]] in support of [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]]'s version and pointed out that [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] was still stonewalling.
;Archiving shenanigans
*6 minutes after my reply, [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] manually [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASaint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=1309134776&oldid=1309134135 archived ''all'' discussions], including {{sectionlink|nopage=yes|Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre#See_also_-_List_of_organized_crime_killings_in_Illinois}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASaint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=1309134776&oldid=1309134135 only saying they were "{{tq|following current practice}}"].
* I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=1309134776 reverted their edits] with the edit summary {{tq|Talk pages shouldn't be blanked, and archiving an [ongoing] discussion in which you're involved in isn't going to accomplish anything. [...] "Current practice" isn't documented anywhere.}}
* Since there seemed to be consensus (based on policy) to implement the change, and given that the opposing party had archived the discussion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1309136830 I restored the edit to the article] and [[Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre#c-FaviFake-20250902085700-FaviFake-20250902082600|commented about SchroCat's behaviour]].
* [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] then <s>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1309136851 deleted every discussion on the page] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre/Archive_1&action=history without archiving them]</s> <u>deleted all discussions except for the newest one, and archived them 2 hours later</u>. (edited 13:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC))
* [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=1309136851 accused me] of "{{tq|edit [warring] on a featured article}}" and of "{{tq|supervot[ing] to [my] personal preference}}". They also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1309136830 reverted my edit] to the article, against the apparent consensus on the talk page.
;Other notes
*2 out of the 3 discussions that [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] <s>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1309136851 deleted from the talk page] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre/Archive_1&action=history without archiving them]</s> <u>archived from the talk page</u> (edited 13:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)) had been created by other editors after a similar request from [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] in their edit summaries. For example, in {{sectionlink|nopage=yes|Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre#Revert re: Use of CURRENTYEAR in the main namespace}}, [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] pointed to policies and guidelines supporting their change while [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] cursed at them:
**{{tq|Again, there’s nothing against using these in mainspace. If you think there is, please link to the policy or guideline that says it’s inappropriate. If you can’t, then we’re done here.}} After [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] found the guideline, they replied:
** {{tq|Fuck me you like edit warring, don’t you. [...] your overly aggressive approach and ongoing edit warring really is sub-standard.}}. The discussion ended with [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] saying {{tq|Re [[Special:Diff/1301398457|this edit]]: I don't get it at all ... but I'll accept it and leave it alone.}}
*I have not looked at discussions that took place outside of [[Saint Valentine's Day Massacre]]'s talk page; there are many other discussions about [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] at [[WP:AN/I]]: ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&search=User%3ASchroCat&ns0=1 archives search]).
* From their block log, [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=SchroCat&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist&issubmitted=1 blocked of 11 times]. I haven't investigated further; some of the blocks have been removed ahead of time:
**For edit warring: 6 times, latest on June 2025. (Longest: 48h)
**For personal attacks or incivility: 3 times, latest on June 2025. (Longest: 72h)
I do not think that yet another block that only lasts a couple of days or even a few weeks would be enough for this user given these circumstances. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 12:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:'''Note:''' SchroCat has now archived the previous 3 discussions on the article's talk page; some links in this post may not work correctly. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 13:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:They even reverted the ANI notice, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASchroCat&diff=1309163127&oldid=1309163064] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASchroCat&diff=1309162510&oldid=1309161396] <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> [[User:Fabvill|<span style="color: black;">'''Fabvill'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Fabvill|Talk to me!]])</span> 13:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, they are allowed to do that, so don't frame it as some sort of "bad" thing. <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 13:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Deleting the ANI notice from their own user talk page is fine, but I don't think it was appropriate to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1309162751 delete it] from {{section link|Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre|See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois}}, so I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1309164985 restored it]. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 13:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::The removal was a mistake of mine (it was caught up in the archiving of earlier threads.) However, I do think it inappropriate to post ANI messages into article talk pages. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*It's a straight lie to say I have deleted threads without archiving them, as looking on the relevant archive page will show. I initially used a script to archive the threads, so they were automatically archived. The bottom three threads of the archive are all dead in that the matters discussed have been settled, so there is no need for them on the talk page any more.{{pb}}I'm really not sure why the mud-raking of my history - it smacks of desperation and very poor form.{{pb}} I stand by reverting FaviFake's edit warring: there is a discussion without a conclusion and without a consensus. There was no need for them to force their own supervote on the article while the discussion was underway: that's just poor form. Aside from that, it seems I'm being castigated for using a naughty word (in exasperation over someone edit warring), but that seems a little ridiculous, even for ANI. And yes, as EF5 points out, I am allowed to remove most things from my talk page, including ANI notices. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq2|It's a straight lie to say I have deleted threads without archiving them}}They had not been archived at the time I drafted this message; I failed to check again before publishing it, I apologise. It appears you removed them on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&oldid=1309136851 10:58, 2 September 2025], but only pasted them in the archive about 2 hours later at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre/Archive_1&oldid=1309150566 13:17, 2 September 2025]. While they hadn't been archived immediately, it seems this was unintentional and was done in good faith. I have struck these statements from my original message.{{pb}}{{tq2|There was no need for them to force their own supervote on the article while the discussion was underway}}As I explained, I only edited the article following the consensus because the discussion was archived by you. A discussion cannot be "underway" if it is archived. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 13:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*{{ec}} In terms of the original thread on the article talk page: there is no consensus in the discussion at present. What you describe as "stonewalling" (something that only reaches the level of an ''essay''), others will see as someone expressing an opinion. It's a discussion, for goodness sake: two people are disagreeing over something. Just because one person can't get their own way doesn't mean the other person is "stonewalling" any more than it means the first person is being disruptive in continued pushing. It's concerning that someone saw a thread in which two people agree with the status quo and one person is requesting a change that someone thought you could come along and use a supervote to force a change. Why would anyone do that? Why would someone not just join the discussion, rather than edit war? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 14:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq2|Why would someone not just join the discussion?}}Because you archived the discussions 6 minutes after I posted a comment. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 14:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*::That's a staggeringly disingenuous answer. The thread was not archived at the point you decided to supervote. Why did you do that, rather than just discuss, as you should have done? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 14:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I have looked at the edits leading to this. It started over a change to the format of a See Also link at the bottom of a recently promoted Featured Article. This lead to a disagreement that was rightly continued on the Talk Page. Rather than engaging in this discussion [[User:FaviFake]] starts an edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1309136830]. After being reverted by [[User:SchroCat]], which was ''not'' a good idea, FaviFake starts this thread at ANI, which includes erroneous accusations of deleted discussions and throws in the irrelevant block record of SchroCat. In my view FaviFake has been disruptive and should receive a warning and SchroCat reminded of [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 14:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Making no assertions about the underlying content dispute what I see at article talk is definitely ''not'' anything resembling consensus with four invloved editors, two of whom are for the change and two of whom are against the change. Nobody on either side has presented particularly compelling policy reasons but, when consensus has not emerged, [[WP:STATUSQUO]] and [[WP:BRD]] both suggest retaining the old text is probably the wise choice until a consensus emerges. I would suggest, rather than either over-rigorous archiving or over-eager AN/I submissions, that the parties consider some other form of dispute resolution. As there are four parties already [[WP:3O]] is probably out but you guys could go to [[WP:DR]] or start an RfC about it. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*{{tq2|Rather than engaging in this discussion FaviFake starts an edit war}}It would've been hard to engage in an discussion that is '''archived'''. You seem to have missed this part of my post:{{pb}}I [[Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre#c-FaviFake-20250902082600-Mitch Ames-20250828131300|replied]] in support of [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]]'s version and pointed out that [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] was still stonewalling.{{pb}}'''6 minutes after I replied, [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] manually [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASaint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=1309134776&oldid=1309134135 archived the discussion].'''{{pb}}Since there seemed to be consensus based on policy to implement the change, given that I and [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] were the only partecipants backing our claims with policy and that the opposing editor had archived the discussion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1309136830 I restored the edit to the article] and [[Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre#c-FaviFake-20250902085700-FaviFake-20250902082600|commented about SchroCat's behaviour]]. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 14:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
*:Stonewalling is an essay. Expressing a counter argument is not forbidden. There was no consensus and your action was sub-par. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 14:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== User Menhelicks, Disruptive Editing ==
[[User:Menhelicks]] began editing on 29 August of this year. Their edits have all been on [[Habesha peoples]], [[History of Ethiopia]], [[Land of Punt]] (once), associated Talk pages, & individual talk pages (theirs & mine). Their editing has been disruptive in multiple ways: In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Habesha_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1308875775] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Habesha_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1308876006] they added lists of peoples to [[Habesha peoples]] that they knew to be false in order to prove a point, as attested in the edit summaries. They were notified that this was disruptive editing by administrator Gyrofrog at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMenhelicks&diff=1308884583&oldid=1308462910]. In their most recent edits, they have misused the <nowiki>{{Unreliable sources}}</nowiki> template: In my opinion, they have employed it in reference to material that either does not need a source within the article (an image) or is quite reliably sourced (a contemporary academic article), but more to the point of disruption, they have employed it incorrectly, placing two banners within the body of [[Habesha peoples]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Habesha_peoples&diff=1309158347&oldid=1309157672] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Habesha_peoples&diff=next&oldid=1309158347]). They present themselves as being ganged up on or threatened by other editors ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMenhelicks&diff=1308899382&oldid=1308898337] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APathawi&diff=1309159275&oldid=1309159078]) who have a pro-Ethiopian bias ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pathawi&diff=next&oldid=1309161308], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Menhelicks&diff=next&oldid=1309156495], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHabesha_peoples&diff=1309163617&oldid=1309162850]), & accuse Wikipedia as a whole of having a pro-Ethiopia bias & engaging in whitewashing or Habesha-washing ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHabesha_peoples&diff=1309163617&oldid=1309162850], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Ethiopia&diff=prev&oldid=1308583010], & elsewhere) or pro-Ethiopian propaganda ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Land_of_Punt&diff=prev&oldid=1308585414]). It is unclear to me whether or not their series of post-reversion edits on [[Habesha peoples]] counts as a [[WP:3RR]] issue. Most recently, they have created the article [[Habesha-washing]], which has no source which treats ''Habesha-washing'' as a notable topic—or even mentions the term. I have engaged them exclusively in relation to the [[Habesha peoples]] edits—in edit summaries, that Talk page, their personal page, & my personal page. My initial engagement was to explain process, & why their recent edits had been reverted (by another editor). I have also reverted their edits twice: once ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Habesha_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1308896145]) for an inappropriate citation needed (material in lead was supported by the article content), once ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Habesha_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1309156880]) for the incorrect application of <nowiki>{{Unreliable sources}}</nowiki>. Because they view me as pro-Ethiopian, I have been unable to successfully engage them in a conversation about the [[Habesha peoples]] lead paragraph on the Talk page, tho I have tried on both [[Talk:Habesha peoples]] & [[User talk:Menhelicks]]. Ironically, I think that their behaviour is rooted in a valid concern, & that the lead paragraph could be productively modified, but the frenetic disruptive editing & refusal to see other editors as engaging in good faith has made it hard to make progress. The Arbitration Committee has determined that the Horn of Africa is a contentious topic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Horn_of_Africa#:~:text=All%20pages%20relating%20to%20the,designated%20as%20a%20contentious%20topic.]. [[User:Pathawi|Pathawi]] ([[User talk:Pathawi|talk]]) 14:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
[[User:Pathawi]] has falsely presented himself as an authority and I noted that to him directly. He/She/They may feel that as not disruptive but however, he deleted my edits and then presented the threat of banning, blocking, and other issues. I took his words seriously and I responded accordingly. I even asked why he felt the need to communicate in that manner. Now he is using this other forum to continue imposing authority. If Wikipedia does not want me to edit or even be present on your platform,then that is fine. I will gladly leave!. But for the sake of this topic, I note the following: <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Menhelicks|Menhelicks]] ([[User talk:Menhelicks#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Menhelicks|contribs]]) 15:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Your [[User:Pathawi]] argument is that Eritreans are Abyssinians/Habesha? Correct?
:# If so, what are your reliable sources that states that [[Eritrean]] s (all ethnicities of Eritreans) are Abyssinians/Habesha.
:This is the first question, I ask and why I have content dispute with the [[Habesha]] article.
:My second dispute is really a question, can anyone on that article define what an "Abyssinian/Habesha" are? and provide the reliable source that notes that defintion? [[User:Menhelicks|Menhelicks]] ([[User talk:Menhelicks|talk]]) 14:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::This isn't the place for that conversation: The Talk page is. (But very briefly: It is ''not'' my position that all ethnicities of Eritreans—or ''any'' ethnicities of Eritreans—are Habesha.) This is a place for discussing intractable behavioural problems. In the preceding paragraph I argued that your editing was disruptive. An administrator may or may not take notice of this post. You might decide to ignore this, or to use this space to make the argument that your editing was not disruptive. The specific content isn't the issue here, tho. (That is, ''that'' your edits were substantive & well-sourced rather than disruptive might be relevant, but this isn't the space to debate that content.) [[User:Pathawi|Pathawi]] ([[User talk:Pathawi|talk]]) 15:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::What is this conversation for? Do you want the Administrations to just punish me? That is fine...I'll accept the punishment.
:::But if the punishment is for me simply BOLDLY countering the article which you are a Protecting without any neutrality...and I don't want to accuse you of being not neutral, but how you edit warred and now brought me to this Supreme Court of Wikipeida, well I can't say this is a bit extreme instead of atleast even discussing with me on the Talkpage which I created a Talkpage article for... You appear to have forced the situation to get me here before this Supreme Wikipedia Court..and that is ok. I hope you succeed at getting me banned, blocked. If Wikipedia Admins do ban, block me...over this or any reason they can come up. You will continue to control that article <nowiki>[[Habesha]]</nowiki> or any article where you can do the job that you are intended to do on this Wikipedia. [[User:Menhelicks|Menhelicks]] ([[User talk:Menhelicks|talk]]) 15:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I probably am (&/or, have been) too closely involved in the [[Habesha peoples]] article to act on this (though, anyone, feel free to disabuse me of that notion), but Menhelicks is one edit away from 3RR, at this writing ({{Diff|Habesha_peoples|prev|1309111873|1}}, {{Diff|Habesha_peoples|prev|1309157427|2}}, {{Diff|Habesha_peoples|prev|1309158347|3}}; I've just left a warning about it). {{Ping|Menhelicks}} at this point I am compelled to ask, what happened when you read [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]] & [[WP:CON]]? -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 16:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== AI-generated prose at Chutney music ==
*[[Chutney music]]
*{{Checkuser|Bensmith.18}}
*{{Checkuser|Hermes Express}}
In April, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chutney_music&diff=1284875275&oldid=1266912846 Bensmith.18 added some text] to the [[Chutney music]] page. The excessive bolding and referencing problems were quickly addressed by others, and some human-written prose [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chutney_music&diff=1291004492&oldid=1290938999 was added in May by Hermes Express], supported by a low quality source, the [https://www.peepultree.world/livehistoryindia/story/living-culture/how-bhojpuri-founded-chutney-music-in-the-caribbean peepultree.world] blog, which had been added in April by Bensmith.18.
Two weeks ago, {{u|Life of Tau}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chutney_music&diff=1306763308&oldid=1306734949 removed all of the recent additions] because of the AI-generated text. A fraction of the removed text had been from Hermes Express, written by human. This started a slow-burning edit war first over the poorly supported recent additions, and then over a maintenance tag announcing that the page may contain AI-generated problems such as [[Hallucination (artificial intelligence)|hallucinations]].
This is new territory for me, so I would like to poll the community for solutions. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 18:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:The edits by Bensmith.18 do look very much like AI to me; in addition to what you mentioned, they come from [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Cape_Breton_University/Musics_of_the_World_(Winter_2025)|this Wiki Ed class]] that I've found other AI edits in, for instance to [[Calypso music]]. See the [[Special:Diff/1281087678|sandbox versions]] if you need more evidence.
:Hermes Express's edits to the intro appear to be relatively minor style changes, for instance removing boldface and tweaking some grammar. No obvious indication to me that they used AI. So I don't know what their motivation is or why they're going to bat for (probable) AI content that they had nothing to do with, but it seems unlikely to me that they're related to a random Canadian student.
:But all this is moot anyway because the AI-generated template is intended for both confirmed and suspected LLM use, that's why it has the optional parameter ''certain=y''. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 18:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]], I don't understand why you've brought this here and not to the article talk page. Please discuss, don't edit war. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
| |||