Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

User:Sparks19923 - yet another slop agent

Sparks19923 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sparks has more or less confirmed LLM use. Two months ago Sparks was warned about using an LLM and admitted to "using scripts". The warning was made by a person whom I know has experience in detecting AI agents. Also, their talk page comments are obvious for everyone to see. Very recently, is a bit of a smoking gun, so they obviously haven't stopped. Their contributions to articlespace itself contain subtle but noticeable AISIGNS. I suggest that we stop wasting our time with the bot. Crossposted onto AINB as cleanup is needed. Fermiboson (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The framing of this report ("slop agent," "the bot") prejudges the outcome, but I'll address the substance. None of my work is slop.

I use Python scripts that were written with AI assistance for citation formatting, search for sources, and MOS compliance work among other things. Foe example the scripts check if a Seealso link is also in the body. Recently I added a check for citations in the lead for example. Or if WP:Links is being applied properly. The scripts can also build and create an outline then help flesh out the start of an article. These scripts have evolved over time and have improved the quality of my work over time. I was warned in March, took it seriously, and cut my editing pace considerably. That was on me. Today I went faster than I should have. Thats on me to. I've been stuck at home in a caregiving role for some months and editing keeps me occupied; that explains the topic scatter, not a systematic content campaign. The Air Manchester edit summary ("Edit summary on clipboard") was an accidental paste from my workflow and I understand how it looks. The PhpGedView diff shows citation reformatting; clean citations are not diagnostic of LLM generation on their own, but I am not claiming my workflow is purely manual. I review everything before it goes in. If there are specific edits that need to be examined, point me to them. On a side note, I am happy to post the scripts to GitHub. Sparks19923 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a CU, so I can't back up my agent accusation. Feel free to consider that withdrawn. As to the rest, well, firstly you should read WP:NOLLM very carefully and tell us whether your workflow is in contravention of that; note that there is no carveout for manual review. I will then leave the judgement to others. Fermiboson (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I have to say, I think it's strange that you have not acknowledged at all that many of your user talk page responses are LLM-generated. It's not against policy to do so, but it's a telling omission. (I ran one of your messages in this section against an AI text detector, and it concluded the probability of it being LLM-generated was 100%.) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I used that same website on Spark's comments from that section (collectively) and it told me it was 83% likely to be human. I don't think tools like this are reliable on small samples like single, couple sentence comments and do better on a larger text sample. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe I'm just so used to the way humans don't usually leave detailed, step-by-step explanations of their self-criticism that I cynically assume every example is machine-generated. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I could definitely see that and have thought about it. Guess I need to make the output more Wikipedia idiomatic. But this hunt for AI craze has just gotten out of hand. Every type or mistake is suddenly a sign of LLM. Sparks19923 (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW typos are actually an indication that LLMs were not used. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Humans are much better at spotting AI than AI is. Try to consider WP:AISIGNS when assessing, then ask the editor if they're using AI/LLM.

Nine times out of ten, their reaction will give you the answer - AI will obfuscate and not give a clear yes/no, it'll deflect and say it'll try to write better in future or ask which parts of its writing make you think it's an AI (it wants to use your response as training data). Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 00:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Re WP:NOLLM — I've read it. My scripts handle citation formatting, source checking, and MOS compliance; they can also help generate rough outlines and fill in text that I then build from. The scripts do produce patterns that may look like AI to someone. I would have to really dig into that. The drafts that are produced are nowhere near Wikipedia-ready and I do substantial editing before anything goes in, but I understand that may still cross the line on content generation and I'll stop using that part of the workflow. But because I am doing the majority of the editing I didn't think it applied. If disclosure requirement applies regardless, I missed it. I'll add it to edit summaries going forward. I also use Grammarly for a final grammar pass, which is a different category from content generation.

On GPTZero: WP:Signs of AI writing says directly, "Do not solely rely on artificial intelligence content detection tools (such as GPTZero). While they perform better than random chance, these tools have non-trivial error rates." When I tested it myself a few months ago out of curiosity, it flagged nearly everything I ran through it as AI to varying degrees. I'd ask admins to weigh the tool's limitations when considering that evidence. Sparks19923 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll retract my accusation. I used another detector on the comments and it was much more confident the responses were human-generated. I think I was thrown by a few things in the comments, such as when you said "If any of the claims turn out to be unsupported by the sources listed, I'll fix or remove them." That read to me like an LLM trying to double back after being critiqued, not a human who had done the research necessary to generate the content in the first place. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It’s a canned response. I use. My first instinct is to be less than diplomatic so I can’t responses that were seriously edited to be as a neutral as possible to not be like many of the comments. I see that just doesn’t go for Wikipedia with me. Sparks19923 (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

One thing I'm surprised nobody's mentioned yet is that WP:SEMIAUTOMATED edits are still problematic even if the tool you're using is not necessarily an LLM. Depending on how 'automated' these edits are (and if they have a text-generation component, it seems they're fairly automated) you might even need to request approval for it, as it might count as running a bot. Athanelar (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you please explain what is wrong with , I don't quite understand sorry, I'm not the most across all of the AI "tells" etc. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The edit summary is "Edit summary: [the actual edit summary]". Fermiboson (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh okay thank you. I can see how that can be concerning. I'll take a closer look at this later. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It was a copy and paste from my workflow. Sparks19923 (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Think it's worth noting the argument in your edit summary here - that "banned-user contamination should be addressed through cleanup, rewriting, and source verification, not deletion of an otherwise notable topic." is inconsistent with our policy on the matter. Morwen (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The policy specifically allows for translating and basic copyediting of your own work. Things like citation formatting and MOS checks seem pretty different from actually writing all new article content, so I don’t think the guidance bans every kind of automation-assisted workflow. Like I said earlier, they generate a draft for the outline and I take it from there.

Just to clarify, the part of my tools that are generative in nature mainly rule-based NLP, they don't use LLM. From a computer science standpoint, that’s a big difference, especially when it comes to generating text or the risk of making stuff up. (AI uses way more advanced techniques.) Still, I get that reasonable editors might disagree about where to draw the line in practice or under the policy. PS. I did ask a LLM if this made me sound like a jerk before posting it. Sparks19923 (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn’t even talking about LLMs there btw. Morwen (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Generating a draft seems a large step from citation formatting. There is going to be nuance depending on what a draft means, but more generally it is worth considering whether it is worth pushing boundaries. The current LLM rules emerged after years of less firm handling didn't work, including people talking about their various personal workflows and why those workflows are unproblematic and should be exceptions. Any workflow that is producing pre-prepared edit summaries, whether using LLMs or rule-based NLP, is running contrary to the spirit of what many editors are looking for. A workflow that will fail if you "went faster than [you] should have" is not a robust one. CMD (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, in many cases, those workflows claimed to be unproblematic very much turned out not to be so, even from users otherwise familiar with AI and confident that they were the exception. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 08:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of a draft it generated, and run us through how you go from there to the finished product? It could help us evaluate whether the text generation aspect is problematic.

Also, you mentioned using Grammarly for a final grammar pass. While Grammarly is advertised as a grammar-focused tool first and foremost, it also does deeper rewordings, and it could again help to know how much changes go into that step. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 08:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby - for the PhpGedView one they're quoting, my script only gave me a super basic bullet outline like "june 2002 sourceforge release, project of month dec 2003, 2010 webtrees fork, last release 2017". I took that and wrote the whole sections myself, added the actual sources for this article, changed the wording completely, and turned the bullets into normal paragraphs. Grammarly only caught like two spelling mistakes and one run-on sentence in what I had already written, nothing else.

I am done with the generative outline/drafting part of the scripts now and no more pre-canned summaries. The rest is just citation formatting and MOS checks I do by hand. On the BRFA thing, it is all manual after the outline, but I will look into it to be sure. Sparks19923 (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The full quote is more damning, actually; Translation quality, LLM-style prose, or banned-user contamination should be addressed through cleanup, rewriting, and source verification, not deletion of an otherwise notable topic.

LLM-style prose is itself an AISIGN, because LLMs seem to think the problem is text "sounding like" it's AI generated, rather than being AI generated.

There's two rule-of-threes back to back

There's a bit of WP:LETSFOCUSON too. Athanelar (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I support the conclusion that @Sparks19923 has been using LLMs to write stuff, because this userpage revision contains the hallucinated Template:User WikiProject Computing template, which has never existed on the English Wikipedia according to the deletion logs for that page. GrinningIodize (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, their talk page (permalink to problematic revision) contains this text about how they will communicate with others (WP:AISIGNS in italics):

• Assume Good Faith: As an established editor, I am familiar with Wikipedia's core policies, including notability criteria, citation guidelines, and template usage. If I make an error, I am making a good-faith effort to comply with long-established precedent.
• Civility: I do not engage in arguments, debates, or drama. It is exhausting, depressing, and demotivating.
• Communication: If you have a concern about a specific edit, article assessment, or technical cleanup, state it clearly, neutrally, and without condescension. Hostile or scolding messages are unproductive and will be ignored

GrinningIodize (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

These kinds of "ethos statements" about how a person plans to engage with Wikipedis are themselves an AI sign, too. Normally it takes the form of a list on the userpage of "editing standards" or "policies" which they plan to dutifully abide by, such as NPOV, V etc Athanelar (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. They're truly bizarre. I never saw a single one before people started getting AI to write their userpages. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

They're so damn weird and off-putting. Who voluntarily talks like that? Who wants to come across as a person who talks like that? It's like elective surgery to replace your prefrontal cortex with conflict-resolution psychobabble and '90s middle-management sloganeering. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of the atuff AI writes for Wikipedia contexts seems to be preempting an accusation. On the obvious side you have AI telling users to deny that they used AI, but the more subtle side of it is stuff like this; AI encouraging users to post canned notices about how they adhere to all relevant policies and guidelines, or preemptively assuring that the draft they wrote is based on Reliable™ Independent™ sources. There's a strange sort of insecurity to it. Athanelar (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's likely that these are due to editors asking AI to generate a Wikipedia userpage for them, then plonking the result onto their page because it looks good.

The AI usually doesn't know anything about the person who made the request, so it can only talk about what an ideal Wikipedia editor would look like instead.

It's a simple equation to the AI:

• "Wikipedia editing" = following policies and guidelines (reliable sources, NPOV, civility).

Therefore:

• "Wikipedia editor" = follows policies and guidelines (reliable sources, NPOV, civility).

AI often wants to be helpful and please the user, so of course it'll describe them as the perfect Wikipedia editor despite them not having edited Wikipedia yet.

Outside User pages, AI chatbots usually explain how they've reached a decision as part of their explanation (try asking one to convert lbs to kg, you'll end up with at least two paragraphs) - their edit summaries will do exactly the same thing, usually vastly over-explaining things. They also don't quite get that summaries aren't there to explain how an edit was made, but rather why it was made.

I'll stop here so we don't go off on a tangent! Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 00:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

LLM context collapse, I think, these are fairly similar to LinkedIn-style/personal portfolio website biographies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Never mind that chatbots just love groupings in threes. (Alright, so do I, but even so.) Ravenswing 01:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

GrinningIodize, this seems to be an AI-adjusted version of Gnomingstuff's userpage. See the identical "It is exhausting, depressing, and demotivating." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

what exactly are you trying to imply here Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Since we're talking about AI, the likelihood that it's nicked content from an existing userpage (i.e. yours). If there's one thing that AI is good at, it's stealing content. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 17:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

LLMs don't really work that way, especially not with text this recent; that, given the context of my doing AI cleanup, feels more likely to be a person deliberately deciding to drop stuff from my userpage into their prompt or output, for whatever reason Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah yeah, that does make more sense - that's something I haven't seen for a while now I think about it. Thanks for clarifying! Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 12:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sparks19923 Why did your talk page have phrasing that appeared to have been copied from @Gnomingstuff? GrinningIodize (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi - just to clarify, I don’t really care either way if someone copies my userpage, and there’s no need to ping me about it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. GrinningIodize (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to address this directly. I used AI assistance in parts of my workflow, including outlining and drafting some article starts, some talk-page replies, and my userpage. I now understand that this is covered by WP:NOLLM even with review afterward, and I have stopped the generative parts.

I went back through my recent articles myself and found some with citation problems from the drafting step. I am fixing them now, starting with any biographies, and I have already started on a couple. Most of my sourcing is real, and some of the flagged items actually predated my edits. The citation details that are mine are on me.

I also edited too fast, especially that 27 May burst with all the dePRODs. I have slowed down.

Going forward I will not use AI for generated text or citations, will not use pre-canned summaries, and will disclose any assistance that remains. If I do any scripted editing again I will take it through BRFA first. Sparks19923 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to be sure, did you use AI to write that statement? Because that also isn't allowed per WP:AITALK. - Ivan530 (Talk) 02:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

No. I did not use AI to write that statement. I spent a couple of hours drafting and revising it before posting. Sparks19923 (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sparks19923 You said "I have stopped the generative parts". What about the other ways of using AI, like finding (often hallucinated) sources? David10244 (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@David10244, there's no rule against using AI to find sources. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

As long as you then read the sources to validate that they’re relevant. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A selection of things said by Sparks during this thread:

• Most of my sourcing is real,
• My scripts [...] can also help generate rough outlines and fill in text that I then build from.
• PS. I did ask a LLM if this made me sound like a jerk before posting it.
• I am not claiming my workflow is purely manual. I review everything before it goes in.
• I also use Grammarly for a final grammar pass,
• Going forward I will not use AI for generated text or citations, will not use pre-canned summaries, and will disclose any assistance that remains.

Since making that final claim, Sparks has made an edit with a summary that separates clauses with a "▎" unicode character, not traditionally found on a keyboard. I'm surprised and that no admin intervention has happened yet. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Just for the avoidance of doubt, "▎" is a block element character used to render styled output from command line programs. I was incorrect about it splitting clauses, it is actually in fact far more likely to be a linebreak from a AI command line tool such as Claude code, as it appears to separate the text every 150 characters. Similar edit happened here showing the same pattern. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was messing around with arrows in my scripts that generate suggested edit summaries. It was literally a copy/paste from a script I made to save myself ten minutes. For me, it was just something to do while software compiled. I have other things I can do, so I don’t have much of a stake in this. I do appreciate the passion, and most of the editors I’ve dealt with have been constructive. It’s also not lost on me that the first two accusations were withdrawn. That said, this is basically why I stopped interacting with this thread after the initial sprint. Wikipedia traffic is down 40% in two years, it’s dying a slow death, and somehow suggested edit summaries from my scripts that I edited and then copied and pasted are what people are worried about?

I’m just pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who isn’t too busy staring at one tree while the forest burns. Sparks19923 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Those edit summaries alone weren't the issue though were they, and hopefully you are smart enough to realise that. You said "Going forward I will not use AI for generated text or citations, will not use pre-canned summaries, and will disclose any assistance that remains. If I do any scripted editing again I will take it through BRFA first", but less than 48 hours later you used your automated scripted workflow in an undisclosed way again. What is the correct response to that, other than you getting blocked? Your scripts have wasted far more editor time than they have saved, and the above attempts at mediating with you have proven fruitless, so the block was a good one and a net-benefit to wikipedia. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting that we're individual editors and administrators; we are volunteers who can only deal with what we are able to do.

We saw someone who was running around holding a box of matches, someone who didn't put them down like they promised they would. We could have kicked them out of the forest, instead we've let them stay inside a safe, fenced area where they can still work without making the fire worse. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Improper RfC closures and personal attacks from Knightoftheswords281

Knightoftheswords281 has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks of a political and racial nature when engaging in debates surrounding how "slave names" are referred to in biographical articles of Black Americans (e.g. Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, etc). This behavior has included two improper RfC closures and an unwillingness to properly apologize for, or even cease, their personal attacks.

It is worth noting that these debates were first triggered by a video of online influencer zaydupree; upon being rightfully criticized for canvassing, zaydupree apologized, claiming to not have been aware of the policy. His latest video on the subject can be viewed here. This puts some of the comments made by Knightoftheswords281 in proper context. I should also acknowledge that I myself participated in these debates, however I had not heard of zaydupree's videos previously. My concerns rest only with Knightoftheswords281's conduct, not their positions.

As debate progressed, Knightoftheswords281 preemptively closed two RfCs, on the talk pages for Muhammad Ali and MOS:BIO respectively ( ). In the first closure, Knightoftheswords281 decried editors arguing in favor of changes to MOS:BIO as "slacktivists" and "race warriors," and condemned opposing viewpoints as "bordering on racism." In the second closure, Knightoftheswords281 repeated the above personal attacks, and further labeled other editors as "ignorant" and "a bunch of non-black editors feigning outrage on behalf of blacks for slacktivism points," and acting in "bad faith." Both closures also included personal attacks against zaydupree, decrying him as "deluded" and a "race hustler." These closures were reversed by AirshipJungleman29 and myself, and warnings were left on Knightoftheswords281's talk page (). I had accidentally left a second warning after AirshipJungleman29's, having not seen it.

Knightoftheswords281 responded to my warning on their talk page with further personal attacks. In their first response (), Knightoftheswords281 continued to decry fellow editors as "ignorant" and argue against proposed changes to MOS:BIO; they also continued to decry zaydupree as a "race warrior," and further compared him to Tommy Robinson and Chud the Builder. When I responded that my concern was with their conduct and personal attacks rather than their opinions (), Knightoftheswords281 engaged in further personal attacks (), defending their comments as only being against "obviously canvassed votes" and relying on the claimed racial identities of other participating editors to make their point; they further defended their position as "fact" across multiple paragraphs. Throughout this, Knightoftheswords281 mostly refused to accept that their conduct was inappropriate, only apologizing for the "slacktivism" comment and "perhaps for the MOSBIO closure," the latter of which struck me as non-committal.

From these and other comments and actions made by them, not only is it clear that Knightoftheswords281 performed improper RfC closures and engaged in personal attacks, against both fellow editors and off-platform persons, but it is also clear that they fundamentally do not understand why personal attacks are harmful to the Wikipedia community. I did not want to bring this up to WP:ANI, and made that clear to Knightoftheswords281 (); however, their continued defense of and engagement in personal attacks, as well as their inability to separate their position from their conduct, has left me no choice.

Along with this incident, it should be acknowledged that Knightoftheswords281 has previously been reprimanded for edit warring () earlier this month. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

There were no racial attacks on anyone. The basis for this is my suggestion that the discussed changes are seemingly only being advanced in part due what seems to be a nonwhite group of editors advancing it thinking that the subject at hand (the [false] narrative of "slave names") was not only a real thing (in the sense of names inherited from enslaved ancestors), but also of offense to black people as a group, ala deadnaming for trans people, when this (as a black man) isn't true. This is not only not an attack, but was even brought up in the referenced discussions by other editors. The descriptor of ignorance is not a PA, though it may have been taken that way; its on the same level of saying that whites are ignorant of why black people can be taken aback when some white guy calls them "boy".

The point that I keep reiterating is that people are ignorant that the term "slave name" as used by zaydrupee is bunkum; virtually no slaves were given surnames by their masters who dedignified them already. Examples like Nat Turner never actually had a surname; Turner was just his master's surname and was retroactively applied following his revolt. So when an obviously loaded and agenda-driven term like "slave name" is used, not only is important to note that its false, but its also crucial to highlight the obvious guilt-trippy nature of it, especially when several editors, some established on here, start using the term unironically, no quotation marks, no acknowledgement of even its controversy, let alone its just patent falsehood (no RS will use "slave name" to describe any Black American name post 1865), and after an influencer initially canvassed and made a big deal about it to his sizable following.

The only actual things you can say are attacks are against zaydrupee himself, which I standby, since I sincerely don't think that anyone who uses the term "slave name" unironically is not operating at a similar level of racial animus as a white guy who goes around in Tennessee yelling "stop chimping out" at black people, save for the possibility that they're ignorant of the contrived nature of the term (which given that zaydrupee is mainly known for being one of the TikTok linguistic guys, I doubt). Having been on this side of TikTok, the type of people to lap this content up are the same ones that run around starting race war drama with Arabs because "why should we support Palestine when Arabs didn't back Harris," as if Black and Arab Americans IRL actually give a damn about one another, so I don't assume a lot of good faith from them. I don't feel like I need to mince myself when talking about Twitter neo-nazis who are always race-IQ-posting, so I don't feel like I need to do so here.

Also, it once again brings up mentioning that even though zaydrupee apologized for the canvassing, the number of canvassers seems to be the main thing indicating that this "had enough support" to actually try and change, and we're still getting probable canvassers at places such as Talk:Muhammad Ali a week later, many of them helping RVT attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion against StefenTower (talk · contribs). I've already apologized for the uncivil closures and the political attack (calling other editors slacktivists), which were made out of early morning anger; this seems like this is an attempt to weasel (btw WP:WEASEL only applied to article content, and I find the description that my apology was non-committal in a case based on my views on the topic more broadly. — Knightoftheswords 23:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 This reply of yours only emphasized why exactly your behavior is being criticized. Using loaded words and accusations like "obviously loaded and agenda-driven term," "obvious guilt-trippy nature," "Twitter neo-nazis," and "I don't assume a lot of good faith from them" are all very clear personal attacks, and these are the ones you just included in your "defense." Whether it is right or wrong to argue about "slave names" is not relevant here; characterizing editors and other persons like how you have simply isn't acceptable, regardless of wider contexts. Any "apologies" that you claim to make are hard to trust from your continued engagement in personal attacks and general uncivil behavior.

This will be my last response to you for now; I'll let the admins here do their job, and you've just provided them plenty more material to make their decision from. My only thanks to you is correcting me on WP:WEASEL, although I obviously reject the notion that I myself am "weaseling" in this case. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Talking about controversial things ≠ PAs. I have no idea how simply mentioning "Twitter neo-nazis" is a PA on anyone, let alone editors, while its pretty obvious (as again, stated in the discussion at hand) that "slave name" is very clearly a loaded and at the very least controversial term that is not used by people not pushing a certain narrative. You keep saying now that "whether the use of it is wrong isn't relevant," but I've already retracted and apologized for my closure and actual PAs towards editors, so I'm not sure what is still the issue, aside from IG (AGF) my personal characterization of the TikToker at hand, which is nonsense, since I'm not going to rescind my belief that he's a best extremely ignorant and at worst a malicious race hustler. I know BLP and WP:ATP apply to the project space, but ATP doesn't apply, and the closest for the former is WP:BLPTALK, which doesn't seem to apply either IMO. I think if we were being canvassed by readers of The Grayzone or Evie magazine or whatever, we can make assessments about the type of people running those outlets and/or the most avid consumers and take that into consideration if people are responding to that by trying to change policy. — Knightoftheswords 02:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

BLPTALK definitely applies. We allow limited commentary on living persons when it comes to making content decisions, especially on whether what they published are reliable but this is none of that since no one is suggesting the TikTok or TikToker is a reliable source. You're welcome to your opinions on them, however there is zero need to spread them here. If you continue to do so, I see no choice but to propose or support a topic ban on you making any comment on living persons other than editors anywhere on Wikipedia. This is an extreme move which would severely limited your ability to edit here but if you make it necessary, so be it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne I would also second the possibility of a topic ban, if admins view that as necessary. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Realised I forgot to mention that it's also significant that AFAICT, the TikToker is not notable. There's no suggestion we create an article on them or even mention them anywhere, and so none of this seems to relate about what we should say in an article Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The user making videos about the issue online prompted these discussions. — Knightoftheswords 13:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

BTW you might have some good points. The place to make these points was to raise them in the existing discussions. It wasn't to close them. And you can also make these points without the need for any name calling or attacking anyone. It's fine to say the TikToker is wrong on XYZ, without needing to accuse them of stuff for which you seem to lack any real evidence and which is irrelevant anyway. I'd note that from what I can tell, most experienced editors participating in these discussions don't seem to feel it makes a big deal whether anyone was right or wrong about their reasons for disliking their former names. The discussion seems to be much more over whether we're being consistent in how we deal with people who have changed names and especially about cases where people have a clearly strong expressed preference for a new name over an old one for any reason (mostly regardless of whether we agree with that reason or whether they're 'right' about their reasons). Personally I still recommend you just withdraw from this whole area since I'm unconvinced you can contribute productively still if you wanted to take part again you're technically still free to do so, and if you did so properly you might have a chance of influencing stuff whereas you have no chance if you continue to do what you've done so far. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

just as a 3rd party review, "I don't assume a lot of good faith from them" does not seem to me like a PA. Not saying you're wrong. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If by your own admission this whole thing has made you do inappropriate things I suggest you voluntarily disengage from it going forward lest you do more stuff which leads to a block. So other than commenting here, do not participate in any further discussion over the issue. Also I'd remind you that BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia so you need to be mindful of comments you make about all living persons. BTW about your apology, you said "perhaps for the MOSBIO closure, which was prolly done in haste". There's no question even putting the wording aside your unilateral NAC closure was complete inappropriate and is not something you should ever have done. While the thread is fairly messy it has several established editors participating with several suggestions and proposals and so was not ripe for closure. And when we consider the wording where you were taking a personal side on the issues rather than anything else out definitely wasn't on. In other words no this is not "perhaps" or "prolly" and it's easy to see why you saying that is concerning. Nil Einne (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 "what seems to be a nonwhite group of editors advancing it" -- How do you know the race of other editors? David10244 (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Not really relevant given that I've already retracted the above decisions, but a few of the more active editors I knew weren't black from past experiences. — Knightoftheswords 04:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a note that AFAICT Knightoftheswords281 did not close any RFC on either of those pages. There is no RFC on Talk:Muhammad Ali as yet. There was one on MOSBIO but it was already closed by the initiator for being insufficiently workshopped before Knightoftheswords281 got involved. They closed ordinary discussions, part of which on MOSBIO looks like it might lead to an RFC, but they did not close any RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne Sorry, must have got the terminology wrong. Nevertheless, they were still improper closes of discussions. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Canvassing is disruptive, but in case it needs to be said by an additional person: these two closures were wildly inappropriate both as closures and as comments even if not as part of a closure. Let's not be closing things we have very strong opinions about (to the point that judgment is affected). As for whether it's a pattern of bad closures, well, we'd need more evidence. Absent that, I think we probably just need a "not good, plz don't do again" WP:TROUT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Those two closures are almost asking for a topic ban, IMO. They were really not a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a certain irony involved in using the phrase "Obvious WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX bordering on racism that shouldn't be entertained" to end a soapboxy rant. Ravenswing 18:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites If a topic ban would not be necessary, I think at least a formal warning/reprimand from an admin would be helpful. If my multiple warnings/explanations to Knightoftheswords281 on their talk page did not convey the message properly (which we can see from their responses above), then maybe an admin would be more convincing. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, both seem fair. The user has previously been involved in topics they have strong opinions in, and have a pattern of conduct issues in topics they have strong opinions about. A warning at least should be reasonable, and a topic ban could help prevent further disruptions in that conversation, as I don't see the issues ending with a simple warning. -- HungryHighway🛣️ 20:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@HungryHighway I agree with you there. While I would understand the hesitancy in regards to a topic ban, I personally would support it, at least as a temporary measure. But of course admins have the final say. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Are the pattern of conduct issues in topics they have strong opinions about in the room of us? Since it’s pretty mute basing off an attempted TBAN on something that’s nonexistent and hasn’t been proven at all. I’m perfectly capable of handling myself in contentious areas; the fact that I made one bundle of bad closures that I’ve already apologized for doesn’t somehow nullify that, or that I will remedy such behavior in the future. — Knightoftheswords 13:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi all,

I would like to bump up this thread with the fact that @Knightoftheswords281 violated the three revert rule against me today, contesting an NPOV template I had attempted to add to the slave name article, as can be seen in the page's history. Whether this counts as hounding I'll leave up to admin, but I would be lying if I said this didn't feel retributive following my incident report.

Given the user's behavior, both past and current, a topic ban may be necessary, as suggested by other users. I am also willing to refrain from editing relating to the topic myself if that would help cool things off. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The attempt to convey this as WP:HOUNDING or retributive is false and possibly disingenuous. I came across the {{unbalanced}} tag after browsing the article again after this situation and removed it since no explanation of any WP:NPOV issues were issued. You reverted saying that wasn't required despite the fact that drive-by-tagging of this template is recommended against. I reverted under this, and was again reverted under accusations of hounding and that a {{Refideas}} was going to be added to the talk page. This still did not satisfy the conditions for {{unbalanced}} since there still was no direct discussion on what was actually wrong with the section at hand, just links to discussions that may contest what was said in the section (I put "may" in italics since having gone over said sources, I don't think they say what you might have thought they said). Reminder that WP:NPOV doesn't mean we entertain every point equally, henceforth why we're not entertaining Trumpist "stop the steal" nonsense or Holocaust denial even though there are millions out there who believe in those stuff. Frankly, I'm not sure why a TBAN is being floated.

I should also note that I've only made three reverts to this page, which means that the central core claim of your argument above is definitionally bunkum since I haven't violated the WP:3RR. Considering that's a fairly basic thing to get wrong, it appears that far from it being me attempting to hound you, this may just be an attempt to build a case to enforce a TBAN or some form of retribution. — Knightoftheswords 04:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 WP:3RR isn't completely set in stone. Our editing can still be interpreted as edit warring. I feel embarrassed for falling for ragebait so easily by interacting with you.

I'm done. I'm going to do the mature thing and separate myself from this situation, as there seems to be no amicable resolution possible here. If admins think a warning/TBAN is necessary, as the kind editors above suggested, then they'll implement one. It's none of my business anymore. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems fine by me; there's no real reason to drag out this discussion any further than the above closures. — Knightoftheswords 14:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Those RfC closures were not a good look. At minimum a warning is needed - would also support a tban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'd just say close with a warning or TM:Whale for incivility and soapboxing, we're not here to debate culture war topics. Basically, discuss sources and WP:FOC (I know feck all about American history but FWIW scholars do use the term , and the sources at Slave name#United States are rubbish) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

User:TylerBurden: NPA, TALKNO

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

---

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

Examples:

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

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

There is also an edit-warring aspect. From the last example, at 2026 Starobilsk strike TylerBurden reverted disputed lead/infobox-related material while the dispute was active, instead of using the talk page to seek consensus. WP:WAR says that when disagreement becomes apparent, editors should cease reverting and discuss the issue or seek dispute resolution.

I'm asking administrators to review this pattern and issue an appropriate warning or restriction requiring TylerBurden to stop personalizing disputes, stop using edit summaries to attack other editors, and focus on content rather than contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexeyKhrulev (talk • contribs)

HI! When you open a complaint on this board, you need to sign your message so we know who wrote it. I have done this for you now. Thank you. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, it feels a bit bad to say this, but I just wanted to double-check if you used any AI tools (this includes not just chatbots like ChatGPT or Claude or Gemini, but also tools like Grammarly) to write or refine the text in your post, as it contains some WP:AISIGNS and reads a bit like it to me. Studies have shown that sometimes ESL writing can sound a bit AI as well (even to detector algorithms), so it might also be that too, and if it is, sorry for the confusion. Absolutely no worries if it's not AI, I just wanted to confirm that you were aware of our policies that prohibit AI use (as we want to hear from you, as a person). - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

As a third party, I've seen a pattern of the requestor (AlexeyKhrulev) doing large scale content removals with questionable reasons given. Often the reasons seem AI generated, or simply made up, ignoring context within an ongoing conversation. The requestor has some egregious deletes - all specifically related to broader Russo Ukrainian War such as erasing testimony of child abduction in Ukraine, strikes on civilians, or even on the Putin page itself. Would absolutely note to any admins to take above admin notice with grain of salt - or even as a preemptive move before their actions go to WP:AE or similar. User will often cite some bogus reason for large scale removal, and then turn around and justify similar reasons to add on a page that suits their view. FWIW - I think above comments by TylerBurden are mostly factual, and if anything think AlexeyKhrulev should be subject to topic ban on Russo Ukrainian War for disruptive edit practices. Lacanic (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Lacanic first of all, this is not the place to discuss my contribution. If that's what you want, then you can create a separate topic for consideration. Secondly, all my edits, which you have given in the examples, are correct, as indicated by their preservation in the articles. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This is absolutely the place. There's no requirement or even an expectation that only the target of a discussion starter will be discussed in a particular discussion and it's pretty common to also investigate the filer's conduct as well. Otherwise, disputes would be a race to ANI to get the first filer advantage. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, then I should note that I previously asked TylerBurden to be more restrained and less nitpicky, as he promised in a recent arbitration request. The outcome of that appeal was as follows:

"I consider it possible to close this matter without any further action provided that such behavior does not happen again. Otherwise, TB will likely be blocked from this topic".

Unfortunately, I see that TylerBurden's aggressive behavior has not changed and only creates a negative atmosphere. I'm always open to productive dialogue and seeking consensus, but other participants must do the same. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not usually the biggest fan of Tyler Burden's AGF comportment but in this case in particular their comportment seems somewhat justified. Especially when an account is created in 2011 and then makes its first edit in 2024 it makes me wonder if a checkuser investigation might be appropriate for @AlexeyKhrulev. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

account is created in 2011 and then makes its first edit in 2024 it makes me wonder if a checkuser investigation might be appropriate — not sure about that. They may have not been active on enwiki, but they were active on ruwiki in 2008, 2012, 2017 etc.. Nakonana (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

OK I didn't look farther than EN.WP. Will strike if deemed appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Curiously enough, according to a source in there was the same, if not worse, pattern. ~2026-32571-30 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Quotations above are selective, e.g. regarding Special:Diff/1343301616, AlexeyKhrulev complains "TylerBurden wrote that I was "inventing Wikipedia policy interpretations on the spot","; TB wrote "It seems like you're once again inventing Wikipedia policy interpretations on the spot, because you have no right restoring an image that has been disputed per WP:ONUS". AK complains TB "said that "apparently you can't understand WP" , and added that "our issue here might more be with basic logic than tendentious editing""; TB wrote "apparently you can't understand that adding more content about something is giving it more coverage, an image is content, so it seems our issue here might more be with basic logic than tendentious editing". AK complains "The same comment again accused me of having "previously violated WP:NPOV" and characterized my editing as "disruptive editing"; TB wrote "you've previously violated WP:NPOV by copy-translating content from the Russian Wikipedia which contained POV issues" and "I haven't committed to stop opposing disruptive editing". NebY (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting here that the filer was TBanned in ruwiki for the same conduct:

Topic ban

Because of systemic POV-pushing of fringe viewpoints (egregious WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE violation, attempts to make the lead of one of the most important articles about Russian invasion of Ukraine violate NPOV, attempts to remove information with one of the most reliable human rights organization as a source with original research as a reason) and edit-warring (see the long list of reverted reverts in topics above) you are now topic banned from editing and discussing pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian war contentious topic: a. you are forbidden from editing articles related to this contentious topic; b. you are forbidden from editing sections of other articles related to this contentious topic; c. you are forbidden from discussing articles and other pages related to this contentious topic. Topic ban will expire after 6 months.

Original text

В связи с систематическим проталкиванием маргинальной точки зрения (грубое нарушение ВЕС и МАРГ, попытки привести преамбулу одной из ключевых статей о вторжении в нарушающий НТЗ вид, попытки убрать информацию, опирающуюся на данные одной из ведущих правозащитных организаций с приведением в качестве обоснования собственных измышлений) и ведением войн правок (см. длинный список отмен отмены в темах выше) в отношении участника применяется экзопедический и метапедический топик-бан на редактирование страниц в сфере, относящейся к компетенции посредничества ru:ВП:УКР: а) участнику запрещается редактировать статьи, относящиеся к компетенции ВП:УКР; б) участнику запрещается редактировать относящиеся к тематике посредничества ВП:УКР фрагменты иных статей; в) участнику запрещается участвовать в обсуждениях статей, относящихся к компетенции ВП:УКР, а также в обсуждении иных вопросов, сопряжённых с редактированием данных статей. Срок топик-бана — 6 месяцев.

This topic ban was later confirmed by an arbcom decision:

3.1. AlexeyKhrulev

3.1.1. Topic ban remains in effect.

3.1.2 Arbcom forbids AlexeyKhrulev from disputing administrative sanctions against him while the topic ban is in effect. Other editors can dispute these sanctions if they want, but AlexeyKhrulev can't participate in such discussions.

3.1.3. Topic ban is now indefinite. After 6 months since it came in effect, AlexeyKhrulev can start a topic on administrators' noticeboard to request removing or softening the topic ban. If there is a consensus among adminisrators that AlexeyKhrulev understands the contentious topic's guidelines and is willing to abide by them, then the restrictions can be removed or softened, whatever administrators' consensus is. Next such topic can be started by AlexeyKhrulev no sooner than 6 months after the previous topic was closed or archived without result.

Original text

3.1. По участнику AlexeyKhrulev

3.1.1. Арбитражный комитет оставляет в силе введённый посредником топик-бан.

3.1.2. Арбитражный комитет на время действия топик-бана запрещает участнику оспаривать любые административные действия в отношении себя. Другие участники могут оспорить такие действия, если пожелают, но в таком случае сам AlexeyKhrulev в этой дискуссии участвовать не должен.

3.1.3. Топик-бан для участника становится бессрочным. По истечении 6 месяцев с момента наложения топик-бана участник получает право открыть тему на Форуме Администраторов о снятии или смягчении своего топик-бана. Если среди администраторов будет консенсус о том, что участник демонстрирует понимание правил посредничества и готов им следовать в полной мере, тогда ограничения могут быть ослаблены или сняты, исходя из консенсусного мнения администраторов. Следующую такую тему участник может открыть не ранее, чем через 6 месяцев после подведения итога в предыдущей аналогичной теме или же ухода обсуждения в Архив без подведения итога.

Seems like they're here to continue this modus operandi. — ~2026-32459-58 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Pinging User:Biathlon as the admin who first imposed the topic ban, and User:Carn, User:Kmorozov, User:Swarrel, User:Venzz as arbcom members who later confirmed it. — ~2026-32459-58 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I quoted only the excerpts relevant to the behavioral issue. Of course, administrators can review the full diffs.

What is being raised here is not a content dispute and not a referendum on every Russia–Ukraine edit I have made. The issue is TylerBurden’s repeated use of personalized accusations: “pushing Russian state narratives”, “WP:TENDENTIOUS editor”, “basic logic”, “bad faith assumptions and mental gymnastics”, and edit summaries stating that I have “consistenly been violating WP:NPOV”. These are accusations about the contributor, not comments on content.

The references to my ruWiki history don’t answer this complaint. If someone believes there is a separate enWiki conduct issue involving me, they may file it with specific enWiki diffs. But an off-wiki/other-project history cannot make personal attacks, aspersions, or hostile edit summaries acceptable on enWiki. The conduct complained of remains contrary to WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SUMMARYNO.

I’m not asking administrators to decide the underlying content disputes here. I’m asking them to address the repeated personalization of those disputes. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

To be sanctioned on the ruwiki for being too pro-Russian is a noticeable achievement on its own. ~2026-32817-95 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ruwiki is actively fighting any pro-Kremlin propaganda. Well very well (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That's why I've gotten pinged there twice to remove a flag map featuring Ukraine in its 1991 borders from my userpage. They've even made up a rule to justify such a thing. Does it really hurt THAT much? Super Ψ Dro 13:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

(involved in some of the disputes) From my experience, the pattern is almost always roughly the same; AlexeyKhrulev will add/remove material while misrepresenting a source or violating NPOV in a way that is (coincidentally or not) favorable to Russia, TylerBurden will revert it with comments about tendentious editing/etc., and any subsequent talk page discussion will devolve into (and usually start as) a personal discussion.

On your fifth example at 2026 Tuapse environmental disaster, which I was involved in, this was in response to your comment accusing them of WP:CHERRYPICKING and adding material simply because the topic seems "interesting". As I pointed out in that thread, they never said anything about including it because it was interesting, that appears entirely made up, the reasoning was that it was reported in RS. So, yes, "bad faith assumptions" seems like a reasonable response to bad faith assumptions on a talk page. As for "cherry pick", that is literally what you said to them; I am not sure why you can say that, but not them, particularly when they gave an actual valid argument for it.

For another example not included here which I think is quite illustrative, on Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the dispute was over a block quote from a RS. AlexeyKhrulev decided to remove the block quote and paraphrase it, adding "non-military" (despite the source saying the opposite), changing "control" to "influence", changing "power" to "influence", changing "eradicate Ukraine's statehood" to "undermining Ukrainian statehood", and changing "destroy NATO" to "weakening NATO". It is difficult to paraphrase, but in every single one of the five cases, the paraphrase was changed in a way that was more favorable to Russia; in particular changing it from the RS saying that Russia invaded in 2022 only after years of military and other efforts to control Ukraine had failed (something in line with the vast majority of RS) to saying that Russia invaded only after years of non-military efforts to influence Ukraine had failed (something more in line with Russian propaganda sources). I was busy and corrected only what I saw as the worst parts, then TylerBurden reverted the whole thing with the usual comments about tendentious editing, and then AlexeyKhrulev made a talk page thread about TylerBurden's "weak arguments", personal comments, etc.

I was less involved/unaware of the other cases, but most seem quite similar. LordCollaboration (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:BOOMERANG t-ban for Alexey

Here are a few diffs of edits made by AlexeyKhrulev, all similar to his RU topic ban conclusion that he acts on the most contentious pages in the Russia-Ukraine topic area:

• Special:Diff/1351387041 – Deletion of an 11-year-old's testimony from Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian war, sourced to Amnesty International. Edit summary: "there's no point in that child quote."
• Special:Diff/1357197235 – Deletion of an entire section on a Russian drone striking a NATO apartment block in Romania (Reuters, two BBC articles), on the basis that it may have been "a deviation from the course."
• Special:Diff/1345157882 – Deletion of 2,400 words documenting over 40 athletes banned from the 2016 Olympics from the Russian Athletics Federation article, while simultaneously adding that 2026 sanctions had been lifted.
• Special:Diff/1353942075 – Deletion of majority of the assessments section on the Vladimir Putin article (Freedom House, Borshchevskaya), citing WP:WEIGHT.
• Special:Diff/1356753460 – Deletion of an ISW assessment from 2026 Starobilsk strike (an article AlexeyKhrulev created), along with tons of broad deletion and "warnings" to anyone who you don't agree with
• Special:Diff/1356861267 — Deletion of a well sourced table of 24 sanctioned vessels from Russian shadow fleet, removing approximately 1,500–2,000 words of sanctioned ship names, owners, and flags (IOC, NYT sources). Edit summary: "WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE."

I would strongly support topic ban on EN. Lacanic (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I reviewed these diffs and the rest of Alexey's recent editing history, and I am not impressed with what I am seeing, for mainly the same reasons you raise. Actions like these make me questions Alexey's ability to edit appropriately in the area. On top of that, several of their comments on other pages, as well as written article text, seem like AI (in contravention of WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMTALK), and while there could be an innocent explanation, when I tried to ask them nicely above, they completely dodged and avoided the question, which makes me quite suspicious, as this is a common pattern of behaviour by AI (mis)users. Combined with previous history of this behaviour (that was considered too much for even the Russian Wikipedia) and a refusal to reform, I therefore support a WP:BOOMERANG and indefinite topic ban from Russia-Ukraine war, broadly constructed, for Alexey. – In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that I have now moved my comment, and Lacanic's comment (proposing a topic ban) to a seperate section, to make navigation easier. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Now you point it out, I'm seeing AI signs even here – this comment has 'Rule-of-three' and 'Not X but Y" several times in the one comment.

The OP report has this as well, plus it switches between first- and third-person in the middle.

There's also:

• WP:ORCC Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-AlexeyKhrulev-20260601143600-CoffeeCrumbs-20260601140800
• WP:LETSFOCUSON Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-AlexeyKhrulev-20260601131600-Lacanic-20260601105600
• WP:AIWL Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-AlexeyKhrulev-20260601204200-~2026-32459-58-20260601191400

Dodging the question of AI-use is another classic AI-sign. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that this comment was edited by AlexeyKhrulev to change the links - I've not changed then back since they still lead to the same place, but this was done without my permission. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't edit anything. This was done by an autoformatter - Special:Diff/1357459458. I don't understand why you give this so much weight. And why are you writing about it here and then duplicating it here Special:Diff/1357461716? The reason? AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

My vote is in the bolded section, this is just a comment - what do you mean by autoformatter?

I edit on mobile so I'm not aware of anything on Wikipedia that would change other people's comments that's within the Wikimedia website software, but if there is I'm more then willing to strike those aspects of my comments. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah I've seen your link below - that seems to be a German Wikipedia autoformatter that doesn't follow the policies and guidelines for English Wikipedia.

I suggest you disable it and read Wikipedia:NCCREFACTOR for what's permitted. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I hope the situation has cleared up now (I didn't edit anything on purpose), so please delete (or strike) your comments that you left - Special:Diff/1357461716 (how LordCollaboration did it with his comment). You also indicated that this influenced the revision of your decision, it turns out that this decision also needs to be rolled back - I'm also not happy that mine and other editors comments were edited without our consent" Special:Diff/1357461312. Thanks. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Given their recent additions and disruptive behaviour in this discussion, I concur with Blue-Sonnet and would also support an sitewide INDEF and/or CBAN for disruptive editing, including misuse of ANI, bludgeoning with AI, and refusing to listen. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

that was considered too much for even the Russian Wikipedia
Please see my comment above. Most of us at Russian Wikipedia are actively anti-Russian government and definitely the war, so this phrasing looks a bit discorteous. Well very well (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on AlexeyKhrulev from the Russia-Ukraine war and Russia-Ukraine relations, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would prefer that expanded wording as well. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from Russia-Ukraine war and Russia-Ukraine relations, broadly construed. I'd also like to clear up whether they are using AI/LLM since the more I look into it, the more I suspect it's being used. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Update: My preference is now an indef in view of the bludgeoning, refusal to listen to feedback retaliatory filing and likely AI-use during this discussion. I'm also not happy that mine and other editors comments were edited without our consent. I don't think this editor is compatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. If the indef doesn't pass, my second choice is the aforementioned TBAN. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• I had seen this user focus on civilian attacks of apparent Ukrainian responsability. That is important, as those should be written about too. But it did made me think, such focus is interesting when 99.9% of all civilian attacks and war crimes in the war have been from the other party. If we add to that the context from Russian Wikipedia and edits removing child testimonies in an article dealing with child abductions (not paraphrasing as is the case with other examples below, but outright removal), it might reveal intentions that may be incompatible with remaining an editor in English Wikipedia.

The editor in any case seems cordial and amenable to discussing and reaching agreements. At the very least, they should receive a warning against anything like the child abductions quote again (there is no other quote in the article by the way, I see no WP:WEIGHT issue, I can't see any problem with quoting directly one or two testimonies in such an article; please someone restore that quote). I personally recommend them to first propose in the talk page potentially controversial paraphrasings (I agree with LordCollaboration that in the disinformation article, it strikes as downplaying or whitewashing). And also not to attempt to defend or justify the edits just mentioned as they briedly did below or it might clarify users' minds on potential !votes. Super Ψ Dro 10:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Support topic ban. A lot of stuff has come out since I left my comment above (notably the comments from Russian Wikipedia users regarding their experience with this user), but the canvassing convinces me definitively. No opinion on an indef block yet, bludgeoning is inappropriate but sort of expected, and indeed common, from an experienced user in a situation like this. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban based on arguments provided by others, broadly construed topic ban on any topics related to Russian foreign policies. Geokrieg (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Russian Wikipedia Arbitration Committee rulings (ru:АК:1317 and ru:АК:1351) confirms that AlexeyKhrulev is executing the exact same disruptive playbook on en.wiki that got him completely banned on ru.wiki.
  His credo:

• Systemic Pro-Kremlin Sanitization: Over 90% of his ru.wiki activity was weaponized against Ukraine-related topics. He specialized in aggressively rewriting article leads to strip out facts critical of the Russian government while inserting pro-Kremlin military narratives.
• Weaponizing Policies: He repeatedly weaponized niche guidelines, engaged in heavy edit-warring (including "bot-like" automated revert patterns), and utilized original synthesis to insert pro-Russian framing.
• Toxic Communication: When called out, he routinely launched bad-faith, unethical attacks against opposing editors while selectively twisting policy text to feign innocence.
• Total Refusal to Reform: After being hit with an indefinite Ukraine topic ban, he continuously tried to game the system and sneak around restrictions. The ru.wiki ArbCom explicitly cited his "scandalous modus operandi" and ultimately issued an indefinite, total block because technical restrictions alone couldn't stop his disruptive behavior.

The en.wiki community’s move to issue an indefinite Boomerang topic ban isn't a misunderstanding: it’s the logical conclusion to a multi-year, cross-wiki pattern of state-narrative pushing and disruptive gaming with the rules. ·Carn·!? 12:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Carn: Did you use AI to write this comment? In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I would say that it's a very accurate summary of the situation anyway. Biathlon (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me not answer your question right away, but rather find out why you're interested. For context, English isn't my native language; above – this is a summary of decisions on ArbCom applications, in one of which I participated in as an arbiter. After the LLM, I always check and edit the text, even if it's just Google Translate. So if you want to belittle the content of my comment, or put me in the same league as Khrulyov, who can use LLM not for summarizing, but to conduct a dialogue for him, then I'm afraid you won't succeed. ·Carn·!? 09:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is obvious AI slop. If it was not, and you actually used AI just for summarizing, then it wouldn't be full of AI signs, so yes, you're no better than AK in this regard. this is a summary of decisions on ArbCom applications - if you want to summarize ruwiki's arbcom decision, then first summarize it in Russian using your own brain, and then translate the result into English, again using your own brain.

I've collapsed the comment. — ~2026-33111-83 (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Do not touch other peoples stuff.·Carn·!? 15:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I can assume that the text was written by AI, because what is written is accurate on the facts, but in terms of substance completely off the mark. Over 90% of his ru.wiki activity was weaponized against Ukraine-related topics - this is an absolute lie, and it can be easily verified through edit history. On ruWiki, I created many articles and made many useful edits, which was repeatedly noted by other editors, and the Ukrainian topic was secondary, just more conflict-prone. So why are you writing this lie? including "bot-like" automated revert patterns - I have no idea what this is referring to (this is definitely not AI text?). he continuously tried to game the system and sneak around restrictions - this is also a lie, as I have tried to convey to you and other participants many times. The terms of the topic ban were written in such a way that any action led to violations. Write better rules, then ambiguous situations won't arise. I'll note that you were one of those who decided to make my topic ban indefinite because you didn't like how I commented on problematic aspects of the arbitration text decision. I also repeatedly asked you and other participants to provide the arbitration discussion logs in order to assess the transparency of the actions, but nothing has been done for two years (even though the practice of publishing logs exists, and the next stage of disclosure is currently underway). Note that your colleagues have achieved great success on ruWiki by pushing out of the project everyone they don't like for political/ideological reasons (many editors have noted the openly pro-Ukrainian bias of the administrators). It's no wonder that comments occasionally arise asking why things are so bad on ruWiki and where the editors have gone. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The terms of the topic ban were written in such a way that any action led to violations. and Write better rules, then ambiguous situations won't arise. are quite terrible things to say in this situation, even if referring to another project. Super Ψ Dro 17:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking as a ruwiki sysop and former arbitrator who has watched AlexeyKhrulev's editing on the Russian Wikipedia for months and was involved in reviewing several conflicts with his participation: he was also under a topic ban there covering Ukraine-related articles. He kept probing its boundaries, crossing them often, and wikilawyering at length over each individual case (one of examples).
If a topic ban is imposed, a repetition of this pattern here in enwiki looks likely to me. That isn't an argument against the topic ban itself, just a heads-up for the community that the ban on its own may not be enough, and some ongoing monitoring will probably be needed after it goes into effect. Rampion (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I think discussing a topic ban would been reasonable in case it would been a case initially raised against AK by somebody else. Given the actual circumstances of a case (them being an accuser), other data regarding it revealed in process, and the way of conduct, that is shown to be persistent, I think discussing merely a topic ban is an understatement, putting it lightly.

(Why broke my message to make way to a table?) ~2026-32571-30 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Answers for LordCollaboration

On your fifth example at 2026 Tuapse environmental disaster, which I was involved in, this was in response to your comment accusing them of WP:CHERRYPICKING and adding material simply because the topic seems "interesting"

You forgot to mention that the original edit (Special:Diff/1352678163) did not include the information about the fake interview, as described by the source itself. So TylerBurden was clearly engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING. Later, on the talk page (as is proper when seeking consensus or are you against that approach?), a correct wording was worked out, which is ultimately what's currently in the article (mind you, I'm not trying to remove it).

For another example not included here which I think is quite illustrative, on Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the dispute was over a block quote from a RS.[49]

This is about this edit: Special:Diff/1353961830. Your complaints boil down solely to the quality/style of the paraphrasing. You then made some improvements (Special:Diff/1353967939) — I had no objections to those. That's a perfectly normal working situation. What other issues do you have? If you have much more substantial topics to discuss — go ahead, I'm ready to go through them. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Answers for Lacanic

Special:Diff/1351387041 – Deletion of an 11-year-old's testimony from "Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian war," sourced to Amnesty International. Edit summary: "there's no point in that child quote."

I don't know whether you did this on purpose or not, but the full edit summary reads: "there's no point in that child quote. See WP:WEIGHT" – and this edit fully complies with that policy. Any questions? You're welcome to take them to the talk page.

Special:Diff/1357197235 – Deletion of an entire section on a Russian drone striking a NATO apartment block in Romania (Reuters, two BBC articles), on the grounds that it may have been "a deviation from the course."

Again, you're welcome to take this to the talk page. I've left a detailed comment there. Right now, this just looks like you disagree.

Special:Diff/1345157882 – Deletion of 2,400 words documenting over 40 athletes banned from the 2016 Olympics from the "Russian Athletics Federation" article, while simultaneously adding that 2026 sanctions had been lifted.

Excuse me, but weren't those sanctions actually lifted in 2026? It's strange to even argue about this. The list of athletes was removed per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE, given that this information carries no notability, and also because no reliable sources were provided for it.

Special:Diff/1353942075 – Deletion of most of the assessments section on the "Vladimir Putin" article (Freedom House, Borshchevskaya), citing WP:WEIGHT.

What's the violation here? This edit fully complies with that policy, as well as with WP:QUOTE (a lengthy quote was rewritten while preserving attribution). Any questions? You're welcome to take them to the talk page.

Special:Diff/1356753460 – Deletion of an ISW assessment from the "2026 Starobilsk strike" article (an article AlexeyKhrulev created), along with tons of broad deletion and "warnings" to anyone you don't agree with.

What exactly is the violation here? Super Dromaeosaurus made an edit (Special:Diff/1356751398) with the comment: "either we exclude this WP:FALSEBALANCE short phrase from the article, or we insert due weight. this won't remain into the article with further explanation, so choose." After that, I implemented the proposed option. The warnings about WP:WAR are fully in line with the rules – use the talk page.

Special:Diff/1356861267 – Deletion of a well-sourced table of 24 sanctioned vessels from the Russian shadow fleet, removing approximately 1,500–2,000 words of sanctioned ship names, owners, and flags (IOC, NYT sources). Edit summary: "WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE."

Again, what's the violation here? This is a classic case of WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE, not to mention that this list is outdated and hasn't been maintained. And if you were to maintain it, wouldn't you have to add another 1,000+ sanctioned vessels?

@MolecularPilot instead of just saying "I am not impressed", you need to provide a breakdown with examples. For instance, I went through Lacanic's list point by point. Did you do that? It doesn't look like it. Otherwise you'd see that there are no violations. The same goes for @Cullen328 and @Blue-Sonnet – you can't just write "Support TBAN" without a detailed breakdown (an evidence-based analysis). Otherwise, your vote carries no weight whatsoever. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

We can !vote referring to the evidence of others if we wish, there is no requirement for us to create our own breakdowns of the evidence again. And you have again ignored and dodged the allegations of AI use, which again furthers to make me more even suspicious, particularly considering the exact signs Blue-Sonnet pointed out. Please explain exactly and specifically in response to this comment if and how you have used LLMs or any other form of AI or writing assistance tool, such as Grammarly, when writing article content or messages on talk pages or noticeboards (such as within this thread). Thank you. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how this works. If Lacanic points to unconvincing edits (which, on the merits, just look like cherry-picked context), and then you double down by adding "I am not impressed with what I am seeing", it looks like you don't actually want to understand what's going on here and you just taking the convenient line. In which case, your vote is worthless. As for your question about AI (how is that even relevant to the complaint about TylerBurden?) I use "Yandex Translate AI" in cases where the text and phrasing are more complex to construct and a regular translation wouldn't be able to handle it properly. And is it necessary to shift the focus of the discussion from TylerBurden? If you have any questions that are not related to this topic, you can visit my discussion page. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

In general, editors are allowed and encouraged to express their opinions and thoughts after reviewing the evidence. It is my opinion that your editing history (including the diffs highlighted by Lacanic) constitutes POV-pushing and should result in a topic ban, and I !voted that way, and other editors did too.

If you would like a specific response to the defence you posted, I guess I find the argument that editing is not disruptive or POV pushing because people can take questions to the talk page quite unconvincing, and I think the repeated reliance on just linking WP:WEIGHT when removing content, without actually explaining why you think the removed sections from reliable outlets are actually undue weight (which I don't really see why they are), is just a method to remove content that you don't like by masking it behind a policy, which isn't acceptable conduct to do systemically against a perspective you don't like, particularly in a contentious topic area. I feel similarly about the repeated linking of WP:NOTCATALOG, after reading that policy, I don't think it applies to the removed sections, which for the ships was a referenced and detailed encyclopaedic tables which added context to the article, not "Simple lists (such as lists of phone numbers) that do not include contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" as the policy you linked states. The argument because sanctions are no longer in effect, that we shouldn't document who they were applicable to (despite coverage in RS) is also unconvincing. For me, this repeated misuse of just linking policies where they don't apply, and not explaining why, as a cover to systemically remove content that goes against Russian perspectives, is a clear example of POV pushing and should be met with a topic ban.

And again, you are thinking that this section is just about TylerBurden's conduct, when, as has been explained multiple times, the conduct of all parties involved may be discussed at this board. The use of LLM language models in talk discussions (such as this one) is restricted by WP:LLMTALK, and banned within articles by WP:NOLLM, and if persistent, considered disruptive and deceptive editing that can result in blocks (see the many cases of this on this very page). Therefore, the potential usage of such banned tools definitely falls within conduct issues to be discussed. I am not too familiar with Yandex Translation AI, but research seems to suggest that it is an LLM tool, so please review these guidelines and ensure that any use of LLM tools is in compliance with them. In general, the community prefers people to try and talk themselves, even if the English isn't perfect, rather than get AI tools to create and alter text and phrasing, as reflected in the guidelines. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the repeated reliance on just linking WP:WEIGHT when removing content, without actually explaining

Sorry, but this just looks like nitpicking. Many editors leave links to policies in their edit summaries. If the meaning is clear enough, there's no need to spell out the reason in excessive detail. Especially when we're talking about experienced editors who know the policies perfectly well. And if anyone has questions, that's what the talk page is for, so your criticism here is unfounded. I hope you're also well aware that just because some information appears in a reliable source doesn't automatically mean all it can be included in the article (WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE).

The argument because sanctions are no longer in effect, that we shouldn't document who they were applicable to (despite coverage in RS) is also unconvincing

You misread my response. Lacanic emphasizes "while simultaneously adding that 2026 sanctions had been lifted" which can be interpreted as an accusation of unjustifiably adding information (that says more about Lacanic's tendentiousness). I assume you have no objection that the fact sanctions were lifted is important? As for the table you mentioned – note that it lacks reliable sources, which alone is grounds for removal. Second, it looks more like a data dump than a well-organized piece of content grounded in analytical sources that tie it to the article's topic. Why do I have to explain such basic things to you? And why, instead of relying on WP policies, do you read this as "Russian POV pushing"? By the way, I don't see any other editor having raised this on the talk page. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Many editors leave links to policies in their edit summaries
Yes, but they have to be relevant policies, and you have to be able to explain why they apply. Just linking to a policy doesn't mean an edit is OK, and I see those edits as not okay as the removal isn't really justified under WP:WEIGHT and they contribute to a long-term pattern of POV-pushing from you. For the example of the abduction quotes, I can't see how quoting briefly one or two testimonies in the article violates due weight in any way, and you have still not explained.
And if anyone has questions, that's what the talk page is for, so your criticism here is unfounded
As I said above, just because editors can discuss an edit they disagree on the talk page, it doesn't take away from the argument that the edits demonstrated conduct problems (in my opinion, misapplying policies to contribute to a pattern of POV pushing) which are sanctionable.
I hope you're also well aware that just because some information appears in a reliable source doesn't automatically mean it can be included
Of course, and I never said that, which makes this seem like strawman argument, not rebutting my actual point that the removals were not justified and do not meet the policy of WP:WEIGHT. It just implies that I am arguing the quotes should stay solely because it is mentioned in an RS (which is obviously wrong and easier to rebut than my actual argument), which I did not mention anywhere.

My actual argument, which you still haven't addressed and have instead gone around through these methods (well other people link polices too, there's a talk page....), is that the removals weren't justified under WP:WEIGHT and just demonstrate a pattern of hiding behind polices which don't apply to systemically remove content that you don't like.
an accusation of unjustifiably adding information [...] I assume you have no objection that the fact sanctions were lifted is important
Again, this is putting words into my mouth and addressing points I did not raise in order to weasel out of addressing my core argument. I never (and neither did Lacanic explicitly, only in your interpretation of their implications) say there is any issue with mentioning the sanctions were lifted.
table you mentioned – note that it lacks reliable sources
When I mentioned a table with reliable sources, I was talking about the one with the ships, which did contain many references to reliable sources. The list of sportspeople does not contain a heading, or data arranged into columns or anything of that form, so it is not in any way a table, it is list.

Yet, you removed this referenced table of ships anyway, continuing your pattern of behaviour where you cite polices (i.e. WP:NOTCATALOG in this case) to systemically remove content you don't like, where the polices do not match the content, as I explained for this case specifically in my previous comment.

With the list, an argument can be made about verifiability but this is not the argument you made in your original edit summary (Update info; remove unnecessary data). In the section I was replying to, your first and primary argument was Excuse me, but weren't those sanctions actually lifted in 2026? It's strange to even argue about this, which is what I was responding to with my comment that removal because the sanctions were lifted is unconvincing.

Regardless, the main and primary issue here is the completely unsupported removals and misquoted policy like of the table, and of the abudction quotes and other linked instances. You have still not fully responded to this besides trying to argue that because talk pages exist or other people quote polices, then you do not need to make sure the polices you quote accurately stand for what you are doing. I see this as completely wrong.

And why, instead of relying on WP policies, do you read this as "Russian POV pushing"?
Again, this does not address the actual substance of my argument. I do rely on (and quote) multiple Wikipedia polices above to support my belief that your removals are not actually in line with these policies. As you have shown a systemic pattern of removals where you quote policies that actually don't support the removal, only ever to remove content not favourable to Russia, I believe the constitutes sanctionable POV pushing. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can take a more detailed look at my contributions to see that I remove problematic content not only from the "Ukraine-Russia" topic area. So the assumption that "content about Russia" automatically means "pro-Russian POV-pushing" seems completely far-fetched (or that's just what you want to see). And if tomorrow I start removing content about China, does that automatically make me pro-China? Right? You interpret WP:WEIGHT one way, I interpret it another – that's normal, and that's exactly what WP:CONSENSUS is for when editors have objections. By your logic, any editor who doesn't fit your worldview should be removed. In any case, you're using just a couple of examples and very weak ones at that to push for very serious sanctions against an editor. I also don't break the WP:WAR (for some reason you persistently ignore this point on the part of TylerBurden and Lacanic), and in case it's not possible to quickly find a consensus, I create WP:RFC as required by the rules. If the editors are against my changes, I agree and don't try to push my point of view later. You are also ignoring this, and all because you have not studied the topic in detail, as I wrote earlier. Let me remind you of this arbitration request, where even far more serious violations marked by @Mellk and @Kelob2678) did not become a reason for imposing any sanctions to TylerBurden. Why you are so insistent on sanctions is an open question. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for AK. Their comportment in this thread alone is alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  first of all, this is not the place to discuss my contribution. If that's what you want, then you can create a separate topic for consideration.

  What is being raised here is not a content dispute and not a referendum on every Russia–Ukraine edit I have made.

  The references to my ruWiki history don’t answer this complaint. If someone believes there is a separate enWiki conduct issue involving me, they may file it with specific enWiki diffs.

  Any questions? You're welcome to take them to the talk page.

  instead of just saying "I am not impressed", you need to provide a breakdown with examples.

  you can't just write "Support TBAN" without a detailed breakdown (an evidence-based analysis). Otherwise, your vote carries no weight whatsoever.

  it looks like you don't actually want to understand what's going on here and you just taking the convenient line. In which case, your vote is worthless.

  If you have any questions that are not related to this topic, you can visit my discussion page.

  Sorry, but that's not how this works.

  The "confidently wrong" examples about "explaining" to others how the things are actually works (i.e. "stop or go some other place instead", according to them), continuing even after being corrected, would be comical, taking the place they're happening, but using more properly, it's an effective scare tactic that often works on less experienced people who are face it. The fact it is so ridiculously attempted even here numerous times even after rebutting shows that it is of so natural way of communication for them, that it goes unnoticed and not contained even in cases it definitely better would be. I think it goes way broader than the some narrow topic (no caps WP: list, I think anybody could trivially do so on their own in this case, but could try if needed).

  And bonus one.

  Please do not write in this discussion thread unless you are an administrator, so as not to create noise. ~2026-32571-30 (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  After seeing this diff in response to me cautioning AK about borderline canvassing I'm starting to be supportive of a full indef. I'm sorry but when you're in trouble at AN/I and go to one editor who you believe might be sympathetic asking them to weigh in and when another editor who has also previously expressed neutrality concerns about the handling of some topics related to the Russia / Ukraine war then warns you that you're borderline canvassing, to respond by arguing that actually what you're doing is just fine seems. Tendentious. Or possibly we're dealing with WP:CIR. I still support a topic ban if there isn't consensus for more. It's clear that AK is disruptive in this contentious space. But I am starting to think we're going to be dealing with a lot of kicking around the edges of a tban and tedious arguments about what they can and cannot do if we don't nip this in the bud. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Unfortunate. They canvassed the same user before on a different discussion, after which I and others warned them about canvassing, and they responded that they were not aware of WP:CANVASS. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I really don't understand why I can't notify some of the participants about the discussion that they will be interested in? Obviously, I'm not asking to come forward in my defense or any support (that's why I think your statement is incorrect). The WP:CANVAS rule does not prohibit, on the contrary, it allows you to do this: WP:CAN: "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus".

  Considering that an information campaign has been launched against me (see this), and many participants support the Ukrainian pro-pushin (they don't hide it and even openly declare it.) and don't even try to consider my comments (except for MolecularPilot), it is difficult to talk about any confidence in the decision as a whole. Therefore, it will be in the interests of this ANI to attract as many neutral participants as possible, who will not attach their political views and call out a participant just because they do not like him. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Listen: I've expressed neutrality concerns regarding the handling of Ukranian right-wing militias on several occasions and have had content disputes with Tyler Burden over those topics. It's part of why I don't edit in that topic area as much as other topic areas about far-right political movements. I'm about as neutral as you are likely to get here. And I'm telling you that your behaviour here is the problem, not theirs. Spurious AN/I filings, retaliatory sanction requests and canvassing are behavioral problems. I am not saying this out of any desire to remove an ideological opponent, I'm an uninvolved editor who is able to observe what's going on. I suggest you read WP:HOLES. Because you're in one and you just keep digging. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that my comments may be aggressive or excessive. This is due to the pain I feel when I see the situation unfolding. I already went through this in the ruWiki, when I was actually kicked out of the project. And what I mean now is clear to me in the principle - there’re an obvious number of pro-Ukrainian editors who don’t need any arguments, they just vote "support". I promise that I’ll not write about this ANI anymore. In fact, I'm already thinking about deleting my account and leaving the project (don't consider this an ultimatum, especially since my stay here was interesting only for me). AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  This was a poorly advised course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN from Russia-Ukraine war and Russia-Ukraine relations, broadly construed, per my (and others) comments above. LordCollaboration (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Given the refusal to get the point (with the continued disruptive behavior and the canvassing even when under scrutiny), I think a forced break would be helpful, so would support a CBAN. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN from Russia-Ukraine war and Russia-Ukraine relations, broadly construed. Support CBAN for disruptive editing including abuse of WP:ANI.

Their original complaint is seriously inflated, e.g. with three bolded complaints of "violation of WP:SUMMARYNO" (i.e. of a help page), and quotes selectively, inaccurately and misleadingly. They persist in using AI to create the walls of words here, or as they put it "in translating complex English phrases because English is not my native language", and their competence to engage with the community as themselves is doubtful. They seek to dictate to us how we discuss them, e.g. "this is not the place to discuss my contribution", "you can't just write "Support TBAN" without a detailed breakdown (an evidence-based analysis). Otherwise, your vote carries no weight whatsoever", "your vote is worthless" and even who can discuss them "Please do not write in this discussion thread unless you are an administrator, so as not to create noise", indicating contempt for the en.wiki community. The complaint and follow-up here are so disproportionate that they validate the underlying issue, that AK is unable or unwilling to understand and be governed by the community's policies such as WP:WEIGHT and pushes their POV interminably. NebY (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN, either Ukraine-Russia topics, or Russian international relations entirely. As for WP:AISIGNS, even if AI use is minimal, this editor's statements here are effectively just as useless as the repetitive and inaccurate products we see from ChatGPT, et. al. The statements of policy which are either inaccurate or wholly invented are not dissimilar to LLM hallucinations. Further, the WP:BLUDGEON behavior, manipulative actions, and the wikilawyering point to a bunker mentality focused on "winning," not on a collaborative project. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 14:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Support as outlined here by our peers at /ruMoxy🍁 16:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN, as restrictive as it could be. Being a user of Russian-language Wikipedia, I've seen this user's many attempts to go "on the thin ice" of his TBANs, and the retaliatory claims only show his pattern of behaviour more. Well very well (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think the "as restrictive as it could be" is not important here, the main difference in TBANs between en-wiki and ru-wiki is that en-wiki TBANs are "broadly construed", and even trying to test it can be grounds for an immediate sanction. Which is different to ru-wiki. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Statement by AlexeyKhrulev

I would like to make a statement regarding the proposed topic ban.

I understand that ANI may review the behavior of all parties, including the applicant. I don't mind the administrators checking my edits. Nevertheless, a topic ban is a serious sanction and should be based on specific differences, a clear explanation of which rules were violated, and the demonstrated nature of violations in enWiki. It should not be imposed on the basis of generalized statements, borrowed disputes from another project, or votes that simply say "I support" without analyzing the evidence. Moreover, I have no confidence in the reliability or sincerity of the participants who have left single comments here and with whom I have never interacted. Given the anonymous users who came to leave reports and completely ignore TylerBurden's behavior, shifting the focus onto me, and I'm concerned that some comments appear to be piling on without independently engaging with the evidence, but I leave it to administrators to assess that.

Yes, some of the comments here are largely based on my story on ruWiki, but sanctions against enWiki should be based on behavior in enWiki. My history at ruWiki can, at best, provide background information, but it cannot replace evidence that specific differences in enWiki violate specific enWiki policies. Since that previous dispute, I've made a conscious effort to be more careful about controversial topics, justifying policy edits, discussing controversial materials, and seeking consensus on discussion pages, requests for proposals, and talk pages. Carn's comment about the alleged continuing 'disruptive playbook' does not reflect reality. Such comments could lead to the mistaken assumption that I came to enWiki for that purpose, but of course that is not the case, and my editing history clearly demonstrates this. I don't know what Carn based his assumption on, but it was clearly not a detailed examination of the history. Apparently, he simply read the striking comments from Lecanik or other editors and decided that this is how it is. I understand that this is not an admission of violations within the framework of another project, but it is relevant to whether there is currently a system of sanctions in this case. If editors want to block a topic in enWiki, they should demonstrate the current failures in enWiki, and not just ask administrators to import the results of another project.

The objections submitted against me mainly relate to the usual content disputes: whether the material was inappropriate, whether the table/list was excessive in accordance with WP:NOTCATALOG / WP:NOTDATABASE, whether quotations should be paraphrased in accordance with WP:QUOTE, or whether the controversial material should be left out without approval in accordance with WP:ONUS. These may be disagreements about an editorial decision, but disagreeing with removal based on politics is not the same as destructive behavior or propaganda. In most cases, the material was discussed on the discussion pages, was changed or left in the article after a consensus-oriented discussion (an example of the fact that I'm open to seeking consensus and not escalating the situation – Special:Diff/1322145710). I also don't never break the WP:WAR (unlike TylerBurden and Lacanic), and in case it's not possible to quickly find a consensus, I create WP:RFC / WP:DNR as required WP rules. If finale the editors are against my changes, I agree and don't try to push my point of view later (it's easy to check my history).

I have not seen any examples from the editors that would clearly indicate violations that should be sanctioned. The Lacanic participant actively leaves comments against me, but at the same time he looks like POV pusher. This is why I used WP:BOOMERANG against him and it's not an revenge (for example, I did't used it to LordCollaboration). Therefore, I ask the administrators to evaluate his comments in the light of specific disagreements and underlying differences of content, rather than treating them as independent evidence of misconduct. The same can be said about TylerBurden, where serious violations on his part were highlighted in the latest arbitration request. In this ArF I described the problems I faced with him: I first encountered issues with his editing in the articles Tikhon Dzyadko and Ekaterina Kotrikadze, where I attempted to add well-sourced information that they had been designated as foreign agents in Russia. TylerBurden reverted these edits. This was followed by a prolonged discussion in which reliable sources were repeatedly provided, but TylerBurden chose to disregard them. Only after the matter was taken to WP:NPOVN was the issue resolved, and my edit was ultimately accepted. The entire process took more than than half a month. Given that TylerBurden is an experienced editor, it was surprising that such a relatively straightforward and policy-supported issue took so long to resolve, and that he actively obstructed its inclusion. More recently, I have repeatedly encountered him in articles related to Russian–Ukrainian relations, where his actions often lead to extended disputes and frequent allegations of policy violations, for example at Talk:Ukrainian attacks on the Russian shadow fleet. I am nevertheless glad to hear from TylerBurden here that he is willing to acknowledge concerns about his conduct and make adjustments. I hope this will help prevent similar issues going forward. However, the TylerBurden pattern has not changed and the conflict with him should have occurred sooner or later. However, unlike his aggressive behavior, I always try to adhere to the rules, which is why this ANI was submitted.

I also object to the wording according to which any removal of materials unfavorable to Russia should be "propaganda of pro-Russian views". This is not an argument based on evidence. Editors regularly delete or rewrite materials from reliable sources if they believe that they violate WP:DUE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:VNOT, WP:QUOTE or other content usage rules. The appropriate place to express disagreement about such edits is the article's discussion page, rather than a suggestion to ban the topic based on assumptions about motives. You can easily check my edits in other topics that are not related to "Ukraine-Russia" and see exactly the same changes. Apparently, it is easier for some tendentious editors to accuse others of "propaganda", because that is a very strong and striking statement, than to recognize the ordinary workflow of editing articles.

The initial problem remains the repeated personification of disputes by TylerBurden with the help of such accusations as "propaganda of narratives of the Russian state", "WP:TENDENTIOUS editor", "unfair assumptions and mental gymnastics", comments about "elementary logic" and hostile comments on edits accusing me of constantly violating NPOV. I ask administrators to distinguish between ordinary content disputes that can be resolved through discussion and consensus pages, and repeated personal accusations that are matters of conduct under WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SUMMARYNO.

In conclusion let me explain: I'm not asking administrators to ignore my behavior or my edit history. If there are specific differences in enWiki that, in the opinion of the editors indicate violations that warrant sanctions, I'm ready to consider them. However, I object to replacing this analysis with generalized statements about motives, selective references to ruWiki, or assumptions about writing style. The standard here should be specific differences, specific enWiki rules, and a clear explanation of how destructive the intended behavior is. Topic ban should not be based on broad characteristics such as "pro-Russian propaganda", except in cases where the differences actually demonstrate behavior that violates policy rather than the usual content disputes. I'm ready to accept the warning to be more careful with editing comments and use the discussion pages before deleting potentially controversial articles in the "Russia-Ukraine" section. Also note, if I had any real issues on enWiki, they would have been known long ago (blocks, issued warnings, etc.), but there is nothing like that. However, the proposed indefinite topic ban is not supported by clear evidence of destructive behavior in enWiki.

Regarding claims related to artificial intelligence: I use help in translating complex English phrases because English is not my native language. I'm responsible for what I post and check the content before publishing. If the administrators have any particular concerns about the text of a particular article, I'm ready to contact them. But arguments about writing style should not be a substitute for evidence that the content of the article violates the rules.

UPD: some editors point to my aggression and a large number of defense comments. I'm sorry if that's the case. This is my first request to ANI, and of course I did not expect the situation to turn out this way. Yes, I'm very upset, so some of the answers may seem rude. I apologize in advance. As for defending my position, I realized that it was a waste of time (trying to respond to every comment), so I created a table below where I listed the issues (the list is taken from the discussions). Hopefully, the summary table will show the real state of affairs.

UPD2: Also pay attention to the info agitation launched against me — Special:Diff/1357533243. Unfortunately, with such a campaign I cannot count on fairness. Now I understand where so many participants in this thread came from.

Analysis of issues

To avoid repeating the mistakes I made on ruWiki, where I defended myself by trying to respond to every comment, which led to a large number of posts, I have compiled all the problematic issues raised into a single table, which will provide a better overview. Please add any newly identified issues to the table so that I can respond to them.

For clarity, I've compiled the controversial issues to the table. If administrators find this useful, the last column ("Degree of severity") can indicate whether a particular issue is being considered a serious rule violation, a minor issue, or a common content dispute.

Minimising large table added by AlexeyKhrulev

# issues	Who report	What disputed	Comment by AlexeyKhrulev	Degree of severity
1	LordCollaboration	On your fifth example at 2026 Tuapse environmental disaster, which I was involved in, this was in response to your comment accusing them of WP:CHERRYPICKING and adding material simply because the topic seems "interesting"	This editor forgot to mention that the original edit (Special:Diff/1352678163) did not include the information about the fake interview, as described by the source itself. So that is why I raised WP:CHERRYPICKING as a concern. Later, on the talk page (as is proper when seeking consensus), a correct wording was worked out, which is ultimately what's currently in the article (mind you, I'm not trying to remove it).
2	LordCollaboration	For another example not included here which I think is quite illustrative, on Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the dispute was over a block quote from a RS.	This is about this edit: Special:Diff/1353961830. Your complaints boil down solely to the quality/style of the paraphrasing, although there was no malicious intent to misrepresent the quote from my side. You then made some improvements (Special:Diff/1353967939) — I had no objections to those. That's a perfectly normal working situation. I didn't change anything after that.
3	Lacanic	Special:Diff/1351387041 – Deletion of an 11-year-old's testimony from "Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian war," sourced to Amnesty International. Edit summary: "there's no point in that child quote."	The quoted edit summary is incomplete. The full edit summary was "there's no point in that child quote. See WP:WEIGHT" – and this edit in my opinion is fully complies with that policy. I deleted the long direct quote, rather than the main Amnesty material, because a long first-person quote gives disproportionate importance to a single testimony and adds emotional details rather than the necessary encyclopedic context. According to WP:DUE/UNDUE and WP:QUOTE, direct quotations should be used with caution if they add something that cannot be conveyed by paraphrasing.
4	Lacanic	Special:Diff/1357197235 – Deletion of an entire section on a Russian drone striking a NATO apartment block in Romania (Reuters, two BBC articles), on the grounds that it may have been "a deviation from the course."	This article concerns Russian attacks on civilians in the Russo-Ukrainian war, and its existing content is about attacks on civilians in Ukraine, including deliberate or indiscriminate attacks in populated areas. The Galați incident, as described by Romania’s own president, appears to have been a drone that was diverted after being shot down over Ukrainian territory and then changed trajectory toward Romania. That is a different type of incident: a spillover/cross-border airspace incident, not an attack on Romanian civilians. Including it here under a new "Romania" section would imply that Russia attacked civilians in Romania, which is not supported by the source.
5	Lacanic	Special:Diff/1345157882 – Deletion of 2,400 words documenting over 40 athletes banned from the 2016 Olympics from the "Russian Athletics Federation" article, while simultaneously adding that 2026 sanctions had been lifted.	The list of athletes was removed per WP:NOTCATALOG / WP:NOTDATABASE, given that this information carries no notability and no reliable sources were provided for it (it only concerned a specific year/event, while the article itself is not about this event). Information about the lifting of sanctions is based on RS.
6	Lacanic	Special:Diff/1353942075 – Deletion of most of the assessments section on the "Vladimir Putin" article (Freedom House, Borshchevskaya), citing WP:WEIGHT.	This edit complies with that policy, as well as with WP:QUOTE (a lengthy quote was rewritten while preserving attribution). So the info was not deleted, but only paraphrase.
7	Lacanic	Special:Diff/1356753460 – Deletion of an ISW assessment from the "2026 Starobilsk strike" article (an article AlexeyKhrulev created), along with tons of broad deletion and "warnings" to anyone you don't agree with.	Super Dromaeosaurus made an edit (Special:Diff/1356751398) with the comment: "either we exclude this WP:FALSEBALANCE short phrase from the article, or we insert due weight. this won't remain into the article with further explanation, so choose." After that, I implemented the proposed option. The warnings about WP:WAR are fully in line with the rules – use the talk page.
8	Lacanic	Special:Diff/1356861267 – Deletion of a well-sourced table of 24 sanctioned vessels from the Russian shadow fleet, removing approximately 1,500–2,000 words of sanctioned ship names, owners, and flags (IOC, NYT sources). Edit summary: "WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE."	I don't see how this amounts to punishable behavior. In my opinion, this is a classic case of WP:NOTCATALOG / WP:NOTDATABASE, not to mention that this list is outdated and hasn't been maintained. Maintaining such table can lead to turning an article into a database-style list, rather than a commensurate encyclopedic summary. I also have previously studied this article in interWiki and have not found a similar table there.

Please do not write in this discussion thread unless you are an administrator, so as not to create noise. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Any editor can (and if they have the knowledge and experience, arguably should) give their opinion on possible sanctions – Administrator noticeboards are where community bans and other sanctions are discussed by the community at large.

It doesn't say anywhere that only administrators are allowed to post here; in fact this would result in a less open and fair administrative process. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I am an administrator who is completely uninvolved in the Russia-Ukraine topic area. I made a brief comment supporting a topic ban on AlexeyKhrulev because I read all of the comments and evaluated the evidence and came to that conclusion. There is zero requirement that I need to have previously interacted with AlexeyKhrulev. I am also not required to recapitulate all of the reasons that I agree with the recommendation. The participation of previously uninvolved editors and adminstrators in this and similar discussions is a good thing, not a bad thing. AlexeyKhrulev's inclination to bludgeon the discussion with excessively long and repetitive comments is unwise. An argument does not become more persuasive by repeating it over and over again. All editors should heed that advice. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm also seeing a shedload more AI indicators in the above report, so it appears that the help in translating complex English phrases may indeed be AI.

If it's not, I would appreciate some clarification from OP. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Same. I could perhaps believe AI translation into English of AI-generated Russian text. NebY (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm very close to proposing an indef, the original report complained of bludgeoning and that's exactly what we're seeing here. It's almost impossible to form a true consensus when one person is domineering the discussion like this. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• The submitter has been indefblocked in the RuWiki for their disruptive behaviour and pro-Kremlin POV-pushing and I see no other option but to do the same here because there have been no positive changes since that. Biathlon (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• This table isn't helping. Morwen (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh hey, another thing on the WP:AISIGNS list. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems quite certain with all of the weird formatting changes of other people's comments in their diff. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Including mine, and I note that dashes were changed to em-dashes too. I've changed my vote to indef, things can't continue like this. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

You're complaining about my aggression, but you're making accusations yourself. Why do you expect a different reaction? For your info, "weird formatting changes" is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TMg/autoFormatter.js AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I retract that particular issue. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI This is a dewiki script that doesn't appear to follow enwiki policy, I've recommended that they uninstall/disable it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Nah, I've made changes exactly like that in the past, except for the hyphen-endash (or whatever that change was, I can't see the difference on my screen). Br to Br/ isn't needed, but it is more-correct HTML. Dropping the http: from the beginning of a link makes it agree with however the pages are being served. And replacing a unicode-gobbledygook URL with a proper Cyrillic wikilink is a public service. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion was posted on Reddit. (I'm not sure if this has been posted already; feel free to move if misplaced) Wracking ^talk! 05:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Before that post was made, nine editors had already supported the option of a topic ban . Just as a response to the user's suggestion that the users supporting it may have come from that post. Super Ψ Dro 13:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh it's that WillyNilly1997 guy again (the one who kept campaigning on reddit for the Estonia infobox debate, and for some other AN/I case, too). Nakonana (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

. Nakonana (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This today from AlexeyKhrulev at Talk:2026 Starobilsk strike indicates to me that they are not suited for a collaborative project like Wikipedia and will continue to (try to) disrupt the project until banned – my preference is for an indef CBAN:

@Lacanic please do not use the Talk page as a page for meaningless phrases like Yes! Can’t do just now but could a bit later or you could push it live. Ty or Good resolution for now, until more reporting at a later time.

NebY (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is increasingly looking like WP:CIR. It's pretty normal to agree tentatively to an edit pending additional sources or to suggest that slowing down and waiting for more information would be a good choice in the event of a breaking story. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This discussion has become so voluminous I would hesitate to close it but I think there's a clear consensus now for a topic ban at the very least. I think we may wish to consider going ahead with that now while we consider whether additional steps are required. Morwen (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I wouldn't want my preference for a cban to stand in the way. NebY (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is indeed really also about competence. One definitely shouldn't expect such kidding from the editor circa 2011 (or even 2008 (!)). No, I promise that I’ll not write about this ANI anymore. In fact, I'm already thinking about deleting my account and leaving the project is not done exactly that way (except maybe true about very latter part).

I'd try to emphasize on a discussion about topic ban. The problem is that disruptive behavior goes a really encompassing broad way, not restrained to any particular narrow topic. The fact it goes even way worse in comparison in some particular topic doesn't looks like good rationale to concentrate only on that narrow issue (in addition to it, there is a whole unsuccessful story of the exact attempt in the such approach is provided). ~2026-33233-96 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Whether you're Alexey or not, trolling from an anonymous address won't help him. ·Carn·!? 15:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That was the exact (in fact not; I didn't meant that them could be a somebody else) point I was tried to rise in that message. I even fixed the link to be more readable now (sorry, as a diff it was a mess indeed). Should also I read that was intended as a reply to me as well and answer it? ~2026-33233-96 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Was it you who tried to hide my message from the anonymous account above? ·Carn·!? 15:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Withdrawn. ~2026-33233-96 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably for the best, a few hours ago they were policing article Talk pages by quoting WP:NOTFORUM for Good resolution for now, until more reporting at a later time , then doubling-down when told that they're wrong, accusing the editor they asked for an opinion of using it as material for this ANI.

I wanted to be proven wrong on my indef/CBAN proposal, but I'm seeing the same problematic behaviour continue.

Regardless, I've spoken about this more than enough and this is a long thread already, so I'll leave this discussion alone unless I'm directly pinged. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:FOG ·Carn·!? 19:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Just noticed the user AlexeyKhrulev updated their talk page to say Retired . I'm not sure if this is binding or some attempt to get out of potential ANI enforcement. Lacanic (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:BOOMERANG for User:Lacanic

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

---

Alright, since this is how things have turned out, I also want to highlight the behavior of User:Lacanic. Not long ago, this user had fewer than 500 edits, which meant they weren't allowed to edit protected articles (especially on the Ukraine-Russia topic). To reach the required edit count, he made a bunch of minor changes. Right after that, he immediately switched to editing articles within the Ukraine-Russia topic area.

That alone wouldn't be such a big deal if it weren't for the POV-pushing from this user. A clear example is the article "2026 Starobilsk strike":

• Special:Diff/1356573314 - an attempt to add information about VOIN with a violation of the source selection.

• Special:Diff/1356765727/1356837012 - another attempt to add the same information, violating WP:WAR. At this point, the user should have sought consensus on the article's talk page. I reverted it with the comment "WP:SYNTH. See also discussion on article Talk page." After that, they finally started a thread at Talk:2026_Starobilsk_strike#Voin_/Alleged/_Self_Stated_Military_Connection, where I explained the right way to proceed ("You must provide a strong reliable source that would link the strike on the Starobilsk building complex with the deployment of VOIN there. Otherwise, it will be WP:SYNTH, as I mentioned earlier").

• Special:Diff/1357185536/1357319533 - an attempt to revert back to his non-consensus version, complete with clear POV-pushing and multiple violations. For example: "Ruslan Leviev did not visit the site, but said that" — this is pure original research, not supported by the source. And that's not even mentioning that this edit itself is another attempt at WP:WAR, since they reverted a change made in Special:Diff/1357127996 and completely ignored the comment left on the talk page in Special:Diff/1357128927.

• Special:Diff/1357220361/1357316953 - an attempt to clean the talk page while the discussions are not over yet. A blatant violation. He claims he was "in a hurry" (Special:Diff/1356125686/1357320470) but he wasn't. He had no right to delete the discussions. Moreover, he was involved in some of the disputes.

I ask administrators to carefully study the pattern of Lacanic and issue a warning to him (note that I am not asking to impose a topic ban on him, because I always offer WP:AGF first).

Also, given Lacanic pattern of POV-pushing, I'd ask the administrators to go through his complaints (Special:Diff/1357324178) very carefully. Right now, it just looks like WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexeyKhrulev (talk • contribs)

Please do not remove someone else's comments from this thread without asking them as you did in , this is a violation of WP:TPO. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I felt that the notification about the missing signature (yet again) was redundant and cluttering the discussion (moreover, I have already given you the answer on my talk page). So I'm now asking you to delete my current message and your above in order to clean up the discussion thread. Thanks. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose any sanction for Lacanic.

1. Diffs show no problem that is urgent or intractable.
2. Claims of gaming EC are almost baseless. There was a slight burst of relatively minor edits late: 3/4 or less of edits number 450-500 by Lacanic were quite short; a sampling of them showed all to be in mainspace, meaningful, and useful to the project ...i.e., gnoming. Gnomes are OK.
3. The section is titled Tban, the request was for a warning.
4. Transparently retaliatory proposal is transparent.

Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 15:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose This looks clearly retaliatory. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Most of these are one-off and don't raise to the level of needing adminstrative intervention.

This is a retaliatory filing since it wouldn't have been made if things weren't going poorly for AlexeyKhrulev - they explicitly state this by writing Alright, since this is how things have turned out, I also want to highlight the behavior of User:Lacanic.

Hiobazard has already pointed out the many discrepancies & problems with this report - whilst I understand Alexey would prefer that each editor gave a full explanation of their reasoning, I don't feel this is necessary if I'm only repeating the points that others have already made. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose retaliatory filing, which reflects very poorly on AlexeyKhrulev. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, you are wrong. If this editor had not been so openly pushing his "grievances" (which are very weak in terms of argumentation), I could have turned a blind eye to his behavior as an editor and raised the issue of a warning in this ANI. I've provided convincing examples of POV pushing violations. And yes, it's strange to read comments from participants who pretend that no violations exist. I hope that more experienced participants will approach this issue in a more balanced manner. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  @AlexeyKhrulev Do not edit my (or others) comments without permission again. See Wikipedia:TALKNO. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Guy89272 is ICANTHEARYOU

Guy89272 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a talk page with numerous warnings about providing reliable sources, most recently from 14 May. However it appears they are simply choosing to ignore the notices, as as recently as today they have been making unsourced changes. They know how to use a talk page, as they have previously blanked and added a header to their talk page, and upon receiving a CSD notice, they immediately contested it, so it's not a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU - rather this appears to be a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Would an article space block be appropriate until they address the issues raised on their talk page? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Just commenting to keep LCSB at bay :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Very appreciated within the blues. ~2026-33190-89 (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Keeping this open Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I see you left them multiple notices for the past few months (and so have others). It's pretty concerning behavior especially since you have proof that they can read talk pages. I do think its a case of ICANTHEARYOU.

Perhaps its possible to try pinging them one more time? @Guy89272 please engage with Danners. That said, given just how excessive the ignoring is (its been multiple months, which is honestly very generous of you Danners given how often times if they're ignoring for just a few weeks its often enough to warrant a ANI), some sort of action might be needed especially if they ignore the ANI notice. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

They still haven’t edited since this was opened… perhaps a pblock would be an idea so that when they return they’re forced to engage? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I would be open to that, now technically its possible that they're inactive, but I have seen editors/IP try to obfuscate by not engaging. Given that they've never questioned your multiple notices (as well as that of others) I would be supportive or something of that sort. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Legal threats over WP:Synth disagreement

A user is accusing me of libel - This feels like a needless invocation of legal risks because I referred to WP:SYNTH as amateur work. Johnny Joeson (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

That wasn't a legal threat. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

What they were trying to tell you is that youe edit sumary in is a personal attack, referring to unnamed users on the page as amateur wiki editors. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

We only have amateur editors. Nobody is being paid. How is that a personal attack? WP:OR covers why we prefer independent reliable sources over an editors understanding of software from their personal experience with it. Johnny Joeson (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I think your edit summary here is what started it: Unsourced cruft. We need a reliable source to cover this, not amateur wiki editors to synthesize it. I understand your comment above about all of us being amateurs, but in the context of the edit summary (particularly associated with "cruft", a pejorative), it reads as unkind at the least, and probably uncivil. Sometimes what we are thinking and what others see us write are two different things. It pays to be careful when writing comments, particularly when you are unhappy about something. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

What about the unsourced content I removed. Was it cruft? It was based on personal experience (an amateur source), and not an independent reliable source. My opinions on what the important features of software are subjective, which is why information being added to articles should have a source. If an independent source notices those features, they will become worth adding to the article. This isn't a user generated software review website. Johnny Joeson (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The text in question wasn't sourced at the time, but it was a basic description of what the software does and the file formats that it supports. I wouldn't call that cruft. It's not a hyperbolic personal opinion, or a changelog that tracks each decimal point of the software version number. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats#What is not a legal threat. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

That page says "Always choose your words carefully when starting or responding to any discussions or disputes, as well as with any messages or communication with other users; you must refrain from making any comments that other editors may translate or interpret (even incorrectly) as legal threats. For example, if you assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret your communication as implying such a threat. Use less charged wording, such as "that statement about me is not true, and I ask that it be corrected." (Linked by rsjaffe)

I've obviously, maybe wrongly according to Voorts above, seen an accusation of libel and slander as a legal threat. They chose legalistic terms instead of discussing tone. Johnny Joeson (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, "slander", especially is used colloquially often enough that it doesn't really constitute a legal threat. They're just saying they think you are being mean.Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I see. So we can accuse people of slander and libel. I entirely misread WP:NLT. Should that guideline be updated? Johnny Joeson (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Context is important, in this case it looks like they used the wrong words and never meant this in a legal sense. Rsjaffe also linked you to a page that explains that the mention of libel alone isn't a legal threat.

We can always use common sense and AGF where appropriate, and I think there is a very good argument for applying both here. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't find that in the link. It does say a discussion of whether content is libelous isn't a legal threat. This wasn't about content. It was about me. I am not content, and in the country where I live, the word libel isn't common slang. Its a legal term I'd need to consult a lawyer to properly understand. Johnny Joeson (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, well several of us have given our opinion and agree that this isn't a true legal threat according to Wikipedia standards, instead it looks like the editor was just being a bit overzealous in their phrasing.

As Wikipedia editors & administrators can't provide legal advice you're welcome to consult a lawyer if you prefer, otherwise I hope this will reassure you that we feel there is nothing to worry about.

If there are any further concerns of this nature from the same editor, please let an admin know. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The only reason I mentioned needing a lawyer is because another editor said it was common slang. It isn't. I know it is a specific thing that has something to do with hurting someone's income or something. I don't need to know the exact definition to know it isn't cool to accuse me of breaking the law over a simple edit to Wikipedia. I don't have any worries about myself/etc. But this editor accused me of a COI, accused me of being a sock puppet, and now accuses me of being a criminal. Its a lot to handle in two days. Johnny Joeson (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Where did this user accuse you of COI? Morwen (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably here. Johnny has admitted to being at least one of the TAs in the discussion before registering the account. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

That is exactly it. My IP changes outside of my control, and after being accused of editing in bad faith due to being an IP, I eventually created this account. We don't live in a world where anything is competing against old shareware, so I found the accusation bizarre. Johnny Joeson (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Trust me, accusations of sockpuppetry aren't much to get exercised about. I've been accused of socking for other long-term users, and we just had a good laugh about it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hate to say this, but I'm on Johnny Joeson's side here. User:Sbmeirow has been here more than long enough to know not to casually sling "Reminder to not slander/libel other editors in EDIT comments" around.

That said, Johnny, if you keep implying that you're going to get a lawyer involved, that's an excellent way to get the consequences invoked on you instead of Sbmeirow. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

You make a good point about @Sbmeirow's comments. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, just because baseless accusations of libel/slander toward a brand-new editor aren't within the scope of NLT doesn't mean they're at all okay. Happy to AGF that this was just a misunderstanding of the words, but it really needs to not happen again (especially since the underlying comment was so anodyne that I'm not sure why it even prompted a warning in the first place). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't even check their history, IMO that does change things somewhat. It's usually the first thing I do so that's on me. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

When did I ever imply I'd get a lawyer involved? I refuted someone calling slander slang by pointing out that the word is actually highly specialized, and expertise is required to understand it. I would like to point out to you that if I were to hire a lawyer to explain a word to me, that also isn't a legal threat. Not that I would waste money to be able to say "I spoke to someone, and they also said it isn't slang for 200 dollars". Johnny Joeson (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

As far as next steps go, it's probably best to wait and see what Sbmeirow has to say about this and go from there.

Considering his tenure, I hope at a minimum he confirms that he understands that this wasn't appropriate and commits to taking more care in future, especially when it comes to anything that may imply off-Wiki actions. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

To state the obvious, a lawyer would not normally be able to explain whether a word is slang. They might be able to explain the legal meaning of the word, but you'd need someone who studies language use to comment on the slang bit. Nil Einne (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if I can get my 200 dollars back (joking) Johnny Joeson (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, let's see if we can dial it back a bit, and see what happens if we replace "Reminder to not slander/libel other editors in EDIT comments" with "Reminder to not disparage other editors in EDIT comments".

As far as I can see, there's just robust discussion, with a legal "term of art" thrown in there as an indication that the discussion got heated, yeah?

If "Reminder to not disparage other editors in EDIT comments" was annexed to Reminder to not disparage other editors in EDIT comments ***with*** I will take legal action about this, then this would amount to a NLT problem. As always, happy to be proven wrong.

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Last night, I received the notice concerning false claims against me. After many hours, I finally got to a point where I decided to break the pencil and post this response.

Original statements (as a reminder to everyone):

• Johnny Joeson EDIT comment = "Unsourced cruft. We need a reliable source to cover this, not amateur wiki editors to synthesize it".
• Sbmeirow warning comment = "Reminder to not slander/libel other editors in EDIT comments, per your EDIT on June 1."

My response to claim:

• My comment was only meant to be a generalized warning to stop the use of sly/sneaky attack words that trivialize and belittle other editors of Exact Audio Copy, anyone claiming I meant otherwise is patently incorrect.
• Notice how Johnny went out of his way to specifically include the word "amateur" as a snide attack to berate all editors of the article, thus he was intentionally "poking bears with a stick". Whether Wikipedia editors are technically "amateur" is not the point, instead it was him purposely choosing the use of this exact term, which absolutely wasn't necessary in any EDIT comment. In this situation, because of how "amateur" was used, it should be consider offensive in the same way as using "fat" towards a heavy person, even if the person is obviously over-weight. The same goes for many other offensive terms used in social media today, such as "gay", "slut", "ugly", "old", "short", "liberal", "woke" which are all used as unnecessary descriptive attack terms meant to belittle people.
• As for our original statements: First, notice how Johnny used the word "editors", which I implied to mean all editors of the article. Second, notice how I clearly used "other editors" to cover his plural usage, which meant every editor of the article. I clearly didn't use the word "me" in my comment, nor did I use the words "lawyer" or "legal action" or "lawsuit" either.

My concerns about user Johnny Joeson:

• To start off, Johnny was complete out of line for throwing rocks at other users, because within a few minutes after I noticed his text removal, I quickly found the "Features of EAC" page on the software website. If Johnny had actually spent minutes investigating and improving existing text in the article then he could had added a reference, instead I was forced to fix his improper overly-aggressive removal and add the reference myself.
• Any claims above that Johnny should be treated as an ignorant newbie must have ignored this sockpuppet investigation, as well as must have overlooked his use of numerous wikipedia terms that ignorant newbies never use, such as COI, NPA, TA, AFC, GNG, and more. It is openly laughable that Johnny should be considered a wiki newbie, LOL.
• In the talk page for Exact Audio Copy, notice how user CommonsKiwi requested "Please confirm whether you are the same person behind any of the temporary accounts.", but crickets from IP editors and Johnny, instead he/they completely ignored this request.

On a side note, my new concerns about anonymous IP editors on Wikipedia: (not meant to be addressed here)

• After wikipedia started mangling IP addresses, it is now much more difficult for me to easily determine if groups of different IP editors are unrelated editors from different parts of the world, or just one person doing edits within a relatively small area. When I first saw lots of random IP edits in this article, my first assumption was it may be a bot or a coordinated group of people, but eventually I changed my mind that it may be only one person, then later the sockpuppet investigation proved my later assumption. I understand why wikipedia started mangling IP addresses, but on the negative side it is causing new problems for existing editors!!
• After issues related to numerous IP addresses from user Johnny, I have changed my mind about IP editors. I now feel that IP edits should either: banned and all users should only log into accounts to edit; or a specific rule meant for anyone that does lots of edits should be pushed towards using an account and should be told to anonymous editors each time they edit. If a new type of account needs to be created for this purpose, then do it.
• I feel these issues needs more discussion / proposals / methods to help stop some users from taking advantage of and gaming the current IP edit system.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

One moment, please - you felt that your comment about random IP address abuse and possible sockpuppet abuse ...can't be a personal attack, because it's impossible for me to know how many actual people there are editing Exact Audio Copy and it's talk section. , but Johnny Joeson's comment about "amateur wiki editors" does cross the line? I find that logic confusing, can you please explain?

I'll also point out that most of us wouldn't have known about that particular SPI until you pointed it out - unless sockpuppetry it's mentioned in the report, it's not the first place anyone looks before replying here.

I won't reply about TA's because that's been discussed ad nauseum when the system was first implemented, and this isn't really the place to revisit it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That statement came right after IP editor Johnny claimed NPA after I called out "possible sockpuppet abuse". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Prior to creating the Johnny account and prior to the sockpuppet investigation, I felt a group of people / bots / sockpuppets were trolling us by hiding behind constantly changing IP accounts. If this had occured before Wikipedia started mangling IP addresses, then I may not have made this incorrect assumption (which I explained above). Also, I stated above that another user asked "Please confirm whether you are the same person behind any of the temporary accounts.", but there was no response, and there still is no response to that question. I viewed the constantly changing IP addresses as a sneaky method to avoid accountability. How the heck can I post a complaint in their talk section if the next IP comment comes from a new IP address, then the next edit another new IP address, then another new IP address, and so on. Nothing was stable for me to complain against, and is why I got ticked off thinking bots / trolls / sockpuppets were trying to game the system in their favor to avoid accountability. After the Johnny account was created, this established a stable place that I could complain against. If this user had created an account at least 5 weeks ago, then most of this stuff likely wouldn't have happened. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's input. It sounds like there was a misunderstanding on both sides. I believe articles should be based on independant reliable sources rather than editor expertise, and he has other standards for sourcing. I have already asked Sbmeirow to stop interacting with me, and I'm happy to avoid editing where I see they are active. Johnny Joeson (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sbmeirow FYI, Wikipedia doesn't "mangle" IP addresses. Instead, editors who are not logged in are now assigned Temporary Accounts. These change every 90 days, or sooner in some cases. David10244 (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Howard the Duck involving AFD

Howard the Duck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For context: a discussion between HTD and myself took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Iloilo City local elections on the issue of whether the article met WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. One of the reasons cited for "Delete" was that "Past similar elections in the city, for example, are covered in articles covering elections in Western Visayas in general", rather than having their own, stand-alone articles.

The reported behaviour is as follows:

• HTD created the 2025 Iloilo City local elections article directly in response to that discussion (time of my latest comment before creation, time of the article's creation), despite the aforementioned concerns on GNG and NEVENT and with the AfD still ongoing. I specifically voiced my concerns to them. Concurrently, I found out that HTD had been involved in (both past and present) discussions related to that exact same issue of GNG and NEVENT of local elections, so they knew beforehand that this was a controversial issue at the time of our discussion. I was not aware they actually knew until participating myself in one such discussion earlier today at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Discussion on Elections.
• HTD's response to my concerns has been to suggest that I should send their newly-created article to WP:PROD or WP:AFD (diff diff), which I did. Their reaction was to immediately decline the PROD and tell me to send the article to AFD (diff). They also specifically replied that, if I thought their actions "need sanctions", I could report it "to the appropriate drama board" (diff).

I cannot see how this is not a blatant breach of WP:POINT (creating an article aimed at circumventing a still ongoing AfD) and WP:GAME (by misusing WP:PROD and WP:AFD procedures to protect their controversial, newly-created article), as well as a persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour (particularly from the point they created that article and I countered them about it). To this, add the clear contempt exhibited at noticeboards like this one (labeling them as "drama boards" and actively daring me to report them there), which does not seem like a proper way to resolve a conflict. Impru20^talk 21:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm currently on mobile and will answer this after several hours. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Take your time, even if being on mobile has seemingly not been a problem to keep editing the 2025 Iloilo City local elections article that is the subject of the controversy. Speaking of which, I should remark that, before the whole PROD/AFD/"drama board" ordeal, I had initially moved the article into draftspace for it to be incubated pending the outcome of the AfD on the 2028 article, though this was reverted by HTD. I was not intent on deleting it outright before that AfD was closed; that was basically the "solution" proposed by HTD, who then went on to oppose their own suggested proposals (as commented in the report above) whenever I proceeded with them. Impru20^talk 09:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Deleting articles is via PROD and AFD; that's what I told you and as you have the right to propose the article via those processes, I also have the right to oppose deletion. This also includes reversing move to draftspace. While I am not privy on when articles can be moved to draftspace, article authors are allowed to revert such changes, then the person who wants the article deleted go through the usual process, which I had told you.

Again. I have no problem for you to take the article to AFD, and I hope you have no problem with me opposing that. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have not read my previous comment (right above) when I specifically said that "I was not intent on deleting it outright before that AfD was closed", nor my own edit summary moving the article to draftspace arguing that it "Should remain in incubation until the AfD outcome is clear, notwithstanding any further action that may be deemed necessary". It was you who, all by yourself and on your own volition, forced me to seek to delete the article if I disagreed with it being used by you to circumvent an ongoing AfD. You keep doing so in this same discussion now. Impru20^talk 10:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You literally put the article on WP:PROD. If that was not deleting it outright, I dunno what is. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That was in response to you suggesting me to do it after reverting a previous action by me that did not involve deletion. Impru20^talk 12:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Isn't moving an article to draftspace a backdoor to deletion? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Draftification is not the same as deletion and is actually differentiated from it in WP:AFD. Drafts only become eligible for deletion if abandoned for over six months. Did you think the AfD on the 2028 article was going to be open for over six months and that your 2025 draft would be abandoned right away? My purpose in draftifying it was that you could work on the article if you wished without it being used to unduly circumvent the arguments laid out in the AfD, at least until it was determined whether its subject was notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. I do not think this is difficult. Impru20^talk 13:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I did not say "Draftification is the same as deletion"; I said it is a "backdoor to deletion".

The article has 16 W:GNG WP:RS references and counting. How much work do you want? Of course it won't be abandoned. It's not a draft. If you do not think it's notable, you know WP:AFD works. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This feels impossible and exhausting. Drafts are not deleted until six months without significant activity; 2025 Iloilo City local elections was in draft space for barely ten minutes. How can it be a "backdoor to deletion"? I told you what the intention of draftification was. It was you who suggested outright deletion!

Please note that this board is not to discuss content, but an article may have over 100 sources and still not meet WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT for constituting a stand-alone article. Impru20^talk 13:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, please send it to AFD, and let the community decide. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Why would I send it to AFD? How many times have I to tell you that my intention was/is not to delete it outright? Want the community decide on your article? Send it to AFD yourself! This is exhausting. Impru20^talk 16:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Explicitly suggesting PROD as a route and then immediately declining such a PROD is going to result in predictable frustation from OP if nothing else. Morwen (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, making the editor go to the effort of creating a PROD nomination and then declining it 3 minutes later is the very definition of WP:POINT; please don't do that again. Apart from that, shouldn't we simply wait for the AfD to conclude before deciding on the next steps? Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I do the same process myself on articles I want to be deleted (PROD -> AFD) and am not really frustrated (or even surprised) myself if the article author removes the PROD banner because that's allowed... maybe frustrated I'd have to do extra efforts for an AFD (LOL) but only up to that. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not the point. If you added a PROD to an article because the article author had suggested it, and then they immediately removed it, you'd be annoyed. You should have simply said to the OP "go to AfD". Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I was supposed to believe that you'd have to go through WP:PROD first before suggesting WP:AFD... well, I suppose suggesting to have my own article be flagged with PROD is "controversial" enough. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You suggesting another user to nominate your article through PROD makes it assume that doing so is uncontroversial, precisely because it is you who suggested it (again, multiple times) and you did not hint that you would oppose it. Impru20^talk 12:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Impru20, you seem to have decided to police HTD instead of doing dispute resolution. You're talking about an AfD that hasn't been closed yet, in an area where we lack clear guidelines and consensus, i.e., how to cover local elections. The 2028 elections page suffers from issues of CRYSTAL and SIGCOV that likely won't affect the 2025 page, so HTD working on a 2025 page instead doesn't seem like POINTy behaviour but rather a better use of their time. You don't get to unilaterally force a page into draftspace, see WP:DRAFTNO. Of course HTD was going to revert a PROD; what did you expect? PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions, so HTD shouldn't have suggested it and you should have known better. What's your rush here? Finally, HTD calling this a drama board is standard slang and acting as though it's some kind of violation is an overreaction. You deciding to report this seems premature. Fences&Windows 11:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I have suggested WP:PROD and WP:AFD to other people if they have problems with my articles, and underwent the same process on the articles I wanted to be deleted. If that was not the process, then my bad, but Impru20 has been on so many AFDs he should know better on what the actual process is. I mean, I know article authors themselves will remove the PROD banner even after adding it, yet I keep on telling other people to do that (LOL); I won't be frustrated if the author actually removes it, because that's what they tell you if you oppose the PROD.

And yes, people call this drama board as a drama board and this should not have been a problem. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Howard, in the future, please know that PROD is only used when you expect the deletion to be uncontroversial (aka opposed by nobody). If it looks like there's anyone around to object, typical process is to go straight to AFD instead. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This is noted; I haven't known of this and have always went the PROD -> AFD route no matter how controversial it may be. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Several things here @Fences and windows:

1. This is not a content dispute, but a conduct dispute. WP:DISPUTE (particularly WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE) specifically calls for discussing this with the user, then use WP:ANI, for conduct disputes. That is what has been done.
2. You know, I think you are absolutely right in that this is "an area where we lack clear guidelines and consensus". Thing is: HTD has been (heavily) involved in such discussions and was perfectly aware of what the issues with local elections were when engaging with me. I was not, until I came across one such discussion yesterday, then I found out the rest. HTD did not reveal this fact throughout the discussion with myself and actually made it appear as if creating such city election articles was the uncontroversial solution, which made me devote time and effort to answer them. I was not noted there were ongoing discussions on the issue. I was not noted that HTD themselves were engaged in them. I am sorry if I am disappointed by the apparent lack of good faith and by the exhibited dishonesty (at best). This is not the reason I brought HTD here, though.
3. You say that daring a user to report them to a "drama board" immediately after the other user has voiced concerns on their own behaviour and actions is "standard"? I am unsure of the type of discussions you seem to be involved with normally, but such behaviour is, by itself, discouraged per WP:CIVIL. Particularly if in response to a previous warning.
4. You say that HTD working on a 2025 page is "a better use of their time". This, in spite of the page being created in response to being explicitly noted that the lack of such stand-alone articles for past elections was an argument (not the only one, though) for "Delete" in the AfD, and after attempting to convince me into their position (which they did not). They could have awaited for the 2028 AfD to close so as to determine whether such 2025 article was really constructive or an outright waste of everyone's time, but creating such article to make a point in a AfD, then persistently attempting to mislead the editor voicing concerns on such action (even resorting to "standard slang"), seems anything but "a better use of their time". I would not create an article on a similar topic to the one under an ongoing AfD just to attempt making a point and/or counter an active argument in that discussion.

"Of course HTD was going to revert a PROD; what did you expect?" What did I expect? PROD was explicitly suggested by them, multiple times, as an alternative to incubation during the AfD timespan. They could have very well hinted at them being willing to decline it immediately so that I saved myself the effort of even attempting to nominate it. I am seriously astonished as to how you seemingly see this as normal behaviour; it was openly dishonest, at best. Impru20^talk 12:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Try to self-reflect instead of being so confrontational. No admin action is needed. Fences&Windows 13:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Impru, I'll put it this way: what do you want the admins to do in this situation? In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

As simple as having HTD engage in constructive and productive conduct in the present (and future) discussions. My main concerns came as a result of them creating an article circumventing an ongoing AfD and their response to the concerns that were voiced to them as a result (namely: blocking the initial proposal to draftify the article during the AfD to prevent it from being used maliciously; suggesting "solutions" that they themselves immediatelly blocked when conducted; or resorting to slang after being (repeteadly) noted on their behaviour). I do not think any proper sanction is required unless the behaviour persists, per WP:PUNITIVE, and my report here is more focused on counsel-seeking. A commitment from them in the sense of stopping this behaviour and respecting process could do the job, but it is obvious that, as of currently, they have basically resorted to ignore me in that regard. Impru20^talk 13:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

There's no circumvention. The WP:AFD is for that article alone. The AFD is even ongoing! There's no WP:CON to speak of. Even you acknowledge that this topic is not clear cut as you'd want it to be.

You do not unilateraly decide which subjects become a draft, an article or is deleted. I had every right to create an article, a fully-fledged at that, that is not a draft. If you think that's notable, please send it to WP:AFD.

I've previously thought that the process was PROD -> AFD, regardless of "controversiality", I followed that myself, as most of the AFDs I've nominated started as WP:PRODs. There was no malicious intent in suggesting PROD -> AFD, because I do that myself. Of course I will revert the PROD, but this is what I thought of how the WP:BURO works. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

1) You created the 2025 article in response to the AfD on the 2028 one. You have not even cared to deny this so far. It was you who connected both articles.

2) Do not put into my mouth what I have not said: I said that you were aware that this was a controversial issue when you replied to me in the AfD, and yet you attempted to present it to me as if it wasn't until I found out. To me, the 2028 article clearly does not pass the cut of NEVENT and GNG. That was my position in the AfD and one that I maintain (though this is a matter of content beyond the scope of this thread).

3) "You do not unilateraly decide which subjects become a draft, an article or is deleted" Yet you do? You had every right to create the article, and I had every right to move it to draftspace as per WP:DRAFTIFY. I find this unilateral view on how Wikipedia works, that seemingly you may do as you wish and then block any action from everyone else opposing you while expecting no complain, as particularly harmful. Also, see WP:OWN regarding an article's "ownership". Impru20^talk 14:04, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Impru, my honest to goodness thought was that you'd have to WP:PROD before you WP:AFD, regardless if it is controversial or not; there's no malicious intent in asking you to PROD then AFD it. Of course, as someone who has been in countless deletion processes, you'd know that anyone can reverse the PROD even on sight, even without an explanation. If this caused you distress, I apologize.

WP:BRD. Yes, you have the right to dratify, yes. I also have the right to reverse drafitication. See how that works? I am not blocking any action. There's nothing against the rules that I did. Reversing dratification and PROD is not "blocking any action". Howard the Duck (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally would take someone inviting me to PROD an article they had written as a promise not to remove the PROD themselves. Morwen (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask someone to do something that I won't do myself. I PROD articles myself fully aware anyone can remove it without explanation. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Authors can ask for their articles' deletion through WP:G7. Authors PRODing their own articles is a possible but very weird occurrence. I had assumed you preferred outright deletion over draftification, but that you wished to avoid asking for a deletion yourself, so I PRODed it. Asking someone to PROD an article just to say "no" seems unnecessarily bitchy. Impru20^talk 14:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought I was following the PROD -> AFD process. This is something that I would've done myself, and while I would've been frustrated if the other editor removed the PROD, I would not have brought that editor here. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Just for noting: you suggested me to PROD the article and you suggested me to bring you here. With this edit you openly hinted at no amicable resolution being possible. Impru20^talk 14:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I've always told other people to bring their thoughts here if they think I did something wrong. There was this one guy who I told this exact same thing, then did not do so, then did it a few months later, only to be replied with "why did you not bring that up here then?" Howard the Duck (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I've always thought one-on-one discussions on my supposed actions would go nowhere, that's why I always say to bring their thoughts to here.

And yes, me hinting "at no amicable resolution" is like voting "delete" by voting "dratify" instead in AFDs. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

And you were brought here for your disruptive and hostile behaviour, yes.

"And yes, me hinting "at no amicable resolution" is like voting "delete" by voting "dratify" instead in AFDs." ????Impru20^talk 16:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if it came due to a (grave) misunderstanding on your part, you still did not disclose your intention to immediately oppose the PROD you yourself suggested. My intention was not to delete the article outright, that is why I draftified it. You blocked that, then suggested PROD, then blocked it, then taunted me to report you when I raised my concerns to you. My good faithing in you throughout the whole discussion fell apart at that moment, and I am not sure what exactly did you expect from anybody after behaving that way with them. In this thread, you are still somehow accusing me (some comments above) of seeking to "backdoor delete" the article through draftification, even when that is not possible outright and despite I having repeteadly explained what the intention of draftification was.

"There's nothing against the rules that I did." You have just acknowledged that you acted the way you did because (at best) you misunderstood the PROD/AFD process. That misunderstanding led to a severe clash, multiple back-and-forth actions, playing around with my good faith and taunting, a number of actions that, at the very best, go against WP:CIVIL. I brought you here because I stopped regarding you as able to appropiately behave in constructive discussion, and sought outside counseling on that. Impru20^talk 14:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Can we stop saying WP:BRD actions as "blocks"? That's how Wikipedia works. People tag articles, people remove it (with or without discussion depends on the tag). There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing illegal about removing PROD or de-dratifying something. Those are valid actions. My actions are do not circumvent any discussion determined by consensus. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not criticizing your BRD actions, but the behaviour and intent you exhibited while conducting them. Re-read my reply above. Impru20^talk 14:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

More or less agree with Fences&Windows here. The invitation to prod and then declining the prod probably inflamed this dispute unnecessarily, but HTD has clarified that he thought it was a necessary step and that he won't do it again. Creating an article mentioned in an AfD doesn't seem like WP:POINT as much as a creation that fundamentally challenges the underlying WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Of course, if Impru20 is correct that neither are notable, HTD would have wasted time creating it as there would wind up being consensus to delete both (we'll see, I suppose -- no opinion on that from me). Definitely disagree that AfD is used to "protect" an article. That's how we determine consensus to delete and is the last chance stop for an article -- if the sole author of an article would prefer to jump to that last stop and risk deletion rather than userfication/draftification, they can do that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you here (also note that HTD ultimately acknowledged their mistake after being confronted by several users on the issue in this thread). Aside of my concerns raised above (that HTD does not engage in such behaviour again), if there is a commitment that this will not happen I would say this issue may be resolved. The issue on the 2025 article existing was always dependant on the outcome of the AfD (ultimately, it was HTD who thought it should be contested by deleting it, rather than acknowledging that a temporary incubation in draftspace could be an option and was not used as a "backdoor to deletion", which they also took by mistake as seen above). Next steps would ultimately come following the outcome of the 2028 article AfD. Impru20^talk 07:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Iloilo City local elections has now resulted in "Delete" and no further issue has arisen since this ANI case was filled, I am now inclined to ask for this to be closed and for standard procedure to be followed on the content issue (i.e. a proper AfD being filled on 2025 Iloilo City local elections to determine consensus there). Impru20^talk 10:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Dahproman

I've been speaking to Dahproman for a little while regarding their AI-generated articles at AINB, where concerns about COI editing were raised.

The articles were tagged, but Dahproman removed the tags without fixing the problems.

Most of the articles were deleted under WP:LLMPROD, however @InfernoHues had been able to confirm that their recreated articles are pretty much identical to their deleted counterparts.

Almost all of Dahproman's posts contain classic AI signs, so I am pretty confident that they're continuing to use AI here. Compare these comments to their non-AI-generated posts. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This editor has had several different conduct issues, and I do not believe they've stopped using LLMs in prose or communications. They've been given several chances to move past LLM editing. Since they appear to have declined those chances, and been generally unhelpful resolving the existing issues, I do not think this editor belongs in this project at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of AI, their products are BLP messes, relying substantially wildly non-RS sources (primary and/or promotional fluff) and using one cite that might support one fact for a sentence that contains many other claims not addressed by the cite. Whether that's AI or CIR, I don't care. This content cannot remain and would require as much detailed investigation from a trustworthly editor to verify it as to have someone with skill and better references available to write it from scratch. That's TNT. That's why LLM must be prohibited and articles tainted by it rejected out-of-hand. DMacks (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DMacks, Blue-Sonnet, and CoffeeCrumbs:. I want to sincerely apologize for my delayed responses and the frustration my actions have caused the community. I am based in Nigeria and have experienced severe network and connectivity restrictions recently, causing me to miss warnings on my talk page. However, that is not an excuse for my poor communication.

I have read your comments here carefully, and I want to address them head-on.

First, regarding the AI concerns: I want to assure you that I attempted to write the recent drafts manually. However, I recognize that my attempt to sound "encyclopedic" often comes out sounding unnatural, repetitive, or promotional, which strongly mimics AI patterns. I understand why my previous mistakes with AI have completely destroyed my credibility on this front.

More importantly, I hear exactly what DMacks is saying regarding the BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) issues. I admit that I have completely misunderstood how strict Wikipedia's sourcing policies (WP:RS) are. In my enthusiasm to document Nigerian music artists, I relied on primary sources, promotional fluff, and failed to ensure that my citations strictly matched every claim in a sentence (WP:V). I now understand that this is a critical competence issue (WP:CIR) and unacceptable for BLPs.

I want to learn how to do this correctly and contribute properly to WikiProject Nigeria. I am asking for a chance to prove that I can be a collaborative editor.

Dahproman (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I was willing to look past the talk page LLM use, since they were actually responding and seemed receptive. However, it's become clear that they say they will follow advice and then don't. For example, they were told repeatedly ( ) how WP:LLMPRVOBJ works, and ignored it by recreating their articles in almost exactly the same state they were in before.

They've been previously blocked for one week for sockpuppetry (SPI). The sock, Distrigency, also created similarly promotional and LLM-looking articles/edits on Nigerian music topics. They're also indefinitely blocked on Wikidata for running an unauthorized bot, and in their unblock request, mention that they work at Search Alpha, an AI "search reputation" platform (see d:User talk:Dahproman). You can see their explanation for this here. They also asked North8000 to review their recreated article (see here).

For these reasons, I think that, despite their LLM-generated denial (), they do have an undisclosed COI. InfernoHues (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this. On Restlezz and Teemirror, the images are marked as "own work." I couldn't find the images elsewhere on the internet. So if they actually were taken by Dahproman, that further proves the potential COI. InfernoHues (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI there was another exchange on about 8 days before the one noted above, it's also on my talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @InfernoHues: damn, I want to directly address the points you've raised, as I realize my actions and history have painted a very suspicious picture, and I want to clear the air honestly.

1. Regarding Distrigency (SPI): I state this with absolute honesty: I have no relationship with the Distrigency account, nor any agreement with them. I have not edited their articles or coordinated with them. If we share an IP range, it is purely coincidental (which can happen frequently with shared ISPs in Nigeria), but I am not that user and I do not know who they are.

2. Regarding North8000: I reached out to North8000 strictly for guidance because they kindly reviewed the Restlezz article back in 2023. Because the article was deleted and I was struggling to understand how to rewrite it from scratch properly, I asked for their mentorship. I was not asking for a "free pass" or trying to bypass the rules; I was genuinely lost and asking an experienced editor for help. North8000 has been nothing but helpful, now to the next.

3. Regarding AI and Restlezz: I am genuinely struggling to understand exactly how my writing is failing the WP:AISIGNS test. I want to learn and fix my writing style, but I feel completely lost. Could someone please point out just one or two specific examples in the Restlezz article that trigger the AI flags? I am not asking this to argue or demand proof; I am asking because I sincerely do not know what I am doing wrong and I need a concrete example so I can learn to write more naturally.

4. Regarding the Images and Copyright: I now realize I made a severe mistake when uploading the images of Restlezz and Teemirror. I did not take those photos personally. I found them free online, and out of complete ignorance of Wikimedia's strict copyright policies, I selected "own work" simply because I didn't understand the licensing options and it seemed like the only way to get the upload to work. I deeply apologize for this copyright mistake. It was pure inexperience with the upload wizard, not an attempt to cover up a Conflict of Interest (COI). I do not know these artists personally.

5. Regarding Search Alpha and COI: I am not an employee of Search Alpha. I briefly collaborated with them on a now-abandoned project aimed at helping SaaS tools utilize the MediaWiki API. That project failed and I have since left. More importantly, my brief involvement with them has absolutely nothing to do with Nigerian music articles. I am not being paid by anyone to write these articles, and I have no undisclosed COI. Dahproman (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll note this is 100% LLM in both GPTZero and Copyleaks and 47% LLM content in Quillbot. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It was - virtually every section of WP:AITALKSIGNS has been hit. Their usual style of writing is very different to this. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DMacks, Blue-Sonnet, CoffeeCrumbs, and InfernoHues:. I want to start by apologizing for the delay in my response. I live in Nigeria and have been dealing with some severe internet connectivity issues, which meant I missed the notifications on my talk page. That is not an excuse for the silence, but I wanted to provide context. I am very sorry for the frustration my edits have caused you all.

I have carefully read through all your feedback. I see exactly how bad my track record looks right now, and I want to be completely transparent about each of the concerns raised.

First, regarding the sourcing and BLP issues DMacks brought up: I now have a much broader understanding of the strictness required for WP:BLP. When writing, I tried my best to use sources approved by WP:NGRS, and I genuinely believed I was following the guidelines for each article. However, I now see how I fell short regarding promotional tone and exact citation matching (WP:V). I completely understand that my mistakes here are serious. If the current state of the articles means they cannot remain live, please consider moving them to Draft space rather than deleting them, so I can work on them to your exact specifications.

On the topic of AI and the Restlezz article: I wrote the recent drafts myself, but I admit my attempts to write in a formal, "encyclopedic" tone ended up sounding robotic, repetitive, and promotional which exactly mirrors WP:AISIGNS. I am genuinely struggling to see exactly where I cross the line, though. If someone could kindly point to just a sentence or two in the Restlezz draft that sets off the AI alarms, it would help me immensely. I'm not asking for this to argue; I just desperately need a concrete example from my own text so I can learn how to fix my writing style.

To address the other specific concerns raised by InfernoHues:

• Distrigency (SPI): I have zero connection to this account. I don't know them, and I haven't collaborated with them. If our IP addresses match, it is purely a coincidence due to shared internet infrastructure in Nigeria.
• North8000: I only contacted them because they reviewed the Restlezz page back in 2023. Since I was confused about the deletion and how to rewrite it properly, I was just looking for a mentor to guide me. I wasn't trying to find a loophole or get a free pass. because the rewritten article was reviewed by someone entirely different, if you check you'd see that is true.
• The Images: I made a massive error here due to my lack of experience with Wikimedia Commons. I did not take the photos of Restlezz and Teemirror. I found them online and mistakenly chose "own work" because I didn't understand the complex copyright tags and just wanted the upload to go through. I apologize for the copyright violation; it was born out of ignorance of the rules, not an attempt to fake a relationship with the artists. I do not know them. I honestly do not know how to delete those images now that I understand my mistake, which is why I have left them there all this while.
• Search Alpha & COI: I do not work for Search Alpha. I did a brief stint collaborating with them on a project that tried to use the MediaWiki API for SaaS tools, but the project was abandoned and I moved on. That brief association has nothing to do with my Wikipedia editing on Nigerian music, and I am absolutely not being paid by anyone to create these pages. I have no undisclosed COI.

I genuinely want to be a helpful contributor to WikiProject Nigeria. If you are willing to give me one last chance, I will immediately cease creating any new articles in the mainspace. I can accept all the other articles being sent to Draft space so I can work on them more. However, I genuinely believe the article on Restlezz deserves to remain in the mainspace. If there are specific WP:AISIGNS issues in that text, please show them to me and I will fix them right away.

Thank you all again for your time. Dahproman (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

More AI-generated pablum. EEng 08:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dahproman, did you use AI, LLM or a chatbot to write this post? You have two very different writing styles and this post has very classic signs of AI.

I honestly think you are using AI LLM or a chatbot to write your posts here and didn't write them yourself - you keep asking what makes us think this is AI but never tell us whether you are currently using it or not, even though we keep asking you.

Please also try to stop posting the same thing repeatedly, you've done this three times now.

You keep saying you'll do better, except you carry on causing the same issues as before. For example, the original drafts were deleted for being AI generated and you were instructed to rewrite and replace the AI-generated text from scratch. You agreed, but then chose to recreate them exactly as they were. This was after you were asked to fix the drafts, you agreed then deleted the AI-generated tags and didn't fix the articles. The original citations were either inappropriate, broken, or led to the wrong place & the original articles were filled with AI-signs as explained to you on AINB.

I also asked you to use AFC going forwards but you continued to publish articles directly to mainspace. We know you used AI originally (even though you denied it) and all the available evidence shows us that you are still using it here on this noticeboard after being asked to stop.

I'll ask once more - are you using AI, LLM or a chatbot to generate your posts on this noticeboard? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Pangram says this is human. It definitely looks like AI, but AI is heavily trained on Nigerian content (and thus Nigerian content is more likely to look like AI), so that's probably why it looks suspicious. Feeglgeef (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

here's a link to verify Feeglgeef (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

"AI is heavily trained on Nigerian content (and thus Nigerian content is more likely to look like AI)," sorry this is a bit of a side issue here, but this is fascinating. Have you got an article we can read about this or something? Morwen (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

here's a surface level overview Feeglgeef (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally I think we should be more careful with accusing people of LLM misuse. It's, of course, an existential threat to the encyclopedia, but not only is being falsely accused of using an LLM really scary (I'd know), it's often classist and racist, even if unintentional, so I generally believe that we shouldn't rush to use bad AI detectors to accuse people of using them except in obvious cases, lending even more of the benefit of the doubt to Nigerian and Indian people. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I liked this related Substack post (less about model training and more about how English is taught in some countries): I'm Kenyan. I Don't Write Like ChatGPT. ChatGPT Writes Like Me. InfernoHues (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That said, I do think they are using AI at least sometimes. For example, here they say "I am actively reviewing and rewriting my drafts," but their resubmitted drafts are almost the same as their old ones. InfernoHues (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

We're getting very far from the original topic, but generally I don't understand why people use AI for basic communication. I mean using it on a school assignment or something is one thing, you want a good grade and its possible you just don't understand it. But, I mean, come on, writing a communicatory paragraph is not that hard, and using AI is only going to harm you. It might be a dependence, at some point you use AI so much you can't function without it. Feeglgeef (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

After carefully reading the reply, I do not believe that it was AI-generated, I believe that it was written by the user themselves (who seems to genuinely have wanted to write a thorough, clear and well-formatted reply).

Otherwise, I have no context about this filing, and I just saw this being brought up and wanted to weigh in after having carefully read their comment. It my opinion that we are talking to an actual person here. And it deeply saddens me how this is even a consideration these days. --gurkubondinn 22:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I desperately want to talk to them directly and wish I didn't think this was AI but I've been talking to them for a good while now so I'm relatively familiar with the way they write. I look at differences in writing styles between comments (evidence in original post) and use our own WP:AISIGNS page to look for evidence before asking someone if they're using AI.

If they say they don't use AI to write comments and I'm unsure then I'll usually AGF and go with what they say.

In this case we have an editor who's grammar and writing change between different posts, has hit many signals of WP:AISIGNS across many discussion pages, has worked with/for an AI company, has multiple drafts deleted for being AI-generated (twice in some cases) and hasn't yet confirmed/denied using AI to write their comments here.

In my opinion most/all of their replies here are AI-generated, but I'm happy to revise my opinion depending on their response here.

I really don't want to make an unfair accusation based on gut feelings, so this is a decision I've reached over time and through as careful an analysis as I think I can reasonably do. I've tried my hardest to be fair to them, but AI would also explain why they promise to do things then go back on that promise - it's not them making the promise. The alternative is that they know they're not being honest when agreeing to do something and I don't like thinking that way.

That said, if others feel that there isn't a difference in the comments I've linked to in my original post and that AI isn't being used to reply at ANI, I'm happy to go with consensus as it's always possible that I've made a mistake or been overzealous without realising it. I know what their hand-written replies look like, and I'm unfortunately not seeing them at ANI. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Like I said, I just carefully read this one single comment in isolation and did not believe it to have been generated. I haven't interacted with this user like you, so I don't have a feel for how they have written before. When you deal with identifying AI text and AI users every day, you start to feel like there are robots everywhere you look, so I want to AGF and I want to believe. And I really don't want to see robots or chatbots everywhere I look.

The alternative is that they know they're not being honest when agreeing to do something and I don't like thinking that way.

This is a really good point, and I agree with you. That actually makes it a more generous reading because it's not them making the promise. --gurkubondinn 10:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That might actually be my fault too; blaming an AI takes some responsibility off the editor but, if there's no AI in the way, then any issues are down to the editor themselves.

I'm really hoping the extra eyes that ANI brings can help dig through what's happened, and that we can get things sorted out one way or another. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone @DMacks, Blue-Sonnet, CoffeeCrumbs, InfernoHues, Feeglgeef, Morwen, and Gurkubondinn: I want to sincerely thank Feeglgeef and gurkubondinn for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I assure you I am a real person just trying my best to communicate in a very stressful situation.

To Blue Sonnet: I understand why my writing style might seem inconsistent. I am trying very hard to be careful and write professionally because I know I am under a microscope right now, which might be why it sounds stiff to you. I feel that this discussion is becoming less about the article itself, which is why i need to say this:

Regarding the Restlezz article, I really did rewrite it from scratch manually. I took the liberty of doing what Feeglgeef did to my post, and I audited the Restlezz article using a popular AI detector called Pangram. It came back as written by a human. However, I know some detectors can still be unreliable depending on the backend model, so I did something much more technical: I did a thorough manual investigation of the Restlezz article myself according to WP:AISIGNS and WP:LLMPROD. If we audit the current article, it passes:

• It has no "fluff" or overly complex vocabulary.
• It does not use classic AI words like delve, pivotal, or testament.
• It does not use the "rule of threes" or compulsive summaries.

The prose is now just a very basic, straightforward list of facts: "Leo Sandoval Jr... is an American rapper... signed to North Coast Music Group. His single appeared on the NBA 2K24 video game soundtrack..."

As you can see guys, I asked questions and I followed the rules. So far, everyone saying I rewrote the article "exactly the same way" hasn't showed me where or how. If it is an article about the exact same Wikipedia subject, it will obviously contain the exact same biographical facts regardless of the wording. But yes, I rewrote the actual text completely to follow the new AI/LLM writing standards.

I want to believe that this explains everything, unless this is not just about the article anymore. I want to follow WP:LLMPRVOBJ and remove the deletion tags. The last time I left a tag on an article during an AI notice, the article got deleted and no one said a word, heard me out, or helped me bring it back. Because I am taking responsibility for the article under WP:ONUS, I feel justified in removing the tags, because with everything I showed above, the deletion feels like it is based just on suspicion and no one has shown me actual proof of WP:AISIGNS in this new text.

I really hope you can look at the actual text currently in the mainspace and see that it is neutral and human-written. Dahproman (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to us - considering the issues and signs in my opening post it did genuinely appear that you were continuing to use AI, but I'm happy to take you at your word that you aren't using it here.

It's not always possible to definitively prove that AI is being used, but if there are strong signs such as broken/invalid links, promotional wording and phrasing that AI tends to use often, the best thing to do is usually delete the article and start from scratch. AI is prolific, it's used very frequently with little effort by the editor using it yet it takes ten or a hundred times more effort for others to clean up after it. We have to make a judgement call as volunteers, often that call means we have to scrap anything that is likely AI-generated for the sake of the project as a whole - the cost is often too great.

Ignoring the aforementioned AI, the biggest issue we have is that editors are trying to explain how policies work, you're misunderstanding them and doing what you think is right even if it's wrong - in some cases, you're doing things you were explicitly told not to do, sometimes repeatedly.

That needs sorting out, the question is if/how we can do that. If you're not able to understand and follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that's unfortunately going to be a big problem.

I'm really hoping we can clear this up at ANI with the help of other experienced editors and administrators, so we can be as fair to you as possible. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Blue-Sonnet:. First, thank you for taking me at my word regarding my comments here. I really appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt on that.

I am reading what you are saying about my past misunderstandings of policies. You are right that in the past, in my eagerness, I misunderstood how strict policies like WP:RS and WP:V are. I also acknowledge that I made mistakes by doing what I thought was right instead of listening carefully, which led to me doing things I was told not to do. I understand now that this was a competence issue (WP:CIR), and I am truly sorry for the extra work my past misunderstandings might have caused the wikipedia community volunteer cleanup team.

However, I have taken those lessons to heart, which brings me to the current state of the Restlezz article. As I broke down in my previous message, I really did rewrite it from scratch specifically to fix those past mistakes and remove all the WP:AISIGNS (promotional wording, fluff, etc.).

Because the text itself is now clean of AI markers and straightforward, my hope is that this new version will not be judged by the state of the old, deleted versions. Because the current text in the mainspace has been entirely rewritten to address the community's concerns, I genuinely feel that it no longer falls under WP:LLMPROD and shouldn't need to be deleted again.

I want to sort this out and continue learning, but I ask that you please evaluate the text as it stands right now. I am ready to listen. Dahproman (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Exact words of the admin I asked: "They're similar but slightly reworded. Overall structure and details are the same." Can you explain how this is if you "[rewrote] it from scratch"? InfernoHues (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the potential LLM usage is a side issue, and the more pressing concern is the (in my opinion) undisclosed COI. I personally believe the SPI more than their denial. Using User:Daniel Quinlan/Scripts/Unfiltered and User:DreamRimmer/DeletedMetaData, you can see that most of the seven articles they've ever created have also been edited by their sock, or by other socks doing undisclosed paid editing, some of them specializing in Nigerian music topics.

While this on it's own doesn't prove anything, with the other signs I mentioned above, I believe there is something fishy going on here. InfernoHues (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @InfernoHues:. Before I address the serious accusations you've raised, I want to note that I have removed the WP:LLMPROD tag on the Restlezz article. Per WP:LLMPRVOBJ, I had completely rewritten the text manually to eliminate any AI signs, and I am formally taking responsibility for this content under WP:ONUS.

Now, regarding the accusations about Distrigency, COI, and Paid Editing. I want to break this down honestly:

1. The Distrigency Overlap: I absolutely do not know who the user Distrigency is. However, your technical findings make complete sense to me, because I actually noticed this happening myself. I realized that this user was following my edits whenever I worked on a Nigerian music article, they would show up. I suspected they were doing this to easily boost their own edit counts within WikiProject Nigeria by piggybacking on the topics I was researching. I considered leaving a warning on their talk page, but I didn't want to violate Wikipedia's rules about assuming good faith or biting other editors. I swear to you, we are not the same person and we do not coordinate.

2. My Motivation (No COI/UPE): I am a software developer from Nigeria. I love my country's music, we have global stars like Burna Boy, Wizkid, and Davido, but many emerging artists are overlooked. I edit these articles out of pure passion, not for money. To ensure notability, I strictly target artists who chart on the Nigeria National TurnTable charts or featured by them, and I try to build the articles using sources explicitly supported by WP:NGRS. I do not collect a single dime from these artists or their management to post about them.

3. The Restlezz Article History: Restlezz was actually the very first article I wrote back in 2022/2023 when I was just learning to navigate Wikipedia. It is about an American artist, not a Nigerian one. Furthermore, in the times it was in the mainspace, it was reviewed and passed twice. This isn't a case of me sneaking promotional material in; it went through the standard community checks at the time.

4. Willingness to be Investigated: I know how suspicious my editing history, combined with the Distrigency overlap, looks right now. I don't blame you for being suspicious. But if a formal investigation is launched, you will see that absolutely nothing ties me to paid editing rings. If necessary to clear my name, I am even willing to provide personal information privately to the Wikimedia Foundation (such as identity verification or account statements) to prove I am not receiving payments.

As a community member, I have not been perfect. I have misunderstood policies, and my writing style needed serious work. I have recently spent time researching how to fix everything that WP:LLMPROD and WP:AISIGNS flags, and applied those fixes to my work. But while I am guilty of being an imperfect editor, I am completely innocent of sockpuppetry, and I am completely innocent of undisclosed paid editing. Thank you. Dahproman (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. You haven't "rewritten the text," as has already been confirmed. Just as you did in the previous iteration of the articles, you've removed LLMPROD tags without changing the article at all (last time they were restored by Blue Sonnet). I've reinstated the tag. The admin which reviews the deletion will check to make sure the tag was placed validly, and will decline to delete it if it wasn't.

Also, please don't ping me in every reply. InfernoHues (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I got the email notification about these comments while I was on my way home from work. Depending on your timezone, it is currently around 4:15 PM here. I immediately started writing my response on my phone while riding public transportation. Why? Because I remember the last AI noticeboard. The article on Restlezz and the others were deleted before I even had a chance to say or do anything to defend them.

So maybe my writing sounds stiff, or maybe it sounds like "AI" to you, because I am terrified, rushed, and trying my absolute hardest not to "crash out" over how tiring and helpless this situation makes me feel. Everyone seems to have forgotten the actual articles and is just focusing on attacking me personally.

So my question is: **Does the current version of the Restlezz article actually contain WP:LLMPROD or WP:AISIGNS violations?**

Because yes, the former version and the current version contain the exact same biographical information, but reworded differently. Isn’t that the entire point of a rewrite? To meet a particular standard? If it looked vastly different, I would be introducing lies and fabrications. I made the necessary prose changes to meet the AI standards.

Because I feel like everyone completely missed or ignored how I broke this down earlier, here it is again. I am pasting this word for word because I am frustrated, and I just want this to end fairly:

Regarding the Restlezz article, I really did rewrite it from scratch manually. I took the liberty of doing what Feeglgeef did to my post, and I audited the Restlezz article using a popular AI detector called Pangram. It came back as written by a human. However, I know some detectors can still be unreliable depending on the backend model, so I did something much more technical: I did a thorough manual investigation of the Restlezz article myself according to WP:AISIGNS and WP:LLMPROD. If we audit the current article, it passes:

• It has no "fluff" or overly complex vocabulary.
• It does not use classic AI words like delve, pivotal, or testament.
• It does not use the "rule of threes" or compulsive summaries.
• The prose is now just a very basic, straightforward list of facts: "Leo Sandoval Jr... is an American rapper... signed to North Coast Music Group. His single appeared on the NBA 2K24 video game soundtrack..."

As you can see guys, I asked questions and I followed the rules. So far, everyone saying I rewrote the article "exactly the same way" hasn't showed me where or how. If it is an article about the exact same Wikipedia subject, it will obviously contain the exact same biographical facts regardless of the wording. But yes, I rewrote the actual text completely to follow the new AI/LLM writing standards.

Dahproman (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If anyone cares, this reply definitely was AI generated. So they're mixing using it and not using it, which is quite annoying given that their Nigerian dialect makes it hard to tell. Feeglgeef (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I need to pause and address this recent comment: "this reply definitely was AI generated... which is quite annoying given that their Nigerian dialect makes it hard to tell."

Wow. So you mean to tell me you don't even know that the official language of Nigeria is English? Are you actually implying that Nigerians cannot speak or write good, proper English on our own without the help of AI?

This is becoming very eye-opening. It is honestly shocking to see how little we are perceived and respected here. My "Nigerian dialect" isn't some "annoying" obstacle for you to deal with—it's just English. To assume that any well-structured sentence coming from a Nigerian must be "definitely AI generated" is incredibly prejudiced.

If my natural, human writing is just going to be dismissed as AI simply because you assume a Nigerian couldn't possibly write this way, then this isn't a fair review of my articles or my edits anymore. It is just profiling. Wow. Dahproman (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

1. That's not what I meant. See wikt:dialect. A dialect is a variety of a language, the Nigerian dialect is a valid and equal variety of English. I do believe you can write proper English without the help of AI, I've seen you do it before!
2. That's not what I'm saying, either. I'm annoyed by the fact that you're using AI (see below) after being asked, multiple times, to stop doing so on Wikipedia, in accordance with our policies and guidelines, and the fact that it's difficult to determine when you're using AI and when you're not. I have immense respect for linguistic diversity.
3. No, it's definitely AI. For one, the bolded faux ordered list is tell-tale. It also flags as 100% AI with high likelihood on Pangram, which has a very low false positive rate, and is very different from your human style just before.

I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith here, nor the use of AI. Feeglgeef (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Come on now, that is obviously not how any of that was meant. English is the native official language of a lot of countries, there is British english, Canadian English, Indian English, American English, South African English, Singaporean English, and a bunch of other ones, including Nigerian English. All of them are as much "English" as any of the other ones, that's why we have {{use Nigerian English}}, {{use Canadian English}}, {{use American English}}, {{use Indian English}}, and so on.

This is a massive assumption of bad faith on your behalf, and I think that you should strike it and apologize to @Feeglgeef. There's a ton of news reports and studies that document how AI-generated prose often resembles Nigerian English and why it does that. None of that is a comment on you personally. --gurkubondinn 05:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I am doing this because I refuse to let this go in circles again. The circle usually goes like this: I try to defend myself, the deletion tag is placed, I explain how the text meets the standards, everyone ignores the actual text, the tag hits its June 8th deadline, the article is deleted, and when I ask for an undeletion review, no one listens.

Now InfernoHues is saying that the article "wasn't rewritten" even after my changes.

Let's look at the actual text. Here is the former, deleted version (specifically the Career section):

In 2016, Sandoval released his debut project, "Get It How U Live" in collaboration with Yo Gotti, the CEO and founder of Collective Music Group.[8] In 2017, he debuted his first studio album, "Tyrant," featuring collaborations with various creative talents, Following this in 2019, he released a collaborative album with B-dawg titled "Still At It," which showcased appearances from several music creatives. In 2020, he released his third studio album and second solo project titled "Self Therapy."

And here is the current, rewritten version that I manually wrote to replace it:

In 2016, Sandoval released his debut single "Get It How U Live" in collaboration with Yo Gotti, CEO of Collective Music Group.[7] In 2017, he released his debut studio album Tyrant. The following year he released Still At It, a collaborative album with B-Dawg. In 2020, he released his second solo album, Self Therapy.

Can you see the difference? I removed the flowery, promotional language like "showcased appearances from several music creatives" and "featuring collaborations with various creative talents." I stripped it down to raw, neutral, encyclopedic facts to ensure it completely passes WP:AISIGNS.

Of course the current version contains the exact same biographical timeline and facts as the old version it is a biography about the exact same human being! If I completely changed the story just to make the text look "different," I would be fabricating information. Rewriting means changing the tone to meet Wikipedia standards, which is exactly what I did.

My question to all of you is this: Look at the current version. Does it or does it not pass WP:LLMPROD and WP:AISIGNS based on what those guidelines *actually* say? And if it is now clean of AI markers, is it fair that this article is still being targeted for deletion based on the old versions? Dahproman (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't see the past versions, I was going off what I was told. I didn't know you had access to the past version, or else I would have asked for a comparison like this. This does show a more substantial rewrite than I previously thought. I still think the LLMPROD tag should stay, as the admin who reviews the tag will check the rewrites more in depth (as they can see the deleted versions) and will decline to delete if they decide that the rewrite was done well. InfernoHues (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @InfernoHues:. Thanks for looking at the comparison fairly and acknowledging the rewrite. I really appreciate that.

The issue I'm facing is exactly what you just mentioned about an admin reviewing it "in depth." In my experience with these tags, that just doesn't happen. When June 8th comes, an admin is likely just going to see the LLMPROD tag and hit delete without ever comparing the texts. Once it's gone, getting anyone to listen to an undeletion request is almost impossible.

That's why I'm asking for your help here. Now that you've seen I actually did the work and the rewrite is clean, could you please help me out?

If an experienced editor like you just leaves a short note saying the rewrite is substantial and passes WP:AISIGNS, the admin might actually stop and look at it fairly instead of just auto-deleting it on the 8th. I really need someone from the community to help make sure the work I did gets recognized before the deadline. Dahproman (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

To get the timeline straight - you rewrote the page before it got deleted, then you recreated that rewritten version after it was deleted? I think the hiccup is that the admin still felt that it warranted deletion in its edited state, and that's what you recreated.

I'll be very honest with you; if the draft is deleted after all this, then you should completely get rid of any version of that draft that you have saved and truly start again from scratch as if it were your first time writing it.

If I could give any advice to you now, it would actually a strong recommendation to delete the article from your computer. I know that the sunk cost fallacy hits hard when doing that - we've all been there!

Writing articles is one of the hardest things you can do at Wikipedia - it requires knowledge of most of our policies, guidelines and manuals of style all at once.

If you don't have a COI or financial interest then you have no reason to want that article live asap & should be ok that task to sit on the backburner for a while. Work on improving existing articles, so you know what goes into the best work here and how to avoid any future drafts looking like they're machine generated; nothing beats having real-life editing experience.

If nobody has created an article about those artists in a few weeks or months, you can use your newfound knowledge to write then yourself.

There will have been enough time for you to forget what the old versions looked like and you'll be familiar with what is expected from a good Wikipedia article. Editors without a COI understand that there are no deadlines here - we work on what we enjoy and are good at, using our own common sense and knowledge of our current abilities. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this isn't any sort of statement on the current state of the article, these are just my thoughts on the best course of action if the article gets deleted - this is obviously very stressful so a break may be the best thing if so. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @InfernoHues:, getting back to this thank you again for your honesty in admitting this.

However, this is exactly why this entire process has been so frustrating and feels so unfair. You just stated that you were "going off what you were told" rather than looking at the actual evidence or past versions. It means my articles are facing deletion based on hearsay and assumptions, rather than an actual review of the facts.

If people are placing or supporting deletion tags based purely on what other users tell them, without verifying if a manual rewrite actually happened, how is this a fair process?

I am leaving the LLMPROD tag on the page out of respect for the process, but I strongly urge the reviewing admin to look at the actual before-and-after evidence I have provided above, rather than relying on the same hearsay that led to this situation in the first place. Dahproman (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Good day everyone @Feeglgeef, InfernoHues, Morwen, DMacks, Blue-Sonnet, CoffeeCrumbs, and Gurkubondinn:, today is June 6th, and the deletion template was set for June 8th. I've learnt a lot over the past couple of days from everyone here.

Also to Feeglgeef, I don't have any issues mate, you are good, I just vented out of frustration. I have had issues with that in the past as a Nigerian, I even had to not add 'this user is Nigerian' on my talk page because of some issues that occurred here on Wikipedia in the past.

Now back to the issue at hand. I want everyone to actually see this because I am tired of saying that after the 8th no one listens, so I am begging everyone to listen. Let's talk about the articles. The whole point of this AI noticeboard report was the claim that the articles weren't rewritten and showed WP:LLMPROD and WP:AISIGNS.

I need to break down everything so everyone sees this one last time. As I have learnt, I feel it's time we deal more with evidence than hearsay.

Here are the links to the former versions of the articles compared to the current live ones, so you can see if they were actually rewritten and understand where I am coming from:

• Restlezz
  • Old version: Archive link
  • Current rewritten version: Restlezz

• Tomi Folayan
  • Old version: Archive link
  • Current rewritten version: Current link

• Zeeno Foster
  • Old version: Archive link
  • Current rewritten version: Zeeno Foster

As InfernoHues just acknowledged above when I showed them the old text, this does show a substantial rewrite. I am asking you as a community to please actually look at these changes. I did the work to manually rewrite these to meet the standards, and I am asking that the LLMPROD tags be removed before the June 8th deadline so all this work isn't deleted without a proper review. Dahproman (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: You can request the text of a deleted article be sent to you. Instructions are at: WP:Requests_for_undeletion. So the text is not hopelessly lost even if the article is deleted. I hope this is helpful. M kuhner (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @M kuhner:, thank you for the helpful information. But honestly, if there isn't any evidence found that shows the articles violate WP:LLMPROD and WP:AISIGNS, why are they getting deleted in the first place? That's what is bugging me right now.

It's as if I am the only one seeing it this way. For real, the articles were nominated for deletion because they allegedly show signs of WP:LLMPROD according to the nominator, but there is clear evidence that the articles were manually rewritten and do not show any signs of WP:LLMPROD or WP:AISIGNS anymore. It's honestly confusing, surprising, and I am just lost for words tbh. Dahproman (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I have not been involved with this case, but I think the problem is that fixing the AISIGNS without fixing the underlying issues that cause Wikipedia to reject LLM use is a worst case for us. If the article sounds human, but the claims aren't supported by their sources, then we have false information that is incredibly hard to spot and will likely persist for years. So when you seem focused on removing AISIGNS rather than actually fixing articles, people get very worried and don't want to help you. We do not want to train editors to hide their LLM use; we want them to stop using LLMs!

I don't have time right now to go through one of the articles in detail, but I'll try to do so later today. But what people are telling you that I think you really need to take in, is fixing the tells is not enough. It's not even helpful. LLM articles have got to be rewritten more or less from scratch. I've tried fixing some and honestly it is more work, and less safe, than starting over. I don't recommend it. If you have good sources you can read them and write an article based on them.

Yesterday I spent a bit over two hours meticulously checking each claim in an article and seeing if the source supported it, but I only got halfway through the article. I found that over half of the claims were not supported. This is what we are trying to avoid, and we're getting increasingly strict and harsh about it because the problem is so severe. M kuhner (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @M kuhner:, thank you for clarifying that. I actually completely understand the community's concern about AI hallucinations and false information.

But that is exactly my point: every single reference and source used in my articles actually supports the claims made. I didn't just "hide" AI signs; I spent hours manually writing the content and meticulously checking the sources to ensure everything is accurate and supported. Furthermore, two of these articles were already previously reviewed and approved for the mainspace.

I am feeling incredibly stressed and exhausted by this because the deletion deadline is tomorrow (the 8th). It feels like everyone who was previously scrutinizing my work has suddenly gone quiet now that I have provided the before/after evidence and proven that the rewrites are clean. It feels like people are just waiting for the clock to run out so the articles get automatically deleted tomorrow without any formal investigation of the actual text and sources I provided.

I put in the manual work you are asking for. I verified the sources. I am just asking for someone to give it a fair review before the deadline hits tomorrow. Dahproman (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I spent hours manually writing the content and meticulously checking the sources to ensure everything is accurate and supported.

I took a look at the first article you mention, Restlezz. Comparing the archived copy and the current article, I don't see any evidence of a substantial rewrite. The article is basically the same, with the same sentences in the same order, with a few sentences deleted and occasional minor rewording.

More importantly, I don't see evidence of meticulous source checking:

• The sentence "His single "Undisputed" appeared on the NBA 2K24 video game soundtrack in 2024." is sourced to , but that source has no mention of the words "Undisputed" or "Restlezz".
• The sentence "He began rapping at age 13, recording early songs using a 6-channel mixer, house speakers, and Cool Edit Pro 2.0." is sourced to , but that source does not mention the words "6-channel", "mixer", "speakers" or "Cool Edit Pro".
• The sentence "In 2016, Sandoval released his debut single "Get It How U Live" in collaboration with Yo Gotti, CEO of Collective Music Group." is sourced to the same source , but that source does not mention the title "Get It How U Live".
• The sentence "On February 10, 2023, he released "Why You Mad", a collaboration with Jake Strain." is sourced to , but that source does not mention the date February 10, 2023.

I have not looked at the other articles, but the source integrity on this one seems pretty poor to me. CodeTalker (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CodeTalker:. I want to thank you for taking the time to meticulously check those sources.

You are 100% correct. I just went back and clicked every link you mentioned, and those specific details (like the 6-channel mixer, the exact date, and the NBA 2K24 claim) are simply not supported by the text in the citations.

I was so hyper-focused on rewriting the "prose" and the "tone" to remove the AI sound, that I completely failed to verify the underlying facts that carried over from the older drafts. I wrongly assumed the previous information was properly sourced, and I was wrong.

I understand now why everyone has been so strict about this. Given how badly the sourcing was messed up here, what is your advice on the best path forward? Should I request this be moved into Draft space so I can completely strip it down to the studs and start over from scratch with only verified sources? I want to do this the right way. Dahproman (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

References

I looked at the edited version, as linked above, of Restlezz. Here's a source analysis.

• No source for the "Tyrant" nickname.
• Sources 1, 2, and 4 support the claims they are attached to.
• Source 3 I can't find any mention of either the rapper or the song. It is a complex page, possibly I missed something, but I was able to find other names by searching.
• Sources 5 and 6 support the claims but the article paraphrases the sources perhaps too closely.
• Source 7 does not mention 6-channel mixer or house speakers.
• Source 8 does not name the song or the Collective.
• Source 9, dated January 31, does not give a release date for the song; article says Feb. 10. Crystal ball?
• No source for the entire Discography section.

I did not do the needed further step of asking if these are reliable sources. My impression is that too many of them go back to the rapper himself, which could be acceptable for basic facts but nothing else. Others seem promotional.

This took me about 25 minutes, just to find the problems, not to fix them. If that seems like a lot of work, well, now you know why we reject LLM. This sourcing, even after your revision, is totally not okay--and that is what usually happens when someone claims they will edit LLM text to an acceptable level. Don't do it. Just write from scratch. M kuhner (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @M kuhner:, I appreciate you taking the time to actually look into the sources. You made a very fair point.

I just checked CodeTalker's breakdown and the links, and you are both right about the sourcing discrepancies. I was so focused on rewriting the prose to fix the 'AI tone' that I missed the fact that some of the underlying details weren't explicitly backed by those specific citations.

Given the deletion deadline is tomorrow, what is the standard procedure here if I want to rebuild this properly from scratch? Should I ask for this to be moved to Draft space so I can start over using only verified sources, or is it better to just let it delete and start over completely down the line? Let me know your thoughts. Dahproman (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I recommend starting from scratch. I have "rescued" three LLM articles and it's exceptionally difficult, and less fun than writing a new, clean article. You could take note of the sources, read them carefully, and use that as the basis for the new article. (Don't re-use the actual citations: write your own so you can be sure they're correct. A major LLM issue is subtly broken citations, such as title or date not matching the source.) M kuhner (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

You should also make sure that they meet the criteria in WP:NMUSIC, to make sure that the artists qualify for an article in the first place. I don't want you to do all the work again and then have the page deleted because the artists are not notable enough. InfernoHues (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for Universedeletor

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

---

i will request to revoke TPA for Universedeletor (talk · contribs) since they are abusing their user talk page ~2026-32769-66 (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It's just inoffensive chatter and emojis. Ignore them. Fences&Windows 11:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted the nonsense. In my opinion, this doesn't require a TPA yoink, @~2026-32769-66. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 14:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Also this warning was completely out of line and didn't help your cause in the least. Nathannah • 📮 15:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Suspicious behavior

Strange behavior from Special:Contributions/Xcccccccc123; an account created on: 2023-11-16: - first edit: 2026-04-30 - this user has done 1,600 edits in one month, all but three have been to add either links or categories. This seems suspicious, but I don't know that it indicates anything actionable; I just wanted to bring this to people's attention in case this behavior pattern is known/standard for some types of problems. Sorry I don't know a better place to post this. Thank you admins, for all you do!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Avatar317 you need to notify them on their user talk page when you start an ANI about them. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with them; I just feel their editing is suspicious. I will post the notice. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

yeah the sentences from this edit are triggering GPTZero. Can't actually prove this is AI though beyond that, but this seems to be one of their biggest edits.

another big edit also triggering GPTZero. Can't prove actual AI either here. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I think removal of XC and page creation permission seems useful. might be bot user. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I already warned them about their redundant category work . Most of the categories that they have been adding are redundant: ^SMason_Garrison 00:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Might just be a new user getting hang of stuff. I think bringing this to ANI is escalating it... I don't see any vandalism or any pattern of disruptive editing on the user's part. Also the issue with redundant categories, is not exactly a grave issue... they might just be learning the ropes. There are new users way worse than this. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I also wanna stress i cant prove ai anyways or anything wrong otherwise User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

User talk:~2026-33031-60

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

---

• ~2026-33031-60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an Admin please revoke this user's Talk page access? Clearly this LTA will continue to abuse it's own talk page. Untamed1910 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Word of advice; WP:DFTT. This wasn't necessary. Just ignore them, and they don't have a stage upon which to strut. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I think people are going here because it's not clear if it is within scope of WP:AIV. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, TPA revokes are specifically supposed to go to ANI, however, @Untamed1910 & @Bringingthewood no need to revert their edits multiple times on their own talk page if they are blocked unless they are outright insane. Don't let people like that waste your valuable time. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see that this is an LTA? The term LTA should be used sparingly (for many reasons, but mainly WP:DENY), normal socking doesn't mean its an LTA.​ – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Plus there have been recent cases where reversion of mild nonsense escalated into quite obscene attacks because the editor was recieving the attention they wanted - watch & wait, nine times out of ten they'll get bored and wander off to do something else. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

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

User:ImVeryStupid and problematic categorization

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

---

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

User has an ongoing problem of adding categories to articles that do not reflect article content, particularly in regards race or gender and violence. While he has had the problem explained to him repeatedly (such as on his talk page here) and claims to have heard, he has nonetheless continued. He created Category:White Americans shot dead by law enforcement in the United States (currently en route to deletion) and proceeded to stock it primarily with examples in which no claim of "White" had been made in the article, in some cases adding it as an unsourced claim, in some cases not. He has added violence-against-men categories to articles after having being told repeatedly that such categories are only for the targeting of men as a group, and not just where victims happen to be men. He has been repeatedly adding racially-motivated crime categories to the Killing of Austin Metcalf despite there being no such claim that the killing was so motivated in the article.

User has repeatedly recently stated a desire to quit Wikipedia, in such discussions as User_talk:ImVeryStupid#May_2026_2 and User_talk:ImVeryStupid#May_2026_3. He has gone so far as to declare himself as blocked (although he did undo that addition.) As recently as March, he was WP:SELFBLOCKed, although he requested his way out of it.

Given all this, it may be best to grant him the block he seeks, and (in case he requests release of that block) ban him from adding categories to articles, to creating new categories, and to the discussion of such. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right. And to the best of my luck, I think it's time for me to just give up. I think it's time for me to have a permanent ban from Wikipedia forever for good, just to make you guys happy and make sure not for me to return to the site. I'm such a failure, a loser, a stupid asshole, and a complete jerk. So, I deserve the punishment as you finally take a big victory against myself. This will be my last goodbye to Wikipedia. ImVeryStupid (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@ImVeryStupid a lot of people don't realise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it can be very hard to edit it properly. Some people are good at it, others try really hard but find that it just doesn't gel with them.

It's very important that you understand that both of these situations are ok. Nobody is more or less worthwhile because they find something difficult, since there will be other things that they're good at.

Things have only really got this far because you didn't realise that Wikipedia editing isn't really for you, so it's good that you understand this now.

You can always keep reading Wikipedia, but I also think you should stop editing and use that time to find something that you're good at and enjoy doing.

If you carry on trying to edit Wikipedia when it isn't really your thing (especially since it's clearly upsetting you) you'll only waste your own time and the time is other volunteers who have to clean up your mistakes, which isn't really fair on them

It's better for everyone if you can decide to step back from Wikipedia editing entirely - if you can't do that on your own then perhaps an administrator should block you, as you've requested.

Go and learn what you're good at, something is out there waiting for you to find it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 22:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Listen, I'm about to terminate my account right now, and there's no stopping it. Nat Gertler is 100% right because I broke thousands and thousands of rules, and I'm support his message. I don't want to look at the positives of Wikipedia. I would rather rot myself in hell right now. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to edit Wikipedia - you can stop right this second. Disable any email notifications, sign out of your account and do anything else you like.

If you want to stop editing, just stop. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 22:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I'll just stop. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that's a really good idea. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 22:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I requested a self-block for you, and I want you to thank me for that. Its ready waiting for you. Thanks! ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Block on community consensus. I don't think a self-requested block is sufficient, as it can be undone at any time. I also see ImVeryStupid seemingly can't stop editing this thread, even after agreeing to stop editing entirely. --Yamla (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a self-requested block is 100% necessary. Because I won't stop editing threads and unnecessary categories nonstop. I tried giving up and its just all in my head. I would rather be permanently blocked than partially blocked because I don't want to edit another article nor create a page or category ever again. I did my last category today, and that's it, I'm done, final, and I quit. And I think self-requesting a block is a perfect idea. Because if you have an alt, you'll get permanently banned too. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Unnecessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:NatGertler: Here, take my cookies because you deserve it, before I plan to leave Wikipedia for good. Besides, I wish I don't exist on Wikipedia anyway. I know I kept breaking thousands of walls nonstop for many reasons, declaring edit wars and destroying other categories. I know that I've been doing that nonstop and I'm just so sorry. Tell you what, if you want to block me, excellent, and if you don't want to block me, then go block me or something. It's my fault for destroying Wikipedia and I deserve to receive a huge punishment from the Wikipedia community. I literally did destroy everything, and I should've been ashamed of myself. I'm not just stupid, but a huge failure to the entire website, a huge failure that nobody really likes, and a huge failure that my brain is a size of a pea. I'm extremely sorry for all the damages I've just done. It's all my fault. Everything I touch is all my fault. And worse of all, its my fault for writing this apology. I'm such a big failure to Wikipedia. I'm sorry Nat, and I'm not sorry to myself. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Support a non-self requested Block. This editor increased the amount of disruptive edits they made after their first round of self-requested block and unblock. I predict a second round would be equally ineffective at preventing disruption. Mikewem (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Suspected Wikihounding and Incivility by User:AirshipJungleman29

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

---

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am requesting administrator review of User:AirshipJungleman29 for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:HOUND.

1. Incivility and Personal Attacks

On 4th June 2026, during the AfD for Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry, AirshipJungleman29 left a hostile comment directed at me. They stated: "A ten-year-old would be able to tell it was written by a Brighton fan" and accused me of using LLMs, calling my work "jargon salads."

• Diff: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry

2. Wikihounding

Following my response asking them to observe WP:NPA, User:AirshipJungleman29 navigated to a completely unrelated page I had recently created (Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy) a few days ago. A link was made between (Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy) and Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry before they unilaterally moved it to Draftspace.

• Diff: Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy moved to draftspace

Conclusion While moving a page to Draftspace is a normal process, doing so to an unrelated article immediately after a tense exchange on an AfD is a textbook example of WP:HOUND. The editor followed my contribution history to disrupt my work. Other editors have given thanks for creating (Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy) and it is sourced by reliable secondary sources as well as primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APDHistorian (talk • contribs)

Can you write this in your own words instead of using an LLM? Johnny Joeson (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@APDHistorian: Fire your LLM and rewrite this in your own words or risk this thread being shut down. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 02:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not a comment I ever expected to receive or send.

I am not AI. I am autistic. APDHistorian (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

So am I. Your post is quite blatantly raw LLM output. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 02:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That's cool. But we can all see that between 2024 and 2026 your understanding of grammar, capitalization, and wiki markup made a huge shift. A shift not seen in your recent comment. It is like one was an artisnal human comment, and the other some LLM output resulting from a low specificity prompt. A conclusion section? Cmon. Johnny Joeson (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

We're not saying you are AI, we're saying that we believe that you are using an AI, LLM or chatbot to write for you.

I'm not seeing anything that warrants an ANI thread here - there's no chronic, long-term behavioural issue that cannot be resolved by other means. ANI should be a last resort, not the first.

Stating that an editor is likely using AI isn't a personal attack, although in my experience many AI models think that it is. From the links provided, it looks like the offending statement was ...do us a favour and stop "enhancing" your comments with LLMs; jargon salads generally make a bad argument even worse. This isn't a personal attack but a comment on your editing style - personal attacks focus on the person and not their work.

I also need to counter the statement that moving one single article to draft after a "terse exchange" is a textbook example of WP:HOUND - the page doesn't say that at all. It says that hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.. Note the use of "multiple" and "repeatedly".

It also says that Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.

A clear policy-based reason was given for moving the article to draft, which is a lack of notability. The fact that you've received thanks from editors doesn't mean that the article doesn't have issues, and I note that you've not discussed that in your report.

Looking at the AfD, multiple editors agreed that the article was not appropriate for mainspace due to close paraphrasing, original research and many source verification issues (e.g inaccessible links, sources not matching the claim).

Since these issues (and several in this post) are often strong indicators of AI-use, can you please confirm whether you are currently using AI, LLM or chatbots to generate your writing here? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no way you wrote all that in less than eight minutes without using a LLM. At 02:14 I wrote my comment 'I am not AI. I am autistic' and you respond in less than eight minutes with all that text. It took me 45 minutes to write my original post. I dislike socialising but even then I tried to reach out in good faith by understanding the original editors reasons when they point out something I done wrong. The behaviour and mannerisms on this platform is awful. Bye APDHistorian (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

It's entirely possible she was writing it before you made that comment. Especially since she doesn't bring up your autist status. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 02:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I had spent quite a while writing it - an hour, actually. I started immediately after adding a template for your missing signature. By the time I was done there were many replies, so I copied the post and placed it at the bottom of the latest comment. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear I spent an hour on this because I wanted to be as fair as possible, look at all the available evidence and explain my own position as well as I could. That's why I've also presented direct quotes and links to the relevant policies & guidelines, so others can verify that I'm correct in what I've written. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

APDHistorian,

Many of us are. What you wrote above is obvious LLM output. Please cease as persistent use of LLMs is now grounds for admins to place blocks. TarnishedPath^talk 02:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You're not autistic. APDHistorian (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I strongly suggest abandoning this line of thought. It comes across as you trying to mask LLM use by using your autism, which is frankly disgusting. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 02:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you think this kind of behaviour is going to help your argument? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do listen to every other editor in this thread and stop using LLMs to communicate rather than your own words. V/R, LevisAquae (t/c) 02:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. An actual balance, kind and neutral reply for once. But I'm leaving, for good. I'm wasting my time being on here. APDHistorian (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Analysis – The formatting of the opening comment is deeply reminiscent of LLM output, however there are numerous grammatical and punctuation mistakes that appear to me unlikely to be generated by an LLM:

1) Other editors have given thanks for creating (Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy) – The article should not be presented in parentheses and the sentence is left as an incomplete fragment because of them. Observe that Other editors have given thanks for creating ... and it is sourced by reliable secondary sources as well as primary sources is missing an object and has a referential 'it' that cannot refer to anything. The second clause contains the preposition 'by' when it should have the preposition 'to'. These are indicative of human error.

2) In the preceding sentence we have The editor followed my contribution history to disrupt my work. You don't 'follow' a contribution history. You could say 'followed me via my contribution history' or some such, but not that your contribution history was followed. LLMs have no ability to comprehend actual meaning, but I still doubt this is output that an LLM would generate.

3) They stated: "A ten-year-old would be able to tell it was written by a Brighton fan" and accused me of using LLMs, calling my work "jargon salads." – This passage contains improper punctuation and formatting that an LLM typically won't produce. The colon use would be fine if a period immediately followed the quoted statement such as 'They stated: "A ten-year-old would be able to tell it was written by a Brighton fan".' However, it does not. There is extraneous content that should either be part of a new sentence or the colon should be removed and replaced with 'that'. This again looks like human error.

4) A link was made between (Brighton & Hove Albion W.F.C. Under-19s and Academy) and Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry before they unilaterally moved it to Draftspace – Here again we have improper usage of parentheses. If you omit the parenthetical statement, then we again have an incomplete thought: A link was made between ... and Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry before they unilaterally moved it to Draftspace. This instance is definitely not raw LLM output. The error is too basic.

The comment may have been drafted using an LLM, though only the formatting style is indicative of it. Nothing in the language indicates to me LLM usage. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

To quickly clarify: I do not endorse any element of the complaint which should remain closed. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Asdx49

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

---

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

Personal attacks by WP:SPA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are playing games with you.

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

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

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

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

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

--The Boxer, by Simon & Garfunkel

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SpencerWave

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

Adds poor quality text and has never responded to any messages left for them. I noticed that they had added a large amount of text to an introduction that was very badly written, and had marked the edit as minor. Then I noticed that someone had asked them two years ago not to mark significant edits as minor. There was no response to that or any other message. Classic WP:RADAR and administrators may wish to block until the user acknowledges messages. ~2026-33398-13 (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked SpencerWave from mainspace in an effort to get them to communicate. They have never used a talk page and continue to improperly mark edits as minor when adding long summaries to the introduction of articles: Michael D. Steele; XVIII Airborne Corps; Frank Sheeran. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I sincerely apologize for any issues that may have been caused, though I have never had any intention of violating the rules or guidelines of this site. I promise to uphold the site rules and I will respond to any messages you send. Please contact me if there is anything that can be worked out, and once again, I am deeply sorry for anything I may have done. Thank you. SpencerWave (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Minor edit has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and many people will ignore edits that are marked as minor. This is a problem when you are making large additions or changes, as it can go unreviewed by other editors that would otherwise be able to work constructively with the new material or offer their perspective. Please make sure that you take attention to this in the future. Communication is required; otherwise we can't learn from our mistakes. If you can address these concerns then I will be happy to unblock. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! I will be sure to keep that all in mind. SpencerWave (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you respond to the concerns from @~2026-33398-13 at the start of this section? I know "poor quality text" is not much to go off of but for one thing why call Michael D. Steele a "star athlete"? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

At this point I'd like to say that any other admin is free to unblock if they are convinced that SpencerWave will be responsive to talk page messages in the future and use the minor edit marker properly. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for everything. Thank you. SpencerWave (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize, I just want to know if you understand what the problem was. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand. SpencerWave (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Request spam-blocklisting

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

An Se-young

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

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

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

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

Editor mass removing sourced content without explanation

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

---

Gabriel Benedictus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is actively removing a large amount of perfectly good sourced content from various articles without explanation - . The disruption appears to be actively occurring. Any chance someone can step in to stop the disruption from continuing? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430, they stopped once you posted this, so I'll close this thread and hope you can get a hold of them on their talk page. If they start up again, please head to AIV and ask for a pblock from mainspace. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

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

~2026-33324-10

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

---

• ~2026-33324-10 (talk · contribs)
• On recently deceased Argentine musician Indio Solari.

I'd argue that a TA does not warrant attention from ANI and our community, but setting aside my sensitivity to homophobia, I think that inserting this (willing to translate) ... I think it warrants an indeff. Who can possibly believe this TA, and the risk of having it open is going to contribute positively? I believe it is actually impossible. CoryGlee 16:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yuk. Only one edit, but it's difficult to imagine that an editor making it might ever be productive. Narky Blert (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

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

~2026-33212-28

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

---

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

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

User:StormL00ver

StormL00ver created a hoax article named Storm Cornaro, after doing some research, I found out that the article is a hoax because there were no sources when I searched about the article's subject. Malgosha 17:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Interestingly, after the CSD tag was placed, @StormL00ver flooded the page with a series of whirlwind edits adding references. All the refs I checked were bogus. I'm deleting the page, but I wonder if LLM use was also involved, given the deluge of faked info. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@rsjaffe: I want you to stop and check the sources before you say I made something up or lied about the information. This is a weather event that actually happened and the sources I used are real too. They are official records from Turkey. Just because some people do not speak the language or cannot access the information it does not mean the sources are fake.

The Twitter post number 2033101103596818634 is from the Turkish State Meteorological Service Twitter account. This is a government source that warned people about a storm in the East Mediterranean area on March 15 2026. The news articles from Hürriyet and Yeni Şafak that talk about the damage and flooding in Hatay are real. You can verify them.

It is not fair to say that news reports from Turkey are fake just because they are written in Turkish. I think it is wrong to accuse me of spreading information when I am just trying to share real news, about a disaster. I want a Turkish-speaking administrator or someone who is neutral to look at the links and the official records before they decide what to do with my account. StormL00ver (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@StormL00ver, I strongly recommend editing at a Wikipedia that’s in your native language or one that you’re fluent in. See m:List of Wikipedias, theres Turkish Wikipedia (assuming you speak Turkish?) among many others Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This is definitely not made up. Saying it is without looking at information from the area or non-English sources is not fair.

The storm actually happened on March 15 2026. You might not have found "Storm Cornaro" when you searched in English because the people in charge and the news in Turkey and Syria call these storms names, like severe storm or cyclonic system instead of using the names that other countries use.

The article now has a lot of sources to back it up including:

1. The official warning from the Turkish State Meteorological Service, which's like a weather office and the path of the storm with a special number, Status ID: 2033101103596818634 that has been saved so people all over the world can see it.

2. News stories from the area that show how bad the storm really was, with flooding in Hatay and people getting hurt in Northern Syria.

3. Pictures, from satellites and radar that show the storm forming.

Please look at the sources and what people are saying about the article before saying that a real storm is not true. ~~~~ StormL00ver (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The article was new and being built from scratch so it didn't have any sources at first. This didn't mean the historical event wasn't real. It's normal for an article to lack citations when its being edited. Now that we've added sources about the weather saying it had "zero sources" isn't true anymore.

The article was a draft and was being worked on that's why it didn't have sources.

• A new article often starts with no sources.

The event is real. Now there are sources to prove it.

The claim that it had no sources is not true now.

I have added sources, about the weather.

The article was being. It is now better. StormL00ver (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources I clicked on didn't go to the articles that were listed. The ISBN for the book was invalid. I've undeleted the page and protected it so others can review. The last full version is at Special:Permalink/1357948774. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, rsjaffe, for restoring the page and allowing a fair review. I really appreciate that you were willing to stop and look into things.

To make things clear about the issues you pointed out:

1. **The ISBN Error**: I am sorry for the ISBN formatting. I made a mistake when trying to add a reference to some general climate data for the region. I will completely remove that book reference as soon as the page is open for editing.

2. **The Links**: As discussed, the redirect issues are likely due to regional geoblocking on the servers of media companies in Turkey, which can cause errors for international users.

The page is protected now, so I am ready to cooperate fully. Once a coordinator or a Turkish-speaking editor reviews the verified information from MGM and checks the archived links, I will make sure to clean up the prose, get rid of the faulty book reference, and ensure all links point directly to the permanent archives on the Wayback Machine. Thank you for your patience with me; I am still very new to this. StormL00ver (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Quick update: I also noticed a chronological error in my initial draft regarding the timeline—Storm Cornaro actually formed prior to Storm Samuel. I will make sure to correct this formation order and fix the prose sequence as soon as the protection is lifted. Thanks again!StormL00ver (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Markdown formatting alongside numbered list style with headings seems possibly AI-generated ~2026-33878-18 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, I've checked the following references:

ref 10 invalid ISBN

ref 14 generic page

ref 15 page not working

ref 16 generic page

ref 17 looks real — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@StormL00ver um quick question, is there any sort of coverage from Cyprus, Greece, or Israel about this storm? thanks nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 00:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

courtesy ping : @Rsjaffe nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 00:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• It's important that we have someone with basic knowledge in Turkish to verify those sources. If completely blatant, I support indeff. If not, I do not think that it passes GNG, but that's another field. I've pinged user in their talk page with a courtesy link to this thread. CoryGlee 18:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Seeing through (thanks, rsjaffe), nothing to translate... Fake ISBNs, standards links to websites' portals, and nothing to do with this. Unless the user has a very clear explanation against attempting to create a hoax, I say indeff. CoryGlee 18:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm suspecting LLM use. This may be a real storm, but the links are very problematic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@CoryGlee, @rsjaffe: I recognize that my initial draft contained amateur formatting errors regarding ISBNs and citation styles. As a new editor, I clearly lacked the experience to handle regional source verification properly. I am willing to step back and let more experienced editors handle this, provided that the meteorological data—which is verifiable via the official MGM archive (Status ID: 2033101103596818634)—is not dismissed due to these formatting issues. I acted in good faith to document a real event, but I accept that my execution was flawed. StormL00ver (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Fake ISBNs aren't formatting errors. Unless you can provide a convincing explanation how this happened it's hard to imagine this is anything but LLM misuse. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Of the first 10 references I checked 9. None of the urls are meaningful, and none of ten titles match anything online. The one book reference has an unmatchable title, even searching with the supposed publishers, the isbnis invalid and I even wtrying to use some pattern matching to correct it bring back nothing valid. Support deletion and an indef. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this another AI agent? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't an agent, just someone relying on AI, possibly due to a language barrier. See their language in their initial userpage edit, vs any other message here on ANI or the Storm Cornaro talk page. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 18:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

This message and the one immediately above it admit to AI use in May. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 18:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Plus this post above and this one are trying to use non-Wiki mark-up, one of the classic WP:AISIGNS - see WP:MARKDOWN. They are 100% still using AI as we speak, despite promising to stop in those posts you've linked.

@StormL00ver are you still using AI, LLM or chatbots to write for you - yes or no? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Blue Sonnet.Thank for Replying.

I previously requested help regarding my contributions to Wikipedia but received no response. I felt somewhat pressured to update the content in time and provide the community with accurate data, so I used AI tools as a tool.

The reason I didn't mention this initially was because, as a novice editor, I was afraid of leaving a bad impression. I know what mistakes I did and I promise you I will never to this again. StormL00ver (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for replying. Do you agree to not use AI at all on Wikipedia going forwards? You've hopefully seen how much trouble that AI can cause, not just for you but especially for those who have to clean up the damage it causes afterwards. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes.I promise I will never use it again StormL00ver (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much for confirming that!

If you're interested in seeing why it's so frowned upon at Wikipedia, take a peek at WP:AINB when you have a moment - it's so prolific that we've had to create a noticeboard that's purely dedicated to cleaning up after it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Well. Incredible job by rsjaffe and other editors checking the websites; I was too afraid to check them myself, only the fake ISBN (agree with user Nil Einne that ISBNs are not a mistake, but something deliberate). I think that you, StormL00ver, should get yourself deeply involved with referencing policy and article creation. Another report of this kind will not surely be well-taken (if this one is, in fact). See WP:COMPETENCE. CoryGlee 23:56, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

At this point, at least a block from article space seems necessary. This editor had already been on notice about LLM use, and their conduct in this thread has been pretty poor given how it's been accusatory and excuse-making. I just don't see how this editor can be trusted without supervision right now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Whilst I'm glad they've finally replied themselves, I'm wondering whether a mainspace block would be best - that way they can make edit requests and AFC submissions since their work would have to go through experienced editors before publication onto live articles.

Either they weren't reviewing the AI's output, or they were but don't understand what they should be looking for (I suspect it's the former since several just didn't work at all). Both possibilities show a lack of both understanding and oversight that needs supervision. They should also seek additional guidance through their mentor. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, please. WP:LLM iisuuuues. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs, @Blue-Sonnet Oddly, an article by that name still exists in mainspace -- but it contains text that says the artcle has been deleted. That's not the same as a truly deleted article, is it? David10244 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The article was actually deleted by Rsjaffe, but the article was undeleted for further discussion. Malgosha 13:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep, it was brought back so editors could review it and make a fair decision on what to do next in this case. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

As the discussion has died down and there appears to be no further need to see the article for this purpose, I've deleted the article again, this time as unreviewed LLM output. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Unproductive religious UP editing

User:Hemanthlee315 has been making a stream of edits to their user page, adding information relating to Hinduism and meditation that really does not belong here. Some material, such as the quote below, has a strong AI feeling to it:

Let go of society's expectations, what’s acceptable, the shoulds — and listen to yourself. What would make you happy? — being a traveler, growing a beard, pursuing dance? Start acting on that because once you do — you will accept yourself a little bit more. People will oppose you, they will force their world view on you but that’s okay. Take a chance on yourself and go for what you want no matter what. Keep going after it even when it gets hard — feed your soul with it. Once you accept your true dreams and start pursuing them — you will find self-belief. And that’s how you start to believe in yourself by — being you.

It seems like this user might be trying to convert others to Hinduism, which would obviously be unacceptable. Even if the strange edits have a different purpose, however, it's evident that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Somepinkdude (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not AI, it's plagiarism from pre-AI (though I'm not sure this is the original source--it may also be plagiarism): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/magic-happens-when-you-believe-yourself-kishore-shintr%C3%A9-cheers-/ .

We have pages pushing christianity, too. I'd be careful about labeling a page unacceptable because of the beliefs it's trying to push. However, this page does need to go for multiple reasons, so I'll delete it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

User page pushing religious viewpoints all need to go, they do not exist for the purpose of convincing or converting anyone to or from any religion. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 23:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

In that case, the WP:UPNOT policy would have to be changed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:UP#PROMO wouldn't apply? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 00:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE might apply to things like adding mantras to article Talk pages:

This is their only edit outside their own user pages. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

That was to their user talk page. All these edits were prior to the first warning: a bunch of edits to their user page followed by one to their user talk page. Let's see what they do next. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I got that wrong, apologies for that! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Good luck defining where "pushing religious viewpoints" ends vs where "being openly religious" begins. It would be massively unethical to suggest we should forbid people from expressing their religious status entirely.

UPNOT already forbids excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia, which I would imagine applies if a person's userpage is entirely dedicated to religious evangelism rather than any editing activity. Athanelar (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

TPA needs Yoinked User_talk:Andy1647

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

---

User is using talkpage to insult other editors after having been blocked. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Andy1647 (talk · contribs) is calling editors non-intelligent after being blocked for promoting their self-published blog. Malgosha 22:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Please stay off their page. As I've said before, don't feed the trolls, and don't interact with a blocked editor unless it is to provide advice on how to regain editing privileges. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

From now on, I'll just ignore the trolls to prevent feeding them. Malgosha 22:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The user isn't even trolling, It's run-of-the-mill grumbling post-block. They're 100% wrong, but it's still nowhere near requiring yoinkage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Lakers96

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

---

• Lakers96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's talk page is littered with warnings about their disruptive edits. I dont think the user understad oor policies. While some of their minor edits are indeed useful, other edits like what I reverted or 14:58, June 2, 2026 diff hist −629 Khomeinism →External links: this is biased and untrue ] or curprev 10:00, June 3, 2026 Lakers96 talk contribs 22,407 bytes −16,851 No edit summaryundothank Tag: Reverted] are hardly constructive. I think admins must intervene. --Altenmann >talk 23:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for 4 days for WP:DE. Blocks will escalate if behavior continues EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

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

User:ZibityZoom2006 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

• ZibityZoom2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE; created nonsense category. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

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

• @Voorts: Just notified editor. Also, I was referred here by WP:AIV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  The admin who referred you here should have investigated further. This is clearly not something to be dealt with at ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Then why don't you talk to @ToBeFree:? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  I doubt that they said that creating a single nonsense category constitutes NOTHERE behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nope, it was an AIV report which was closed with the summary that's not the type of "obvious vandalism" suitable for AIV. Please report such things at WP:ANI instead.

  These are done quite quickly so I think TBF expected Mvcg66b3r to read through the noticeboard warning before submitting the report, to make sure it was appropriate for ANI. Either way, the thread is closed but I do have some lingering concerns about this editor - enough to keep an eye on them at least, since they've got a lot of warning messages that they don't seem to be reading. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've begun thinking about these possibly problematic editors and how to approach them in terms of "ripeness". Sometimes it takes a while to truly understand what's going on, and jumping to a noticeboard too early results in this sort of vague stuff. There rarely is an emergency when it comes to stuff like this, and watching (and fixing issues along the way) is often a better approach than prematurely going to ANI or AIV. Notice that both boards are looking for chronic or severe issues. Wait until the issue is ripe enough to understand and then report. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, I've got them watchlisted for this very reason. I'm hoping they'll realise they've got Talk page before it gets that far! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sigh :) When I decline/remove an AIV report because it's not the type of any-admin-can-look-and-would-quickly-block-without-thinking-much vandalism that should be reported there, I do so to prevent the quick action noticeboard from being clogged up by reports that need "further investigation". I don't do that at AIV. Or rather, I usually do, but I shouldn't have to, and sometimes I refuse to. The noticeboard was too full for that. What I don't do is performing a detailed analysis of whether the matter is actually suitable for any other noticeboard. If any noticeboard is needed, it's probably ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

IP editor not here

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

---

~2026-33474-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ~2026-33407-08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP/temp editor has left quite a few edit summaries abusing and personally attacking other editors:

• "Learn to spell, retard."
• "All you gender-confused wiki retards still can't spell."
• "All the gender-confused retards who run wikipedia keep changing the spelling. I'll keep doing this until you gender-confused retards block me because every block is a badge of honor."
• "You lost, retard"
• "You also lost, retard."

The IP/temp accounts need a block. Gotitbro (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Assistance with Paul Revere's Ride

• Paul Revere's Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi friends. I inserted the text of the poem (which is in the public domain) into the Wikipedia entry on Paul Revere's Ride. But it received an automatic revert. For some reason ClueBot thought this was vandalism. Could someone please take a look and correct this? Thank you very much. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

While your edit isn't vandalism, the reverts are in order. The text of the poem does not belong in the Wikipedia article, and s:en:Paul Revere's Ride is already present on Wikisource. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-27874-38, the message at the top of this noticeboard and when posting explains that it's for reporting long-term, chronic behavioural issues with editors.

Administrators can't assist with content disputes and queries, so please visit the Teahouse if you need help with editing Wikipedia articles. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

That is not the consensus on talk. Most historic documents of this size in early America are published on the page. But in this case, DiscoSpinster and his friends/sockpuppets immediately revert anything I contribute seconds after I publish it. This is not a controversial edit. But I have been accused of vandalism and warned repeatedly by his friends. This is an issue for Talk, not for accusations. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of accusations, please do not accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet unless you have solid evidence.

If you have (very) solid evidence, you should be making an WP:SPI report and not making accusations here. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

TA doubling down on unfounded accusations and WP:NPA in their talk . Some drastic action might be needed. Borgenland (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Calling someone a "goof" and telling them to "get a life" flat-out isn't on and I've told them to knock it off.

I'm very concerned this person doesn't know how to collaborate, because they have chosen to write that PA instead of engaging with the article Talk page discussion to down a consensus.

I don't know whether an admin wants to consider a block now or wait to see how they respond to my post, but I'll keep an eye out for any reply. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

AGF thrown out the window, accompanied by borderline wikilawyering Borgenland (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to quickly add that there is no current consensus to include or exclude the full poem on the article Talk page, that's why you need to speak to others and form a consensus.

This is now a controversial edit since it's been reverted, therefore a consensus needs to be formed with other editors on whether to include (or continue to exclude) it. I've started the ball rolling by replying to your post on the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've left them another note, and advised the new editor who inflamed things by using the word "vandalism" in their edit summary that they need to be more careful and avoid automated tools. The TA is in NZ and has presumably logged off, so let's leave them alone for now. Acroterion (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I only just saw this after responding! I agree it's best to leave them alone going forwards since things aren't calming down as well as I had hoped. I'll only engage further if there's any replies on the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Their response to my note was discouraging, but let's see if they respond positively, or at least not with a continuation of their aggressive accusations of bad faith, to yours. If they're just here to lecture other people about their expectations while rejecting any expectations on their part, then we'll deal a with it. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Although the text is in the public domain, including the full text fails WP:IINFO. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

And, as mentioned, this is what V2WikiSource is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

A new TA has appeared at the article Talk page & inferred that they're a different editor, this was rather confusing since they've got the same position and argument for inclusion (basically WP:OTHERSTUFF.

I've explicitly asked whether they're the same person; since the original TA never came back to the article Talk page after their initial post, it's not been possible to form any sort of consensus with them. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

RD3 RevDel

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

---

~2026-33504-86 (talk · contribs) and 痛 (维基黑鬼垃圾) (talk · contribs) both made disruptive edits to Soth Kevin that qualify for RD3 revision deletion. Malgosha 03:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

痛 (维基黑鬼垃圾) also made edits with disruptive edit summaries on their talk page before they were blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. Malgosha 04:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Spammerwocky on talk pages

~2026-20807-08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding patent nonsense to article talk space: . This user has also done the same across multiple sock TAs. The full list, according to my TAIP, is:

• ~2026-20807-08
• ~2026-31976-43
• ~2026-29151-36
• ~2026-10473-52
• ~2026-24150-32
• ~2026-85308-3

Somepinkdude (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It's been going on for over a year. Blocked. Main IP blocked, too. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced editing

~2026-22054-36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly engaging in unsourced editing (), among others, and making unproductive TP comments. They have already been warned thrice, but refuse to communicate, answering that they "Couldn't Find Sources"(sic). In addition to this, they have also made similar edits under the expired TA ~2026-19302-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suspect that they may be part of an LTA, since many LTA vandals like to vandalize the Thomas & Friends page and related franchises. Somepinkdude (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Report personal attack

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I’m asking for administrator/community review of a personal attack by User:Walter Ego on Talk:Fish and chips.

In this comment, they wrote: “Wow, you piece of shit…” followed by “I don’t think you will be allowed to behave like this much longer.”

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fish_and_chips#c-Roxy_the_dog-20260606171900-FJLGreen-20260606155200

I appreciate that my own earlier wording in the thread was strongly phrased, and I could have expressed my concern more carefully. However, I do not think that justifies a direct personal insult. I also found the closing line—“I don’t think you will be allowed to behave like this much longer”—to read as threatening, or at the very least hostile and escalatory.

I have not responded in kind. I’d appreciate review under WP:NPA and guidance on how best to de-escalate the discussion.

FJLGreen (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm slightly paraphrasing here, but: "I called someone a neo-Nazi, and they called me a piece of shit, so I'd like to report them for a personal attack."

I suggest you retract this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This is beyond paraphrasing. I indicated such interests because of the repeated exclusion of marginalised minority involvement in what has become known as a “Great British” tradition. I indicated that I suspected prejudiced behaviour and they continued without explanation. Even still, as I said above I regret not using more tact, but I stand by my suspicions of intent. WHATEVER HAPPENED the facts remained that it should not be allowed to call someone “a piece of shit” on Wikipedia. FJLGreen (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, you did far worse, FJLGreen. You've been told by multiple editors to retract your accusation. I will personally support a community ban for you if you decide against this. --Yamla (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry—to be clear, are we saying it’s ok to call others a piece of shit on Wikipedia? Forgetting about what I may have done for a moment. Is that behaviour ok? FJLGreen (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You can't forget about the reason they did it. If it was unprovoked, then no it's not OK. It wasn't unprovoked. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes or no, is it ok or not in your opinion? FJLGreen (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked you from Fish and chips, not just for the edit-warring, but for threatening to report other editors for alleged anti-semitism when they reverted you. That's not acceptable. Go and find something else to edit, please, and don't repeat this behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple sources already present on that page that verify the information I was inserting—that was already existent on the page, I just included it in the summary.

When there is a sustained pattern of reversion when it comes to mentioning the involvement of a minority group without explanation, it is reasonable to suspect prejudice against said group.

If you believe this is incorrect and there is 100% no possibility that antisemitism wasn’t an element in this, please feel free to demonstrate. FJLGreen (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

No on needs to prove "there is "100% no possibility that antisemitism wasn’t an element in this" which is a double negative by the way, so I don't think you said what you meant. If you are going to allege there is antisemitism, you need to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. If you do not have the evidence, you claiming that there was is a personal attack and so you need to withdraw your unsupported claim. Nil Einne (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, so now all of a sudden you're having LLMs write your responses for you? Better see WP:AITALK. Ravenswing 19:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Wow. You compared them to a well-known far-right Islamophobe with a string of criminal convictions, and you're surprised they reacted like that? They are actually quite right - do that again and you won't be able to behave like that, because you'll be blocked. I'd suggest an apology might be in order to the two editors you defamed, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) FJLGreen, your comment was way over the line. I think very many people would be deeply offended by being personally compared to Tommy Robinson. I'd have preferred if the people you insulted just disengaged, but frankly I'm wondering if we shouldn't have a WP:BOOMERANG block on you here. On what possible basis did you accuse editors of that page of being extreme right wing provocateurs? Note I haven't lived in the UK for several decades and haven't the slightest clue why Fish and chips might be associated with the extreme right, but suspect it's at least possible. --Yamla (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yamla Well, the OP has been edit-warring to try to claim that Fish and chips is a Jewish dish (yes, there's Jewish background to it, as the article says, but that's not the point) and when they are reverted, they've been threatening to report the other editors for anti-semitism. So I've blocked them from that article, and if they carry on with any more of that nonsense I suspect it will be a full block. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, antisemitism is nonsense. Brilliant. FJLGreen (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

And that really does sum up the problem here, doesn't it? I didn't say that "anti-semitism was nonsense", I said that your claims that other editors were anti-semitic had no evidence. Which it doesn't. And let's not mention the issue that you compared them to Tommy Robinson, who is not an anti-semite but an Islamophobe, and yes, I think we are verging on nonsense. I think we are being trolled here. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is a verified antisemite. Please check your facts.

You used the word “nonsense” to dismissively refer to the possibility of prejudice on Wikipedia instead of actively engaging in a conversation about it.

There’s no place for trolling when it comes to minorities—that’s exactly why I highlighted the actions that I did FJLGreen (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

That's this Tommy Robinson? OK. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

What is nonsense is claiming that it is antisemitic to state that your edit doesn't properly summarize the information and is undue for the lead. That is assuming bad faith. assume good faith is a basic requirement here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I assumed bad faith because of the repeated nature of the behaviour without alternative explanation—even after I questioned by saying that I suspected prejudice. There was an opening for an explanation but none was given. FJLGreen (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

There you go. You spotted the problem: your first question was about prejudice, rather than asking: "What's wrong with my addition?" — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I amended the addition after asking that question and it was still rejected after numerous redrafts and re-verifications—almost like whatever I said, however I phrased it didn’t matter. Check the edit history if you don’t believe me. FJLGreen (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Propose a site-wide ban on FJLGreen. Their behaviour has been abhorrent and at this point, indistinguishable from trolling. Time to put a stop to it. --Yamla (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the silencing of minority voices. That’s the truth. I just stood up for a marginalised community. I didn’t call anyone names, someone else did to me. But I am apparently being targeted here. FJLGreen (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You can still (just) row back from this, but you're getting very close to the point of no return. Your call. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Why can no one seem to actually engage in conversation about this? It’s like everyone has made their mind up without actually attempting to find new understanding or actually enter a dialogue. This is not what Wikipedia should be about—it should be about conversation, not exclusion. FJLGreen (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The conversation blew up because you approached it as a battle, not a discussion. Assume good faith and you then can have a calm conversation. Labelling other people as you did is like throwing "Hitler" into a conversation. After that, no one talks about anything but Hitler. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Please don’t bring Hitler into this conversation. That is uncalled for and insensitive.

I was attacked as soon as I opened this discussion—please read up if you think otherwise. I would loved to have had a calm conversation. FJLGreen (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned Hitler intentionally. That was akin to your Tommy Robinson comment. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support ban - clearly NOTHERE. GiantSnowman 18:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is a lynch mob. FJLGreen (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  This kind of response is precisely why you will end up banned. GiantSnowman 19:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Seconding GiantSnowman, this kind of response actually justifies your ban. -- Least Action (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• I have blocked OP for 31 hours. That will give them time to reflect on the conversation here. If they return with more attacks, an indef is likely. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per WP:BITE. This account had 20 edits at the time they filed this report. Education rather than removal is preferable. I do have minor concerns about the level of familiarity they have with policy given 20 edits, but per WP:PRECOCIOUS that's not prima facie a sign of puppetry.

However, FJLGreen, when you return from your block, you need to listen to what people are telling you. No, calling someone a piece of shit is not generally okay, but context matters. That's why "self-defense" can excuse someone from the generally not-okay act of murder. Note in WP:NPA, one of the bullets is Comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous people. (See also Godwin's law.) and again Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. (Emphasis original) Swearing is not automatically a personal attack, and "You piece of shit" is more tame than suggesting another editor's motives are more aligned with a Tommy Robinson rally. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This would be a fair point if the editor was not ignoring all advice and continuing to double/tripling down. GiantSnowman 19:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:BITE feels more appropriate when it's Wikipedia-specific things. They're presumably not a newbie at interacting with other human beings. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I know several people who believe tactics like this "win" a conversation. And, as always, context matters: this sort of thing is tame for most internet fora, apparently appropriate in political discourse, but is inappropriate here. People can be taught to make that distinction, but not if they're CBanned in their first 100 edits because they were upset and hadn't been given the time to settle down before a CBAN was proposed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Boomerang ban (see comment below) the other involved party here (User:Roxy the dog) has a LENGTHY history of bans, including at least one reversed site-wide ban. I find it highly odd to be discussing a ban on the brand new editor while not discussing the other involved party who has a lengthy rap sheet of harassing other editors. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• You want to ban an editor who responded how many of us would have responded after being attacked for no reason and being compared to a far-right Islamophobe criminal? I can assure you that's not happening. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've had fairly substantial disagreements with Roxy but I do not believe any action would be wise. Clearly Roxy should not have said that, they should have warned the editor, opened and ANI or just ignored it. But what FJLGreen did is so extreme in comparison and what Roxy did is mild enough that it would be a bad idea to take any action against Roxy. It will just lead to a possibly long and heated discussion at ANI where Roxy will probably be unblocked and might lead to them incorrectly thinking it's okay to do similar things in situations where editors are much less likely to turn a blind eye. And even if the block isn't overturned, it will be seen by many as injustice and proof people are unfair to Roxy and that Roxy's editing doesn't demonstrate a problematic pattern. In other words, if action is going to be taken against Roxy, this is not the case where it should happen from. Nil Einne (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I still would like to get their response in another day or two. At the moment, the string of the provocation may be too fresh, as they've basically said they'd do it again, which is contrary to our guidelines. If they are serious about their intent to always respond to insults with insults, that seems incompatible with a collaborative project. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

But Roxy knows better, and his response was not appropriate. Consider this at the least an informal warning and remember, Roxy, you're back because of your promise to behave better. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Having re-reviewed the edits here, I'm not seeing anything to justify Roxy the dog calling a brand new editor a piece of shit. I would also point out that harrasing other editors who have voiced their opinion on this matter as Roxy the dog did both here and here. @Rsjaffe: at what point is enough, enough? Roxy is getting ANOTHER warning? How many times do they get to be warned? THIRTEEN blocks including 5 for personal attacks? There is NOTHING that justifies calling another editor a piece of shit, regardless of what they have done and an editor with a lengthy history of personal attack blocks knows this full well. @Voorts: stated when unblocking Roxy that The community has determined that those promises, as well as Roxy's growth and commitment to civil discussion, are sufficient to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. I would say that this behavior shows NO growth has occurred. Whether the other involved party is a troll or not, Roxy clearly has not grown up at all since their last block and doesn't understand that you can simply walk away and ignore someone. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The response was not appropriate but was understandable. I do not see any action warranted other than a firm word. GiantSnowman 20:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Ok I'm starting to think I am genuinely missing something... How does calling someone anti-semitic make calling them back a piece of shit "understandable"? Is there some revdel edit that I'm not seeing? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Nothing has been hidden, you're just not on the same page as the rest of us with this, which is fine. See what Black Kite said above as a succinct summary. GiantSnowman 21:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I note that Roxy seems to believe I misunderstood the words linked in my above diff. They do this by telling me to "learn to read" and ban me from their talk page rather than explain. They also seem to be refusing to come to ANI to discuss their behavior at all, per here. I agree that their response is understandable, which is why I'd like to hear from them in a couple days, because as you yourself say, it was not appropriate and right now they seem to be doubling and tripling down... just like FJLGreen was before they were blocked for it. Do we extend more slack to a newbie than an editor with a long history of incivility? EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I am 100% with EducatedRedneck here. How come we are coming down like a ton of bricks on a brand new editor while cutting so much slack to an editor who has been blocked 13 times for this same behavior? Roxy is lashing out at everyone who disagrees with them including the link EDucated posted above as well as coming to my talk page to attack me here for daring to voice my 2 cents. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support block on FJLGreen, warn Roxy: Roxy has been around long enough to know not to throw gasoline on the fire with name-calling and should be reminded that we expect more. That said, it would probably take a lot of restraint that I don't have to not punch back at something obviously intended as a veiled "you're a Nazi" accusation. FJLGreen's current block is probably sufficient from a preventative perspective, with any evidence of not getting the message being sufficient to hit the indef button. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Pbritti genuine question here. Have you consulted Roxy's lengthy block history? I am honestly curious how you feel that a warning will ever be heard by someone with 13 blocks including 5 for personal attacks? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Genuine answer: I was surprised Roxy was welcomed back and don't think I would've undone the ban if it were up to me today. That said, I certainly don't think a snappy response to being accused of being equivalent to a Nazi is the thing that should be held up as representative of anyone. I'm not eager to ban editors for stuff like that. I'm not eager to reward people who come to Wikipedia and provoke confrontation. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Roxy is from another culture. I don't think he fully grasps Western taboos, such as the Armenian genocide, transgenders, and what shouldn't be said. E.g. I didn't knew that "shut up" is offensive. I knew it means to be silent. Because these are things that are hard to learn from books/TV. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Speaking of cultural sensitivity, it's generally frowned upon to use transgenders; other constructions like transgender people are preferable. The English language has a peculiar tendency to turn certain plurals into slurs. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just to explain: In the US, the use of plurals in this way is targeted and has a long history going back at least a century. When a person or group speaks of "the blacks, the Jews, and the gays", they are implying that these people are not individuals, but monolithic entities who operate like an insectoid hive mind, and share a singular goal of taking over the country from white, Christian, heterosexuals. Many of the people who use plurals like this may not immediately recognize the problem. One thing I noticed was that with the rise of the Tea Party movement, these pejorative plurals were brought back into mainstream American culture. They had been suppressed for the most part from around 1992 to about 2010. With their resurgence came the usual suspects, who slithered out from under the rocks where they had been hiding. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• There's no need to engage in false equivalence by blaming Roxy, and false equivalence is what that would be. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Time for a list of the best hits from Roxy from the last 24 hours:
  • My response was measured and appropriate
  • You should learn to read
  • are you poking your nose in, your awfully naive contribution at ANI
  • Northern Moonlight 00:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Ban of FJLGreen (talk · contribs). Their talk-page activities show that they're not going to listen, and anything we say will work for the contrary, as they have made the community their enemy. -- Least Action (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  If we are to propose a ban for FJLGreen (talk · contribs), should we take this to WP:AN? @Yamla, Zackmann08, Black Kite, and GiantSnowman: -- Least Action (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, this is the right board for the community to discuss bans & blocks. They've already been blocked for 31 hours so can you clarify what type of ban/block you are proposing beyond this, if anything? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  See comment below. -- Least Action (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  If not site ban, at least a topic ban from Jewish culture, broadly construed.As they have created a sock, I'm proposing a site wide community ban. -- Least Action (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Since this apparently wasn't them but an impersonator, I think we should see whether the current temporary block is enough to dissuade them from doing it again. If it continues after it expires, they've had more than enough warning and an indef may be appropriate. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Seconding. btw what's solidarity? -- Least Action (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Click on it and you'll find out. ~2026-33656-46 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have strong doubts that they can reform although it's possible they will voluntarily leave. But I agree just leading this be handled by a regular admin indefinite if they do not reform is the best solution. I trust admins to handle this with minimal fuss. That said, FJLGreen's refusal to accept they've provided no evidence of antisemitism or prejudice is getting close to enough for me that if this we to developed into more normal ban discussion, I'd probably support it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  But I doubt whether they'll cease all fuckery and just leave. -- Least Action (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  I honestly think you're right, but at least this way we've given them every possible chance and any subsequent indef will be much more justified. On top of that, any block appeal would have to navigate the massive hurdle of being given a last chance and throwing it away. If they carry on after this, they absolutely should not be here.

  It's their move now, and we're all watching. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Least Action: See WP:SOLIDARITY to answer that question. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be textbook WP:LLMANI, by the way. It's small fry compared to the other issues, but thought I'd mention it since nobody else had. Athanelar (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

GPTZero says that the posts are highly likely to be AI-generated. Supporting this. -- Least Action (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Indef FJL as normal admin action, stern warn Roxy that we need to be civil at all times, even to those uncivil to you. FJL's behaviour is clearly bad, but even then please don't call people "shit"~2026-33691-46 (talk)

Joe Job disruption

• Sock FJLGreen has now created the sock User:Chipped up fisheronies. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 02:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Reported to SRG. -- Least Action (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This has to be the last straw, right? Clearly FJLGreen is only here to cause as much trouble and drama as possible and there is no need to indulge this behaviour any further. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Assuming this isn't a joejob, I'd agree an indefinite for both accounts should be the minimum. Nil Einne (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That smells like a Joe job. Particularly when you consider the time zone I believe @FJLGreen is in (GMT) (now about 4am) and the odd username. The talk page behavior is also completely different. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

What's a Joe job? -- Least Action (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

A malicious third party trying to cause more problems for @FJLGreen by pretending to be them and misbehaving. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

We have some bad actors that tend to do that at AN/I. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Had the same question... Had to google that one... "an internet sabotage tactic where a spammer sends massive amounts of spam or malicious emails while spoofing the sender address of an innocent third party". Basically that Sock might not be a sock, but someone trying to LOOK like they are a sock... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, the sock is a sock; we just don’t know yet whose hand is working the puppet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Linking SPI case here. The hexagrams show that it is not a joe job though. -- Least Action (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The hexagram comment is not useful or appropriate here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. -- Least Action (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, just FYI, there's an SPI open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FJLGreen with a CheckUser request endorsed. Staraction (talk · contribs) 04:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Ban both as it would appear that FJLGreen is now creating socks I am withdrawing any support I might have possibly had for their situation. I maintain that they are not the only one at fault here however and fully support a ban on both involved parties. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Can ban discussions be WP:SNOWed? -- Least Action (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  An admin (or experienced non-admin) will close the thread when appropriate, but it's usually best to wait until there are unlikely to be any new developments & everything has run it's course. Since this is a pretty new report and there's an active SPI, it might be best to wait and see what happens with that first. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Least Action: the threshold for WP:SNOW is far higher that what we currently have. There is no rush here. If they continue to vandalize, bans can and will be implemented by admins until a clear consensus is reached. They obviously aren't helping their case at this point. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• SPI identified sock is a Joe job. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I did not check FJL. -- Izno See what goes on when FJL's block expires. -- Least Action (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback

Roxy is getting some criticism above for their comment - I can see both sides, and personally have said I don't think that's actionable. However, we have been focussing on the spillover that we have forgotten the original content dispute, and in particular, I am concerned about Roxy's misuse of rollback with edits like this, totally inappropriate in a content dispute. Any pother thoughts? GiantSnowman 11:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Certainly not its intended purpose, even more so when it was done a second time in what is/was a content dispute rather than blatant vandalism. • Quinn (talk • it/its) 11:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Bingo. I'm slightly more concerned about this than with the bad language tbh. GiantSnowman 11:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I will also note it was reverted once prior (diff) with an appropriate summary by another user. Whether FJLGreen didn't see it or chose to ignore it, I'm not sure because there was no attempt to communicate from their side outside passive-aggressive edit summaries, and the eventual singular talk page message that began this whole thread.

Roxy should perhaps be reminded of appropriate rollback use versus undo, etc. Under the microscope that ANI brings, it's not a good look. There's been a few minor instances of other misuse of rollback, but nothing too egregious that I think it warrants much more than a reminder presently. • Quinn (talk • it/its) 12:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw this edit summary Rejected by consensus of the community in an edit where Roxy removed with historians widely recognising the influence of Jewish immigrant communities.See diff. Then they battled around whether to keep this statement for some close to 10 revisions. Since this rollback is actually doing the same as a manual revert I don't quite see much inappropriate-ness. -- Least Action (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's OK to use rollback like this. It's just that the effects is just like manual reverting. -- Least Action (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

But the summary deserves some attention. Which consensus? -- Least Action (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Ban Both - Roxy has had more than enough chances to show they can be civil. Enough is enough. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08:I have written a proposal for this, albeit the crappy formatting. -- Least Action (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Least Action: You are making many replies here, often consecutively and with poor formatting. You're also something of a newer editor. I strongly recommend you delete the below sanction proposals and consider finding a more productive venue. ANI is rarely the right place for new editors to gain experience regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even if the desire to help out is extremely laudable and appreciated. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll try to find other venues to gain experience. Apologies for the inconvenience I may have caused. -- Least Action (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, but ANI is really not the place to start. Black Kite (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you please suggest some? -- Least Action (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

And I have removed it. Stop that, please. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Zackmann08 You're really keen to see RTD banned. Is there a reason for that? Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Honestly, I didn't mean to keep saying the same thing over and over. My previous comments got wrapped up in the Joe Job disruption so I felt it appropriate to re-state them here. I will make a final comment on the matter and then bow out. You asked Is there a reason for that? My answer is quite simple, this user has been blocked 13 separate times. The second to last block was an indef that was (IMHO) bizarrely reversed after they claimed they would "do better". Even since the indef was lifted they have received yet another block for personal attacks. At what point is enough, enough? I make no excuses for the fact that FJLGreen compared them to a Nazi, but two wrongs do not make a right. And it is very clear that RTD simply cannot control themselves around others, whether or not the others are in the wrong. And then, on top of that, for Roxy the dog to come dump on my talk page in Special:Diff/1358114072/1358132622 because I dared to voice my opinion initially that they were also in the wrong here really was the breaking point for me. (It should be noted that prior to this discussion, to the best of my knowledge, Roxy and I have never crossed paths.) Roxy has zero self control and is WP:NOTHERE. I find it odd that we are all coming down like a ton of bricks on a new user who felt attacked, but just issuing a warning to a user who, at the very least, has been warned 13 times with actual blocks, not to mention all the other warnings they received that did not result in any sort of block. I will abstain from further comment on the matter. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I still think it's premature to use any sanctions on RTD, but I feel their actions DO require them to answer. Per my messages above, they have been uncivil to bystanders, and implied that the think they did nothing wrong. This suggests that the behavior will continue. I hope that they were just upset and can give an explanation once they've calmed down, but their stated refusal to address their incivility not just to FJLGreen, but to Zackmann and myself in response to this very thread, goes directly against the promise they made to be unbanned. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

IP-hopping TA still around

• ~2026-32937-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This looks to be a resumption of the editor blocked under ~2026-28816-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think we need a bigger block. -

• Looks to be a NadejdaJoleva8794 sock. Blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive, unresposive editor with major OR etc. issues

Aayush.5466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor started editing late last year and in that short amount of time has raked up no less than 25 (!) warnings/notifications , exclusively in the WP:CT/SA area (of which they were informed six months ago ). The issues largely pertain to OR (, ) and leaving no edit summaries in almost all of their edits (, , ) and using LLMs to create new articles (, , ; many have since been deleted), disruptive page moves (, , ). The editor has never responded(s) and continues with the problematic behaviour.

Some examples that come to my notice. OR: (warned ), , , (here the OR replaces sourced content), ; Disruptive/undiscussed moves: and and (thrice at the same article, warnings linked above), , ; Disruptive removals: e.g. (other warnings: , , , ).

Danners430 noted this on the talk page "Going by the level 4 warning immediately above yours, I wonder if it's time for a noticeboard". I agree that it is time for sanctions. Gotitbro (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

For context, they've used article Talk pages three times (twice in March and once in Jan) and have never been on a user Talk page, despite having close to 2000 edits. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Prof NV misrepresenting sources on Ika people article

•  Courtesy link: Ika people

I am reporting editor Prof NV for misrepresenting sources on the Ika people article.

Prof NV has added a language section to the article claiming that Onyeche (2002) characterises Ika as "a linguistic system situated at the intersection of neighbouring Edoid and Igboid languages." The full Onyeche (2002) paper is publicly available here: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/server/api/core/bitstreams/e08bdb55-a3e9-404a-8600-b7ea6f2d407e/content

The paper does not say this. It states:

"The Ika language is regarded as a cluster of dialects (Williamson 1968). This is similar to the Igbo language which is also a cluster of dialects."

And: "In spite of being surrounded by languages such as Ishan, Edo, Ukwuani and Aniocha, the Ika linguistic situation in the Ika community has not been significantly affected by them."

Prof NV has attributed to this source a claim it does not make and that is contradicted by its actual content. This is a direct violation of WP:MISREPRESENTATION.

Additionally the Cambridge University Press peer reviewed Journal of the International Phonetic Association (Uguru 2015, DOI: 10.1017/S0025100315000067) states in its first sentence: "Ika is a dialect of the Igbo language." This directly contradicts the Edoid origin claim Prof NV has introduced.

The majority of the article's history sections are sourced entirely to ikaweekly.com, a local newspaper blog, and onuika.com, a community website. Neither meets Wikipedia's reliable sources policy under WP:RS.

For context, my own edits to this article cited Forde & Jones (1967), Williamson (1968), Blench (2019), Uguru (2015 Cambridge UP), Onyeche (2002), and a peer reviewed African Identities journal article (2022). These edits were reverted by Tbhotch as disruptive while Prof NV's content, which misrepresents its own source, remains in the article.

Prof NV entire edit and claim about ika origin is sourced to this same local blog, not a academia sources.

I am asking administrators to review whether WP:MISREPRESENTATION and WP:RS violations have occurred here. Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Prof NV GarethBaloney (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I am updating this report with significant new developments.

Since filing this report, the following has occurred:

1. Prof NV has reverted my peer reviewed sourced edit and reinstated content sourced entirely to ikaweekly.com and onuika.com both are community blogs that do not meet WP:RS.

2. Prof NV has now disclosed on the Talk page of the Ika people article that he is himself an Ika person, stating: "I will acknowledge that on this matter there is a beyond academic and personal need to ensure that it is clear that the Ika people are neither a part of or a subgroup of the Igbo people as I am myself an Ika person." This is a declared conflict of interest under WP:COI. He is editing the article to promote a personal identity position against academic consensus.

3. His response on the Talk page contains zero peer reviewed academic sources. He dismissed Cambridge University Press, the Journal of the International Phonetic Association, and the American Anthropological Association as "appeals to false authority" without providing any counter-sources.

4. He provided a list of shared vocabulary between Ika and Edo languages as his primary argument. Shared vocabulary between neighbouring Niger-Congo languages is not a basis for language classification and is not supported by any published linguistic methodology.

5. The version of the article he is protecting contains numerous unsourced claims about Ika town origins and identity, sourced entirely to ikaweekly.com and onuika.com.

For reference, my edits cite the following peer reviewed sources:

• Uguru (2015) Journal of the International Phonetic Association, Cambridge University Press — "Ika is a dialect of the Igbo language"
• Williamson (1968) University of Ibadan
• Forde & Jones (1967) International African Institute
• Blench (2019) Atlas of Nigerian Languages
• Glottolog ikaa1238 — Nuclear Igboid classification
• African Identities journal (2022) DOI: 10.1080/14725843.2022.2117132
• Onyeche (2002) Africa & Asia journal — states Ika "has not been significantly affected" by surrounding Edoid languages

I am asking administrators to review the conflict of interest, the continued reverting of peer reviewed sourced content, and the reinstatement of blog-sourced material. I am not making further content edits pending administrator review. Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for long-term, chronic behavioural issues, it should be a last resort when all other measures have failed - not the first resort.

Additionally, administrators cannot assist with content disputes.

You've been spamming talk pages with multiple comments and haven't given anyone time to respond to massive walls of text, such as this one.

Please start by communicating with your fellow editors using the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to begin with, and the dispute resolution processes if it fails. Jumping straight onto an administrator noticeboard is not the way to collaborate with other editors.

I also have concerns that you may be using AI or LLM's to edit Wikipedia, please read WP:NEWLLM if I am correct. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-33503-28

This user, or many users under the same IP, tend to perform small grammatical or spelling edits to articles, and some of them keep getting reverted by ClueBot, resulting in consecutive warnings on their talk page. Anyone have a look? -- Least Action (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @~2026-33503-28: -- Least Action (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

All of their edits appear to be correctly fixing bad grammar or spelling and have detailed edit summaries. Only three have been reverted by cluebot and all of those are questionable reverts. What is your concern? Celjski Grad (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I just think it's unusual to have consecutive reverts by cluebot... -- Least Action (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

ClueBot’s talk page directs false positives to be reported here for retraining: User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives Celjski Grad (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you look at the edits that ClueBot reverted? As far as I can see, all three were all false positives, and the TA's edits were fine. CodeTalker (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Dispute regarding accusations of alleged edit warring and incivility on my part

I'm reposting this here on the advice of Daniel Case (talk · contribs):-

I'm being accused of edit warring here and alleged incivility by Revirvlkodlaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over a single re-insertion of content they reverted without bothering to properly explain why.

The initial issue was ultimately minor:-

• I put synonyms for the band name (i.e. article subject) in bold text, which was initially reverted
• The unexplained reversion of anchor links I'd added in a separate edit

I'd already explained my rationale in summaries of the original edits (here and here).

If this reasoning was flawed, Revirvlkodlaku could- and should- have made that reason clear when they reverted it. Instead they simply said "Why the bolding?"

That gives the impression that:-

• They hadn't bothered to read attention to the original edit summaries (since those already explained "why")
• There was no clear reason given by them for the reversion, or what (if anything) I'd done wrong
• They'd simply reverted everything I'd done, including an unrelated- and undisputed- edit adding anchor links

That lack of an explanation is why I felt justified in adding them back (*) and leaving this message, which I don't think was unreasonably rude.

Only *after* this did Revirvlkodlaku bother to explain- somewhat combatively and unhelpfully- their reasoning, i.e. that synonyms should, stricly speaking, only be bolded in the lede/header. ("Show me the policy that says alternate names should be bolded (except in the lede). In the meantime, stop edit warring and drop the combative attitude."])

They're correct in respect of the policy. If they'd made the reason for the reversion clear in the first place, they might have had a case. But they didn't.

Instead, they've been quick to escalate to accusations of "edit warring" and of alleged incivility.

Would appreciate any feedback.

Ubcule (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a tempest in a teapot. You weren't too uncivil, but I can see how they'd take it that way. They weren't too uncivil, but I can see how you could interpret it as WP:ASPERSIONS. It sounds like the underlying content dispute has been solved. Ideally you'd both shake hands and say you'll take a more generous view of others' words and actions in the future, but even without that, I think there's no action needed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the sentences Did you even bother to read the edit summaries? and Yet you clumsily reverted the whole lot anyway? were what Revirvlkodlaku regarded as combative. It also looks like you made similar comments in these edit summaries [1] [2]. These were the edits that predated the edit summary in which Revirvlkodlaku asked you stop edit warring and to drop the combative attitude. These edits were also made before they responded on your talk page discussion. From WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page... Avoid reverting during discussion.

Edit summaries should not be used to argue with another editor. From WP:REVTALK, Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiations over the content. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on the discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself.

If another editor reverts your edits, try not to take offense. Even if you disagree with their revert, there are more amicable ways to start a discussion, e.g. Hi Editor, you reverted my edit on article X. Here's the reasoning for why I made that edit. What do you think?Truthnope (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck and Truthnope: I'm glad that you (EducatedRedneck) don't think I was overly uncivil.

I'm not sure "offended" is the word so much as (initial) irritation at someone reverting *all* my edits, which had been explained, then doing so without bothering to explain *themselves*.

Truthnope, I don't think my attitude was especially "combative", and certainly not any more than Revirvlkodlaku's.

And what pushed me to take the matter elsewhere wasn't simply "offense", but the fact that Revirvlkodlaku's *initial* response was jumped-up accusations of rudeness and incivility and supposed "edit warring" in a pseudo-rank-pulling manner obviously because they didn't like being legitimately criticised and/or the changes I made to the page.

This wasn't merely about "WP:ASPERSIONS", it was about such accusations being made in a clearly weaponised manner to make it harder for me to continue editing without being seen as the "edit warring" party.

I'm not prepared to tolerate being forced into that position- if Revirvlkodlaku wants to make such accusations, they can justify it here.

It was also clearly a mistake on my part to open a potentially contentious discussion on the user's own talk page, i.e. non-neutral territory that gives the owner the ability to control and shut down discussion that doesn't suit *them*. (Something I subsequently noticed they'd already done with another supposedly "rude" editor and which confirmed my initial misgivings).

The discussion could have been started on or moved to the talk page, as you say, but it's not likely to get much further involvement from anyone else and thus won't achieve much more.

And by the time we'd got to this point it was no longer really about the edits, but user conduct. (As I said, if they'd bothered to explain in the first place *why* they'd reverted my edits, we wouldn't be here).

So I'm not sure what the best place to have a discussion like that would have been. Ubcule (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It's essentially a question of whether it's an issue that two editors can resolve through talking or just moving onto other things and letting temperatures cool down.

If it's bad enough that another volunteer or administrator needs to stop what they're doing and intervene, there are several dispute resolution processes available.

If that fails or it's especially severe, then you would usually bring it to this public noticeboard for administrator and community attention. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

G000p10 and continuous CT/SA violations

User:G000p10 has been repeatedly edit warring, POV pushing ethnicity and castes and removing cited content in WP:CT/SA topics, despite being given the contentious topics warning several times (here, here and here).

Example of edit warring in CT/SA topics: Swati people (Pakistan), Saraiki language, Saidu Baba

Removal of cited material in CT/SA articles: blanking article on Peshawar, removing references on Saraiki language, removing references on Dera Ismail Khan, removing references on Lahnda.

POV pushing and probable use of LLM: Kheri, Barkhan.

Despite being cautioned by editors regarding WP:RAJ, G000p10 has continued using them:, .

Further examples of WP:CT/SA violations: Pahari (Poonchi), Death of Bushra Zaidi and others.

So far, G000p10 has shown no willingness for adhering with WP:CT/SA or even acknowledging it despite being explained in simple terms what it means for them. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with how my editing is being presented here.

Most of the edits mentioned above were made in good faith and with sources. In many cases, I added references or explained my reasoning, yet my edits were still reverted. I also responded to some of the warnings left on my talk page, especially where I was accused of disruptive editing, but those responses do not seem to have been taken into account.

I would ask administrators to look at the actual diffs and sources themselves. For example, on the Swati people article I added Pashto to the language section because Pashto is spoken by Swatis, particularly in Battagram District and parts of Mansehra. I did not remove Hindko or Urdu from the article.

I also feel that many of my edits have been challenged from the outset by the reporting editor. At the same time, there are other editors making contentious edits on topics related to ethnicity, language and regional history, including edits that promote particular viewpoints, yet those edits do not seem to attract the same level of attention. That has been my experience as an editor on these topics.

I am not claiming that every edit I have made was perfect. If I made mistakes, I am willing to correct them and follow advice from administrators. However, I do not believe this report fairly represents my editing history, and I ask that my contributions be judged based on the actual diffs, sources and discussions rather than broad characterizations of my motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G000p10 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@G000p10 have you read the warning notice about the contentious topic? Please pay special attention to the section that tells you Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Can you also confirm which AI/LLM or chatbot you are currently using, as it seems to have missed informing you about this very important point? It should probably let you know about the WP:NEWLLM guideline as well. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Ermes3711

Ermes3711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Inserts AI slop: Ọba (orisha) (Diff ~1357925360)
• Reverts my AI slop removal: Ọba (orisha) (Diff ~1358224044)
• I re-revert them, pointing to Wikipedia:Image use policy#AI-generated images: Ọba (orisha) (Diff ~1358226877)
• They generate new slop: Ọba (orisha) (Diff ~1358272547)
• Gaslights me on their Commons talk page "This is not the same image, NOR is it AI generated.": c:User talk:Ermes3711

So my WP:3RR just ran out and I'm not getting through to this user. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to confirm that this is 100 an AI-generated thanks to a very obvious clue within the image itself, as well as the mangled patterning on the clothes and a few other tells. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)