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

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)

Just keeping this open again until someone can take some kind of action, as they still haven't edited Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I've indef blocked as disruptive. Draft:Sibuyan_Airport is about an aiport that doesn't exist, written using sources that don't exist. It looks like they used an LLM. Fences&Windows 13:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh sheesh - I didn’t look into their contributions so never spotted that… cheers for the help though :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Legal threats over WP:Synth disagreement

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

---

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)

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

Disruptive behaviour by Howard the Duck involving AFD

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

---

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

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

The reported behaviour is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several things here @Fences and windows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dahproman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To address the other specific concerns raised by InfernoHues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think M kuhner has answered your questions below, but I just want to thank you for responding appropriately to my concerns. CodeTalker (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: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)

So now they are arguing at length for it to be included on the page Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone, at Talk:Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone#Storm Cornaro. And their work on other articles since this ANI started hasn't been very beneficial either. Aren't we in WP:CIR territory yet? Fram (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.I was trying to understand what i did wrong in classification of Cornaro.if me discussing this subject on wikipedia breaks the rules currently ı will step back from this discussion.

Please give feedback. StormL00ver (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What you did wrong was e.g. "sourcing" Storm Cornaro (march 2026 supposedly) to an Israeli article about Storm Cornera from December 2025. I removed this from 2025–26 European windstorm season just now. Your WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues may be correctable, but the abuse of sources for things they don't support at all is really problematic. Fram (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about the mistake ı did.I will be more carefull next time. StormL00ver (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Assistance with Paul Revere's Ride

• Paul Revere's Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi friends. I inserted the text of the poem (which is in the public domain) into the Wikipedia entry on Paul Revere's Ride. But it received an automatic revert. For some reason ClueBot thought this was vandalism. Could someone please take a look and correct this? Thank you very much. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

While your edit isn't vandalism, the reverts are in order. The text of the poem does not belong in the Wikipedia article, and s:en:Paul Revere's Ride is already present on Wikisource. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-27874-38, the message at the top of this noticeboard and when posting explains that it's for reporting long-term, chronic behavioural issues with editors.

Administrators can't assist with content disputes and queries, so please visit the Teahouse if you need help with editing Wikipedia articles. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

That is not the consensus on talk. Most historic documents of this size in early America are published on the page. But in this case, DiscoSpinster and his friends/sockpuppets immediately revert anything I contribute seconds after I publish it. This is not a controversial edit. But I have been accused of vandalism and warned repeatedly by his friends. This is an issue for Talk, not for accusations. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of accusations, please do not accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet unless you have solid evidence.

If you have (very) solid evidence, you should be making an WP:SPI report and not making accusations here. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

TA doubling down on unfounded accusations and WP:NPA in their talk . Some drastic action might be needed. Borgenland (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Calling someone a "goof" and telling them to "get a life" flat-out isn't on and I've told them to knock it off.

I'm very concerned this person doesn't know how to collaborate, because they have chosen to write that PA instead of engaging with the article Talk page discussion to down a consensus.

I don't know whether an admin wants to consider a block now or wait to see how they respond to my post, but I'll keep an eye out for any reply. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

AGF thrown out the window, accompanied by borderline wikilawyering Borgenland (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to quickly add that there is no current consensus to include or exclude the full poem on the article Talk page, that's why you need to speak to others and form a consensus.

This is now a controversial edit since it's been reverted, therefore a consensus needs to be formed with other editors on whether to include (or continue to exclude) it. I've started the ball rolling by replying to your post on the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've left them another note, and advised the new editor who inflamed things by using the word "vandalism" in their edit summary that they need to be more careful and avoid automated tools. The TA is in NZ and has presumably logged off, so let's leave them alone for now. Acroterion (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I only just saw this after responding! I agree it's best to leave them alone going forwards since things aren't calming down as well as I had hoped. I'll only engage further if there's any replies on the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Their response to my note was discouraging, but let's see if they respond positively, or at least not with a continuation of their aggressive accusations of bad faith, to yours. If they're just here to lecture other people about their expectations while rejecting any expectations on their part, then we'll deal a with it. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Although the text is in the public domain, including the full text fails WP:IINFO. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

And, as mentioned, this is what V2WikiSource is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

A new TA has appeared at the article Talk page & inferred that they're a different editor, this was rather confusing since they've got the same position and argument for inclusion (basically WP:OTHERSTUFF.

I've explicitly asked whether they're the same person; since the original TA never came back to the article Talk page after their initial post, it's not been possible to form any sort of consensus with them. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that they're the same person, logged in from another location. I'm blocking both TAs on the basis of their disingenuous response. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

• Support site ban of User:FJLGreen, whose digging was only briefly interrupted by a short block. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - Is a warning to RoxyTheDog necessary? Should an editor have learned from being banned and unbanned? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support indef or site ban. A ban may be moot as FJLGreen says that they are going away and not coming back. Nonetheless, a ban or an indef, seems like a reasonable precaution to make sure that they actually do. Rather than formally warn RoxyTheDog, I'd offer this advice, which is not always easy to follow and which many of us have slipped up on at least once:

Try to recognise when somebody is trying to wind you up and realise that if you respond in anger then you are giving them exactly what they want to keep the drama going at your own expense. Take a deep breath, mutter whatever expletives you were going to type at your screen (provided you don't have speech-to-text enabled) and then report them to the appropriate noticeboard. Once you get a reputation for being possible to wind up that can encourage further attempts. Try to keep a level head and, when you can't, try not to let it show.

--DanielRigal (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Any diffs for FJLGreen says that they are going away and not coming back? Sorry but I failed to find any. Linking diff here. -- Least Action (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• DanielRigal writes: A ban may be moot as FJLGreen says that they are going away and not coming back. If an editor says that they are going away, they are probably telling the truth. If an editor says that they are going away and not coming back, we should not rely on their word, and may reasonably take action to prevent them from coming back. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indef. Given that they're the one who tried to instantly play the white supremacist card for a stupid dispute about fricking fish and chips, I find it extremely offensive to call us jackals and nasty and abusive even though this is a situation that is entirely of their making, and being blocked for 31 hours is not a brutal hardship. Since they want to leave anyway, they ought not have any objection unless this is an attempt at "calling out sick" with ANI flu. I also Oppose any sanction for RTD. It wouldn't take a lot for me to support an indef for RTD given the history, but I feel it would be unfair for the triggering incident to be one in which a great majority of people, even very experienced ones, would react similarly strongly, including me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Indef. I hesitate because of WP:BITE but this person seems to be WP:NOTHERE or acting in a way that is indistinguishable from it.Taking to immediate agression when met with pushback is no way to act in a collaborative setting. Additionally, their statements throughout this filing have continued the very same Battleground mentality. In the case they are blocked, hopefully they can come back with a different approach to the project. 🌻SunflowerWizard🌻 (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• support indef This is a fairly clear case of "im right you are wrong" and also their response saying "this is a lynch mob" when people support a ban for their rather terrible behavior and

Oppose anything stronger than a warning on roxy The day i dont respond like that after being reffered to as Tommy ten names someone needs the really check on me. Jabba550  ✉ Talk to me :D 11:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Indef of FJLGreen I've shown more discretion about calling people who openly displayed a swastika on their user-page Nazis than this editor did over a single line regarding fish and chips. This is an egregious violation of AGF and, even distinct from the other issues at play, would probably be worth some form of sanction to curtail a continuation of such behaviour. When this is compounded both by the apparent use of AI tools and the creation of a PA report that elides that they accused another editor of being a white supremacist over a line of an article about fish and chips prior to said other editor making the personal attack I have to question their fundamental competence to participate in a collaborative project. I don't think Roxy the Dog should face anything more than an informal warning at most. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

IP-hopping TA still around

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

---

• ~2026-32937-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This looks to be a resumption of the editor blocked under ~2026-28816-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think we need a bigger block. -

• Looks to be a NadejdaJoleva8794 sock. Blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Disruptive, unresposive editor with major OR etc. issues

Aayush.5466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor started editing late last year and in that short amount of time has raked up no less than 25 (!) warnings/notifications , exclusively in the WP:CT/SA area (of which they were informed six months ago ). The issues largely pertain to OR (, ) and leaving no edit summaries in almost all of their edits (, , ) and using LLMs to create new articles (, , ; many have since been deleted), disruptive page moves (, , ). The editor has never responded(s) and continues with the problematic behaviour.

Some examples that come to my notice. OR: (warned ), , , (here the OR replaces sourced content), ; Disruptive/undiscussed moves: and and (thrice at the same article, warnings linked above), , ; Disruptive removals: e.g. (other warnings: , , , ).

Danners430 noted this on the talk page "Going by the level 4 warning immediately above yours, I wonder if it's time for a noticeboard". I agree that it is time for sanctions. Gotitbro (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

For context, they've used article Talk pages three times (twice in March and once in Jan) and have never been on a user Talk page, despite having close to 2000 edits. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Prof NV misrepresenting sources on Ika people article

•  Courtesy link: Ika people

I am reporting editor Prof NV for misrepresenting sources on the Ika people article.

Prof NV has added a language section to the article claiming that Onyeche (2002) characterises Ika as "a linguistic system situated at the intersection of neighbouring Edoid and Igboid languages." The full Onyeche (2002) paper is publicly available here: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/server/api/core/bitstreams/e08bdb55-a3e9-404a-8600-b7ea6f2d407e/content

The paper does not say this. It states:

"The Ika language is regarded as a cluster of dialects (Williamson 1968). This is similar to the Igbo language which is also a cluster of dialects."

And: "In spite of being surrounded by languages such as Ishan, Edo, Ukwuani and Aniocha, the Ika linguistic situation in the Ika community has not been significantly affected by them."

Prof NV has attributed to this source a claim it does not make and that is contradicted by its actual content. This is a direct violation of WP:MISREPRESENTATION.

Additionally the Cambridge University Press peer reviewed Journal of the International Phonetic Association (Uguru 2015, DOI: 10.1017/S0025100315000067) states in its first sentence: "Ika is a dialect of the Igbo language." This directly contradicts the Edoid origin claim Prof NV has introduced.

The majority of the article's history sections are sourced entirely to ikaweekly.com, a local newspaper blog, and onuika.com, a community website. Neither meets Wikipedia's reliable sources policy under WP:RS.

For context, my own edits to this article cited Forde & Jones (1967), Williamson (1968), Blench (2019), Uguru (2015 Cambridge UP), Onyeche (2002), and a peer reviewed African Identities journal article (2022). These edits were reverted by Tbhotch as disruptive while Prof NV's content, which misrepresents its own source, remains in the article.

Prof NV entire edit and claim about ika origin is sourced to this same local blog, not a academia sources.

I am asking administrators to review whether WP:MISREPRESENTATION and WP:RS violations have occurred here. Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Prof NV GarethBaloney (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I am updating this report with significant new developments.

Since filing this report, the following has occurred:

1. Prof NV has reverted my peer reviewed sourced edit and reinstated content sourced entirely to ikaweekly.com and onuika.com both are community blogs that do not meet WP:RS.

2. Prof NV has now disclosed on the Talk page of the Ika people article that he is himself an Ika person, stating: "I will acknowledge that on this matter there is a beyond academic and personal need to ensure that it is clear that the Ika people are neither a part of or a subgroup of the Igbo people as I am myself an Ika person." This is a declared conflict of interest under WP:COI. He is editing the article to promote a personal identity position against academic consensus.

3. His response on the Talk page contains zero peer reviewed academic sources. He dismissed Cambridge University Press, the Journal of the International Phonetic Association, and the American Anthropological Association as "appeals to false authority" without providing any counter-sources.

4. He provided a list of shared vocabulary between Ika and Edo languages as his primary argument. Shared vocabulary between neighbouring Niger-Congo languages is not a basis for language classification and is not supported by any published linguistic methodology.

5. The version of the article he is protecting contains numerous unsourced claims about Ika town origins and identity, sourced entirely to ikaweekly.com and onuika.com.

For reference, my edits cite the following peer reviewed sources:

• Uguru (2015) Journal of the International Phonetic Association, Cambridge University Press — "Ika is a dialect of the Igbo language"
• Williamson (1968) University of Ibadan
• Forde & Jones (1967) International African Institute
• Blench (2019) Atlas of Nigerian Languages
• Glottolog ikaa1238 — Nuclear Igboid classification
• African Identities journal (2022) DOI: 10.1080/14725843.2022.2117132
• Onyeche (2002) Africa & Asia journal — states Ika "has not been significantly affected" by surrounding Edoid languages

I am asking administrators to review the conflict of interest, the continued reverting of peer reviewed sourced content, and the reinstatement of blog-sourced material. I am not making further content edits pending administrator review. Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for long-term, chronic behavioural issues, it should be a last resort when all other measures have failed - not the first resort.

Additionally, administrators cannot assist with content disputes.

You've been spamming talk pages with multiple comments and haven't given anyone time to respond to massive walls of text, such as this one.

Please start by communicating with your fellow editors using the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to begin with, and the dispute resolution processes if it fails. Jumping straight onto an administrator noticeboard is not the way to collaborate with other editors.

I also have concerns that you may be using AI or LLM's to edit Wikipedia, please read WP:NEWLLM if I am correct. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Funny enough, while Jeremiah has definitely not gone through the proper channels to deal with this, in the midst of mishandling a completely separate content dispute they have actually stumbled into a situation with a chronically disruptive editor. User:Prof NV has made 24 edits on Wikipedia since 2019; half of those were on Ika people. Every couple of years they show up to apparently push the claim that "The Ika people do not trace their ancestry to common origin." Each time, they add a significant amount of unsourced content , or remove a a huge amount of sourced information and replace it with low quality blogposts or links to Wikipedia itself.

Nobody had ever reached out to communicate with this editor on their talk page until yesterday, so this situation can still develop, but it's fair to say something is happening at this article that there should be some attention on. Amatmilen (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this quite belongs on the article talk page so I'll post it here instead. This is, as far as I can tell, the order of events that has happened so far:

1. Jeremiah uduak nome makes this edit which rewrites the entire article, including the removal of all nine existing sources.

2. After Tbhotch reverts this change, Jeremiah uduak nome attempts to open a talk page discussion , then after not receiving a reply for one day makes another total article rewrite

3. Tbhotch reviews the newest version section by section and removes content they feel is unsourced. At this point, Jeremiah uduak nome opens a discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard

4. Prof NV now enters and makes this edit , also a total article rewrite over the existing changes from

Jeremiah uduak nome. As you can see from this comparison , this is nothing like the article from before Jeremiah uduak nome changed it.

5. After some edit warring, Jeremiah uduak nome opens this ANI discussion, and later this dispute resolution filing as well. These discussions are ostensibly about the conduct of Prof NV, not about Tbhotch, but evidently due to the haphazard nature of this user's communications, this development gets lost.

I don't have the experience to know what needs to be done in this situation or if this is still even something that needs to be up at ANI, considering that neither editor has ever had much activity on their talk page, and Jeremiah uduak nome is quite new (although their possible LLM usage is something I would like for them to address). Amatmilen (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

thank you. please, I want to address a few things. I am a relatively new editor and I acknowledge that I did not always follow the correct procedures, i was filing in multiple forums and rewriting large sections of the article at once rather than making small targeted changes. I was not aware of the correct process and was trying to find the right channel to address what I saw as a sourcing problem. I understand now that the correct approach is to make small specific changes with Talk page discussion first and I will follow that going forward. Regarding the concern about LLM usage, all sources cited in my edits are real published academic works that I have personally sourced and verified... I take full responsibility for the accuracy of everything submitted under my account. If there are specific claims in my edits that appear inaccurate or unsupported by the sources cited, I welcome that being pointed out and I will address each one Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications Jeremiah. My account is also pretty new, and for what it's worth I think you have been acting in good faith, you were just inexperienced and probably a little frustrated by the pace of communication that usually happens on Wikipedia. You definitely have not been the more problematic of the two editors brought up here.

One recommendation I have is that you write much shorter messages on talk pages and noticeboards. I understand that you are trying to be polite and thorough, but you should remember that everybody on Wikipedia is a volunteer. Nobody is paid to be here and if you write messages that are too long, people do not have time to read them carefully, which is how important details get missed. Formality isn't a requirement for participating on Wikipedia, as long as you aren't being rude. Amatmilen (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate that and will definitely future messages shorter Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the concern about LLM usage, all sources cited in my edits are real published academic works that I have personally sourced and verified

That does not answer the question at all. Did you use AI? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Jeremiah uduak nome - Reporting a dispute at multiple noticeboards, such as the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and WP:ANI (this noticeboard) is forum shopping, and is not a useful technique. I have closed your DRN case. This appears to be primarily a content dispute, in which the conduct issues may go away if the content is addressed. I suggest discussing at one noticeboard, not three. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-33503-28

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

---

This user, or many users under the same IP, tend to perform small grammatical or spelling edits to articles, and some of them keep getting reverted by ClueBot, resulting in consecutive warnings on their talk page. Anyone have a look? -- Least Action (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @~2026-33503-28: -- Least Action (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

All of their edits appear to be correctly fixing bad grammar or spelling and have detailed edit summaries. Only three have been reverted by cluebot and all of those are questionable reverts. What is your concern? Celjski Grad (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I just think it's unusual to have consecutive reverts by cluebot... -- Least Action (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

ClueBot’s talk page directs false positives to be reported here for retraining: User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives Celjski Grad (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you look at the edits that ClueBot reverted? As far as I can see, all three were all false positives, and the TA's edits were fine. CodeTalker (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Dispute regarding accusations of alleged edit warring and incivility on my part

I'm reposting this here on the advice of Daniel Case (talk · contribs):-

I'm being accused of edit warring here and alleged incivility by Revirvlkodlaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over a single re-insertion of content they reverted without bothering to properly explain why.

The initial issue was ultimately minor:-

• I put synonyms for the band name (i.e. article subject) in bold text, which was initially reverted
• The unexplained reversion of anchor links I'd added in a separate edit

I'd already explained my rationale in summaries of the original edits (here and here).

If this reasoning was flawed, Revirvlkodlaku could- and should- have made that reason clear when they reverted it. Instead they simply said "Why the bolding?"

That gives the impression that:-

• They hadn't bothered to read attention to the original edit summaries (since those already explained "why")
• There was no clear reason given by them for the reversion, or what (if anything) I'd done wrong
• They'd simply reverted everything I'd done, including an unrelated- and undisputed- edit adding anchor links

That lack of an explanation is why I felt justified in adding them back (*) and leaving this message, which I don't think was unreasonably rude.

Only *after* this did Revirvlkodlaku bother to explain- somewhat combatively and unhelpfully- their reasoning, i.e. that synonyms should, stricly speaking, only be bolded in the lede/header. ("Show me the policy that says alternate names should be bolded (except in the lede). In the meantime, stop edit warring and drop the combative attitude."])

They're correct in respect of the policy. If they'd made the reason for the reversion clear in the first place, they might have had a case. But they didn't.

Instead, they've been quick to escalate to accusations of "edit warring" and of alleged incivility.

Would appreciate any feedback.

Ubcule (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a tempest in a teapot. You weren't too uncivil, but I can see how they'd take it that way. They weren't too uncivil, but I can see how you could interpret it as WP:ASPERSIONS. It sounds like the underlying content dispute has been solved. Ideally you'd both shake hands and say you'll take a more generous view of others' words and actions in the future, but even without that, I think there's no action needed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the sentences Did you even bother to read the edit summaries? and Yet you clumsily reverted the whole lot anyway? were what Revirvlkodlaku regarded as combative. It also looks like you made similar comments in these edit summaries [1] [2]. These were the edits that predated the edit summary in which Revirvlkodlaku asked you stop edit warring and to drop the combative attitude. These edits were also made before they responded on your talk page discussion. From WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page... Avoid reverting during discussion.

Edit summaries should not be used to argue with another editor. From WP:REVTALK, Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiations over the content. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on the discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself.

If another editor reverts your edits, try not to take offense. Even if you disagree with their revert, there are more amicable ways to start a discussion, e.g. Hi Editor, you reverted my edit on article X. Here's the reasoning for why I made that edit. What do you think?Truthnope (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck and Truthnope: I'm glad that you (EducatedRedneck) don't think I was overly uncivil.

I'm not sure "offended" is the word so much as (initial) irritation at someone reverting *all* my edits, which had been explained, then doing so without bothering to explain *themselves*.

Truthnope, I don't think my attitude was especially "combative", and certainly not any more than Revirvlkodlaku's.

And what pushed me to take the matter elsewhere wasn't simply "offense", but the fact that Revirvlkodlaku's *initial* response was jumped-up accusations of rudeness and incivility and supposed "edit warring" in a pseudo-rank-pulling manner obviously because they didn't like being legitimately criticised and/or the changes I made to the page.

This wasn't merely about "WP:ASPERSIONS", it was about such accusations being made in a clearly weaponised manner to make it harder for me to continue editing without being seen as the "edit warring" party.

I'm not prepared to tolerate being forced into that position- if Revirvlkodlaku wants to make such accusations, they can justify it here.

It was also clearly a mistake on my part to open a potentially contentious discussion on the user's own talk page, i.e. non-neutral territory that gives the owner the ability to control and shut down discussion that doesn't suit *them*. (Something I subsequently noticed they'd already done with another supposedly "rude" editor and which confirmed my initial misgivings).

The discussion could have been started on or moved to the talk page, as you say, but it's not likely to get much further involvement from anyone else and thus won't achieve much more.

And by the time we'd got to this point it was no longer really about the edits, but user conduct. (As I said, if they'd bothered to explain in the first place *why* they'd reverted my edits, we wouldn't be here).

So I'm not sure what the best place to have a discussion like that would have been. Ubcule (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It's essentially a question of whether it's an issue that two editors can resolve through talking or just moving onto other things and letting temperatures cool down.

If it's bad enough that another volunteer or administrator needs to stop what they're doing and intervene, there are several dispute resolution processes available.

If that fails or it's especially severe, then you would usually bring it to this public noticeboard for administrator and community attention. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet: - Thank you for the link to the dispute resolution page. However, I'd already investigated that and followed the current path because (IMHO) there wasn't a clearly better solution to the current situation. Ubcule (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, the order of events is roughly: You edit the article, adding the other names in bold -> Revirvlkodlaku reverts your edits with Why the bolding? as the edit summary -> You open the discussion on Revirvlkodlaku's talk with the aforementioned comments -> You redo your edits, repeating those comments in the edit summaries -> Revirvlkodlaku responds on talk, accusing you of edit warring and combative behavior -> Revirvlkodlaku reverts your edits again, repeating those comments in the edit summaries -> You file a report at the edit warring noticeboard, and then here.

Once a discussion has started, both parties need to stop editing the disputed material until consensus has been achieved, which neither of you did. That is edit warring. Also, the discussion would have been better on the talk page for the article.

Whether or not your behavior was combative, I would call it accusatory. You didn't ask Revirvlkodlaku why they made those reverts, you accused them of not reading edit summaries and being clumsy. That goes against WP:AGF. You also didn't give them the opportunity to respond before reverting their reverts.

Edit summaries are useful to explain to other editors what edits you made and why, but they're also supposed to be brief. If you think an edit summary doesn't justify an edit, that doesn't automatically make that edit bad- take it to the talk page and ask them to explain their edit.

There is no "territory" on Wikipedia. As WP:BLANKING says, editors are not prohibited from removing comments from their talk page, although archiving is preferred. The edit history is still there. Revirvlkodlaku removing a separate discussion from their talk page is not a violation of policy and it's not relevant to this discussion, especially given that the discussion that you started on their talk page is still there. Truthnope (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I honestly feel that both editors really should have done better considering their long tenure here (one side more than the other).

Nevertheless, I hope that everyone can draw a line under this and move forwards, since you now know what to do should you encounter a similar situation going forwards. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Truthnope: - With respect, you missed my point. I'm well aware that editors *are* permitted to remove or alter discussions on their own talk page.

My entire point *was* that because they're permitted to do so, it makes them unsuitable for contentious discussions since the owner gets the one-sided advantage of deciding what constitutes (e.g.) allegedly uncivil comments they don't like, removing or altering them and in general getting to control the discussion in a manner that wouldn't be permitted elsewhere.

And yes, I'm also aware that, technically, users don't "own" their talk pages and don't have full control over them.

But let's be honest. In practice- for the reasons above- I don't think it's unreasonable to consider talk pages as non-neutral territory in the general sense of the phrase, as originally intended.

The argument that (paraphrasing) "it's all in the history, so it doesn't matter" doesn't really work- in practice, few are going to go through that history and spot and track comments the user didn't like having been removed- often without an edit summary- unless something really egregious elsewhere has given them a reason to.

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion. Ubcule (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Editors don't get to alter comments even on their talk page. They can remove comments and it might be acceptable to redact part of a comment if they make it clear they have done so. But it doesn't matter much. User talk pages shouldn't generally used for content discussions for many reasons besides an editor's control. If it's a behavioural discussion, then the editor you're talking to has already read the comment or refused to read it. Either way it doesn't matter if they remove the comment because you've tried to help them, either they've gotten the message or they haven't. If they don't improve, you can take them to ANI and explain the problem and point out you tried to discuss the issue with the editor but they didn't take your message on board for whatever reason. If the editor ended the discussion so you couldn't explain much as you would have liked to, you're free to point this out. If it's a behavioural discussion about some other editor, then you should not be having it on some other's editor talk page if they're not receptive to such a discussion. If your own behaviour comes up it's also moot. They've said what they've said. It might be fair, it might not be, there isn't really any need to defend yourself. It can help to explain the situation if there's been a misunderstanding but if the editor you're speaking to isn't receptive to it, there's no point. Removal of comments is largely moot. If they actually bring up your behaviour at ANI or somewhere else, you can defend yourself then. Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Generative AI allegations

Agreement that there's nothing here & the accusation was misplaced. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ubcule: are you using AI to write these comments? Things like

This wasn't merely about "WP:ASPERSIONS", it was about such accusations being made in a clearly weaponised manner...

seem like an AI's typical not-quite-denial, and there's also overused structures such as "Not X, but Y. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 17:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

(This has nothing to do with the original discussion above, which is now largely over).

@Somepinkdude: So, let me get this straight, you've seized upon a single comment of mine that- yes!- happens to follow that linguistic structure that's widely-known to be overused by AI. Well done.

A phrase I'd have rewritten for that reason if I'd noticed I'd done that. Purely because I didn't need the hassle of proving I'm not using AI slop to every would-be-detective who "knows" it's an infallible sign of that.

Never mind that this has been part of English language usage since long before LLMs exploded little over three years ago.

And, er.... never mind that there are examples of my writing in a similiar style from over a decade ago, long before modern LLMs came along.

And yes, I'm aware that my tendency to longwindedness might come across as AI's ability to do the same thing with ease, but I can't help that.

(FWIW I'm not personally a fan of generative AI, and I don't want it anywhere near Wikipedia, not even for discussion purposes like this).

Anyway, have you considered running an AI-generated text detector on my comments... including that ten year old one and numerous others long predating the launch of ChatGPT et al?

So, would you like to proceed with the accusation that I'm using AI?

Or would you like to reconsider whether it's a good idea to throw about such accusations on the basis of a single scrap of evidence without bothering to check further?

Ubcule (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Somepinkdude: - I've collapsed this section of the discussion as it's distracting from- and doesn't really relate to- the rest of the discussion.

You are welcome to undo this if you are serious about proceeding with- and discussing- these allegations further, but if so I think you would be better to do so elsewhere. Ubcule (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I've uncollapsed this discussion. An editor who's behaviour is under discussion should almost never collapse a discussion on them unless there is some agreement among participants to do so. Even in a case where the editor who raised the issue was blocked, you should generally leave it for someone else. If Somepinkdude or some other editor wants to close this discussion, they're welcome to but not you. And it's perfectly normally your behaviour will also come under discussion in the same thread if you open a discussion. If you don't like that, then don't open threads here. There's zero need to move the discussion somewhere else. Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: - "If you don't like that, then don't open threads here." - No need to be abrasive about it; as I made clear, I was open to this being undone anyway.

I just thought its placement here was (and is) a pointless and annoying distraction from the parent discussion it really has nothing to do with beyond the fact it involved myself.

If you or anyone else seriously want to discuss further the allegations that I'm secretly a robot, please feel free to do so. Ubcule (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I looked over the older edits, and I concede that my accusations were misplaced, although using automated AI detectors is not usually accepted on Wikipedia to determine if content is AI-generated. I didn't expect that this would expand into such a large section, and I, myself, would be fine with collapsing it, as it is somewhat unrelated to the discussion topic. While Ubcule's comment feels slightly confrontational, I'm not sure if I would have done any better had some random editor accused me of AI use. My sincere apologies to @Ubcule:. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 22:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I've collaped this again based on Somepinkdude's agreement that there's nothing here and it's fine to collapse. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Apparent Continuation

@Truthnope, Blue-Sonnet, and EducatedRedneck: I assumed that this dispute was effectively over and that- issues over how it had been conducted aside- the supposed misunderstanding that caused the problem had been resolved.

I took on board what (as far as I could tell) the apparent complaint was- that bolded synonyms should only be used in the lead section (i.e. "Show me the policy that says alternate names should be bolded (except in the lede)") and redid the edit to meet that (i.e. *placing them in the lead section).

That edit- now in line with the supposed guidelines- was reverted regardless, a different reason being given this time:-

"Removing content not highly relevant to article topic and thus not appropriate to include in the lede; someone just wants to see bolded letters, eh?"

Bear in mind this is someone who was quick to accuse *me* of "edit warring" for reverting an unexplained edit, but reverted mine for (a) some unexplained reason then (b) because it supposedly didn't meet the guidelines then (c) once that objection was met, for an entirely different reason.

I don't see any legitimate justification for this, and I don't see any evidence that Revirvlkodlaku is interested in resolving the issue between the two of us.

I've opened a discussion at on the article talk page here.

Ubcule (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You opened the discussion about 27 minutes before you made this comment. I don't see how you can conclude that "that Revirvlkodlaku is" (not) "interested in resolving the issue between the two of us" if you've only given them 27 minutes to discuss the issue. I haven't look much into this dispute but considering you collapsed a discussion on your behaviour and are complaining about an editor not being willing to resolve the dispute when you've only given them 27 minutes to discuss it, it's starting to look like your behaviour might be a big part of the problem here. Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

"I haven't look much into this dispute"

Well then, perhaps you should have?

If you had, you'd have seen that this is a pre-existing dispute- one that has already been ongoing elsewhere for the better part of two days- not 27 minutes- currently here and previously on Revirvlkodlaku's talk page.

Revirvlkodlaku's existing responses to myself- including, in particular, the most recent one via an edit summary with a snide aside- already made clear that they aren't interested in a good faith discussion regarding this. I already explained this above.

I opened the article talk page discussion after I dispute I assumed had been resolved (albeit not at a personal level) hadn't been. That's all explained over there.

"considering you collapsed a discussion on your behaviour"

I collapsed the allegation that I was using AI slop because it was a pointless distraction that had nothing to do with the parent discussion and I didn't expect to go anywhere. As I said in the edit summary, "you're welcome to undo this" and the heading was left clearly visible.

If you seriously want to discuss the allegations that Metal Mickey is my ghostwriter (ahem), don't let me stop you, but IMHO that would be better as a separate discussion.

Ubcule (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, both of you have personalised this dispute way way too much & been unnecessarily aggressive to each other. Comments like "but reverter clearly didn't bother to read" and "someone just wants to see bolded letters, eh" in edit summaries are definitely helping no one. Also while one of you, you Ubcule, has finally taken this to the talk page rather than simply edit warring and trying to communicate via unnecessarily aggressive edit summaries, even that discussion is way too personalised & includes behavioural stuff not suited for an article talk page . If a third party is coming into the discussion, they just want to know what each of your preferred versions are any why you feel your preferred version is better/more supported by our policies and guidelines. They're unlikely to be interested in whatever wrong doings you believe the other side has done, which doesn't go any way to resolving the dispute or deciding what our article should look like. Keep that stuff for user talk pages & here when needed. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, the essence of it is here.

Cut a long story short, this or this is my preferred version. Both put aliases for the band (i.e. synonyms for the article subject) in bold as per the standard MOS style.

Revirvlkodlaku, for reasons best known to themselves, doesn't appear to like this, even though this is in line with the MOS guidelines. (This isn't "non-standard" as they've claimed when removing it previously.

I redid the second version to meet what I originally thought was a legitimate objection (though on closer reading, they were misinterpreting the guidelines and the first was fine).

Even after meeting that original objection, they reverted it anyway, giving a different reason for doing so.

Ubcule (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the place to resolve content disputes. That's what the article talk page is for. And as I mentioned it should have been the focus of your statement not an the other stuff you said there. Revirvlkodlaku when replying, to their credit, has kept their focus on what matters for the article talk page i.e. why they believe their preferred version is better. Meanwhile, you've continued to edit war after you open the talk page discussion and followed up with another talk page message that goes way too much into behaviour .

Also them replying calls into great question your claim they aren't interested in resolving this. If anything the evidence is that they are much more interested in resolving this, you seem to just want to demand you have your way and are trying to use whatever means you can to achieve that. Yes Revirvlkodlaku should have taken it to the talk page sooner too, but you opened this ANI and seem to have continued to try to get them sanctioned, not them. (I.E. taken with everything else, you opening that thread is much less of a positive on your side than it could have been.)

Note, if you didn't understand why Revirvlkodlaku was undoing your edits all the more reason why you should have taken this to the article talk page earlier rather than edit warring to try to get your way. (And once you'd taken it to the talk page, stopped edit warring.) Don't you see the unfortunate irony in you complaining about Revirvlkodlaku allegedly not reading your edit summary when you yourself apparently don't understand why they made their edits but yet you continued to edit war and accuse them of misbehaviour when you didn't even understand why they were making their edits?

Note, even if Revirvlkodlaku read this subthread and was reminded of how they should behave, the chronology shows you continued to edit war and followed up with another personalised message about behaviour instead of content after you'd replied to (and so read) my first message here but they did none of that. I.E. You've both had the chance to improve but only one of you really has.

In other words, while neither of you has crowned yourself in glory, since we don't resolve content disputes and WP:being right is not enough, even if we assume you are totally right on the content issue (which by the by, I'm not convinced of myself), in terms of what matters for ANI, behaviour; it's clear now that I've looked in to this that you have indeed behaved far more poorly than Revirvlkodlaku. And so if we were to sanction anyone over this it's far more likely to be you and not Revirvlkodlaku.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking more at why you opened this thread I see Daniel Case did mention ANI and I don't blame them since it's clearly not something to open at ANEW. But there was no reason for you to open this ANI any more than there was reason to open the ANEW. Even if you were falsely accused of edit warring and being uncivil, you don't need to open a thread to pre-emptively prove you weren't edit warring or being uncivil. If Revirvlkodlaku believed your behaved was bad enough to warrant sanction, they could open a thread themselves. Then you could defend yourself.

Since that's what ANI is for, it's for dealing with "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" as the headers says. So if you are opening a thread here (or raising a new issue in an existing thread), the assumption is you feel someone's behaviour is bad enough it may warrant sanction or some other administrative action needs to be taken (e.g. protecting a page, rev-deleting an edit). There should be never any need to open a thread to stop your behaviour since you can just change your behaviour and if you really can't there are better ways to self request a block.

If you felt Revirvlkodlaku's accusations were unfair, it was reasonable to to bring it up with them on their talk page but if they weren't receptive then the best thing to do was to just drop it. Part of editing here is that editors may describe our behaviour in ways which we feel is unfair. And while if these are serious enough that they cross the WP:NPA line, there can be merit to take action against them, it's extremely unproductive for the community to have to decide whether every claim made about an editor's behaviour was fair or not.

Although the reality is Revirvlkodlaku wasn't being unfair anyway, their accusations were IMO justified. It's just that it's a pot, kettle and black situation. Both of you were edit warring and both of you were way less civil than you should have been. For whatever reason, Revirvlkodlaku seems to have improved on that since this thread started. Unfortunately you haven't really. Still this isn't something for ANI. I suggest you just drop this and concentrate on resolving the dispute on the article talk page, try to be more civil going forward, and also cut out on the edit warring and on talking about behaviour or other irrelevant stuff on article talk pages.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:

• "This isn't the place to resolve content disputes. That's what the article talk page is for."

That's why I'd opened a discussion on the article talk page.

(I'm continuing this discussion with you here because that's where you're replying; I'm quite happy to move it elsewhere).

• "Revirvlkodlaku [..] has kept their focus on [..] why they believe their preferred version is better"

Firstly, they did so after I'd opened the talk page discussion. Prior to that any reasons given were restricted to edit summaries.

Second, as I commented in my reply, that's the fourth *different* rationale given for why they want to revert my edits. Every time I've addressed the previous one, this has shifted.

• "you seem to just want to demand you have your way and are trying to use whatever means you can to achieve that"

What?

Did you forget that I took on board what I understood to be their criticism here- that synonyms should not be bolded outside the lead section- and modified my original edit to meet that requirement instead?

(Once that objection had been met, the new version was reverted anyway with an entirely different objection given.)

How does that make *me* the one "demanding I have my way"?

• "You opened this ANI and seem to have continued to try to get them sanctioned"

I wasn't trying to get them sanctioned, I was trying to solve the dispute, wasn't sure where best to take it and was advised to move the discussion to ANI.

• "the chronology shows you continued to edit war"

And Revirvlkodlaku hasn't?

• "And so if we were to sanction anyone over this it's far more likely to be you and not Revirvlkodlaku."

As I said, I wasn't trying to get Revirvlkodlaku sanctioned, I was trying to have a discussion regarding the dispute and advised to move it here.

• "Looking more at why you opened this thread I see Daniel Case did mention ANI"

Yes, I was advised to move the discussion here. I don't blame Daniel if this wasn't the best choice- I wasn't sure myself, which is why I asked- but you seem determined to continue using something that was simply a poor choice made in good faith against me personally.

Ubcule (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• That's why I'd opened a discussion on the article talk page. - yes but you also said "Cut a long story short, this or this is my preferred version. Both put aliases for the band (i.e. synonyms for the article subject) in bold as per the standard MOS style." above. This has nothing to do with us and is irrelevant to ANI.
• they did so after I'd opened the talk page discussion. - yes as I said you should be congratulated for opening the talk page discussion, but not for pretty much anything else. You've continued to personalise the dispute as you have in your reply here. No third party is likely to be interested in whatever you believe about different versions. They just want to know why you believe your version is better and why the other editor believes their version is better.
• How does that make *me* the one "demanding I have my way"? & You opened this ANI and seem to have continued to try to get them sanctioned I wasn't trying to get them sanctioned, I was trying to solve the dispute, wasn't sure where best to take it and was advised to move the discussion to ANI. - you opened a discussion at ANI, the place to get administrative action against other editors. Even if we can accept you were confused because of what Daniel Case said, even after you were told above this isn't the place for content disputes you opened this subthread rather than focusing on resolving the dispute. What were you hoping to achieve with this subthread if not for some administrative action? You even said when opening this subthread that you "don't see any evidence that Revirvlkodlaku is interested in resolving the issue between the two of us". And you edit warred even after you'd initiated a discussion rather than trying to resolve the dispute by discussion. Now of course you've continued to focus on behaviour in the article talk page, rather than explaining why you disagree with Revirvlkodlaku's views on what's better for the article. So yes it's a fair conclusion to make. If you don't want editors to make it, then leave this ANI, focus on the article talk page thread, learn to assume good faith, stop personalising the dispute and stop edit warring. If Revirvlkodlaku or anyone else reverts you, that's on them.
• And Revirvlkodlaku hasn't - While Revirvlkodlaku did edit war, they stopped. You however continued to edit war even after opening a talk page discussion and after you came here and were told by several editors to stop edit warring. To be clear, if you are the last to revert because the other editor stopped reverting and instead has chosen to focus on discussion to resolve the dispute, it doesn't mean you "won" the dispute because you tired others out and get to keep your version until the discussion comes to some consensus. It means you lost the dispute because instead of resolving it properly you've edit warred to get your way. The editor who is the last to revert in a two party edit war is always likely to look worse than the editor who stopped. And if you're thinking 'how was I to know they would stop' that precisely illustrates the problem with how you're dealing with disputes. It doesn't matter what they do, focus on what you're doing and ensure you behave reasonably in a dispute. Note I was highly tempted to revert you because there's one thing I hate it's edit warriors thinking they can edit war to get their way. I resisted the urge precisely because I knew it wouldn't help anything.
• but you seem determined to continue using something that was simply a poor choice made in good faith against me personally - you are free to stop replying and to focus on resolving the dispute. Instead you continue to reply here. And in the article talk page thread, you've continued to personalise the dispute way more than Revirvlkodlaku and are failing to WP:AGF . As I said, I don't think it's time for action against you yet, but if you continue down your current path you're likely to face sanction soon.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC) 16:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, if you've made mistakes that's fine. We all make mistakes. The key thing is you need to learn from them. If you didn't know that well what ANI is for then that's fine but learn from it. If you edit warred when you shouldn't have then learn from it. If you've personalised a dispute when you shouldn't have then learn from it. The big problem is that Revirvlkodlaku does seem to be improving but you don't really seem to be. Instead you're still at ANI and still seem to be trying to defend stuff which cannot reasonably be defended. And worse, are still doing stuff you shouldn't be doing as we can see from your latest article talk page message which came after at least editors had called you out for personalising the dispute. As I said, as much as it's tempting, I'm not going to revert you. But give it a 50/50 chance you would revert me if I were to do so. If I'm wrong, I apologise but everything you've said etc lead me to think there's a good chance you still would revert me rather than focusing on resolving the dispute on the talk page. So all in all, it doesn't seem you've really learnt the lessons you should other than perhaps the perils of opening an ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I notice that you added this section after I started work on a reply to your original comment. As this is somewhat more conciliatory in tone, this somewhat changes what I would otherwise have said, and I think it's better we leave the discussion here instead. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku @Ubcule Both of you are edit warring and need to stop editing the article until consensus is achieved. You've also both been using edit summaries to write pointed remarks at each other, which you really should not do.

Ubcule, you've been combative with other editors coming in to comment on this dispute (e.g. "I haven't look much into this dispute" Well then, perhaps you should have? here and including a pointed remark in the edit summary here.) Your remarks aren't helping your argument. Truthnope (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Truthnope: - If someone is willing to criticise me on the basis I'd supposedly "only given [Revirvlkodlaku] 27 minutes to discuss the issue" when they acknowledge they hadn't paid attention to the full facts- which would have shown otherwise- then suggesting they should have done so is neither unreasonable nor impolite.

Sorry that you found the reference to Metal Mickey in the edit summary offensive- I guess you're not a fan?- but it was just a tongue-in-cheek poke of the flimsiness of the allegations against me that I'd already addressed. Ubcule (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Folks, being party to an ANI filing is like going to court; you may win, you may lose, you may settle amicably, but no matter what it's going to cost you. I have trouble imagining the original dispute is worth all this. My view on the best way forward is this: get a third opinion then leave the article alone, even if the 3O is wrong. Find something to edit that brings you satisfaction, not headache. To do otherwise seems likely to WP:BOOMERANG. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I may have killed 3O because I replied to try and get the discussion back in track and since I'm part of it even if I didn't express an opinion, fair chance 3O will just say there's already more than 2 parties. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

I should note, that unless my dumb brain is not understanding something, the extended confirmed restriction as part of WP:CT/SA was modified in March to remove the social groups language, so that now the ECR part is Indian military history and caste-related topics of South Asia . This editors template warning was before that change. Not that I'm happy about that change... CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Good spot! That was a direct quote from the first notification they they received in February (see OP diffs). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of the update. That being said, CT/SA still applies on several of above linked articles and G000p10 has shown no signs that they acknowledge those sanctions are in place. Removing cited content and POV pushing is also anything but disruptive. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I have read the warning and understand what is being said.

What I do not understand is why the reporting editor keeps applying these concerns almost exclusively to my edits. Since I started editing these topics, he has repeatedly reverted my contributions, warned me, and cited different policies against my edits, even when I provided sources and explained my reasoning.

At the same time, there are other editors on some of these same articles making highly contentious edits, adding questionable information, and pushing particular viewpoints, yet I rarely see the same concern directed towards those edits. That is what I find frustrating.

The result is that my sourced edits are often removed, while edits supporting a particular narrative remain in place. Whether that is intentional or not, it creates an uneven situation where one side's viewpoint is given more space in the article while alternative sourced information is reverted.

I am not saying that every edit I have made was perfect. If I misunderstood a policy or made mistakes, I am willing to accept that and improve. However, I do not think it is fair to portray me as the sole source of disputes on these articles when there are multiple editors involved and ongoing disagreements about the content.

I would simply ask that my edits be judged on their sources and content, and that the same standards be applied to everyone editing these topics. G000p10 (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You've pretty much said the exact same thing you did before but didn't tell us about the AI, LLM or chatbot that you're apparently using to edit Wikipedia. Can you tell us more about that? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you ever been pulled over by a police officer for speeding while driving a car? Telling the police officer that there are other people speeding too will get you out of a ticket approximately never. It's the same principle here; if your edits are proper, a sanction is inappropriate and if your edits are not, sanctions may be appropriate. The status of other editor's edits have no bearing on yours. I suspect LLMs as well, but how would "most" of your edits being made in good faith be a point in your favor? They all should be. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying that if other editors break rules then my edits should be ignored.

What I am saying is that it does matter when one editor keeps reverting, warning and reporting the same person over and over again, while not showing the same level of concern towards other editors involved in the same disputes.

This report is not accusing me of making up sources or knowingly adding false information. Most of the issues raised are about conduct and editing policies.

If someone is constantly using policies against me whenever I edit or correct information on certain topics, while editors pushing the opposite view are rarely challenged in the same way, then naturally it starts to feel like one side is being protected while the other side is being scrutinized.

The reason this matters is because it affects the content of the articles themselves. If editors trying to challenge, correct, or balance certain information are constantly reverted, warned, or reported, while others are left largely unchallenged, then over time the article can become increasingly one-sided. Information supporting one viewpoint stays, while information challenging it is removed or discouraged. That is not healthy for neutrality.

That is why I think the wider context matters. The issue is not simply whether I made a mistake on a particular edit but whether the same standards are being applied to everyone involved.

G000p10 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC) :::

Again, you need to focus on what you did rather than cloud the issue. If another editor is acting improperly, either add diffs or drop it. You don't need to lecture us on how the encyclopedia works. And if you're using an LLM to aid you, you need to stop immediately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@G000p10 Are you using an AI, LLM or chatbot to generate your replies and/or Wikipedia edits? Yes or no, please answer clearly as you've been asked many times but won't confirm. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I've already said what I needed to say about the report. The reason I haven't answered every question that's been put to me is because I've been told more than once not to get dragged into endless arguments on this page, so I've tried to avoid that.

As for your question, no, I'm not using AI, LLM to write my replies or make Wikipedia edits.

Pls keep the discussion focused on the report and the edits being discussed rather than going around in circles over the same side issues. I've explained my reasoning and concerns already and I don't have much more to add beyond that. G000p10 (talk) 08:11, 9 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)

I'm very concerned over the work of this editor, which appears to be almost entirely AI-generated. There are also unexplained removals of large amounts of content and I'm especially unhappy that they have been untruthful to Commons in the face of direct evidence to the contrary.

Interestingly, this edit adds a Google Play download link for a book that has the same (AI-generated) cover. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The book is also listed as Science fiction and fantasy at that Google Play link, so is wildly inappropriate to use as a reference. In solidarity, nil ^nz 01:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Blue-Sonnet, the author for that book (play.google.com/store/books/details?id=UWTSEQAAQBAJ&pli=1) is "Oba St. James". That's also the author of "Onikoyi: The Warrior King: Unveiling the Legacy of a Relentless Leader " ( amazon.com/Onikoyi-Warrior-Unveiling-Legacy-Relentless/dp/B0GWPCWZBV ) which was, like the Play store book, published by "James Edward Brown III". According to Amazon this is "Independently published". The sample reveals it's from Kindle direct publishing. That book states that "This is a work of historical fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents are either products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously."
The book on Amazon is 100% slop. Here's a quote: "I remember Tyson repeating what Cus D'Amato taught him—the difference between a pro and an amateur is that an amateur shows up no matter what. A pro shows up no matter what."
I now see the Play store book also has a sample. "Published by James Edward Brown III under the name Oba St. James . Distributed by Lulu Press , Inc." Lulu.com. Some users are now screaming at their computer upon seeing that business name. You know who you are. "The first - person narrative of Obanani is a work of mythological fiction rooted in sacred oral tradition." — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even get that far - I was starting to look into whether it was a reliable source and had just removed it. I guess the question is whether the image was an AI-generated copy of the original AI-generated image, or did they upload the original file that was used for the book cover (and therefore have a possible COI)?

Either way, they are absolutely using AI here and not verifying the output to boot.

That calls their past edits into question, which I'm currently reviewing - I've undone a lot of it so far, for various reasons.

There are one or two that weren't AI-generated, but I can only tell that because of the number of spelling errors - the sources may well still be AI-generated.

If an admin can consider indef for DE, that would be great. I don't think a mainspace block should be considered, since they've proven themselves untrustworthy. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Blue-Sonnet, I've compared the uploaded image to the book cover. They are not identical. One is a processed version of the other. The file that was uploaded to Commons is almost certainly an earlier version of the book cover. The shells in her headgear have some shading in the Commons file. In the cover the shading was converted into weird distortions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That's good to know, the differences weren't obviously visible on a mobile screen so the analysis is interesting. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, let's hold on for a second here regarding any blocks... I'm looking on Ermes3711's user talk page; not including the ANI notice that was just added, I only see one discussion there in total that was added by a bot in back in January regarding a CS1 error. Many comments added to this ANI discussion managed to include diffs to a lot of different issues with Ermes3711's contributions. However, what I don't see included anywhere in this ANI discussion is any evidence of attempts to reach out to Ermes3711 (either directly or on any relevant talk pages), notify and warn them about their problematic and disruptive contributions, include links and reference relevant policies and guidelines so that Ermes3711 can read though them, and offer resources that they can turn to in order to receive help. Before we consider blocking someone from editing Wikipedia, we need to show that we've repeatedly notified and warned Ermes3711 about the issues and problems with their edits, provided links to the policy or guideline they must follow, and allowed them a reasonable chance to adjust and correct these issues and improve their edits first, and I'm not seeing any evidence that this has been attempted at all. I'm running on my third day with a very little amount of sleep, so I could've missed that this has been done. If this is the case, please let me know. Otherwise, umm... yeah... we're missing a bit of an important step that should be done before we just run straight to the block button... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Oshwah: and I'm not seeing any evidence that this has been attempted at all.

In this revert Ọba (orisha) (Diff ~1358226877) (which by default results in a notification) I linked the relevant policy. That's probably not good enough to justify a block (which I wasn't asking for when I started this discussion), but it is an attempt. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Granted, I may have been hasty here since Commons is technically off-wiki and they've not had a warning before now, although the attempt to add a fictional book then claiming the cover (or an amended version of it) was their own work and also appropriate for an article is concerning. Let's see how they respond and take it from there. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I've deleted the files per Commons policy regarding AI-generated images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

..which isn't a policy and isn't supposed to apply to divine spirits. (the AI-imagery-of-people guideline does apply to Moses for some reason though..) Deletion is correct (I don't disagree with the outcome) but the rationale is not, and such a DR would normally be left open for a week. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thats not how AI content work. Thats not how things are verified either. There are factors that are tell tell signs, as well as watermarks/ hallucinated nothings. The metadata also tends to tell or show ownership. I sat for hours trying to figure this wikipedia thing out, as I am disabled and whatever coding or language yall speak. I sourced everything I wrote. No copy past. I even ran a small graphic design business back in the photoshop days, so i know my way around images. You have a clear agenda, and I dont understand what I did to you. I am updating the story in which it was told firsthand, of the strength of this woman who endured, to empower women like my mother who did the same. And you are my obstacle in doing this? Do you know how hard it was finding information that was verified by scholars, this has been months in the making, and now my book. Which not only speaks about her, it tells a story of survival, and it is supported with the research that put Mary, Lilith, Persophone, etc in the same category. Actually you know what. This isnt the place for me. This post or picture or whatever you got going on, was one thing but to atttack my work for what. Because that was personal and I refuse to be attacked while trying to do some good on the world. I poured my heart into that book, what have you done with your life thats so special? Yes please, delete me because Idk I dont even undertand whats happening and why. Who was hurt? She is my guardian orisha, this is my tradition and.You could never understand and you wonder why the world is the way it is. I followed the rules the best I knew, if I violated some, it was not intentional, and ill take whatever punishment is sentenced. I no longer want to be a part of this, say what you want, keep the lies and cut ears and jealous wives and everything else they portray OUR tradition as I no longer care. I pray that you have a blessed day. I really cannot believe this is happening lol. Ermes3711 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am trying my best to humbly walk away, but were there or were there NOT sources. For everything, every paragraph, every line of text I wrote. Do you need a copy of my book? I have authors copies. So you can see who I cited. The material I used. You don't get to invalidate people because reasons. I am fine, but you have to look in the mirror and face the real reasons why. And I pray that you have compassion for yourself when you figure out the answers. This place was too complex for me, I thought I understood, but I did nothing with malice or deception in my heart, yet I feel like I am on trial. And now the anxiety attack no I still want to conclude this, but I have to get off here all of this text is is too much this is overwhelming when I was. Just honoring my heart, my orisha. You win I didnt even get a chance to show anyone the page. delete it all ill delete my shitty book and hell delete myself ror that matter. Ermes3711 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody said you acted with malice or deception. But damage to the encyclopedia from malice and damage to the encyclopedia from ignorance, if identical, cause the same damage. You are entitled to your traditions, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to have them appear in an encyclopedia. If there's information that can be cited to scholars, on Wikipedia, we cite the scholars, not our personal interpretations of those what those scholars say. And there most definitely was some LLM use in there as well; in no galaxy are the paragraphs you've written here and the paragraphs you've written in articles the product of the same individual. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Ermes3711, delete it all ill delete my shitty book and hell delete myself ror that matter.
I've forwarded this to WP:EMERGENCY. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

User repeatedly adding unsourced edits, unresponsive to concerns

• LepYd258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ydlp19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:LepYd258, who previously edited under User:Ydlp19, has a long-standing pattern of unsourced edits and complete non-engagement with other editors. This account switch was documented in LepYd258's user page. I will refer to them by their current account, LepYd258.

Example Diffs:

LepYd258 has received numerous warnings and notices on their talk page and has not responded to any of them, even after several months. They have also never participated in either of the two prior ANI discussions opened about their editing, both of which closed without resolution: Archive 1192 (started by @Yoblyblob) and Archive 1188 (started by @Gommeh). LepYd258's contributions to their own talk page confirm they have never responded to any of these concerns.

As previously noted, LepYd258 also almost never provides edit summaries, in violation of WP:UNRESPONSIVE: 2.9% as LepYd258, and 1.4% as Ydlp19.

LepYd258 has demonstrated, over several years and across two accounts, an inability or unwillingness to engage with the editing community, whether through talk page responses, edit summaries, or participation in dispute resolution. Whether this reflects a lack of awareness or a deliberate choice, it raises concerns under WP:CIR. I understand this is a very serious accusation; however, given that two prior ANI discussions produced no change in behavior, I believe further action is necessary. Pattersonuwu (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Zero edits to Wikipedia: or User_talk: namespaces, and it looks like the only thing in Talk: is page moves. Morwen (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

It is not saying what it is supposed to — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-33732-74 (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the diff that was reverted. Malformed citation, yes, but otherwise not vandalism. With regards to the ref, I'd advise reading WP:Referencing for beginners. However, the bot isn't malfunctioning - it sometimes does pick up false positives, that's just how it is. You are perfectly entitled to restore your edit, although I'd urge you to fix the malformed citation. The bot also gives instructions for reporting the false positive. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Probable impersonation

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

---

Ntheq (talk · contribs) claims to be User:Nthep. Fram (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fram thanks. I certainly have not lost access to my account. Nthep (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for impersonation. KylieTastic (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by Nahyssan at Sappony

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

---

• Nahyssan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sappony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nahyssan (talk · contribs) is a newly created SPA with an acknowledged COI with the Sappony, a state-recognized tribe in North Carolina. They are trying to remove the same book from the article that Insitemobile (talk · contribs) tried to remove. In an edit summary, they wrote, "Please be aware that future changes that are derogatory will be reported and may be subject to legal action." diff. —Yuchitown (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That was indeed a legal threat. Blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Ravina0612 SASG

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

---

Ravina0612 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly made disruptive edits at Shreyas Iyer, including CT/SASG violations after being warned repeatedly and alerted. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I originally gave the new user a lot of grace, but that was apparently pointless. Indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 20:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC).

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

Dispute regarding Koplik War result infobox

• Page affected:
  • Koplik War
• Users involved:
  • FranéRogoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Magapetro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Description of the issue: I started out a detailed, sourced back and overall logical discussion on the article's Talk Page to correct the infobox result from "Yugoslav military victory" to an objective, descriptive outcome ("Successful Albanian defense; total Yugoslav withdrawal"), as the Yugoslav forces failed to secure any territorial gains and completely evacuated to the 1913 borders.

Instead of him engaging in a genuine historical debate he's responded using copy-pasted, AI generated text (yes i put it through a detector and it came out nearly 100% ai, its obvious too just by looking at it that its ai) that doesn't address the specific historical context. Basically just a refusal or failure to engage in a meaningful consensus to be built and just exploits automated text to stonewall a clear content dispute, this has gone on repeatedly for months, people point out the claims, he ignores and continuously reverts the infobox.

Desired outcome: I request admin/mod intervention to review the historical consensus, apply an accurate, descriptive result to the infobox and temporarily lock/protect the article to prevent further un-collaborative, revisionist edits or wiki wars between some kind of biased Balkan nationalists, maybe even a block for this guy, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magapetro (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello admins, I am honestly really surprised by this report and the completely uncalled-for personal attacks from @Magapetro, who decided to call me a "biased Balkan nationalist" just because we disagree on content, which is a clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. He is claiming my replies are AI-generated simply because I took the time to write a polite, properly structured response to explain the historical facts, and we all know those online AI detectors are completely unreliable and just used as an excuse to avoid a real debate. The actual dispute here is very simple: he wants to change the infobox to an "Albanian victory" (or his newly softened "Successful defense") by mixing up a clear military battlefield outcome with a later diplomatic treaty. The reliable academic sources already in the article, including the prominent Albanian historian Paskal Milo, clearly state that the Yugoslav army decisively defeated the local forces using superior artillery, captured the strategic region including Koplik, and firmly held it under their control for months. They only withdrew in 1921 because of a diplomatic agreement pressured by the League of Nations, not because they were militarily pushed out or defeated. Instead of addressing these academic sources, Magapetro's only argument on the talk page was to cite a local town monument and another Wikipedia article, which is a direct violation of WP:CIRCULAR. I am just trying to protect the article from unsourced local mythology and historical revisionism. Given his personal attacks, his refusal to engage with actual historical sources, and his disruptive approach, I respectfully ask that administrators review his behavior for a potential block or strict warning, and keep the article protected in its current, properly sourced state.FranéRogoz (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Stop responding with AI @FranéRogoznow we know that you are a nationalist Serb who wants to make all things like you want with your Serbian sources. But we gonna not let you to do such things because you showed only Serbian sources in Luma operations 1912 and koplik war etc... So i wish that admins will banned you from Wikipedia for making false claim and false sources ~2026-33725-11 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Admins, I think this situation is speaking for itself now. Right after my last message, an unregistered IP~2026-33725-11 suddenly appeared on the article's talk page just to aggressively agree with Magapetro and call me a "nationalist Serb". Magapetro immediately replied to the IP, calling me a "clown". It honestly looks like someone logging out to use an IP address just to fake support and gang up on me. And now, that same IP ~2026-33725-11 has followed me all the way to this noticeboard just to continue the name-calling. Also, just to clear up their ridiculous claim about me forcing "serbian sources" – the main historian I am quoting for the Koplik War is Paskal Milo, who is literally a well-known Albanian academic. I'm not going to argue with them anymore or reply to these attacks. I'll step back now and leave it to you guys to check if these accounts are actually the same person and to review the whole situation. FranéRogoz (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

There have been a string of other editors criticising you over months now who you have ignored so is it a surprise really theres another guy here? You're making baseless claims to avoid the fact you're using artificial intelligence to respond, which I recommend anyone here to read his response to my statement and tell me that it's not ai or put it in an ai detector, also i live in the UK idk what ip log in log off youre talking about. I came to report you after your response to my statement, it showed me that you clearly aren't here to help us come to any sort of historical concensus. Magapetro (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

AI detectors are notoriously poor at detecting AI, I'm not seeing any signs of AI writing in their posts above either.

You both need to please calm down and remember that this is a public noticeboard. There are a lot of allegations being made and not much evidence in the form of diffs for others to consider - in all the above there is only one single diff for anyone to look at.

If you make a claim that a person said something, a diff to that exact comment is incredibly helpful and can vastly increase the likelihood of your report being assessed quickly.

On the other hand, lots of posts with evidence-free allegations actually lower the chances of a response, because most readers will just see an argument between two people and nope out of the giant wall of text that they see forming. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

so this is not AI answer according to you ? This is a pure AI answer without any historical evidence ~2026-34028-82 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a pure AI answerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koplik_War#c-FranéRogoz-20260608104400-Magapetro-20260604150900 ~2026-34028-82 (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Could someone please look into this new IP ~2026-34028-82? I'm pretty sure it's the exact same person ~2026-33725-11 who was just blocked last night for making insults and causing drama. They've come back under a new IP to do the exact same thing. Thanks. FranéRogoz (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Same country but that's all I can confirm due to possible proxy-use. Any assessment would have to be behavioural (and the behaviour is pretty clear). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Magapetro Instead of spending your energy trying to provoke an argument by calling me a nationalist and obsessing over fake AI detectors, you should really focus on finding actual historical literature to back up your claims. You can't just use a local town monument or local mythology as an academic source. It seems to be a pattern for you, seeing how you rely on local news portals and websites instead of actual historians for articles you've created, like Operation Mercerised and the Battle of Peshkopi. That is simply not how an encyclopedia is built.

Regarding your claim about a "string of other editors" criticizing me, that's just completely false. The only "criticism" came from one single user who ended up getting blocked for opening multiple fake sockpuppet accounts. So I have no idea what you're talking about there. Also, nobody asked where you live or what your IP is. Getting overly defensive and volunteering that you live in the UK when nobody asked actually just makes the whole IP situation look even more suspicious. Honestly, I don't even know why you brought this to the admin noticeboard in the first place. If you have an issue with the article, the normal process is to use the Talk page to present real academic evidence and try to prove me wrong with facts, and I would do the same. Running to the admins just because the sources don't match your personal view only wastes their time with unnecessary drama. A constructive, mature editor doesn't start a debate by throwing around insults like "biased Balkan nationalist" or "clown". They engage in a logical dialogue backed by relevant evidence. I cited an actual Albanian academic historian; you cited a local monument and then insulted me. I'm completely fine stepping back now and letting the admins look at that and decide who is actually following Wikipedia rules. FranéRogoz (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You forgot to leave a notice on FranéRogoz's talk page. They've already responded here, but I left the notice anyway, for completeness. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Recommending an indef for User:Magapetro for sockpuppetry and being obviously WP:NOTHERE Amatmilen (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for intervention and help

WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

---

I need urgent help from an administrator. I am feeling extremely vulnerable and stressed right now.

Because of unplesant communications by User: AirshipJungleman29

Prev notice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected Wikihounding and Incivility by User:AirshipJungleman29

I agreed to disengage from a previous dispute, but this editor continues to leave unpleasant comments and messaes on my talk pages. I have autism and intellectual difficulties. This situation is causing me immense alarm, distress, panic attacks and a meltdown because all of his previous communications have been direct and inconsiderate. Where is the professionalism and understanding. It feels like deliberately unloading a massive amount of complex and highly specific information to hold me to a unrealistic standards. I just want to be left alone by this editor and let others come and review in their own time because I don't feel safe around this individual.

Latest: Your personal attacks

Please step in and ask this editor to cease and desist from contacting me entirely. ~~~

APDHistorian (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You can tell him to do that yourself. If he doesn't honour your wishes, he can be blocked for harassment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 22:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I have done so, but unfortunately he has been going through the history of my personal contributions which feels like stalking APDHistorian (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 has interacted with you four times: at the AfD and draftification discussed in your last ANI thread (see this analysis of those complaints), when he reverted your ANI notice on his talk page, and when he left the message on yours. That is not stalking by any definition of the term, and accusing people of stalking is a personal attack. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Further, I don't see any evidence of where APDHistorian has asked AirshipJungleman29 to stop interacting with them. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@APDHistorian I see two messages on your talk page from this editor. On 4 June they left a templated message about declining a draft you submitted. On 8 June they left a message asking you to redact a perceived personal attack by you on another user's talk page. (Personally, I don't see anything that rises to the level of a personal attack.) There is nothing actionable here at this time. The most likely potential recourse would be a two-way interaction ban between you and them. but it would take more than a single message to lead to that. —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

APDHistorian: AirshipJungleman29 warned you not to make personal attacks in a concise comment. He did not unload a massive amount of complex and highly specific information to hold [you] to an unrealistic standard. Civility is one of the five pillars. Accusing other editors of being sexist, as you did here, constitutes casting aspersions. Weaponizing threats to quit Wikipedia is a form of tendentious editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I really did not want to make another report. To clarify, I did not accuse anybody of being sexist, nor did I name anybody. It was an argument for wider context to encourage positive discourse. I am extremely disappointed by how others communicate with each other on Wikipedia. Not only does it make me feel unwelcome, it feels unprofessional and the reporting culture is unsafe as it shouldn't be public and encourages wider harassment which is what I have been getting. APDHistorian (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is harassing you. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

…and the reporting culture is unsafe as it shouldn't be public and encourages wider harassment… There are channels to make reports out of the public eye; see WP:Volunteer Response Team for mechanisms for getting assistance via email. That said, there is a boomerang effect that occurs when reports are made to ANI and other noticeboards: the reporting user's contributions and conduct are assessed in the same ways the reported user's are. However, the noticeboards provide transparency, so sanctions are discussed in the open; it may not be a perfect mechanism, but it is the established Wikipedia culture. —C.Fred (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is Wikipedia's problem. Clearly it doesn't allow for reporting mechanisms to be accessible in easy to read digestibable format. Most complaints are not given the benefit of the doubt and a thrown large texts to shut the notice down. Not only that, but this should not be done openly in a public forum. Where is the safety to protect potential victims in that? There is also a huge problem with allowing people with disabilities for using assistance to process large texts of information like accusing everybody of using AI slop. I would question that some of the practices are now incompatiable with the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act. Wikipedia is not immune, other large social media sites like Reddit have fallen foul to it. However, this is a fight I do not want to continue. I am deeply disappointed with the mechanisms here. I am wasting my time remaining a member. Thanks for your fair and open comments to me but I am leaving for good. I thought I would battle to keep some of my work live for others but clearly it is not worth it as I am unappreciated here. Goodnight and I wish those who genuinely care about positive chasnge for the good the best of luck. APDHistorian (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Liberty5000 is WP:NOTHERE

Liberty5000 _{Talk Contribs BlockLog}

Liberty was page blocked from Fascism and then sitewide for 72 hours by Bishonen, first time for bludgeoning and then for WP:NPA issues.

Their talk page contains lots of arguments for an editor with ~200 edits, mostly veteran editors explaining, with great patience, why they should drop the WP:STICK and move on something else. The user called some of the disparaging comments on their page as spamming, and then refuses to accept that the consensus is against them, and starts arguing what reliable sources Wikipedia ought to be, going into WP:CANTHEARYOU territory, without defending User:Simonm223's critique.

I also like how in this edit they cited AGF and arguing that they're not given enough assumptions of good faith.

Lastly, I'd like to cite this comment by Softlavender. I think it summarizes L5000's behaviour on this site pretty succinctly. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 03:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The editor has only eight edits in 2026, and only one since Bishonen's warning and 72 hour block. Let's wait and see what happens going forward. Ping me if disruption resumes. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

As someone who has been involved in the discussions on the talkpage for Fascism, the previous actions applied seem to have worked in preventing further disruption, so nothing more needs to be done unless disruption elsewhere occurs. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

As an obviously involved editor I do have to concur with Cullen238 and Cdjp1. If Bishonen's time-limited block gets the message across then no further action will be needed but if they start POV pushing again please let me know. Simonm223 (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, mop-wielders, for the explanation. I'm starting to understand that this thread I filed is an overreaction. I still have a lot to learn on evaluating these situations. Sometimes I act too soft, and other times, like this one, I act too impulsive/aggressive.

Please close this thread here, thanks. Sorry for the inconvenience. :) _{12:18, edited 12:23 UTC} 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 12:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive editing, failure to communicate and bogus edit summaries

Baqotun0023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has a lengthy history of causing issues. Their talk page is littered with warnings from numerous users about their edits, very few of which have ever been acknowledge. This shows a pattern of behavior of simply not caring that they are causing problems. Of particular note is the fact that are continuously introducing duplicate arguments into templates due to their failure to preview or check their edits. I have personally warned them about this issue at least 4 times, zero responses.

Of equal concern is their continued use of totally bogus edit summaries which almost always consist of a random letter. When I requested that they please respond to my concerns on their talk page, they ignored my request and simply reverted my latest attempt to fix one of their broken edits.

To summarize:

1. Disruptive editing for repeatedly and unapologetically breaking pages with duplicate arguments.
2. Failure to WP:ENGAGE as required and address concerns of other editors.
3. Failure to even attempt to provide the most basic of edit summary but to instead just insert a random letter into their edit summary as seen in their contributions.

Request admin involvement at this time. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at this, I saw you left them multiple notices.

A bit of leeway could be given to newer editors (or if they've just been very busy with life) but given that they've been on this site for 6 years and since you've been warning them since 2025 im very surprised they havent replied to you. It does seem like its a failure to engage/they might deliberately be ignoring you. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I just want to clarify here. We ALL make mistakes, lord knows I've made my share. My issue is the repeated and unapologetic breaking of pages as well as the refuser to engage in any way, shape or form despite multiple attempts. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yea I agree with you there, everyone's human. That said, there is a very discernable pattern here. Its pretty easy to tell by a certain point if an editor is say hypothetically POV pushing, or editing with ill-intent whether it be via pattern recognition or just their tone. Here, I don't think Baqotun is POV pushing and we can't discern if theres any ill-intent so they should be given the benefit of the doubt, but what we can absolutely establish is that there is a failure to engage/deliberate ignorance.

I do strongly agree with you Zackmann. @Baqotun0023 please reply to this thread. Its one thing to ignore a few notices (many editors, even experienced ones, often do this). I also understand editors can be very busy with life and perhaps the earlier notices you didnt need/weren't responsible to respond but...

Zackmann has put NINE notices on your page and you have not replied to them once, the first was posted in September 2025. We can clearly see via your contributions that you made edits despite Zackmann's repeated warnings. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I was shocked to suddenly be involved in this incident. I want to sincerely apologize to everyone here, especially @Zackmann08. You're absolutely right that I should have responded more quickly. I wasn't ignoring you out of malice or disrespect; I was simply overwhelmed/distracted and made the mistake of focusing on editing instead of checking my talk page.

I now understand that this interfered with consensus building. I should have checked my edits on the related articles first to avoid the duplicate article issue. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Wamalotpark – Edit warring, tendentious editing

User:Wamalotpark is still at it with the tendentious editing ascribed to MOS:GEOLINK, despite being informed the last time this discussion was brought up here that his behavior was inappropriate. From that discussion: "If you continue to edit war you're likely to be blocked and considering your history, you're working your way up to an indefinite block. You also should not be making mass changes if they're disputed or otherwise not clearly supported by wide consensus. ... If you're not willing to discuss in appropriate places like the talk pages of the relevant pages or in other appropriate places (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking for disputes of geographical linking in a wide set of articles) then you should refrain from making those edits." Pinging User:Nil Einne.

From my original complaint, which still applies here: "Additionally, as has been stated repeatedly at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking, there is no provision against [[Stockholm, Sweden]] versus [[Stockholm]], Sweden as long as the style is used consistently in the article, since, again, only Stockholm is being linked. Your "bull in a china shop" editing is most unappreciated. ... I am clearly not the only editor who has a problem with your editing based on the slew of complaints you have in your talk page history."

I am not looking for anything other than for Wamalotpark to rein it in. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Editor has an issue with me simply editing in accordance with MOS:GEOLINK on figure skating articles, which they have been reprimanded in multiple noticeboard incidents over their ownership tendencies over the topic and general offensive behavior. Wamalotpark (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Since both Bgsu98 and Wamalotpark are for whatever reason not capable of opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking (to be fair, it does involve making three (!!!) clicks), I will do it for them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

TA is not here

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

---

~2026-33106-46/~2026-33778-68/~2026-33899-80

User initially signed Wikipedia:Wiki Workers United solidarity twice, once as -46 and once as -68 which share an IP. Shortly after a discussion on their talk page concerning this which involved mention of TAIV , mobile TA ~2026-33899-80 was created and also signed the same page and then asked a teahouse question about TAs and IP editing . TAIV also supports a connection between the accounts.

All these TAs share the same primary behavior, trolling the refdesk by asking a large number of open-ended or inconsequential questions etc. Not here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Can I leave? ~2026-33778-68 (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Only I share the same IP address with other TAs. ~2026-33106-46 and ~2026-33778-68. I edited fine, but suddenly logged out after closing the tabs. ~2026-33778-68 (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering I see you've blocked -80 as a sock, thoughts on the others? Both -68 and -80 even left similar signatures. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Unambiguous, yeah. This is WP:LTA/CB885. Thanks for the heads up. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Dan100 refusing to engage with editors raising concerns

Dan100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had (emphasis on the past tense) a user talk page filled with messages from numerous editors trying to communicate with them, be it about their constant lack of edit summaries, or various other issues. The last time they edit the talk page was in May 2020, to deny a bot - the last time they actually communicated with another editor on the talk page was January 2018. When prompted by myself today to actually communicate, their response was to wipe the talk page and move on (with, it might be added, still no edit summaries...).

Can we please make it clear to this editor that ignoring, and indeed wiping, talk page messages for 8 years is simply unacceptable, given that communication is expected of editors? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell me what policy says that Dan100 cannot wipe his own user page and what sanctions policy proscribes for not doing enough edit summaries. Xtools by the way suggests that 90% of most recent major edits have had summaries Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That isn’t the reason why I’m posting here. I’m posting here because they refuse to communicate. Of course removing content from your talk page is permitted - heck if it wasn’t, archive bots would be dead! I mentioned it here because I feel it’s symptomatic of this editor’s continued refusal to engage with other editors who raise legitimate concerns on their talk page. Communication isn’t optional in a collaborative project. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

From your request it sounds like you were offended by their wiping their talk page and not using edit summaries enough. Aside from that, what specific. Issues are there with their edits that requires an admin to intervene. What specific remedy are you seeking? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The goal here is to get them to communicate with other editors. Editors must be able to discuss with one another, and it appears they are ignoring any and all talk page messages. If it means we need to temporarily block from article space until they start communicating then perhaps that’s the solution - I hope it doesn’t come to that, as they are a productive editor otherwise. But as I said above, communication isn’t optional. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

From all we can tell, the editor read the talk page messages from Voidxor, listened to the concerns and modified their editing. There is no requirement that Dan100 reply to the message so long as their editing responds to the concerns.

For what it's worth, there is no requirement that editors use edit summaries, though it is strongly suggested/best practice, and if the reason isn't obvious the mandate is stronger. I checked through some recent edits and didn't find any concerning edits that lack an edit summary - they all seem to be straightforward improvements. Katzrockso (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

LateNightCoffee continuing to disrupt categories after block

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

This editor's questionable edits in Category space and Template space were the subject of a discussion in April 2026, which I can't find, except for the following link: , which shows that User:voorts partially blocked them from Category space and Template space, for which I thank them. They now seem to be trying to work around those blocks by using Category Talk space, and have launched four poorly formatted RFCs, because RFCs are normally run in a Talk space. See Category_talk:18th-century_Irish_scholars, Category talk:19th-century Irish scholars, Category_talk:19th-century_Irish_philosophers, and Category_talk:18th-century_Irish_philosophers. I became aware of these malformed RFCs when I was notified of one of them by a bot.

Oh. Here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223#LateNightCoffee.

I don't know what LNC is trying to do other than play around in the encyclopedia which is an electronic workplace for some of us. I haven't looked over LateNightCoffee's contributions in article space and article talk space yet, and so don't know whether they make a positive contribution there, or whether an indefinite block is in order. I think it is clear that the RFCs should be deactivated, but that is not the question. The question is what should be done with an editor who is continuing to disrupt the category system after one effort to protect the category system and LateNightCoffee from each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I think they contribute to terrorism-related articles as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223#LateNightCoffee. I regret not reporting their 1RR vios, I think they’re a few days stale now. I can’t fully explain why I and others tend to take a light touch with this editor. Mikewem (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Since the block, there’s been a pattern of attempting to work around it or nibble at the edges, most recently in this unofficial block appeal. I don’t know how to describe their behavior other than an apparent desperation to make a tremendous amount of category edits. Mikewem (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

They've made a ton of requests in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories that are effectively circumventing the category creation block. ^SMason_Garrison 20:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the ANI's been reopened. @Rsjaffe could you add Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories to the block? As I mentioned on my talk page, they're effectively circumventing the category block by making category creation requests at ARC. ^SMason_Garrison 22:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not think that would be warranted. Requests there can be declined. I was told directly that my use of that space is appropriate and allowed. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You are not hearing what the concern is about your AFC requests. You have been asked by multiple people to be more careful with your nominations and clean up. ^SMason_Garrison 22:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I will wait and respond based upon this discussion. I will note that [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories]] has existed since 2010. @LateNightCoffee first edited the page last month. Their total contributions to that page since then make them the second-largest contributor of content for all time, with 12.4% of the total content since 2010 being by LateNightCoffee in less than a month. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This is because I am in an unusual situation? Most people making requests there cannot create the categories themselves because they are not autoconfirmed? They would usually be able to make them for themselves within a week and thus most people don't make repeated requests? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I just wanted it on your radar as part of the broader impact of LNC. ^SMason_Garrison 22:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of these have been accepted. I interpret this as meaning the requests were constructive. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That is not a block appeal. Mason is too WP:Involved, and so they are not allowed to block me and so I presume also not able to unlock me? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I replied to your message. You didn't respond. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 23:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

After review, I am p-blocking @LateNightCoffee from Category Talk space. They have almost 1,100 edits there, which is astonishing, and the recent edit history shows extensive disruption and continuation of the behavior for which the prior blocks were intended to fix. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, User:rsjaffe. I will be disabling the RFCs by removing the {{RFC}} template, since it is agreed that their "work" or "play" or whatever in Category Talk space was not constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I was told to seek consensus. As far as I am aware, that is the way to seek consensus? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who asked you to seek consensus on potentially controversial changes. I linked you WP:APPNOTE and gave some advice on discussions; RfCs were not part of that advice. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I was not prohibited from contributing to category talk. I was even told directly by Mason to make more edit requests. So I don't think this should be interpreted as "continuation of the behavior". Late Night Coffee (ping me) 23:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

My interpretation of the last ANI was that one significant problem was you attempting to add too many categories too quickly. To wit:

Quotes from last ANI

The most immediate issue is the velocity (and apparent acceleration) of LNC’s edits. -- Mikewem

I'm not seeing any evidence of them understanding the volunteer time costs or engaging with the heart of the conduct issues being raised. -- S Mason Garrison

You're asking a lot of volunteer time to clean up after you as you learn. -- S Mason Garrison

Their refusal to respond to criticism and their refusal to check many of their edits is the major problem. Also the speed. -- PARAKANYAA

I think you would do well to avoid categories in their entirety. For whatever reason, you seem to have trouble contributing there in a way the community finds appropriate. If you keep attempting to manage categories, I think it likely that you will be topic banned from the topic of categories. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

A disproportionate amount of the objections have come from Mason. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 23:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Dude, I'm an admin who works in category space.... you need to focus on what is being conveyed to you, regardless of who is conveying it. ^SMason_Garrison 00:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I was responding to "in a way the community finds appropriate" because yes, you are an admin in Category space, but you are not "the community". You are one editor, you are one editor who I have an ongoing content dispute with about multiple categories. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 00:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon why didn't you talk to me directly before you opened this? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The first message you ever wrote to me was the notification about this ANI. I don't think that's appropriate. I can find no previous interaction between us before you opened this discussion? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 23:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

User:LateNightCoffee - On the one hand, civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. On the other hand, I didn't have anything constructive to say to you, since your editing did not appear to be constructive, so I said nothing to you, except to give you the required noticeboard notice. Your proposed category changes were questionable, and your RFCs were malformed. It appeared that you didn't know what you were doing, but it would not have been helpful to say that (and I am only saying that now because you asked me directly). I thought that the community should know. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

"RFCs are normally run in a Talk space"? So an RFC about a category goes in a category talk space? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 00:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I just fully blocked LNC indefinitely for the continued disruption and rules-lawyering. This is getting out of hand. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I just re-opened this discussion, because it's entirely possible to make the case I was too harsh with the block. I'd prefer to give it until, say, tomorrow morning? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This is the second time this topic was closed prematurely. Nothing needs to be closed a few minutes after the last comment, and certainly not complex ones like this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think keeping it open for a while is good. I'm just not convinced that we'll find a better outcome. But when this does close, I think it would be extremely helpful to LNC for someone to directly AND concisely explain what the conduct problems are. They seem to believe that this is about category speed... and content disputes.^SMason_Garrison 02:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for reopening it, I was thinking it looked a bit fast of a close. First, I want to preference that in LNCs case, I don't know anything about them personally, and have never encountered their edits to the best of my knowledge. That said, reading this and the linked other discussion where they got blocked from editing categories, it looks like a new editor that is a bit excited to be involved and taking some time to learn the system. The way they are replying and are described makes me suspect there could be some neurodivergence, or something similar, in play that people might be mistaking for other things. I've said this a few time, but Wikipedia policies are overwhelmingly neurotypical, and Western in their construction. For example, even the essay Wikipedia:Autistic editors mostly frames the recognized things that may cause misunderstandings as "something which autistic users need to be aware of and take special care with." Examples of things autistic editors may struggle with given in that essay include issues dropping the stick, and the tendency "to say everything that needs to be said and expect others to do so as well." There are recommendations on that page for "Dealing with it on Wikipedia," and I think some of the suggestions might be useful here, or in similar situations. I also think that essay probably needs to be reworked a bit, and some policies/rules (such as WP:BLUDGEON and WP:SEALION) could be softened to feel less "Shut up, stop asking questions, and go away." I understand this user has created a lot of work for others, and they seem to be having a hard time internalizing some feedback, but it looks like they have tried to follow advice. It looks like they are opening RfCs based on their understanding of advice, that they were on categories for creation because that is what they were told to do, and have made a lot of mistakes that were not repeated after they were told to stop (The volume of edits seems to make this inevitable). I'd hate to see a seemingly energetic and enthusiastic contributor blocked if there is any hope for salvaging them. Again, I don't know if LNC is neurodivergent or anything, but know that there are people who are neurodivergent that might find themselves in a similar mess. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess neurodivergence would be the best explanation for the 30 single-character edits removing blank lines from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 1, because they're way beyond needing to game edit counts at this point. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Just took a look at that log, it looks to me how my edits might look if I wasn't previewing before hitting submit. I've also done similar things when looking at a page, making an edit, and then looking to see if anything else needs to be fixed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

John Ratzenberger

A user by the name of Author.KNovak, keeps adding false information on the John Ratzenberger article without putting in reliable sources to confirm it. Twice he has added in info about him being married to a women named Katja Novak, I even looked up to find articles to confirm this info and have found nothing, so this turns out to be false information. He also keeps changing info on the number of kids he has were the source directly says he has two kids.

Here are his edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Ratzenberger&diff=prev&oldid=1332078868
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Ratzenberger&diff=prev&oldid=1358423933
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Ratzenberger&diff=next&oldid=1358423933
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Ratzenberger&diff=prev&oldid=1333787017

~2026-34123-02 (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Advertising and Undisclosed Paid Editing User:Anabelenplaza

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

Anabelenplaza has made several edits to IP related pages adding references to a promotional source. The source's website strongly suggests the editor is affiliated with the source and promoting the business. For example this edit adding the promotional reference. IPBilly (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

User talk:~2026-33482-55

Hello, can an admin please revoke the talk page of ~2026-33482-55 due to ongoing talk page abuse? Malgosha (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll say again what I've told you (and others before): do not edit other people's user talk pages unless you have to. You got into a deletion fight with that editor over what is mostly mild stuff (a few were not so mild, but still didn't meet the threshhold allowing you to act). As Wikipedia:User pages states If the material must be addressed urgently (for example, unambiguous copyright, attack, defamation, or BLP reasons, etc.), the user appears inactive, your edit appears unlikely to cause problems, and you are quite sure the material is inappropriate... you can delete the edit. None of those edits needed to be deleted urgently. The stuff left on the page is not useful, but I'm not revoking TPA as it makes it much harder to handle potential appeals.

Next time, don't edit or reply on the talk page, just post a request for talk page access revocation on AN/I. Staying off blocked users' talk pages unless you're trying to help them is the right thing to do. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I was in the process of checking all the edits and reverts, and did not see the reply at this thread. I already blocked the TAs talk access based on that, this post was added after I first checked this thread, so I hope that's okay. ASUKITE 02:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, actually after rereading your reply I think I'll just make note of it and undo my block, and watch the page for further vandalism. Sorry for jumping into this. ASUKITE 02:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries. To me it was borderline to revoke: I could have gone either way. What persuaded me not to revoke TPA was how much the blocked editor was provoked/encouraged by @Malgosha's deletions of user talk page content (which started even before the block). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll stay off the user talk page of blocked users. Malgosha (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That will help a lot.

You can write on blocked users' talk pages when you are trying to help them get back to editing and are providing advice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)