Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365
    366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196
    1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351
    352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361
    Other links

    Frachx75

    [edit]

    Frachx75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has got a talk page of nothing but warnings about adding unsourced content and block notices. They were blocked only a month ago, but upon being released from that block they’ve gone straight back to editing without sources: [1][2][3][4]. I feel like this may be somewhat of a lost cause here… Danners430 tweaks made 21:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Even in the short time this thread has been open, I’ve reverted another three unsourced additions… [5][6][7] Danners430 tweaks made 22:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is someone able to have a look at this? Danners430 tweaks made 00:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just leaving a message to keep LCSB at bay until this can be looked at - although the user has been quiet since the end of October, so perhaps they've moved on... Danners430 tweaks made 17:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for not getting to this sooner - it does appear that this is stale due to the editor not continuing to edit. If they pick up again, then please re-report (if this has rolled off the board by that point). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries at all - it certainly hasn't exactly been quiet here of late! Happy to close as stale unless they reappear :-) Danners430 tweaks made 09:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger Can I have some of what you're using...? They've literally just returned...! [8] Whatever it is, I'm blaming you for bringing them back :P Danners430 tweaks made 14:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't blame me, blame the demonic duck of some sort! I have indefinitely pblocked from articlespace for persistent additions of unsourced content with an invitation to come here. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ThouShaltEdit and IDHT

    [edit]
    COMMUNITY BANNED
    ThouShaltEdit has been banned by the Wikipedia community. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    After a few days of discussion with this user it is clear that no amount of discussion is going to be productive. This concerns mutliple articles.

    • Gypsy-Rose Blanchard
      On 22 October they removed information from Gypsy-Rose Blanchard citing several policies one of which was a fake policy (WP:NOTGRAPHIC) [9]. This was reverted several days later by me. TSE then reremoved the information again citing the non-existent policy of WP:NOTGRAPHIC [10] and the editor opened up 2 discussions at the talk page [11] [12]. I asked TSE if they were using AI due to the fake policy being cited. They said they confused it with MOS:GRATUITOUS another non-existent policy [13]. A back and forth discussion on the talk occurred between me and TSE with them ignoring my followup about MOS:GRATUITOUS.
    • Factitious disorder imposed on another
      On 22 October they opened a discussion to remove Blanchard from the notable cases citing WP:MEDRS, this was opposed by @Avatar317: as WP:MEDRS doesn't apply. TSE went ahead any and removed the entry twice and was reverted both times. A discussion on the talk page occured betwwen Avatar317 and TSE, with TSE showing signs of IDHT by repeating themselves about MEDRS. TSE then opened up a second discussion to propose removal stating if their standards weren't met in 30 days they'd remove the entry anyway. A back and forth between me and TSE occurred here as well, during this back and forth they attempted to open up a non-neutral malformed (and misplaced) RFC to rewrite MEDRS to their interpretation, which had the rfc template swiftly removed by @Nemov:. TSE can be seen displaying WP:IDHT by repeating themselves about MEDRS despite being told multiple times that MEDRS doesn't apply.
    • List of Munchausen by proxy cases
      On 22 OCtober they removed Blanchard from this list for the same reasons as the above, again reverted by Avatar. More back and forth between me and TSE about MEDRS not applying [14] [15].

    The main IDHT occurrence is at the FDIA talk page, where the user is refusing to listen. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ThouShaltEdit: I collapsed your reply because it was generated by an LLM. You need to write replies in your own words, not the words a slop bot tells you to use. DoubleCross (‡) 06:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They should be blocked indef, right now, on CIR grounds. No competent editor could possibly believe posting the above was appropriate. EEng 07:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was cautious of claiming AI myself from their talk page posts, but the responses here are obvious LLM.
    There were several instances of productive discussion, the issue is not over misconduct. I did hear everything that was being said but I did not agree with the replies, I stated my lack of agreement in LL's interpretation of the policy, lack of policy in removal of sourced content, revision of removed content which LL's basis seemed to be about "non existent policy" having nothing to do with the content he removed and replaced with modification and no edit summary detailing additional words which changed meaning. LL also used references to what "the Sheriff said at trial," that was found within the article itself as reasoning to remove verifiable sourced content. When this failed, LL began to argue that because a suspect is dead, that they can no longer be investigated and that should be reason enough to label them with a medical diagnosis and abuse claims since the chance was lost upon their death. LL proceeded to explain to me what an investigator's job entails, and LL stated that making public reports is not one of those duties. However, a source from the article shows the Sheriff LL mentioned as making a public statement about the investigation of the deceased individual in a newly discovered long running financial fraud scheme, with no mention of any abuse allegations or a psychiatric diagnosis or even so much as a claim against the deceased. Then LL began to argue with me on another page about whether MEDRS applied to diagnosis, he said it did not and I said that when it comes to living people and the recently deceased, the policy states that Biography of living people rules apply. This is found in Wikipedia: Biomedical Information under "Notable Cases". LL refused to take my interpretation into consideration and began to ask me "How many times do we have to tell you?" and I felt this was his inappropriate and that he was trying to pull me into arguing with him, so I kept the communication policy based and I suggested alternatives such as rewording, and better sources. My refusal to engage in a debate with LL over MEDRS not being applicable to Diagnosis, was not because I didn't hear him or wasn't listening or couldn't take no for an answer. It was because I had moved to different ways that we could possibly come to an agreement such as letting a consensus form, and adding a medical citation needed tag, which he removed before discussion could be had, based on what he alleged was a single minded point of view. I explained to LL that I planned on cleaning up the rest of the list and he said none of the other entries had medical diagnosis, and I explained that at least one of them had a legal finding and that I was working on the rest of the article in the meantime while waiting to move past the one entry, which was there, and still is there. I have been very willing to listen and I have listened. I have tried to remain focused on the content and the sourcing and I have had several other interactions with several other editors which started out with a revert and ended in agreement without further issue. I have never stopped listening or responding politely to LL, though I am not sure that the same can be said for him, I just did not want to cause problems, I wanted to work and be productive. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like there might be something here worth adding to Wikipedia:signs of AI writing. Though that article might already be comprehensive enough. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:GRATUITOUS doesn't exist, as I pointed out at the talk page. Plus you've completely ignored the reason for the IDHT report, you repeatedly made claims of MEDRS despite being told it doesn't apply. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I've tried to explain things on their Talk page since I couldn't see whether anyone's gone into detail over the problems with AI yet.
    Leaving the link here for reference, in case it gets blanked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GRATUITOUS does exist, I again, apologize for the typo. The policies which the removal of the content in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gypsy-Rose_Blanchard&diff=prev&oldid=1318124468 were based on, BLP, and GRATUITOUS have been competently applied. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it still reads like an encyclopedia. Because the material in question is about a living person, the standards are higher, and therefore the sourcing of the material provided should be high-quality, not tabloid, not promotional and even when sourced, if the omission of the material does not create a less informative article and there is other, more suitable material, then the material should be removed. I never saw the reason to argue a policy term that I have already stated was made as an oversight and a typo. I believe that if there is a question about the material removal itself then that is the discussion we should be having. If that makes it appear as if IDHT, I believe this can be shown to be a perception based on a narrowly framed view by looking at all of my interactions with others and how they tend to resolve with agreement or they cease before the limit of three reverts, and with suggestion to find a consensus. I did not stick to one viewpoint after a consensus occurred. You have conflated a discussion regarding MBP with a discussion on FDIA and assumed that I should assume the same consensus would occur on both pages since they are similar topics, however, MBP is a Categorical list as a page, and it is a list containing cases that are of a psychiatric diagnosis, Munchausen by Proxy, and because there is no inclusion criteria included on the page, any entry on the list may appear to readers to ba a diagnosed case. My discussion there was not about MEDRS until you brought that into it, and then told me that I am not listening, and asked me how many times I need to be told. I do not think that is the way to prove that IDHT, it is a way to project your frustration at the extremely well laid out points that I am making when you have no where left to go with your debate. So, when I cease discussion and suggest that a rewrite or a better source might help instead, which I believe is not disruptive and shows I do listen and modify, does not prove your IDHT claim. If there is anything else you would like me to address while here, please feel free to do so. I have always held my composure with you but you've given me an opportunity to say things now, by bringing it here. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My discussion was not about MEDRS until you brought it up not true, your first talk page note at LMBP brought up MEDRS [16], you claimed MEDRS on each comment at LMBP [17], [18]. At FDIA you have been told by two people (Avatar and myself) that MEDRS does not apply to diagnosis of people, but continued claiming MEDRS 1 2 3 4 5. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It baffles me that anyone thinks that using an LLM makes an argument more persuasive. It doesn't. Rather, the reverse. Narky Blert (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's part and parcel of their incompetence. It's the reason AI user should result in an immediate, indefinite block. EEng 17:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, I did bring it up in the proposal first, and I apologize for the confusion and for saying that you did. Considering the circumstances, I think it's best if I let my edits and talk pages speak for themselves from this point forward as a defense to your claims. While the administrators work through this matter I will refrain from commenting here further until a decision has been made. ThouShaltEdit (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not experienced enough to know...could this be listed at Requests for Closing? Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: Indefinite Block

    [edit]
    BLOCK, BAN, BLOCK-BAN...
    Clear consensus by the community for an indefinite block, which has been applied by BusterD. As this is a block with community consenus, this counts as community ban. This is a case where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In response to call that may be between User:EEng and Sol 3, I am opening this section for discussion of an indefinite block of ThouShaltEdit, which will be a community ban. I am inserting this break procedurally, and have only read the record once, and am not voting at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support for WP:IDHT, moving the goalpoasts, AI-generating comments and either lying about or CIR regarding their own arguments. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above. The fewer incompetent, slop-posting liars here, the better. DoubleCross (‡) 19:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above. AI-generated response was the nail in the coffin Aesurias (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above. Hellbus (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per the analysis of EEng. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a community ban after having reviewed the user's history. This editor has contributed nothing constructive in nine years and has insulted the community by using artificial intelligence to respond to our concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinitely blocked. I have no power to ban, but I'm willing to prevent further disruption by applying an indefinite block. BusterD (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated TBAN violations

    [edit]

    @Iskandar323 has recently edited at El Sayyid Nosair, an article about an Arab who assassinated an Israeli politician. This is a WP:ARBPIA TBAN violation, following what appears to be a long list of violations and warnings, including a logged warning from an admin.

    Previous violations and warnings include:

    1. Erased a text including a reference to Hamas.
    2. Warned on their talk page for the above violation.
    3. Edit warring on Jerusalem Temple which they self reverted "pending clarification on CT restrictions".
    4. Warned again on their talk page for the above violation.
    5. Starting an AfD for a personality related to ARBPIA and removing material from the same article, later self-reverting the latter edit admitting a topic ban violation.
    6. Logged warning by an admin (Tamzin) for the violations on the above page. Nehushtani (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think the Nosair edits were tban violations, and I'd call for Iskandar to self-rv. Note that the other list items are from January and February. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. I am unconvinced, to be honest. I don't really see the link between an Egyptian-American who murdered an Israeli in the USA, and the Palestine conflict; and the edits did not refer to anything ARBPIA-related (indeed, they were very trivial edits). Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Black Kite - I fail to understand how an assassination of an Israeli politician known for extreme views on Palestinians by an Islamist with associations to Osama Bin Laden and taking part in a 1993 attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in NYC is not related to ARBPIA.
      @Firefangledfeathers - Why does it matter that the edits were a few months ago? The pattern of violating the topic ban is disturbing, and they have been warned several times. Additionally, since being topic banned in January, Iskandar323 has done all of approximately 700 edits, the vast majority in January and February. Since 1 March, they have done a total of approximately 300 edits, so another topic ban violation seems to be significant. Nehushtani (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it would be worse if Iskandar had violated the tban four times in the past week. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think the Bin Laden or WTC stuff moves the needle, but the assassin of Meir Kahane is definitely part of the conflict. Even if he’d only been the acquitted suspected assassin, that’s still sufficient association with the conflict, and Iskandar323’s edit highlighted at the beginning of this report touch on the assassination of Kahane in particular signed, Rosguill talk 14:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      PIA covers the entirety of the Arab/Israel conflict, not just the Palestine/Israel conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish @Black Kite @Rosguill: Just a couple of days have passed since this post and now Iskandar323 is editing the article on Zoe Strimpel, a British Jewish journalist who frequently writes on Israel and antisemitism for the Telegraph and has this text on her page: "She has declared that she is a "pretty major fan of Israel" and wants "Israel’s case to be disseminated to the world". There have also been massive removals of content at criticism of the BBC, just as the outlet faces major criticism over its alleged biases, including anti-Israel bias (following a Telegraph investigation). The second case can be described as borderline, but clearly the first is clearly another violation of the topic ban happening just days after the edits to El Sayyid Nosair. Rafi Chazon (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    TBANs relate to editing content that is actually about the topic, not topic adjacent (by whatever reckoning). My removals of opinions and comments on the BBC sub-page are just that and bear no relation in any capacity to the relevant CTOP. As for the BLP you mention, an extreme minority of material mentioning a CTOP at best makes that portion of the content CTOP-related, unless I'm very much mistaken about how this works. However, this is an opportune time for me to clarify one nagging question that I'd like to put to any administrator who'd care to answer, in the interest of clarifying the limits of a TBAN, per WP:BANEX. If, for the sake of argument, a page exists with no CTOP templates of any kind but perhaps one mention of the name of a key countries central to a CTOP, does that preclude, for example, initiating an RM, XfD or other full page-level discussions on a topic? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those edits linked were violations from what I saw. Assuming that an article isn't tagged, or is tagged with the parts of this page template, you can edit any part of it that doesn't deal with ARBPIA. Using Jimmy Carter as an example, as long as you stay clear of the ARBPIA stuff you're fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello all. I wasn't intending to do anything riskeé on the criminal BLP. I saw some unusual sections, one single sources, and just went to improve the page structure without really thinking about the contents. Belatedly, I did take a double take and wonder it was too ARBPIA adjacent, but I checked the talk page and it had no template and I reckoned that it was because it was a US-Egyptian criminal bio first and foremost. I had only altered header levels, not content. I've self-reverted now given concerns that this was a TBAN violation have arisen. No funny business intended. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the self-rv. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose an indef for “ riskeé ”. (risqué, risky) ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    I'm INVOLVED and not entirely sure whether it constitutes a threat, so please consider [21] I will send this to Stratford Magistrates Court by Nofoolie. At the very least it indicates they are way too conflicted to edit the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Definte legal threat. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make it clear, 331dot has blocked the editor for the legal threat (which I agree and support). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, why in the world would you support a legal threat? EEng 08:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should first ask the user to clarify what they meant by this comment. But out of context, it really does sound quite ambiguous. Is any compromising information about the organization being discussed in this thread? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have read the hatted discussion on the article talk page first. I don't think this us a legal threat to WMF. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The content was not hatted in the diff provided. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nofoolie was saying that they would bring the other editor's comments to the attention of a court that is currently presiding over a case on issues related to the article topic. That is definitionally a legal threat. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that Stratford Magistrates Court has jurisdiction over Wikipedia content. Some people have a very confused idea of the law. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point was that they thought the posts were relevant evidence in the case, not that the court could do anything about the article itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather contempt of court - for a trial about a group that has harassed a journalist. The details of which are horrific and will no doubt be published by the BBC in due course. Just for clarification. Nofoolie (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Number 57 removing undisputed, constructive edits outside of a dispute

    [edit]
    COMMUNITY TBAN
    JaredMcKenzie is indefinitely topic banned by community consensus from the topic of Taiwan, broadly construed. Reversal contingent on future community consensus. Mfield (Oi!) 05:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On an article, I made several edits that improve content and comply with Wikipedia policy. Examples include - removing these sentences [22] [23] as they fail at WP:SYNTH and failed at arguments unsuitable for minimal Wikipedia standards. I also noticed a section was outdated so updated it. [24] these are neutral edits and NOBODY has ever disputed against them. Additionally another editor Amigao improved the article and added unsourced tags as certain paragraphs are unsourced.[25] These edits are also not being disputed. But one editor User: Number 57 has overreached and reverted all of them. Their reasoning is arbitrary as they claim there's an ongoing dispute and revert to pre-dispute version. There is a dispute however my current disputed edit hasn't been restored back. I am still discussing that specific edit on DRN and never undid the revert. Outside that dispute, edits that are not disputed shouldn't be removed without a fair proper reason. I explained that to user Number 57 on talk [26] [[27] but instead they continue to imply all those edits are still actively being disputed when they never were. The repeated removal of these neutral, undisputed improvements constitutes a misuse of BRD and is disruptive. The editor's justification that there is a generalized ongoing dispute is incorrect, as these specific edits have never been contested. Edits that follow Wikipedia policy and improve the article should not be removed arbitrarily, and continuing to do so wastes editor time and hinders article quality. I request that these neutral edits be respected and not reverted without a valid, policy-based reason. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There are two issues here. Firstly, JaredMcKenzie is an SPA purely on Wikipedia to push a particular viewpoint (that Taiwan is not a sovereign state). Secondly, there is a dispute at Political status of Taiwan, which is currently at WP:DRN. JM's edits were reverted by other editors three times,[28][29][30] Since this has been at DRN, JM has continued to attempt to force the edits back in. I noticed the discussion at DRN and decided (given the above) that the article should be restored to its pre dispute state. While JM has claimed that no-one is against these edits, one of the editors who has previously reverted him has stated that they dispute them. On each occasion I have restored the pre-dispute version I have asked JM to observe WP:BRD, which they have failed to acknowledge; if they were truly concerned about there being some legitimate edits being caught up in the rollback, they could have restored only those ones, but instead they reverted everything back into the article. Number 57 19:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you attempting to pressure me to end the dispute and give up well-sourced, notable content from legal experts stating that the ROC constitution still claims the mainland and that the ROC has never formally declared independence? That is not acceptable. Attempting to use unrelated edits as leverage to influence the resolution of the dispute over the ROC constitution content constitutes obstructive behavior, which is discouraged under Wikipedia policy. The edits you reverted were unrelated to the ongoing dispute. Neutral, policy-compliant edits outside the scope of an active dispute should not be removed. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no idea what the first half of the response is about, but the claim that the edits reverted were 'unrelated to the ongoing dispute' is clearly untrue: Some of the text you are reinstating is exactly what was removed by previous editors (e.g. text from the 'ROC sovereignty' section and the views of James Crawford, which was previously removed by Horse Eye's Back[31][32]). In other areas you are continuing to add new material disputing Taiwan's sovereignty (e.g. in the Background section) or removing material that supports it (e.g. the bit about Belgium). Number 57 19:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not the same edits. The newer edit's argument was that Taiwan is not legally a state according to Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law. And explaining why. Previously I never added that argument or source and that edit key argument wasn't even the same as the disputed, albeit closely related. But even if they were the same argument, you could just remove only them. What's your excuse for the mass majority of other edits that are definitely outside the scope of the disputed edits?JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And the first half is you appear to be stretching the scope of the dispute. The ongoing discussion concerns a very specific sourced edit about the ROC constitution and Taiwan's legal status. However, unrelated, factual updates - such as revising the number of countries maintaining diplomatic relations with Taiwan from 27 to 11 - have also been reverted. [33] These edits are entirely outside the scope of the dispute and are verifiable, neutral, and consistent with Wikipedia’s sourcing and neutrality policies. Reverting constructive, undisputed edits like these under the pretext of the broader dispute misuses BRD Regardless the original reason given for removing THE DISPUTED edits is due to claims of WP: SYNTH. On talk, it's now being established that it's supported by the source. If I wanted to, I can restore it but am going through DRN in good faith first. But in the meantime, different edits well outside the dispute, shouldn't be reverted without a specific fair reason for them. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are the same edits or in the same vein. HEB restored the text "The ROC fulfills all requirements for a state according to the Convention of Montevideo" and removed the addition "Even if Taiwan does not fully satisfy the fourth Montevideo criterion"; you delete / add this back in (for about the sixth or seventh time) in this edit. Similarly, HEB removed the section you added titled "Arguments that Taiwan is currently not independent"; you then created a similar section under the heading 'Taiwan is not sovereign nor de jure independent'. Number 57 20:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you bother to read the message I left on your talk page? That's literally the only disputed edit that was restored. It was restored after a discussion and another editor restored it after reaching a consensus and agreeing that it was neutral and acceptable. I wasn't even the editor who restored it. It was the other editor who restored it after that SPECIFIC dispute was resolved. [34] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And the disputed edit is a different edit to newer arguments. Don't conflate them. The newer edit mentions constitutional amendment in 1990s are insufficient to be deemed a declaration of independence. I never mentioned that core argument in disputed edits. Additionally I NEVER cited Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law in disputed edit before nor them in explaining why Taiwan isn't legally a state under international law due to not declaring a separate legal status. Those are primarily different edits from the disputed ones. They are not even identical arguments so don't be obtuse. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    When did Taiwan lose their independence? GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd prefer to keep the discussion focused on verifiable sources and relevant policies. Our role is to summarize what reliable, expert sources state - for example, legal analyses explaining that the ROC constitution continues to claim jurisdiction over the mainland, and that the ROC has not made a formal declaration of independence. The issue is about accurate representation of sources, not taking a political stance. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahahhahahahaah Aesurias (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Australia never made a formal declaration of independence either. Does that mean we are still a colony of Great Britain? TarnishedPathtalk 01:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Australia doesn't have a constitution that states our national boundaries include Great Britian. We are very clear that our boundaries are girth by sea. Meanwhile Taiwanese constitution doesn't recognise itself as independent but still claims the mainland as its territory per Cross-Strait Act article 2. So ROC never legally amended the constitution to say, "We are now an independent Republic of Taiwan." It doesn't legally recognise itself as independent from China, but as the government of the same state of China established in 1912. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING it is not necessary to respond to every comment disagreeing with you on this ANI discussion. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to them, they were asked a direct question - even if it wasn't relevant to the ANI discussion itself. @JaredMcKenzie it's probably best to ignore off-topic stuff like this, so you're not inadvertently giving the wrong impression to admins. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah fair point. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless - there’s no Wikipedia policy that allows admins (or any editor) to remove undisputed, policy-compliant content simply because there’s a broader dispute happening elsewhere in the article. Specifically what is the issue with this edit? Here I detailed further that ROC governed the mainland and wasn't merely there. [35] And here I updated a very outdated section. [36] And over here - [37] - I saw a clear violation of WP: synth at ridiculous levels. Nobody even disputed against their removal and unlikely will because any neutral editor would agree that violates WP: synth at excessive levels. You can't use a lame excuse of a dispute - to remove all constructive edits that aren't even remotely the same as the disputed edits.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:JaredMcKenzie - What part of DRN Rule A.2 didn't you understand? It says that any discussion at DRN will be failed if any of the parties makes a report at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. I have failed the DRN case. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't. To clarify, the post I made here was not a report concerning Horse or the specific disputed edit under DRN. It was about separate edits outside that dispute which were reverted without policy-based justification. My intent was to address that separate conduct issue, not to undermine the DRN process.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I believe there’s been a misunderstanding about the situation. The original reason Horse gave for reverting the edit was that it violated WP:SYNTH. That specific concern was addressed and resolved on the talk page, where another editor confirmed the sources directly support the statement. No other policy-based objections have been presented since then.
    My only intent in filing at DRN was to assume good faith and allow space for Horse (or others) to explain any additional concerns, if they exist. However, no further reasoning has been given after all this time and the content remains supported by reliable, high-quality sources. I am not trying to escalate the matter but to clarify that consensus exists that the material is properly sourced and policy-compliant. If further objections are raised, then feel free to state them and I of course will always be open to discussing them on the talk page, but without clear, policy-based reasoning, continued reverts would just become a conduct concern rather than a content issue under Wikipedia’s standards.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Rule A.2 and Rule A.6 are about the article, not about the editor. Rule A.2 says: Discussion of issues about the article and the editing of the article can only take place at one noticeboard at a time. … If you report any issues about the article at any other noticeboards, such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement, you will be withdrawing from moderated discussion, and the mediation will be failed. Rule A.6 says: Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed. I instructed the parties to read DRN Rule A on 27 October. JaredMcKenzie agreed to accept my role as moderator on 29 October, which meant that they had read the rules. They tweaked the wording of the article on 31 October. I think that the tweak would have been innocuous, except that I had said not to edit the article. On 6 November and 7 November, they reverted edits made by User:Number 57. It is true that Number 57 was not a party to the DRN, which means that they had not agreed not to edit the article. JaredMcKenzie should have either invited Number 57 to join the mediation, or asked the moderator (me) to ask them to join the mediation. JaredMcKenzie may have wanted to discuss a content dispute with some editors at DRN and the conduct of Number 57 at ANI at the same time. That is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The main issue here is one of bludgeoning and harassment... JaredMcKenzie has bludgeoned and harassed a string of editors until they've given up and walked away... And then they'e continued to bludgeon... The last significant non-JaredMcKenzie comment in the discussions at Talk:Political status of Taiwan occured on 8 October... Since then JaredMcKenzie has made all of these edits[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] to that talk page... They bludgeon even when there isn't anyone around to argue with. They have also expanded the dispute laterally making related edits to Taiwan independence movement and Constitution of the Republic of China. See also User talk:Augmented Seventh, User talk:Number 57, [[66]], and User:JaredMcKenzie/sandbox. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And another one[67]... If this isn't WP:BLUDGEON then what is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My talk-page edits are focused on clarifying sourcing and addressing policy concerns. They are not personal attacks or harassment, but standard discussion to resolve disputes. You previously claimed that the disputed edits were original research, but Aaron later confirmed that my sources support the content. Given that there is consensus that the edits are not original research, I attempted to assume good faith and ask if you had any other policy-based issues with the edits. So far, no valid policy reason has been provided. Attempts to direct attention to my conduct as justification for removing these edits are misplaced, as the content itself is compliant with Wikipedia policy.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such consensus... Driving everyone else away without addressing the issues raised is not a consensus for your position. When policy and guideline are cited (which they have repeatedly been) you have dismissed them and then claimed that none were provided. You also appear to be repeatedly misrepresenting the views of other editors and the fact pattern in a way which makes your conduct seem less disruptive, for example you have repeatedly claimed that this is a number of smaller edit disputes while everyone else sees to view it as one rolling dispute which starts with this revert [68]. You also repeatedly claim that other people are trying to goad you into an edit war and you won't do that... But you have clearly edit warred. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And this edit [69] is after I asked you for one single policy based reason to remove edit and waited over a month. You still haven't told me one.I am acting in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. What else am I supposed to do? If an editor repeatedly removes edits without providing a valid reason, should I simply accept that as acceptable conduct? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean one more policy based reason? You'd already been told that there were WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:DUE issues by multiple editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron had told you that you were wrong on this. They showed that my source supported every info. And you didn't tell him that he is wrong. Instead you stopped replying soon after you agreed with him that the spirit of the edit was correct. Also you are the ONLY EDITOR who are saying it's not supported by sources. Both me and Aaron disagree with you on that and proved it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That simply isn't what happened... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the links to prove this happened. Here Arron told you that sources does say all that.[70] Additional said my edit was correct in spirit but needed some minor rewording.[71] Your final reply said you agreed with Arron that edit is correct in spirit and did not even refute or deny his statement. Regardless, no neutral honest editor will look at this edit[72] and say it's original (unsourced) research with a straight face. I constantly had to deal with you saying it's original research when it's not. At one point, you even suggested the edit was not of the same topic because the legal status supposedly differs from the political status. [73] But in the legal arguments section, this represents due weight and is highly relevant to the topic. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [74] is just one part of this and that Aaron's last comment says that it "need some rewording (and definitely remove the second sentence)" does not seem to agree with the claims you are making. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with him that second sentence should be removed. I am fine with that and even repeated that on DRN. But they also said overall edit is fine and didn't say it wasn't supported by sources like you did. They explicitly stated source says all of the info I written down. Their entire comment was - Special:Diff/1315128638. I think at least the spirit of this edit is correct even if it might need some rewording (and definitely remove the second sentence). JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again that edit is not the only thing which has been challenged... And you do appear to be framing another editor's position in a way which is most beneficial to you but seems to largely talk past what they have to say (which is how I feel you generally treat my comments). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally just cut out half of Arron's comment to suit you. I merely showed the entire comment. And if I made a SINGLE unsourced edit, then please show me an edit that's unsourced. If I can't prove all my edits are supported by sources then I concede that you are right. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And nothing in the full text of the comment supports the claim that "They explicitly stated source says all of the info I written down." If they want wording changes including the removal of a full sentence doesn't that tell you that they don't think that the sources support all of the info as written? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    During vandal patrolling, i read over a slow rolling edit war. It appeared an editor was putting in wikivoice their dearly held conclusion, and using tendentious editing to create a pov synthesis constructed from disparate sources. I could be wrong. Augmented Seventh (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources are bad? The only two main sources I rely on is Max Planck enclyopeadia of international law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1362 A highly reputable reference that is used to educate legal experts. And a subject expert from the Conversation. https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-complex-question-of-taiwanese-independence-188584 Both sources together are acceptable especially when attributed. In which I have attributed the Oxford Press site. And I am literally just quoting them. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I had to deal with. I already showed you the link above. Here is the text where they themselves said "I'm just looking at [24] and [25] from the opening comment to support the diff linked in the opening comment. It does say all that. Conversation "Explainer"

    To be fair, I am less sure about [24] (the Reuters article), but it isn't even cited." It seems they agree my edit was supported by sources according to them and you can't keep claiming they didn't say that. The link- [75] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And another one[76]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we have a policy under which the OP can be indefinitey blocked, then I support it; this is nothing but (political propanganda and) tendentous editing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 22:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree with the characterization of my edits as “tendentious.” My edits are well-sourced, neutral, and policy-compliant. I have followed Wikipedia procedures, including discussing disputed edits on talk pages and seeking DRN resolution. If you believe there is a policy concern, please point to a specific policy and how my edits violate it, rather than making broad assertions. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JaredMcKenzie: I made an earlier comment on mobile when I confused something. I'd agree that the synth is a problem and your removal shouldn't have been reverted. However the problem seems to be you've made so many edits, a lot of which were less clear cut, that it was easier to revert them all. Your statement that your edits don't need to be discussed doesn't help either, nor the fact that when you have discussed, your comments have been all over the place. If you'd concentrate on one thing at a time like the synth, you might have had a chance of affection change instead of the topic or site ban now seeming likely. Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes for that, I am sorry. But bear in mind that I did try to discuss them on talk. Horse said my edit wasn't supported by sources. I think my big error was going back and forth on that. He kept saying it's unsourced and I asked him multiple Times to be specific. What I should have done is only ask once and copy my mentor Arron where I just show all sources and the excerpts. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1315826401&title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwanu I know this now. But there were so many edits reverted hence I didn't even know which edit they accused of being original research. And they took a long to finally be specific after which Arron replied to tell them they are wrong on that. I am not trying to be difficult but I am new so still learning ropes. If I have violated a policy unintentionally like boomerang, allow me a chance to prove myself to be better as I do want to edit in good Faith. As it's harsh to ban when my edits like undoing the SYNTH was in good faith. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 2: Topic-Ban JaredMcKenzie from Taiwan

    [edit]

    In reviewing the DRN history a third time, my conclusion that User:JaredMcKenzie was only going through the motions of dispute resolution at DRN is reinforced. I have already described some, but not all, of the issues. After the DRN, JaredMcKenzie threw this boomerang after being told not to throw anything. I propose that JaredMcKenzie be topic-banned from the topic of Taiwan, broadly construed.

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Clearly an SPA POV-pusher. I would recommend all their edits on Taiwan-related topics are undone as well. Number 57 23:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would like to clarify regarding the source-related concerns. My edits have been well-sourced and based on reliable experts, including legal scholars from Oxford and other recognized authorities. If there is a specific edit that genuinely constitutes original research or violates Wikipedia policy, I am fully willing to accept that finding.For reference, this is the disputed edit accused of original research.[77]

    However, I am concerned that some accusations of “POV-pushing” or “unsupported edits” are being applied broadly to well-sourced, policy-compliant contributions simply because the content may be unpopular or politically sensitive. My edits reflect what reputable sources state, not personal opinion, and I have always aimed to improve article quality in good faith. I respectfully ask that any proposal for a topic ban consider actual policy violations rather than disagreement over content that is properly sourced and neutral. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Your edit summary there says "This info is correct and doesn't need discussion. It's not opinion but facts supported by strong sources. Unless you can prove it's wrong or insignificant, the onus is on you to prove it's wrong. Otherwise don't revert this without giving a specific valid reason." but both of the sources provided are opinion pieces (which may be usable if written by subject matter experts but aren't exactly the strongest sources for facts) and you appear to have WP:ONUS backwards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is Arron, my mentor who explained in detail that my source indeed says all that. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1315826401&title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwan - additionally you know LATER on, I found a much stronger source from Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law.[78] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And you know that I have questioned that source's reliability especially how you want to use it and specifically the author's qualifications because that encyclopedia is one where single (often very academically junior) authors write whole pieces with minimal editorial review or oversight, kind of like Britannica but run on a shoestring. That means that its reliability is almost entirely dependent on the author, sometimes its very good but sometimes its a little peculiar or amateurish. The author doesn't appear to have ever published anything on Taiwan, they appear to be solely a China expert... But this isn't the place to re-hash content disputes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Um the Max Planck Encyclopedia is published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, meaning the Institute formally sponsors, oversees, and ensures the scholarly quality of its erovides eitorial oversight and maintaining world-class scholarly standards. Regardless ii is not up to Wikipedia editors to speculate or make original research claims about an expert’s knowledge of Taiwan, nor to attempt to out-debate recognized world leading legal authorities. I merely cite and summarise what they wrote.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's not againat Wikipedia policy to cite a reference that is LLiterally used to educate legal experts globally and has a stellar reputation. is fully consistent with Wikipedia policy. Using such sources to support content is not only allowed but encouraged, as they meet the standards of reliability and verifiability. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    it seems the issue is that I want to add edits supported by legal experts. If there is a specific edit that genuinely violates Wikipedia policy, I am fully willing to accept that finding and take appropriate action. However, I am confident that the majority of my edits comply with WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V, and aim to provide accurate, verifiable, and notable information. I provide high quality sources to back everything and encourage neutral editors to check my edits and see if they comply. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its actually a little more complicated than that... Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. This isn't the first time I've interacted with this source on here (but it is the first in the context of Taiwan)... The first time was when two different articles in the Encyclopedia contradicted each other, but both were by published experts in the field (yes it matters and no that isn't covered by WP:OR) so we included both opinions with attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am okay with attribution and actually did attribute them later. If we agree they are supported by sources but need to be attributed, then we have at least a starting consensus. Also it seems at least one other editor agrees that my edits are mostly correct and restored some edits. [79]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My dude... That is literally where we were a month ago *facepalm* I'm signing off for a while. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what happened before too. Arron replied to your claims of wp:synth and said it's supported by sources but needed rewording.[80] So I later ask you what kind of rewording you would like but you make some excuse to leave as soon as there's progress. We finally came to an agreement that sources support. I even stated on DRN that Amigao wanted attribution to TC and was willing to compromise. If we agree that there should be attribution and that sources support, then we have a consensus. So there shouldn't be any issues?JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does ZeroGPT say that this comment, another comment, and the second half of this are 100% AI-generated? ~2025-31597-25 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Best be careful with those, I've had one say everything in a post is 100% AI generated when three others disagree. I've ended up checking four to be safe, especially if it's a short piece of text. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    True, the AI detector isn't always right. But what's inexplicable is why this AI-sounding comment uses curly quotes like “POV-pushing”, but this human-sounding comment (still mobile) uses straight quotes like "bludgeoning". ~2025-31597-25 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with -25 that some (but not all) of JaredMcKenzie's posts have the stench of LLM-generated text. ~2025-31168-81 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible, maybe even somewhat likely, that this message was LLM generated, but I still think that accusations of this sound speculative. It's also possible they wrote the ideas themselves but used AI for things like grammar, which I believe is allowed. Also, I don't see why this conversation shouldn't be closed under WP:SNOW anyway. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at a minimum. As far as I concerned an indef-block per NOTHERE is valid too: who's got time and energy for this? Drmies (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - User:Horse Eye's Back says, above, that the main issue is bludgeoning and harassment. Yes. I haven't counted the posts either in this thread or on the talk pages, but it appears that more of them are by User:JaredMcKenzie than by anyone else, and I think that is what is meant by bludgeoning. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I should apologise for going back and forth. I merely wanted horse ti tell me specifically which edit is unsourced as they claimed WP: synth. They couldn't give me a straight answer. When they finally did, Aarron corrected them and said they were wrong on that as sources does support it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1315826401&title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwa if my comments asking horse to clarify which edit is unsourced is called "bludgeoning" then I think that's a bit harsh but in the future - I would only ask this once and will not ask multiple Times if Horse or others refuses to give a straight answer. I think as a new editor still learning ropes, that's one lesson I am able to abide by and agree it's the best policy. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Final statement- also this report is me concerned about an administrator's handling of this issue, so I'm requesting review of the process, not the person. If an administrator believes my conduct needs improvement, I'm open to feedback - I only ask for specific examples so I can learn and adjust accordingly. I get Taiwan related articles are sensitive and I was willing to wait over a month to have issue resolved. all of my disputed edits were based on high-quality, verifiable sources - including Oxford Public International Law and The Conversation. They both support each other and have not found a single reliable source contradicting them. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1362 + https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-complex-question-of-taiwanese-independence-188584 I acknowledge that I became frustrated when others claimed my edits weren't supported by sources, even after I provided evidence and at least one editor Aaron also gave evidence.[81] However, my intent has never been to be disruptive - only to ensure factual accuracy based on reliable references. If any of my edits are genuinely found to lack source support or violate content policy, I'm willing to accept a topic restriction and learn from it. I only ask that the review be specific and fair. If my edits are in fact properly sourced and policy-compliant, I respectfully ask that this be considered before any topic ban is imposed. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      (Non-administrator comment) If you're being accused of bludgeoning, it's not a good look if the majority of comments in the thread are from you.
      I realise this means a lot to you, but for your own sake put down the stick - if you haven't made your point by now then you're not going to be able to do it.
      I implore you not to respond to this post either, just let the process run and only respond if someone asks you a direct question. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think JaredMc is contributing with the purest of intentions (being here to improve coverage, not advance any particular viewpoint), I agree with with the spirit of the proposed change whose dispute got me into this discussion, and I believe that he participated at DRN in complete good faith/conscience, but his wordwordowordy communication style is extremely difficult to work with. It's all the reasons Bludgeoning is widely frowned upon, hence I am unsure if his good conscience and ideas alone are enough to keep him around. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Aaron is neutral and more familiar with my edits but I think they don't realise I am a quick study. I learned a lot on Wikipedia in only a month but I didn't know what bludgeoning is until looking it up just now. I wasn't previously aware that's a punishable offense if my intentions are of purest intent. But if I have pure intent then at least I have potential for good faith contributions. I recognize that my communication style on DRN + talk has caused bludgeoning concerns, and stepping back is appropriate to respect smoother community processes. All I want is a fair go - to demonstrate that I will not bludgeon in the future. I will fuller read up on this policy later tonight so there be no excuses, and try to adhere to it strictly henceforth. If I bludgeon again, I will accept a permanent topic ban. I only ask for a fair second chance. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thing is, you've been told many times about communication before. For one, bludgeoning is a big theme of the concerns about you in this thread, and I find it hard to believe that the first time you've read how many people believe you should not make a whole lot of wordy comments. And I recall spelling this it to you myself on the Taiwan political status talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      My impression from you was that my intention were pure but I wasn't helping myself by making it harder for others to understand me. It didn't seem like a crime but more a unintentional failing. Despite the talk Page doesn't mention "bludgeoning" at all - I think I did read a link you sent me but skimmed it. I guess that's my bad and sorry I didn't read it thoroughly. I wish I could go back and take it seriously, but I assure you that I am now and fully aware. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The best way to demonstrate that I will not bludgeon in the future is to stop bludgeoning now. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)½[reply]
    • Support Tban at a minimum, but the continued bludgeoning, ICANTHEARYOU and poltical RGW (etc) is wholly tiresome. As Drmues noted, who's got the time? Also, then, I reiterate the medicinal qualities of an indefinite block. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Strongly) support Their AI-generated answer to the question "When did Taiwan lose their independence?" is admission enough, but diffs provided by another user showing 'McKenzie' (sure...) rambling to themselves in a Taiwan-related talk page and essentially claiming that 'no consensus/lack of response = consensus' solidified my vote. It appears that anyone who tries to raise issues with this editor is just spammed with messages (often on their own talk pages) until they are so tired from the borderline harassment that they move on from it. Even on this very page you can see continued bludgeoning -- even as the user is trying to walk back previous behaviour due to a strong community consensus that they should be topic banned... Aesurias (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - Also want to make it clear that I would definitely support an indef block as mentioned by @Fortuna imperatrix mundi. Aesurias (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If you want a non ai answer. Any real scholar will tell you that Taiwan isn't legally or de Jure independent.[82] A big well known reason is that they don't recognise themselves as independent in their own constitution. But after meeting an admin who ask me loaded question like - (when did Taiwan lose independence). Except Taiwan wasn't de Jure independent at the start so it's a politically charged ignorant question that only shows I will definitely be topic banned if the admin really didn't like the answer (even if accurate) that I give. But it seems to not matter now. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Real scholars seem to disagree on this point and most point to ambiguity NOT certainty... There is a lot of nuance which I still don't think you're getting, its not a binary... For example the DPP's 1999 interpretation of the status quo (under that constitution) is “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country. Its current official name is the Republic of China. Any change to the status quo must be decided by the people of Taiwan through a referendum.” Please also assume AGF about admins, I've had content disputes with heaps of them and they simply do not block people they are in content disputes with (its a point of honor, precedent, and policy). I think it would be helpful if you agreed to stop using AI, some would argue for a block or ban on those grounds alone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Brah, this is exactly why I keep correcting you. I don't know if you are fooling yourself or being disingeuous but ROC Constitution indeed recognize itself as an independent country - but consisting of all of China including Taiwan plus the mainland. When legal experts [83] say it's not De Jure independent, they only meant not a state formally separated from the mainland - as long as ROC Constitution (its Legal framework) still claims the mainland as being its sovereign territory and not foreign.[84] Regardless correcting you even with right intent comes across as bludgeoning. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yea ... this may be surprising but we do want non-AI answers in this thread about your behaviour.
      I second what @Horse Eye's Back has said, all accurate. Aesurias (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with some of the issued raised about the orginal state of the article, although I was less convinced the proposed changes were the best way to go about fixing them. However, the discussions in question are never going to be able to work through the complexities of the topic either way, because of their sheer length and the constant arguments about procedures (and despite the appeal to sources as part of this there is a lot of interpretation in the discussion). The articles in question are definitely not the best topic space to learn about the way discussions and editing work. CMD (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - per WP:RGW, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT. Best for the topic & the editor-in-question, to be seperated from each other. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, they do appear to have made some unproblematic small edits to other topic areas so an indeff may be premature but a topic ban is well earned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppport TBAN. I am not yet convinced that a indef is necessary but given the level of bludgeoning on the talk page and edit warring a TBAN is necessary to prevent disruption to the topic.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN at minimum. TarnishedPathtalk 01:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN at a minimum, with the blatant AI usage pushing me towards an indef. DoubleCross (‡) 03:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and Proposal, When the reality is that ROC Constitution claim Taiwan as part of a greater China and avoids declaring separation. And this lack of legal formal separation from "China" as an entity is what shows Taiwan as not de jure independent from the mainland under its own foundational law. My intent was only to reflect what credible legal experts and sources have written, not to promote a political stance. Source - (Oxford site opening paragraph plus chapter on (lack of statehood) and Ben Saul, subject expert) [85] [86] But can understand that this info can seem almost like blasphemy and adding it full on - still needed Consensus. So I propose a promise to never add this info in if most of you oppose its inclusion and also support a topic block for conditional 2 years (enough time to practise and prove that I am not an evil editor some of you make me out to be). I am willing to agree to compromise and prove my worth long term if my proposed 2 year Broad Topic block is permitted.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content into articles despite warnings

    [edit]
    PBLOCK
    Blocked from articlespace. Athanelar (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    ATK1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add in unsourced/poorly sourced content into the Bite Me tour article. This has been ongoing since October 26, 2025, with warnings issued each time. User has refused to acknowledge the warnings and continue on with their disruptive editing. The sole time they did acknowledge the warning was to issue a personal attack by calling me "annoying," which is beyond uncivil.

    First offence:

    Second offence:

    • 22:58, 28 October 2025 (return of information, again, without citing a reliable, third-party source)
    • no warning was issued

    Third offence:

    Fourth offence:

    The user is continuing to introduce information from the fourth offence with citations that violate both WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:RSPYT (WP:USERG). They are clearly not here to edit constructively towards the encyclopedia, and their continued disruption is tendentious, via being unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability and continuing to cite unencyclopedic sources and perform original research. livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact they're citing themselves as the source[87] and nothing else that actually shows what they claim is the most obvious issue here. Basic WP:CIR/WP:OR issue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to their policy violations, I have indefinitely blocked ATK1997 from article space. In order to be unblocked, they will need to persuade an administrator that they fully understand the core content policies No orginal research and Verifiability, and that they will fully comply with those policies. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sam Vaknin

    [edit]

    Could I please ask for some eyes on the Sam Vaknin article? The short version of the story is:

    • Vaknin is an author who writes a lot about narcissism, including from a personal perspective. He lives in Skopje, Macedonia.
    • He previously edited (and was banned) as User:Samvak in 2006
    • User:Zorandimitrovskiskopje has been editing the Vaknin article (only) since May 2024, adding large amount of primary sources (youtube, self-published Vaknin sources). There were also problems with verifiability. Other editors expressed concerns that it was overly promotional. I expressed the problems on the talkpage and tried to work with Zoran,[88] but to no avail, as the problematic edits continued with no interaction. Zoran was not happy when I followed through with my proposal and deleted material in question.[89][90] Two days later, Vaknin began a series of off-wiki attacks on Wikipedia and me in particular. For a list of some of them, see here: [91]
    • The same day, an IP from France popped up with a series of anti-Vaknin BLP vio edits. The editor was blocked.[92]
    • The article was extended protected.
    • User:Zorandimitrovskiskopje has been Arbcom blocked.
    • In the last two days, 3 temp accounts from Macedonia (likely the same person) have appeared on the talkpage, ostensibly anti-Vaknin and arguing for the article to be deleted. But also complaining that noone is fixing up the article as fast as they would like. And posting an ever expanding list of Vaknin's off-wiki ongoing attacks on on Wikipedia, me and utterly innocent User:BlockArranger.

    It would be very helpful to have some extra eyes on what is going on and how best to manage it. Slp1 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Considering the block way back in '06 was because Vaknin had a drawer that was full of socks, this honestly sounds to me like he's reopened it. It could be worth taking to SPI again. Emma (chats ✦ edits) 00:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Emma. Thanks for your comment. It is interesting that you immediately suspect a sock issue: that is my opinion, and that of others it seem[93]. I could go to SPI for sure, but my preference is for a broader consideration given all the on and off wiki issues here. And who knows? Maybe there is a checkuser floating around here at ANI who could clarify certain aspects of this!!!! Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    {{checkuser needed}}. Note I'm not sure if temporary accounts can be linked to a 'proper' account publically, since IPs cannot... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our standing instructions from the Ombuds Commission is not to do that. So appreciate that you raised this question. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh yes, of course. Makes sense and I do understand the privacy issue. Do you have any suggestion about what is best to do? Slp1 (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You should still be able to open a SPI and list the TAs. In the village pump discussion, SGrabarczuk (WMF) stated: "There's also this: 'When it is reasonably believed to be necessary, users with access to temporary account IP addresses may also disclose the IP addresses in appropriate venues that enable them to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, the Privacy Policy, or any Wikimedia Foundation or user community-based policies. Appropriate venues for such disclosures include pages dedicated to Long-term abuse. If such a disclosure later becomes unnecessary, then the IP address should be promptly revision-deleted.' (Source)". Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We can connect TAs to IPs and to named accounts as we've always done - behaviourally. But you can't say "I used CU/TAIV and can tell you that..." about named accounts vs TAs/IPs. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User Touchedme123 WP:NOTHERE

    [edit]

    User Touchedme123 is repeatedly showing WP:NOTHERE behavior - using various talk pages as WP:FORUM repeating their own POV interpretations (e.g. noted here) and assumptions against people/denomination without using WP:RS on various talk pages (e.g. Teahouse, NPOV notice board, Article talks: [94], [95] etc. Also seems a possible WP:COI since they are claiming to be a "former member" of the denomination they are criticizing and using talk pages to advance their personal views as noted here - e.g. see more talk pages: [96], [97].

    They are also trying to support their claims using various websites which are primary sources and doing WP:OR/WP:SYNTH (e.g. [98], [99]). And, they seem to be using LLMs - some signs I noticed e.g. title case, em dashes, curly quotation marks etc. Another editor also noticed at Teahouse. They are also referring to sources that don't exist (I tried looking for the sources but was not able to find) and when asked multiple times ([100], [101]) if they used LLM, they did not answer, and instead suggested that "I would like to refer to my primary source". I tried explaining their behavior and edits (e.g. [102], [103], [104]) - and another editor also had explained [105] and had reverted [106], [107] their POV, which they restored back [108], [109].

    Seems Touchedme123 continues to ignore NPOV and pushes personal views based on WP:OR - expecting other editors to read websites of primary sources. It seems they are not here to contribute. Due to their clear COI and NOTHERE issues, it seems at least a topic ban is needed.

    Updating to add their use of WP:UNCIVIL language - at noticeboard "F* It doesn't bother me." Asteramellus (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never made one edit to an article and just have asked for clarification on several topics on talk pages and provided sources when asked. This particular user has been stalking my posts non stop and may be part of a long standing sock farm I uncovered while looking at the history. They are claiming I restored a revert out of the blue when in fact, I provided sources.
    I was told to go to the tea house by a user and from the tea house page, I was told to go to the dispute resolution board for my concern. This person is obsessed with the following me and trying to make me stop having discussions particularly with BAPS and how tactfully they have promoted themselves.
    My point is there should be a disambiguation page with the Swaminaryan movement/theology/Hinduism.
    The swaminaryan Sampraday was established by swaminarayan with the acharyas as the leaders.
    BAPS had multiple court cases where they lost the right to be a part of the Swaminaryan Sampraday because their founder Shashtri claimed he was divine and a manifest of God.
    This for some reason is being ignored.
    Then they went out to change multiple scriptures, ignore scriptures and manipulate, which I provided sources for and are not explained on the BAPS page.
    But for some reason BAPS Akshar Puroshottam theology is continuously littered throughout the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page. Which just doesn’t make sense to me so I am asking on a talk page why?
    This person is not engaging in good faith.Touchedme123 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is literally obsessed and stalking every post I make. Another editor told me that I’m pushing my religious narrative POV as if I’m a member of the other side. I didn’t say anything to anyone that’s uncivil, I said it to myself so that it’s clear I’m not a part of any religious group or narrative. Stop harassing me. You appear to be extremely invested in monitoring critical BAPS content. Touchedme123 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know we can see your contribs shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so I don’t understand why this particular user is narrowly obsessed with my discussion not even actual edits to any pages to BAPS that question why things are presented the way they are.
    Instead of answering questions and engaging and discussion, they are attacking the way I speak, really fixated on getting me to stop discussing BAPS manipulation and edits to scriptures.
    It’s just very creepy and offputting. I feel like I’m being monitored every time I type by a BAPS member who doesn’t want these discussions taking place. I have sourced everything I’m saying like they changed eight scriptures. At minimum it can be noted that they are different.
    The multiple court cases that BAPS was involved in resulting in the split are not mentioned on the BAPS page. But this user doesn’t find that to be shocking or needing to be updated. They are fixated on getting me banned from this topic. If it’s not clear as day what’s happening then forget it. 02:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC) Touchedme123 (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one question, have you read any policies listed in this report? shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have and I responded to them. I didn’t even know the teahouse existed. I was told to go there by another editor. And then from there, another editor told me to go to the dispute resolution board. I opened every Wikipedia policy here and on the talk pages. And if something is not supposed to be on the discussion board or talk pages, then tell me and I can remove it but so far it’s been a narrow focus just not to answer BAPS critical content.
    I guarantee that this editor that posted this here wants to get me banned from this topic and then they will go ahead and delete/hide everything rather than than engaging on removing certain aspects because there are valid points but we need to work on them this way or that way. Touchedme123 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    hold on on the accusations shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Shane how many times have you been asked to step back from admin areas? You are not helping. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been told that once..? shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [110] and [111] are two explicit instances (and to be clear, one of those is from me); this does not count numerous examples like AN/IncidentArchive1205 where you have been told off for doing a bad job in individual administation-adjacent areas. ~2025-31168-81 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asteramellus @Touchedme123 In my opinion (which is usually 43% correct in some cases), Touchedme123 did a ton of things correct, discussing on talk pages about edits, and that noticeboard comment, I can argue that it is kind of incivil, but heck it, there has been a ton of people using the same terminology that Touchedme123 has been using, so it just makes no sense.
    The LLM use is kind of suspicious, but I think we should just let Touchedme123 explain the weirdly formatted responses. shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban. This editor has tried WP:FORUMSHOPPING around to get approval for POV-pushing Katzrockso (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was told to go to the tea house and then from there I was told to go to the dispute resolution board. Everything I’ve posted on the talk pages belongs on that talk page to discuss to come to a consensus. Touchedme123 (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not the place to settle your personal aversion against the BAPS. You didn't uncover any sockfarm; Tamzin did. Asteramellus is not part of it. Stick to WP:RS, make usefull suggestions, or just find another outlet for your views. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Shame on you, you know what I meant. You are taking my words out of context. I was trying to find out who posted non-NPOV version of the BAPS version of the vachanamrut and found out and saw that account that was listed sock farm. All their edits still seem to be present. So job well done to them. Touchedme123 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should put some efforts to address the problems mentioned on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Swaminarayan_Sampraday instead of replying to every message made here. Zalaraz (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your problem? I literally have been engaging with an editor who actually made a change on my behalf on that page. Why are you dictating where I should respond when I’ve literally been doing both. Touchedme123 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it, this is one of the reasons that WP:CT/SA is in place. I think this is an editor who believes they're doing good, but has waded into one of the most controversial, heated areas of English Wikipedia long before they learned how to interact with other Wikipedia editors. All these discussions are related to a religious/philosophical/social movement in India, and I'm surprised nobody has given Touchedme123 the WP:CT/SA notice (I just did).
    Touchedme123, you really should only be making completely uncontroversial (either not a fact that can be disputed or implementing an existing consensus) edit requests (in the format of a specific x-to-y change of specific content) in this topic area until you have extended-confirmed user rights (500 edits/30 days), and that includes discussions anywhere on English Wikipedia. You'll have far more ability to constructively edit topics like these once you have more experience understanding how sourcing, verifiability, and reliability are approached here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Touchedme123 can edit WP:CT/SA but not the topics about Indian caste and military until he is WP:ECP (500 edits). He is currently editing about Swaminarayan which is not related to caste or military. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 11:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm mistaken -- and I know better than to ever dismiss the possibility that I am -- the current WP:CT/SA folded in WP:GSCASTE, which isn't just castes but all pages about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. A religious/philosophical/social movement is certainly a social group. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Swaminarayan is a religious group, or a religious denomination of Hinduism to be more specific. It is not a social or ethnic group for which GSCASTE was created and is explicitly about caste in South Asia. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 03:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Swaminarayan is a historic individual who is not covered by WP:CT/SASG (the former WP:GSCASTE). Swaminarayan Sampradaya is a religious group, as is Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, and is, by definition, a social group and thus falls under WP:CT/SASG (the former WP:GSCASTE), which, quoting GSCASTE itself, covers all pages about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal (emphasis added). I have accordingly ECP'd Swaminarayan Sampradaya and Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack

    [edit]

    I've identified the article as containing false information with multiple references that followed the WP:RS Guidelines in Talk:Dance in Thailand#True etymology of terms Rabam, Ram which is not of Khmer origin. The editor @MoonsMoon who edited the article was hostile in response, accused me of cherry-picking and personally attacked me on my Talk page as being disrespectful to other editors. [112] As I told the editor about my personal experience in the article, "I'm not surprised, as the behavior I've witnessed is consistent with that of Cambodian editor with whom I've had previous experience in war-editing." That's the incident about my personal experience where the editor @Bolatio used to personal attack and racially abuse me during April-May, 2024. [113][114][115]

    My ability to address the issue was restricted in this article because the editor disregarded those references that followed the WP:RS Guidelines. Additionally, I also found that this editor uses a reference list that does not mention the etymological content of the word and list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantplinus (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Quantplinus have you notified the other editor about this post here? It is required. – robertsky (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertsky Yes, I have done. [116] I'm sorry for forgetting to inform the editor earlier. Quantplinus (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm not really sure how to do this. So here goes nothing.
    As of this post, I haven’t edited Wikipedia since I believe Friday evening. Quantplinus apparently brought this here around the same time as their latest reply to me on the Dance in Thailand Talk page, which I still haven't read. So basically they didn't even give me a chance to read and reply to them, or edit the Dance in Thailand article, before taking it this far.
    Quantplinus had started a confusing (to me) topic in Dance in Thailand Talk which in part said a source I brought over from an old version of the article didn't meet Wiki standards. I begrudgingly said "got it" and accepted that the ‘Learn Thai’ reference is unreliable as a source for Thai language, I just disliked the implication that I deliberately used an unreliable source, as well their use of the word "ideology" (what ideology?) for my edits. Furthermore, Quantplinus included what appears to be their own personal thesis about the source for the origins of the words 'rab/rabam' which I guess they’re demanding I accept and use…? I don’t know, I thought that was original research. So I replied, “So a site called ‘Learn Thai’ is wrong and unreliable, but you're correct and totally reliable? Got it. ETA- Mine are just the two, not sure where the rest came from.” It’s one of the reasons for the no original research rule, not "personal attack" on them like they've characterized it. The ETA reflects my confusion over what the thesis is and where all but two of the references (the ones I brought over) come from.
    In response, @Quantplinus doubled down and again mentions my “ideology” (?). Out of nowhere Quantplinus targets Cambodians, specifically "Cambodian editors" (plural, not singular as they claim above) with whom they’ve apparently edit-warred, and also assumes I’m Cambodian because its "consistent." Then accused me of “exposing" myself when I “spread this kind of behavior.” So Quantplinus's post above misrepresents what they actually said. They didn't claim an editor personally attacked them. Not at all. It was an attack out of nowhere on Cambodians.
    I was tired of the attacks and accusations, plus now they've brought up ethnicity. I replied I’m just an American who isn’t Thai or Khmer ethnically, I just have interests. I also quickly edited out a snippy comment I made in response to their snippiness, which you can see in the edit summary. Plus I had overlooked that Quantplinus had asked, “How can you trust this information more than dictionaries or linguists,” presumably referring to the thesis they posted. So I answered, “It looks like a bunch of original research you cherry-picked to land at the answer you wanted.” That’s where the “cherry picked” comment came from. Again, I’m still not sure what exactly Quantplinus wanted me to do with their thesis or whatever it is but it sure seems like they were trying to bully me into using it. To reiterate, I voiced that I thought it was original research.
    I also didn’t “personally attack” Quantplinus on their Talk Page. I placed an “assume good faith” template message there in response to their accusations. They’ve deleted it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quantplinus&diff=prev&oldid=1320970198
    Finally, the edit was never important to me, to warrant all of this. I can insert a different source, or we can discuss deleting it all, whatever. I didn't say I wouldn't edit the article. I certainly wasn't going to pause my weekend for it though. MoonsMoon (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You responded to me twice in that thread, accusing me of cherry-picking and then left kind of msgs on my personal talk page without any evidences, which occurred after I created a new talk topic. I'd like to point out that my sources are secondary. This shows that you didn't check the references in the list I cited, which has over 40 references in there. It's not original research, as you might think. (FYI: Original research: Research#Original research)
    I'm not saying you're a XYZ national as claimed, but I'm just saying you have the same behavior as a Cambodian editors with whom I've had previous experience in war-editing, along with evidence.
    Additionally, the fact that I missed one letter "s" does not negate the validity of my argument. There are also others, such as "Pierrevang3," "Mimihuang07," and "Oksana Champoo," associated with "Bolatio" esp., "Pierrevang3" whom experience in war-editing with. Because English is not my first language, even my first language makes typos often so please understand the foreign editor here. Quantplinus (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for clarity, ''Bolatio'' is a sockpuppet account of @Pierrevang3. A look at the sock-puppeteer's edit history shows near-identical topics and a disproportionate amount of talk page contributions. CheckUser may be useful Aesurias (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aesurias I'm interested in this matter as well. As per Dance in Thailand: Revision history. In my personal observations, the edit history raises suspicion due to similarities between the edits made by IP 36.37.219.63 and MoonsMoon around the same time. The writing style also appears to be consistent among these three individuals during the War-edit event between Hotgas, MoonsMoon, and IP 36.37.219.63. It is possible that these individuals IP 36.37.219.63 and MoonsMoon are the same person. I sugggest checking out the contribution history of both of these people. Quantplinus (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertsky As you can see, @Quantplinus also decided to accuse me of having sockpuppets, without informing me. To reiterate, I haven't been on Wiki since Friday so I've yet to even see their latest reply on the Talk page or had a chance to edit the article in question. This is on top of Quantplinus coming here before I got a chance to reply or edit the article which I still haven't done because I want you to see.
    @Aesurias Yes, please do check the IP of 36.37.219.63 and myself! You'll see that it isn't me. I'm in the Detroit area and that person is likely in Thailand. Quantplinus is misrepresenting what went on in that edit war, which is that Hotgas kept reverting the legitimate edits from myself and 36.37.219.63 without explanation, and had re-added recently-removed fake references. The misrepresentation is likely the reason they didn't ping me right here. Quantplinus has been behaving like a bully.
    To reiterate, please compare our IP addresses. MoonsMoon (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @MoonsMoon:, Aesurias cannot check your IP; they are not a CheckUser. And even if they were, it is prohibited for CheckUsers to reveal whether or not an IP address is linked to a named account technically. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire point is that I'm not anonymous editor 36.37.219.63, whom @Quantplinus has accused me of sockpuppeting, and I'm just trying to exonerate my bemused self, lol. It doesn't matter whether it's via IP addresses or what. MoonsMoon (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Got more personal attack from temporary accounts "~2025-32267-51" [117] Quantplinus (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ILOVEPRINCEGEORGE2000

    [edit]
    TPA revoked, not sure there's anything else to do here, threats aren't credible. Mfield (Oi!) 06:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user, after being indef-blocked, is threatening to continue disruptive edits using bots using two simultaneous unblock requests (see this revision of their talk page as of this message). — Alex26337 (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Gosh, am I glad the username isn't referencing the other one jolielover♥talk 09:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume "autobots07" is not referring to the Transformers characters? GarethBaloney (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen Transformers since I was a kid, but I have to admit I might watch again if there was a Decepticon that was a Wikipedia vandalism bot that could transform into, say, a Cadillac Escalade. "GOOD WORK, INFOBLAST, YOUR DIGITAL MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN WILL TURN THE HUMANS AGAINST THE AUTOBOTS." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the old IDW comics continuity, there was, no joke, one issue that included the punchline "you were right - vandalizing our Autopedia pages was a great idea!" - The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A range block will likely be required. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    TPA revoked, seems like the least we can do Mfield (Oi!) 06:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election

    [edit]
    Both users page-blocked 48 hours. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 15:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    The user Anbarasan1523 has repeatedly removed well-sourced content from the article, despite the inclusion of proper third-party references. The edits appear to focus mainly on deleting sections related to government achievements while retaining or emphasizing criticism. These removals have continued even after updates and discussions were initiated on the talk page. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, neither of you should be editing there, as neither of you have extended-confirmed rights, and edits related to the topic of political parties in India are explicitly restricted for non-EC editors, per WP:CT/SA. I've added the required notice to both your talk pages. Since this particular dispute seems to be limited to the two of you, hopefully this stops the incident without any sanctions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're now both blowing well past WP:3RR. Both of you have contributed to making a godawful mess. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked both from that page for 48 hours for the clear edit warring. If it spills to other pages (there's a revert on an another page as well), then we can expand the blocks.Sam Kuru (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I tried my best to summarize the content of the article and ensure NPOV. I also helped to add the content under sections which were empty before. Please check out my contributions before labelling them as "mess". Also, the other user was the major reason for adding more unnecessary contents and engaging in edit war. I accept my action also count as "edit war" but my intent was to restore the maintenance templates and reaching consensus on article's talk page. I also refrain from editing political articles hereafter, as I'm new user and didn't know about that contentious topic policy. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks and edit wars

    [edit]

    A user FactCheckerBharath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps attacking me personally in my talk page and accused me of "vandalism" when I tried to summarize a lengthy article 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election. Due to persistent content dispute, I added the clean-up and maintenance templates on the article and asked opinions from other editors. But the aforementioned user [removed those templates] (edit war), even after asking him to wait before reaching the consensus on the article's talk page. I noticed there is ongoing ANI discussion on this issue only after posting this (as I didn't receive ANI notice from the user as required by the ANI rule). Anbarasan1523 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    HELP restoring against vendetta

    [edit]
    SOCK BLOCKED
    OP blocked as sockpuppet. Athanelar (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Sock, needs a block Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paradygmaty. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And very quacky as well and also with a lie such as ‘haven’t edited in months’ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting an admission to creating sockpuppet accounts to violate a block is never a good idea, regardless of whether ChatGPT is involved. AndyTheGrump (talk)
    This account, and the previous ones, are  Confirmed to Marina redaktor. The master is stale, but given the choice of username I don't think there is any readon to doubt that they are all the person behind the original Paradygmaty account. Given that they're persisting with this nonsense, I'd be grateful if another CU would quietly run a check and block the underlying range, it'll be a bit obvious if I do it. Girth Summit (blether) 14:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Checkuser needed}} - see my post above. Girth Summit (blether) 14:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been dealt with now. Girth Summit (blether) 17:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by User:GabooRuls25

    [edit]
    Blocked for two weeks by Smasongarrison. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Need a longer block for GabooRuls25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they came back from a week long block for disruptive editing and immediately resumed edits with the same edit summary over and over, template blanking, and no discussion on proposed template edits. Cards84664 20:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this some sock? I swear I have seen this exact same edit summary style on many other accounts, of just restating the article title. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I compared to the usual suspects in railroad topics, this one seems to edit differently (so far). This one only uses mobile edits and mainly has a focus on Canadian rail topics. Cards84664 21:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm mainly just speaking in general, I've seen a lot of accounts who have their edit summaries be the article name rather than something more useful. But they could be disconnected, not sure. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given them a warning. @Asilvering blocked them last time. SMasonGarrison 02:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked them for two weeks.[118]SMasonGarrison 05:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP topic ban dodging and deleting other users assessments

    [edit]

    IP editor User talk:~2025-31535-31/User talk:~2025-31256-01 was topic banned from editing in Draft space on August 20 by @Donald Albury: for persistent flooding of AFC with unacceptable quality drafts. See User talk:74.106.206.136. The editor has been using a dynamic IP to circumvent the topic ban which does not expire until Nov 20. They are now also deleting decline reviews of the subpar nominations, and altering comments left on the nominations, while fully ignoring all comments left on the IP talk pages.--Kevmin § 21:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I've taken a quick look at the only two articles that made it into main space, out of nearly a dozen. They're both stubs and here they continued to add empty sections after they'd been removed by another editor. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deamonpen on Evie Magazine

    [edit]
    This is a content dispute and so it doesn't belong at WP:ANI. If there are instances of edit warring, please file a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Deamonpen (talk · contribs) has been relentlessly refusing to drop the stick and edit warring against consensus on Evie Magazine even when everyone in the talk page thread[119] is against him. He consistently edit wars to water down the language describing the mag in the lead from "Alt-right" to "conservative" to "An American women's magazine described as conservative" despite everyone in the thread consistently being against him, on the grounds that consensus is not determined by the number of peope who say X. It is about what arguments they bring and how the debates end.[120] (Deleted and reposted because apparently we can do this via visual editing now) Snokalok (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't remove the "alt-right" materials. I add the "conservative" materials. And nobody in the Talk page protests the additions of "conservative" materials. They just have different ideas on how to put "conservative" and "altright" in the description of the magazine (first sentence)
    Evidenced by the fact that this is User: Bluethricecreamman who readded the conservative part after deleting my initial edit:
    Bluethricecreamman's edit
    Then User: Gurkubondinn rearranging the refs in that exact part to make it clearer.
    Gurkubondinn's edit
    The other users in the Talk page also didn't protest the addition of "conservative". They just argued about how the exact sentence should be written. In the last message of User:Zenomonoz, they said that they agreed with my position:
    Talk page
    And nobody since yesterday has rebuffed my last answer.
    The fact that you don't just want to change how the sentence is written, but remove all the "conservative" materials (without even trying to talk it out on the Talk page) does not show good will on your part.
    Current edit history of the Evie page for reference Deamonpen (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I can see an immediate issue with your last edit, which could just be down to a misunderstanding if I take the AGF route (perhaps English isn't your first language?).
    In your last edit [[121]] to the page you changed "...is an American alt-right magazine" to "...magazine described as a conservative; alt-right."
    You're changing the magazine from being alt-right to being described as alt-right.
    That changes the meaning by distancing the term "alt-right" from the subject (the magazine).
    Whilst you're not removing the term, you're changing how it's being presented in the article in a fairly significant way. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it is described as "conservative" and "alt-right" by different sources respectively, and the sentence should reflect that. Wikipedia exists to reflect the sources, right? As I said in the Talk page, merging it into "conservative alt-right" is an untenable position, because the sources themselves do not do that (sources that say "conservative" don't say "alt-right", and vice-versa). Wikipedia does not say "X is Y" (except if the subject is universally or near universally accepted as such, and always with sources, implying that the position is something taken from sources). If some sources say X is Y while other sources say X is Z, then it is better to take note of those different position. One of the sources (agreed to be best source on Talk page) explicitly makes the case that the authors say "conservative" and distance themselves from "alt-right". So it is one more reason not to write "conservative alt-right". Deamonpen (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I am fine with "conservative [with sources] or alt-right [with sources] women-magazine" (no "described as"). Or even "conservative/alt-right women's magazine" - just a bit awkward for an encyclopaedia.
    But others do not like that. Deamonpen (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus on talk already found the sources saying conservative to be weaker for various reasons, include HEADLINE and being a quote from an interview Snokalok (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per User:Blue Sonnet's opinion, I temporarily restore User:Gurkubondinn's version (basically User:Bluethricecreamman's version. No one has agreed that "conservative" sources should be removed. But I want admins and others to propose their own solution in this case. Deamonpen (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) @Snokalok, it seems as though you've also been edit warring yourself.
    @Snokalok @Deamonpen if you two disagree on what edits should be made, even if you think you're right, please first reach consensus before making the edit. I would also suggest you both take a look at dispute resolution.
    Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am restoring the last stable version. It's not edit warring when you're restoring the consensus version against a single disruptive editor who acts against consensus. That's just being a good editor - and I would thank you to observe the talk page where consensus was overwhelmingly found against his position. Snokalok (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a look at WP:3RR. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus on Talk does not say "conservative" are weaker. Please don't invent more imaginary stuff. In fact the agreed best source says conservative, not "alt-right". Deamonpen (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Grayfell, you are removing the versions inserted by three different users + me, I don't see how it is me who is edit warring. Deamonpen (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you did does count as edit warring given the ammount of times you did restoring a pervious version is not an exemption even if there is consensus. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:GothicGolem29, The versions User:Snokalok and User:Grayfell are trying to remove (there are slight differences, but all keep the language "conservative [sources] alt-right magazine....") were inserted by the following:
    1
    2
    3
    +me (I don't agree, but temporarily restore per User:Blue Sonnet's request).
    That was also the position we left before we started yesterday's debate.
    Also User:Wikieditor662, I did the initial edit of today, because no one protested my last reply on the Talk page. Deamonpen (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify I didn't request anything, the article had already been changed from the version I quoted, so that sentence was no longer in the live article.
    I was also reviewing the edit history and writing a response to suggest that editors to temporarily stop working on the article whilst it's at ANI, but things move pretty fast on this board and unfortunately I wasn't in time. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, taken note. But I think that given the way everybody else has kept the "conservative" ref, it is safe to say the stable version is not the one Snokalok is trying to revert to. Deamonpen (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:NOTHERE edits from Winnebaggo

    [edit]
    NOTHERE
    Blocked by Cullen328 as WP:NOTHERE Athanelar (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    I seriously have no idea what Winnebaggo (talk · contribs) is doing. I came across them when they inexplicably removed a perfectly valid image from Tri-City Pavilions.

    Upon checking their edits, I found:

    The user was previously blocked in September 2024 for vandalism of this nature, followed immediately in 2025 by further warnings for creating unhelpful redirects such as Jeffroy and Winnebago Dave.

    Since then, they have continued to create useless redirects that are unlikely to serve any purpose such as Tree Dollar.

    I have not seen a single constructive edit by this user. They have not responded to the myriad warnings on their page. In short, I think this is a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Should be blocked, as they seem to be only entertaining themselves. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked at their history briefly, and I concur with the OP. They are largely creating stupid redirects that are not quite stupid enough to be R3. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Winnebaggo as not here to build an encyclopedia. I am not sure if the issue is a lack of competence or an attempt at an absurdist breaching experiment, but that does not matter in the end. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent unsourced edits by Jjdewikieditor5

    [edit]
    SOCKPUPPET
    Blocked by Bishonen as sockpuppet Athanelar (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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


    User Jjdewikieditor5 is an editor who uses many identities and IP addresses to make unsourced edits in various articles. Sources are rarely added, if sources appear in their edits it's most likely to have been copied/pasted from the same article elsewhere. The person has been blocked a number of times in their previous incarnations, either temporarily [122] or indefinitely (JJdawikieditor, Jjdawikieditor103, Yinyangdraon). They can be identified by their similar or partially identical edits [123][124] (in Lion dance), similar user names or identical articles edited such as articles on wrestling or pets (e.g. Gimmick (professional wrestling), Spitz). The person appeared to have quieten down a bit after the last block, but is back again, still unwilling to add sources, which is making it difficult to verify the edits (often it is not possible to find any evidence or source for their edits). Hzh (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Report on User:Petertitus (page move vandalism)

    [edit]

    Hello,

    I am reporting Petertitus (talk · contribs) for disruptive page move vandalism on the article Samia Suluhu Hassan.

    Here is the log of the disruptive moves from November 9, 2025:

    • 11:33: Petertitus moved page Samia Suluhu Hassan to Samuya Suluhu Hassan
    • 11:36: Petertitus moved page Samuya Suluhu Hassan to Rais Samuyaa Suluhu Hassan
    • 11:38: Petertitus moved page Rais Samuyaa Suluhu Hassan to Samia Suluhu Hassan.

    This series of disruptive moves was later reverted by Explicit at 14:40.

    Could an administrator please review this user's behavior and take appropriate action?

    Thank you, --Sidmanegda (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this actually vandalism or is it merely a different spelling/extra name or title? If it is the latter then it is a content issue that should be resolved on the article talk page. This user's edits so far don't inspire much confidence that that will work, but it should at least be tried before coming to WP:ANI. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    Thank you for reviewing this. To answer your question: yes, I believe this is clear-cut vandalism and not a good-faith content dispute.
    Here are the specific reasons, which go beyond a simple "different spelling" issue:
    1. The Name is Unambiguous: The subject's name is Samia Suluhu Hassan. This is the established name used by all reliable sources and reflected in the corresponding Wikidata item (Q16193885). The variations being introduced have no basis in fact.
    2. Persistent, Nonsensical Misspellings: This isn't a simple typo. The editor first changed "Samia" (a common Muslim name) to "Samuya," and after being reverted, they returned to edit-war with a new variation, "Samuyaa." This pattern demonstrates a persistent, intentional defacement of the subject's name, not an attempt to add a valid alternative.
    3. The "Rais" Addition: The insertion of "Rais" is also disruptive. "Rais" is the Swahili word for "President." It is a transitory title, not part of her personal name. Adding it to her biographical name is factually incorrect and misleads the reader.
    4. The Malicious Redirect: The most compelling evidence of bad faith is the attempt to create a redirect from "Samia Suluhu Hassan." (note the trailing period). This serves no legitimate navigational purpose and is a classic disruptive technique, clearly demonstrating that the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.
    Given that the article's subject is a high-profile political figure at the center of ongoing, contentious political events (such as the recent suppression of opposition parties and crimes against humanity), these edits are consistent with politically-motivated vandalism, not a good-faith disagreement.
    As you noted, this user's edits do not inspire confidence. These actions, taken together, show a clear intent to vandalize the page rather than engage in a content discussion. This is why I believe administrative action is necessary.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sidmanegda (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you generating these replies with AI? That is strongly discouraged. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TPA at User talk:Fready Sedy

    [edit]
    YOINK
    Done. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 17:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure) (edit conflict)×3[reply]

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

    Would someone be nice enough to yank talk page access here? With this personal attack, there is absolutely no reason to keep it around for this blocked sockpuppet to abuse. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @Zzuuzz: and @Yamla:, who blocked and declined an unblock request here respectively. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Talk page access revoked. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Setti Warren

    [edit]
    Relevant blocks applied. Star Mississippi 00:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:DCLawwyer has repeatedly added the claim that "This election was the first time in U.S. history that an African-American had been elected mayor under an African-American governor (Deval Patrick) under an African American president (Barack Obama)." to the page Setti Warren. Not only is the relevancy of this to Warren disputed, but the information is also incorrect. E. Denise Simmons predates Warren's tenure and also served under Patrick and Obama. Jon698 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the NYT's incorrect claim: "its residents are the first to have elected a black mayor, governor and president." This statement is referring to the residents of Newton and not to Warren. Jon698 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Content dispute. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 17:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 72 hours for edit warring courtesy of Cullen328. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 17:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is what I did. Cullen328 (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and post-that-block. the OP continued their reversions past 3RR, so I have blocked them as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reddit ZooNews Comment

    [edit]

    I discovered two subreddits: ZooNews[1] and ZooNews2[2] Both these subreddits encourage redditors to add fake information into zoo articles on Wikipedia.

    In the latest post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ZooNews2/comments/1osq2dr/mystery_solved_in_bird_paradises_penguin_exhibit/ challenging people to add the terms "silver gulls and Inca terns" into the article. This has been done here

    I had started reporting this type of vandalism at WP:AIV when @Tamzin suggested I bring it here as it appeared complex.

    Editors I had started reporting so far, I'll link their contribs as easier to see:

    ~2025-31176-48

    Smock8

    Legacy IP user 2605:59C0:6E06:2410:A065:65B0:99DF:ADB6

    Legacy IP contributions

    Legacy IP contributions

    Legacy IP contributions

    Andrew NZP GAMERZ

    I'd reported these editors and requested page protection be added to Minnesota Zoo, Assiniboine Park Zoo, Singapore Zoo, Bird Paradise.

    Apart from that, don't know what else to do. I'll keep an eye out on the subreddits and monitor those articles. Equine-man (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the same group also created r/WikipediaNews for non-zoo-related vandalism. Kdroo (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a group per se, rather just sockpuppets of a single individual. They also travel a lot, which explains why the technical data is all over the place. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given current activity (or lack thereof), for the three pages I saw reported to WP:RFPP, I protected one, pblocked a user on a second, and did nothing for the third. Rereport to WP:RFPP if the currently unprotected ones get more activity. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Meena Kurian according to off-wiki evidence. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the relevant temporary account. Smock8 is pblocked from Minnesota Zoo and ANDREW NZP GAMERZ is apparently abandoned. @ChildrenWillListen:, you're saying these named accounts are socks of Meena Kurian? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/ZooNews/
    2. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/ZooNews2/

    User:EZXP making a doxxing "joke" on my talk page, NOTHERE

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) CU block by ScottishFinnishRadish. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    A few minutes ago, I received this joke message on my talk page by user EZXP with the title "I know your address", with the actual text of the message reading "just kidding". Even if it was a joke, I think it should be obvious that anything relating to doxxing on Wikipedia, whether a joke or not, is not okay. Especially when I first noticed this message by refreshing my watchlist and all I saw initially was "(→I know your address: new section)". Not exactly something you want to read or see on Wikipedia, is it? And considering that this was shortly after I reverted one of their edits [125]... well, do I even need to say anything further? This is not what a competent editor would do in response to one of their edits being reverted. This is blatant WP:NOTHERE behavior.

    And, with a further glance at their user page, as of this revision, it appears to just be a bunch of incomprehensible rambling filled with 'humor' that I'm not sure has a place on Wikipedia either. Do we really want an editor who proudly states on their talk page, "These stupid kids that actually fight back keep ragebaiting me, so I seriously think of installing a IP grabber and then i proceed to have violent and gorey thoughts", "My epstein era.👨🏿‍🦲", and "Asian eating KFC, Black eating Chinese, the turns have tabled"? A look at the revision history for their userpage will also show even more absurdity than this. Also, almost all of their edits to Wikipedia have been on their talk page adding this junk. They have only made three mainspace edits [126]. And one was adding unsourced material against talk page consensus (which is what I reverted). They also have a history of editing other peoples userpages [127] as well as spamming and insulting other's talk pages [128]. I'm not really sure what else I can put here but I think I've long proven that this user should either be blocked or given some sort of other warning/sanction per WP:NOTHERE. λ NegativeMP1 22:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Cnsidering the racist content in some of their edits, is there any revdel-able content in their edits? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in their mainspace edits AFAIK. Their user page history may have a case to be revdelled in it's entirety, but I'm not an expert on that by any means. λ NegativeMP1 15:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    one month block for disruptive editing given by Daniel Quinlan (non-admin closure) Athanelar (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Most recent anon username is ~2025-32416-04. They do a handful of redlink removals a day, which I generally revert. Today, I think, was the first time they restored one of their links. I've reverted that, warned them that such is disruptive and provided a link to the redlink essay on their talk page. Could someone else please take a look? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by UtherSRG (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any edits since the warning although I did find one previous warning specifically about redlinks prior to yours. I've left an additional request for them to respond here and to stop removing redlinks indiscriminately. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now as ~2025-32266-83? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that a previous block for 1 week did not result in any communication and they immediately returned to the same disruptive editing, they are blocked for 1 month. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:NotJamestack needlessly turning down protected edit requests

    [edit]

    I thought it was just my request where they preferred to lecture about procedural incorrectness, and I was just going to let it slide because who cares about James D. Watson, but then I thought I'd better check that there isn't a pattern, and it seems that there is.

    Diffs:

    • [129]
    • [130]
    • [131] (I googled the name, which immediately showed RS of the death)
    • [132] (requested change was clear and could have been done)
    • [133] (clear request needlessly declined on formality)
    • etc.

    How many should I go through? Eyeballing, I'd say at least one in three of their request responses is a net negative for the project.

    Imo, our objective should never be to send people through multiple loops of the same thing "just because". If a request is clear, be a mensch about it.

    ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit requests are for straightforward proposals to change X to Y. Those requests are no such thing. If you have a vague proposal, post it in a new section on article talk with no edit request. If you can work out what X and Y are, by all means post an edit request, with a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    agree with johnuniq, these edit requests are nonuseful. nothing to see here. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    regarding "procedural incorrectness", the procedure is what governs wikipedia. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not. The law is made for man, not man for the law. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not sneer at people for not filling out their 27B/6 properly. jp×g🗯️ 12:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The person assisting with changes should not have to do additional off-site research on a topic to meet another users requests. It's that simple. Aesurias (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not needlessly turning them down. Simply put, they are not in a "change X to Y" format. Before you call someone out, remember to dig deeper. NotJamestack (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most editors would decline these requests due to the lack of reliable sources, vagueness, or both of those factors. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The last 2 diffs provided are a little nit picky and I think others may have accepted them, but the others are valid, and I do understand why @NotJamestack didn't do the last 2 -- it's not his job to learn about what is being asked so he can edit it, it should be clearly provided and formatted to make his job easier. Aesurias (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important to remember that edit requests are intended solely for edits which someone would make themselves but can't because the article is protected and the situation is clear enough there is no need for discussion. They aren't intended to propose changes or simply to mention something needs to be updated and especially aren't intended to be used by editors who just don't understand how to update something; editors should just use ordinary talk pages posts for that. For that reason, an editor should be able to find the text they want to update (remember they can still view source and use sandboxes if needed be) and post properly formatted code for someone to update it. I guess you could say it makes it a little difficult for those who normally use the visual editor but there's no real way around that since most experienced editors don't use the visual editor. I think most editors would follow a request if it lacks the formatting anyway provided it has the other essential elements i.e. still says exactly what change is needed in the text and provides any needed references. Some editors might be more generous with edit requests and go beyond the minimum and make changes when they feel the edit request brings up a legitimate improvement, just as anyone seeing a talk page comment on something that should be changed may do so. But no one should expect it nor should we fault editors who don't. The denied edit request is still there just like the ordinary talk page comment it should have been for anyone to decide raises a valid issue. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd add that your original edit request that got you look into this does represent the problem. There was clearly an issue that needed to be fixed, but AFAICT your proposal was incorrect and not supported by anything. The 2012 date was clearly wrong, but as we can see so too was the 2011 date. Despite your claim, AFAICT, there was nothing in the metadata to suggest the photo was taken on 2011. We only ever knew it was uploaded to commons on 2011 so it predated 2012 but no reason to think it was from then since files can be uploaded to commons long after they were uploaded elsewhere. The solution was either to ask for removal for the date with existence since 2011 as evidence or perhaps to look into the source as someone did and suggest 2006 was the best date we had. Also it's always a terrible idea to add important parts of the question to the heading, since these aren't considered part of the signed post and might be changed if needed, plus plenty of editors just ignore them when reading a comment. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: This debate has moved on, but I'll add that had I had editing rights to the article, I would have undone this good-faith edit which worsened the date from 2011 to 2012. On what basis would I have done that? Because I followed the breadcrumbs back to here where the same capture has an upload date of 2011, so 2012 could be reliably ruled out. I welcome the fact that someone was able to make an even more accurate determination of the date. Until that fortunate moment, in this instance, reverting to the status quo would have been the correct action. ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No I'm saying there was nothing to support the change you wanted to make since there was no indication from the metadata the photo was from 2011 simply that it existed so then it was entirely reasonable for an editor to deny it since any editor making such a change is responsible for the correctness of what they are doing and what you wanted to do wasn't correct. If an article is already wrong it's not okay for me to make it very very minorly less wrong when I know what in doing is wrong. If you think is okay that's up to you but you won't last long as editor with that attitude. The correct thing to do is always to remove info you know is wrong or unsupported which is what your edit should have requested since neither 2011 or 2012 was supported by any real evidence, the only thing we knew was 2011 was the latest possible date. Nil Einne (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, that means if you had made the edit yourself, I wouldn't have reverted you since this is also wrong. If I'd looked carefully enough, I would have removed the date since there was no evidence to support it being from then. As I said, the time of upload to commons should not be taken as an indication of anything other than the latest possible date for the photo, with the possible exception of files originally uploaded to commons. You having made an incorrect edit is no excuse for me to make an incorrect edit. By comparison when you're asking me to make the edit for you via an edit request, you're asking me to make a wrong edit which I obviously won't do. Nil Einne (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By your reasoning, the article is still wrong as it stands right now, because once again, we have only confirmed that the image has existed in 2006, but it may have existed earlier. The page accessible via Wayback Machine simply states when the image was posted, not when it was taken. I checked exif, and the version we have from 2011 shows a modification date of 2013 (!). Internet archive seems to scrub exif, so we don't even have the date the image was scanned from the Ektachrome original as far as I can see. So to be thorough, following your own reasoning, you should remove the date (which, to remind you, I cannot). ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No as that's the source of the original image, it might be reasonable for people to suggest it was taken around then baring clear evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this stance, but it's a reasonable stance to take. As I acknowledged, you could take the same stance for images originally uploaded to commons too and I wouldn't dispute it in such a case. An argument could be made it's still not enough for someone to be willing to update it to 2006 by themselves but note I never suggested it was. In fact I said from the get go your best bet was to simply ask for the date to be removed. That said, it's still a very different thing since it's at least defensible whereas what you want to do is not. The time an image is uploaded to commons from some external website is fairly arbitrary and might often be a long time from when it was uploaded to that external website. Especially for something that old for someone who while extremely notable was receiving a lot less attention at the time. Therefore it's not reasonable to suggest the time of an upload to the commons in any way represents when the image was taken and so using it to represent the date of the photo is clearly wrong. At best you could say something like from 2011 or earlier not circa 2011. Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many (maybe even most) edit requests have the same problem. It might help if someone put extra fields in the template to indicate exactly what should be changed to what, and where. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is kind of strange and inconsistent that all of these edits would be fine if they were worded exactly the same, just as regular talkpage edits instead of edit requests. (I looked at them fully expecting the usual WP:NOTFORUM junk, but all of these requests seem on topic and clearly related to improving the article.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is deleting them. They're just denying them so they become normal talk page posts. A mistake was made by the editor posting them since they made them edit requests when they shouldn't have and so drew attention in a way not intended for random talk page comments which is what the denial is saying. But otherwise they're left be and any editor may see them and choose to followup like with any other talk comment. The only exception would be where ARBECR applies but in that case they wouldn't be fine even if the comment was reasonable, the editor was forbidden from making it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anyone was deleting them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay but what's your point then? Note the issue is not the wording. I'm fairly sure in 99.9% of the time or more, no one would say anything if someone had used the exact same wording but simply not used the edit request template. The problem is rather that editors were unnecessarily drawing attention to what were simple talk page comment by using the edit request template. While editors are wrong in that regard to misuse the edit request template, no one is suggesting editors be restricted for making them. I mean in theory if an editor keeps doing it even when asked not to multiple times. they might eventually be but I'm not aware it's ever happened and definitely no one has suggested such here. So how is it strange and inconsistent that we don't want people misusing the edit request template to draw attention to what are simple talk page comments, and will ask them not to but otherwise basically converted their template misuse into simple talk page comments for them? Note this means we do help these editors get to where they should have been in the first place we just also try to teach them the correct thing to do along the way. An editor made a minor mistake, it's corrected by a more experienced editor with generally some explanation of where the first editor went wrong, and we're done. Isn't that precisely how Wikipedia is supposed to work? We could debate whether that explanation was sufficient, but it's not clear if that's what you want to discuss. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All I said was that it's a bit of a hair-splitting distinction that "add X to Y" is treated differently than "change X to Y" (I would guess a lot of people leaving these comments never check the page again, having said their piece). I understand that this is the guideline as it is currently written and I don't have a problem with it being enforced as written. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking, along similar lines, that if someone creates an 'edit request' that's just a talk page comment, simply removing the edit request template and letting it stand as a comment might be less confrontational and more productive than a 'NOT DONE', which does sort of look like "You're wrong, and you should feel bad" and could be interpreted as a little bitey. JeffUK 13:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blaming others/casting themselves as victim

    [edit]

    I will just leave a notification here that I received a a message from that same user, User:NotJamestack, along with the following three observations:

    • I wasn't particularly expecting to see an apology, and I don't recognise that any attempt was made.
    • What I really, really was not expecting was that they would double down on their predatory conduct by moving on to casting themselves as the victim, and suggesting I frustrated them rather than the other way around.
    • There seems to be zero acknowledgement here that NotJamestack could have been more collegial and constructive in any of these original exchanges, and that they had the option to not engage if they felt in any way uncomfortable with the requests. Never mind acknowledging a mistake and taking preventive action, this episode as a whole seems to rather display a lack of de-escalating or (as a minimal option) disengaging behaviours.

    ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @~2025-31522-63 this is getting disruptive on your part. The message from notjamestack is polite.
    Moving to ANI is always an escalation and to go there in your first ten edits suggest you may be Wikipedia:LOUTSOCKING.
    Its time for a WP:BOOMERANG soon if you dont drop this. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @~2025-31522-63 You seem to be using a rude and borderline hostile tone, so try calming it down a little bit. NotJamestack (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the temp account continues behaving this way, I would probably suggest a one-way IBan from that point. NotJamestack (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why an IBAN? Those are tricky to enforce. Blocks enforce themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yeremia Nayoan : WP:CIR, particularly in the use of plurals

    [edit]

    Yeremia Nayoan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    I have been reverting a large number of edits by User:Yeremia Nayoan, many to do with the incorrect use of plurals (France 1, France 2 Portugal 1, Portugal 2, England, Netherlands) and failing to follow the WP:FOOTY guidelines on national football team articles. They also make huge amounts of WP:COSMETIC edits to tables on these and similar pages that do nothing but clog up edit summaries / watchlists. I have posted on their talk page (including [134]), but the only response was This is my country, you don't know my history country, shutt upp bro!!!. From other logged-out edits in similar vein, I believe this editor is based in Indonesia, which may explain a lack of a full grasp of English grammar, but this does not excuse borderline edit-warring over points they don't fully understand. Spike 'em (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just looked at some of the diffs and genuinely believe this to be intentionally disruptive. It's so severe, particularly here, that I cannot believe it to be genuine error. The removal of square brackets around Harry Kane's name here for zero apparent reason is also concerning. Aesurias (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see: mass removal of content on the Italy page, later reverted by another editor. Aesurias (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are now reverting changes mentioned here with an edit summary of Don't editing again!! [135],[136],[137].
    They have no idea what they are doing nor have the ability to edit constructively. I notice that since my first interaction with them that they have started editting on id.wiki, furthering the suspicions above.
    I've moved on from assessing this behaviour as CIR to WP:NOTHERE. Spike 'em (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with you. Also, they have reached WP:3RR at Belgium national football team. Annh07 (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's difficult to find simple examples in the morass. But in France 1, above, VN changed "eleven UEFA European Championship tournaments" to "eleven UEFA European Championship tournament", "host nation" to "hosts nations", and "The team's two titles" to "The team's two title"; which combined show an unacceptably poor grasp of English for copyedits. Narky Blert (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And now I'm being told to "Shutt Upp". They can't even get angry in proper english. Spike 'em (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summaries like Bro, what do you want? Every time I edit, you always interfere, whether you want to help or not, just keep quiet as long as it doesn't harm you, don't make me talk rudely to you, okay!! are definitely not helpful. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [138], [139] a couple more breaking plurals. There are a lot of these scattered through; I'm sorry, but consistently breaking things this basic makes one manifestly unsuited to making these kinds of edits. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked from Article space until they comment on this issue. Also given warning for this personal attack. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe they are logged-out editting as ~2025-32748-82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Spike 'em (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Special:Contributions/~2025-32793-82. More quotes:
    Look at this man he can't even stop me from doing anything, wow you are so pitiful, only for English wikipedia
    I am a cyber who can do anything I want, what do you want to do to me, scare me?, threaten me?, block my account? Go ahead my friend, let's see who wins here.. Both of these come from the same underlying IP address, though I can't directly reveal it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Undeclared paid editing

    [edit]
    Problematic material removed and revision-deleted. OP's IP blocked as a proxy. Article protected. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Information about the beatings and rapes of girls has been removed from an article about former race car driver Nikiasdfta Mazepin. A concerned editor who is deleting information is attempting to remove information from their conversation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-32507-53 (talk • contribs)

    You are indicating a violation of WP:UPE but have provided exactly zero reason to think this has happened. Nor have you provided diffs or links, nor have you notified the editor in question. You should expect this request to be speedily closed if you don't do these things. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (I am the accused.) You cannot be serious. Reverting such blatant BLP violations is no indication of paid editing. MB2437 11:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    I have added some nonprinting characters to the name in the OP of this post so it will not Googlecide the person. jp×g🗯️ 12:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Clever! —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cluster of rapid AfD nominations by CountryANDWestern without BEFORE

    [edit]
    There's no there there. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Raising a conduct concern about CountryANDWestern for a burst of AfD filings within minutes/hours on 30 Sep–1 Oct 2025 with weak or disputed rationales:

    The AfD threads and contribs log show a rapid cluster (creation, log listing, and creator notifications). At least one AfD explicitly notes that the nominator had not performed WP:BEFORE. This pattern looks like potentially disruptive AfD filing; requesting admin advice/remedy.

    (Contribs listing for timestamps: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/CountryANDWestern&limit=500&offset=&target=CountryANDWestern)

    Policies/guidance: WP:AFDHOWTO, WP:BEFORE, WP:CONSENSUS. ~2025-32243-47 (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @~2025-32243-47 Per AfD Stats, of their 12 nominations, half have been deleted, three were kept, two were closed without consensus, and one is ongoing. Not great, but not terrible either. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     14:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing disruptive about these nominations. The clusters of edits you mention are because they use a twinkle tool which creates the notifications. Spike 'em (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Over-templating / COI + speedy templates to newcomers by CountryANDWestern

    [edit]
    BOOMERANG
    OP & associated temp accounts blocked for two weeks by rsjaffe (non-admin closure) Athanelar (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Pointing out newcomer-interaction concerns by CountryANDWestern on 10 Sep 2025 related to Draft:MyAllSearch:

    While tagging can be valid, over-templating/newcomer bite risks exist. Requesting admin input on whether a civility/mentorship reminder is appropriate. See WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and appropriate WP:UW usage. ~2025-32541-86 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the problem here? Two templates on one sock's talk page, one template on the other's. All appear to be legit, not in "quick succession" (the two comments are 30 minutes apart with another user's comment between), and all edits in question are from 2 months ago... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have TAIV so can't investigate, but can someone take a look at User:~2025-32462-30, User:~2025-32541-86, User:~2025-32549-21, User:~2025-32243-47, and User:~2025-32541-86? These cluster of temp accounts, who have no previous edits, are all seemingly concerned about me today and reporting me to any and every noticeboard that they can. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just looking into that myself after seeing your talk page, they are all using proxys... I think someone just wants to play WP:BOOMERANG... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate it. Not too surprised to hear. I'm kicking a bit of a hornet's nest with the UPEs that produce a bunch of these articles here and on Simple English where I'm primarily based. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked two weeks. Doubt that'll stop everything, as it looks like they have lots of addresses available. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rude and disruptive behaviour by Vjm827

    [edit]
    It appears the two editors in question have agreed to bury the hatchet. Editors should be reminded that playing "I didn't touch you" when it comes to personal attacks doesn't magically make them not personal attacks, and that professional wrestling is under community-imposed general sanctions. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Vjm827 has been engaging in rude and disruptive behaviour on the WWE article.

    First he reverted me two times when I added templates asking for more sources and more reliable sources.

    First he dismissed my concern and removed the templates stating that there are already 400 sources in the article [140].

    Presuming that his revert was in good faith, I explicitly explained that the problem wasn't that it had 400+ sources, but that many parts of the article were uncited or using unreliable sources like IMDb. [141]

    Despite this, he reverted again and continued to dismiss my concerns and stated that I was only editing based on my preferences [142], causing me to warn him to first discuss the issue to the talko page and not to edit war since such templates should only be removed when the issues have been resolved [143].

    Even on the talk page Talk:WWE, Vjm827 has started using rude and chiding language, makes unfounded accusations, despite attempts made by me to resolve the issue.

    He calls my edits as lazy and thinking too highly of myself to edit it, instead leaving it to other editors who I think of as "lesser people" according to him [144]. I would have edited the article myself, but I'm busy with examinations.

    I lost my cool and stated that he himself hasn't made any effort to improve the article. Though I avoided any personal attacks, Vjm827 has still made personal attacks and accusations, calling me snobby, lazy and basically implying I act entitled. [145]

    I request the administrators to please step in and restrain him. His behaviour is completely out of line. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Never said anything about Prankster personally...just told him how I see it when people slap templates on articles. Do I have an issue with the practice of just placing templates on articles - maybe. Do I have issues with any particular editors...no. Now if I wasn't clear on that, then I apologize, but to be clear, I have no problems with Prankster as an individual editor...just a difference of opinion regarding Wiki policy. Vjm827 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You explicitly characterized me and my edits as lazy and snobby. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again - not you personally, just the idea of slapping on templates as a whole. Now if it came across as going after you individually, it wasn't my intent, I was speaking in generalities about templates overall. Vjm827 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You explicitly said: "Snobby in that one likes to critique, and lazy in that one doesn't want to do the supposedly needed work themselves to fix it and dumps it off on others."
    This wasn't just about slapping templates, although you'd still be characterising my actions (and thus me) as lazy and snobby even if that was so. You were explicitly condemning me. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot the part where I said slapping on a template is snobby and lazy and I explained why...never once did I say Linkin Prankster is snobby and lazy. You're trying to turn a disagreement about policy into a big production about me going after you personally. Stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and adding drama to something which in the grand scheme of things isn't that big of a deal. Vjm827 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you were insulting me for my actions there since I was as you say "slapping templates". The first and foremost thing to make amends is to accept your mistake and not make excuses. I've been trying to act with you in good faith, but it's obvious you don't have it. This is a fruitless discussion. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Really...it is coming across to me that you can't take a disagreement over policy as just that, and trying to make it into something bigger than what it actually is. All this is, is business...you are the one trying to make it personal by making a big production out of it and going to these extremes. Vjm827 (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Vjm827, there is nothing inherently rude and disruptive about adding a maintenance template to an article, as long as the template accurately identifies a problem. That is why Wikipedia makes such templates available to editors. Arguably, it is more disruptive to remove a template without solving the underlying issue than to add the template in the first place. As for calling other good faith editors "lazy", that is way out of line. The context of your comments makes it clear that they were motivated by your disagreement with Linkin Prankster. You are obligated to assume good faith of your fellow editors, unless you can present rock solid evidence to the contrary. So, please consider this a gentle warning to correct your combative interactions with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Vjm827, you should also be aware that professional wrestling is a topic area that has had a very large amount of disruptive and controversial editing over the years. Accordingly, administrators are less likely to respond to suboptimal editing behavior in a lenient way. So be careful. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (non administrator comment) but weren't they calling their actions (rather than the person) lazy? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the difference? It's still an accusation of me acting lazy. Are we really arguing over whether he meant I'm generally a lazy person or just being lazy in this instance? Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the end of the day, my intent criticize a Wiki policy blew up into something I wasn't looking for.
    Prankster, I apologize for any misunderstandings that caused you to take offense. I was only looking to comment on adding templates in general - not you personally.
    None of this is worth all of this hassle, so if Prankster is willing to call a truce, then I will do likewise and we can put this to bed. Vjm827 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem, this is not an issue that needs to dragging. But please avoid such comments in future, and focus on improving the article and discussing ways to improve it. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor662, yes, they framed their remark in a way that it was not an overt personal attack. In context, though, their intent to call the other editor lazy was clear. Cullen328 (talk)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Haydi123

    [edit]

    I've filed two complaints about this editor, but both times the bot archived my requests. Will any action be taken against this editor? If not, please let me know, otherwise, the bot keeps archiving it, and I'm left unsure about the status of my request. Thank you! ^^

    1. First request 2. Second request

    Barseghian Lilia (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Did they repeat the behaviour from the last ANIs? If not, I don't see what the point of this is. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the same ANI, created three times because the bot archives it quickly. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fur future reference, archival happens after three days of no comments, so if you simply reply to yourself every two days, it will prevent the section from being archived. This would be preferable to recreating the section every time. For third parties, the issue according to Barseghian Lilia is that the editor is POV-pushing in the Armenia-Azerbaijan contentious topic, and some of their edits in that area also seem to have sourcing and copyvio issues. I have not come to a conclusion yet on the merits of the case, I am simply providing a summary of the accusations so that other editors aren't required to look through the archived threads. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for the info! Barseghian Lilia (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    JEL123456789 - zero communication and poor sourcing

    [edit]

    JEL123456789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has throughout his brief time on Wikipedia amassed a rather long list of warnings and messages on their talk page. I've tried leaving notices, I've tried manually pinging them, but nothing gets them to respond to any concerns raised on their talk page. The primary reason is that they are adding content with either no sources, or using deprecated sources. Obviously this in itself is minor - a simple note on the talk page would normally sort this, but given this user is ignoring their talk page, this becomes impossible. It's not a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU problem, as going by the edit tags they're editing from the web interface.

    Is there any chance this user can be blocked from article space so they can respond to the concerns on their talk page? They are capable of making good edits, indeed many of their edits are... but the lack of communication means nothing can be done about the odd bad edit that they make. Danners430 tweaks made 17:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They're now adding a bunch of unsourced dates to tables... [146] Danners430 tweaks made 17:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Danners430 - I've partially blocked the user from editing the mainspace for 36 hours while we wait for any communication from them. I also left them a notice and information on their user talk page, and instructed them to either respond here or on their user talk page. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I do hope they start engaging, as they do some useful gnoming :) Danners430 tweaks made 23:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rahuluke and bolding

    [edit]
    User is aware of the issue, and has stated that it will stop. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is a very minor issue, but Rahuluke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing a large number of articles today almost solely in order to add bold formatting to random words, in violation of the MOS:BOLD guideline. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. I have left four warnings on their talk page which they have ignored. They are a fairly new editor and have never edited a talk page, so perhaps they are unaware that their talk page exists. Can something be done to get their attention? CodeTalker (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They replied to the ANI notification on their talk page now. Nakonana (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Rahuluke has committed to refrain from problematic bolding on their talk page, I recommend that this report be closed as resolved. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine with me. CodeTalker (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Borderline person attacks & Disruptive behaviour

    [edit]
    Blocked and TPA revoked. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:~2025-32551-36 has continuously added long blocks of text to both mine and @Plasticwonder:'s talk pages. They claim that PlasticWonder called them a vandal, when in fact, all PlasticWonder did was reverted their edits for "unsourced" (which the specific edit that led to PlasticWonder's rollback was unsourced). When PlasticWonder removed the message from their talk page, User:~2025-32551-36 added rude replies to other comments on the page. The user then came to my talk page to tell me I should not have given PlasticWonder a barnstar. When asked to stop, this user ALSO openly stated that they would evade a block on their temporary account, in order to keep making these comments. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 22:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    Not here to build an encyclopedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [147], see also their previous messages there. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what it's supposed to be, but in the basis of this [148] at AN3 (whatever that is), I've blocked them as not here to improve the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Follynomics's "written manually" comments, now at AFD!

    [edit]

    Follynomics has made a number of insertions to Wikipedia, and claims that said edits are not LLM generated. Given that:

    • Their comments at AFD continue to mention editions of books that do not appear to exist (Brian [sic] Caplan and William Bartley’s posthumous English edition) even after it having been pointed out; and,
    • the edition that does exist does not contain the words mythical misapprehension which they now claim it does ("mythical" appears once, on p. 136, "misapprehension", zero times; obviously, it is not possible to verify if a nonexistent book contains anything) instead of “magic fallacy”
      • The publication date, etc, of the real book can easily be found The Fatal Conceit, and all they really needed to say is a "oops, my bad, looks like I put in the wrong information for the book" instead of whatever they're trying to do...
      • Given the mix of real and made up content in their comment, I don't think it's worth trying to find the purported “mystischer Irrtum” and “magisches Denken” in the German edition, Die verhängnisvolle Anmaßung, which does appear to actually exist.
    • They also clearly know the hallucinations exist now, given they've taken the time to remove what they acknowledge in their edit summary is "a fake quote", which they inserted themselves.
    • I don't know if they've simply convinced themselves and honestly believe the em-dashes are what is needed to "avoid censors", because they are going around and doing that.

    I do think at least some of their talk page comments are also generated, but given the limited amount, and without any citations to hallucinate or other factual errors, I'd agree it's hard to distinguish to any level of certainty.

    The more consistent indicators is to do with tone, and said tonal indicators are not as blatant as their response to the {{uw-minor}} on their talk page from last year... which, I don't think anybody cares if they respond to a template message with an LLM... The new talk page comments are non-obvious enough that I haven't {{cait}}ed any of it, the only reason I wanted to note any of it here is because I don't think anyone should need to waste their time responding to it. I don't think they're going to stop given their response, so I'd like someone else to take a look, mostly because they've more or less exhausted my ability to make decisions relating to them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on a quick look, I think that all talk page messages from this user have been hand-written, however it's clear from other diffs provided that they've been using fake/hallucinated (likely AI-generated) sources. They have also used an IP account to edit (the IP added unsourced info to the Antisemitic trope article and said "sources...coming soon" 7 minutes before the user added sources on their 'main' account. Contributions from the IP are on similar topics and many have been reverted because of suspected AI-gen content.
    Aside from that, I can't tell if the style and prose you have used to write the above paragraphs is meant to joke about the user mentioning The Sense of Style, but it doesn't make for easy & understandable reading, which is probably what you want when opening an ANI discussion. Aesurias (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alpha3031 - I agree with Aesurias regarding the style and prose that you used when writing the information above for this ANI report. Many people around here will easily tell you that I often enjoy communicating with others in an informal, sarcastic, silly, and even ridiculous tone and prose. ;-) However, in this case, it does make understanding exactly what you're trying to report and express concerns about a bit more difficult. From what I'm understanding, you're reporting that Follynomics, both while logged in and while logged out, has added LLM-generated content, as well false and inaccurate content, and while also trying to cite references to publications or other sources that don't exist in order to falsely validate the false content being added. Is this correct? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. I've dot-point-ised the post for readability. The books they cite mostly do exist, with the occasional errors to metadata, but generally the number of errors means that editors would probably have an easier time sourcing the statement from scratch than to attempt verification of the refs they use. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:R2025kt

    [edit]

    User:R2025kt has been reported here in June, August and September. They were given a pass on WP:AGF for new editor in all three, but then blocked from new page creation and file uploads for a month on 9 October. Multiple warnings at their user talk about unsourced personal information in BLP's, and WP:OR, have been met with repeated responses like "Ok, I understand. I thought I was making things right." following a level 4 warning, "Ok. I thought I was doing it right" "OK, I'll do better", and"I was just practicing". If more diffs are needed, then I'll trawl through the slush pile for them, but I've spent this morning and some time yesterday clearing out unsourced birth dates, unsourced spouses, unsourced childhood experiences, unsourced claims about sexual orientation and inflated career claims from previous creations.
    The problem as I see it isn't CIR, but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: several times they've explicitly said in edit summaries that they're determined to create a bio regardless of other editors' concerns about it, and to this end have used tactics like WP:GAMENAME for Sam Brock at Sam Brock (journalist), Draft:NBC News' Sam Brock, etc.. Their intention seems to be to use Wikipedia as a sort of "Where Are They Now?" for journalists, dodging policy and other editors wherever possible, and the abundant WP:OR suggests some sort of professional or personal connection to journalism the subjects of the BLPs. A week after R2025kt created Natalie Azar, a single-purpose account with that name was created to edit the article [149], suggesting meatpuppetry.
    I propose either a long temporary ban on main space edits while cleanup resumes, or a topic ban on journalist bios. If they can learn to contribute well sourced bios in draft, then everyone wins. If they can't manage this, then they're WP:NOTHERE. Wikishovel (talk • contribs) 10:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy links to the mentioned prior ANI reports: June, August and September. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing from Abdul Hamid Young Turk

    [edit]

    Abdul Hamid Young Turk (talk · contribs) has repeatedly changed the number of deaths on the article about the attempted assassination of Abdul Hamid II, first from 21 (the sourced number) to 22 (diff), and now to 26 (diff; diff; diff). On my part, I've attempted to point out what the sources in the article say (diff) and to request they cite a source (diff; diff; diff). They have either ignored these and continued reverting, or responded by telling me to "stop the BS" (diff). They have also undone date formatting changes, against established use in the article, without explanation (diff; diff; diff). In addition to this behaviour, I also worry that their username indicates they not here to build an encyclopedia in this topic area. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    grnrchst is another wanna be administrator (Personal attack removed) who wants to accumulate ratings as dannyS712 or naleksuh tried as simple historical search points out to 26 casualties.. Abdul Hamid Young Turk (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's so simple, then why can't you cite a source for it? Go ahead! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grnrchst @Abdul Hamid Young Turk I reported them at the same time for WP:NONAZIS regarding their username. That report is to be found here. Aristoxène (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No wonder newbies die fast on wikipedia JOKE OF "ENCYcLOPEDIA"... Abdul Hamid Young Turk (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Abdul not being civil won’t help your cause on here. Jp33442 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indefinitely blocked them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They kept making personal attacks, so I've pulled talk page access. Ready for closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1321604398"