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}} ~~~~ 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

    IP word vandalism

    [edit]

    A bizarre one - random IPs (which I suggest are linked due to their similarities, such as majority being in Brazil and use of wording e.g. 'old age' etc.) making only one edit of vandalism, changing words and infobox parameters (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) - any idea what is going on?! GiantSnowman 12:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Paki ain't a bad word 46.56.250.117 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that a new IP shows up to make this comment suggests a single user hopping IPs. Might need to see if a rangeblock will do more good than harm. —C.Fred (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What are they even talking about? I notice most of the IPs in the OP are flagged as open proxies. I haven't really looked further. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like they're running random words through a translator, leading to either awkward English in the pose or broken parameters in infoboxes. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Buddy, I got more IP blocks than an advanced Lego set.
    Deal with it 46.56.250.117 (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please deal with the sock threat.14.162.206.244 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    edgelord behavior. "i am a badass hacker" type edginess grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is a 'bad word' see Paki (slur). Is this just going to be ignored? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Paki" is a filthy word in England, in pretty much the same way as the N-word is every English-speaking country. Narky Blert (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Truly vile, I'm not sure that's understood outside the UK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just reverted a bunch of these, looks like someone using a thesaurus without a brain attached, it did strike me as possibly an AI bot of some kind. DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked for edits flagged as 'very likely bad' and 'likely bad' in recent changes and there are hundreds of similar edits in this time period. Same pattern. Mellk (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I clocked two incidents of this today. It's replacing with synonyms... but not necessarily synonyms for the usage at hand. The first replaced the infobox parameter "parent" with "raise", which would make sense if we were talking about a verb (parenting a child), but not the noun (and certainly not as a parameter name.) The second replaced "state" with "express", which is fine if you're stating a preference but not if you're California, as was the case. So I'm not sure this takes AI level of smarts (as weak as that may be.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reverted a bunch of these from around 6 hours ago, filtering for "likely have problems" IP edits. Can corroborate that it seems to be replacing random words with synonyms inappropriate to the context + breaking infoboxes. Weird Abasteraster (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to favor certain word substitutions, i.e. years -> old age. Also noticing a pattern of it sometimes inserting words, like "language" after "German" or "English", where it's unnecessary or doesn't make sense. Abasteraster (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides breaking infoboxes, they are also breaking wiki markup and introducing lint errors, for example changing </small> to </weeny>. I cleared several dozen of them earlier today. —Bruce1eetalk 17:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits seem to span from about 10:20 to 11:00 GMT. Is there a way to nuke these edits? Mellk (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted every edit flagged as 'very likely bad' and 'likely bad' that wasn't already reverted (there were several hundred). I suspect a number of their edits slipped through. Mellk (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if this is the same person but there is an IP hopper engaging in the same kind of vandalism at Slavs. Mellk (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now Great Turkish War. Mellk (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now Nikolai Zaremba and Eaglehawk Football Club a few minutes ago Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 17:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is clear now this is the same person. Mellk (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go again. Now recent changes is flooded with their edits starting at 17:54 GMT. Mellk (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wack-a-mole, but I just protected the last two articles. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now random articles. It's non-stop. tony 18:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred those edits seem to be triggering filter 1367, which also contains false positives. Looking at the AbuseLog seems to help catch most of it. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they're back on my watchlist, see e.g. this. GiantSnowman 18:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are making dozens of edits every minute. If this continues every day then we are in trouble. Mellk (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested enabling CAPTCHA to the edit filter at WP:EFN so it hopefully slows down the disruption. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never seen this technology before, hopping IPs and making edits that quickly?! GiantSnowman 18:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the edits did not trigger any edit filter but that seems like a good idea. Mellk (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are referring to 1367 (hist · log), I originally had it set to captcha but there are simply too many false positives. The point of 1367 is simply to gather data on different proxy types using the IPReputation variables which we can then use to make more specialized actions. That is the reason 1367 is currently log-only, as opposed to a captcha/warning/disallowing action. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at the moment 1367 is the most efficient means we have of dealing with most of the edits by this bot, so maybe it needs to be temporarily repurposed until a better method is put into place. Acroterion (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Back at it again. Lynch44 18:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah this is getting a bit ridiculous. Obviously this is some form of a macro/bot hoping between different addresses rapidly and making edits, sometimes without the edit filter picking them up as problematic. This is starting look less like a single actor doing a bit of trolling and more like a coordinated cyberattack of sorts in a less threatening-looking package. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism from IP hopper

    [edit]

    I checked my watchlist and noticed vandalism from various IP addresses around the same time. This looks to be the same person since some changes they made are similar e.g. changing "Moscow" to "Russian capital" here and here. Here are also other examples.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

    These edits were made within minutes of each other and they edited under a different IP each time (all of which have only one edit). These IP addresses geolocate to places all over the world and do not come up as a proxy via Proxy Checker but I suspect some kind of IP hopping is going on here. They may have vandalized other articles but I am not sure how to find the rest of the damage. Mellk (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mellk:, this is the same as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP word vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're probably right. Mellk (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IP-hopping vandal changing 'small' tags

    [edit]

    There is an IP-hopping vandal changing 'small' tags today. I have fixed about ten of them in articles. Here is a link to a few reverts. I am not sure how to report an IP hopper, since AIV takes only single addresses in its template. The editor is changing words into synonyms. See the page history at Glyphicnemis, Ceratostigma, Listed buildings in Wombourne, Kessleria, and Entandrophragma utile. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like WP:ANI#IP word vandalism to me. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IP-hopping thesaurus vandals

    [edit]

    I've been seeing a rash of random IP editors each making one or two no-edit-summary edits with small size changes that replace words in articles, often by synonyms, sometimes by total vandalism. Examples: [8] [9] [10]. Anyone have any ideas how to prevent these, other than being vigilant on our watchlists? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wasn't there a planned transition from IP users to a new form of "temporary accounts" aimed to occur back in May? I have been away for a while so I didn't keep track of whether it was implemented or not. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to capture some common replacements I'm seeing in this disruption, which may be can use as search terms when cleaning up:
    - village -> greenwich
    - village -> hamlet
    - former -> onetime
    - Career -> vocation
    - (Any full month name to the short variety (e.g., October -> Oct)
    - located -> situated
    - neighborhood -> vicinity
    - community -> local
    - named -> titled
    Table syntax tags
    - style -> cut, tailor, stylus, trend, mode
    - center -> centrist, shopping mall
    - scope -> orbit, telescope
    - align -> aline, line up, coordinate
    - right -> honorable, proper, right-minded Mad Jim Bey talk 19:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The temporary accounts transition has rolled out on many other wikis, but hasn't reached enwiki yet I believe. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at non-reverted "likely bad" edits in the RecentChanges feed is also helpful. It is not my usual beat, and I see that multiple gnomes are quite active there. It makes a person question whether we have enough filters in place on IP edits. Yuck. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Yeah, my bigger concern is that I'm seeing these unregistered single-word swaps in the 'May have issues' filter (and some of the higher ones). Mad Jim Bey talk 20:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found three edits like this one, adding commas to numbers and messing with colons in DEFAULTSORT and categories. These are also single edits by different IPs. They may be related to this word replacement activity. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they are. Removing commas, adding commas seemingly randomly, adding duplicate commas. tony 16:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They're also changing 'career' to 'vocation' pretty consistently too. VergilSparkles (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IP-hopping vandal changing numbers

    [edit]

    FYI, now appears to be changing numbers randomly. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. I know this seems common but these are first-use IPs and I'm seeing the same pattern as the word-switching. Note that some edits they're also changing numbers in CSS, page numbers, etc. in the same edit. They're coming in faster than I can revert. --tony 21:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, looks like they are trying new ways to evade detection. Mellk (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ST47ProxyBot may have had flaws[19] but the WMF need to step up with a solution for this kind of problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The WMF may need to implement a bot/system that would check IPs for potential proxies the moment they visit Wikipedia/another project. This is becoming insane-insane. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 13:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    2409:40C2:2005:C1D9:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also? Robby.is.on (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They're now re-using IP addresses during the same attacks. [20] [21] [22] are the first three IP's I've seen. tony 13:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which suggests that if you see an attack, you should definitely do a contributions check for previous attacks missed... and it may be worth going through your recent reverts to see if any of those accounts have surfaced again. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like they are doing a lot of one word changes instead now. Mellk (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know we have a much more sophisticated filter running but I've just enabled Special:AbuseFilter/1374 as an emergency response for this. Sam Walton (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to have started again but with IPv6 addresses now. If any administrator is bored and looking for a list of blockable addresses, any revert at my contributions from this point forward today which doesn't have an associated talk-page warning immediately following it might be worth looking at. tony 15:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not triggering any edit filters. Mellk (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the edits are not getting flagged as 'very likely bad' or 'likely bad'. There are a lot flagged as 'maybe bad' instead. Mellk (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also getting these too. Pretty much all of my recent reverts are of that kind. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, the ones I've seen are of the thesaurus kind, I mixed up the two sections. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the confusion, the vandalism I was referring to was the word-swapping kind, even though I put it in this section. tony 16:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [23] more grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-enabled 1374, which I had turned off once the previous bout had ended. Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-exhaustive list of ranges. Looks like most edits have not yet been reverted from the most recent batch. These things seeem to happen in spurts of 15 minutes or so:
    tony 15:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these are webhost IP addresses (LIGHTNING-HOSTING-SOLUTIONS) and should be blocked for longer. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They're back at it, this time on IPv4 again. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More number vandalism.[24][25] Mellk (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is becoming exceptionally problematic. Can we just block all numeric changes from IP addresses? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s what I thought about, but I think it would be too collateral for the rest of legitimate anons. What about requiring CAPTCHA for all non-confirmed users as a temporary measure? I know some other wikis use this feature, like the Chinese Wikipedia. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This vandal seems unaffected by the CAPTCHAs. Filter 1375 is slowing them down but they're still going. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also it's not just number vandalism - I'm still getting word vandalism on my watchlist. GiantSnowman 19:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How about blocking all edits when user_type == "ip" & page_namespace == 0 & length(summary) == 0 & edit_delta < 100? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Heinz or Bush's? ;) tony 19:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but it'll buy us some time. I also suspect this abuser isn't very new here. I have created a ticket (T399996) to allow the AbuseFilter to see if an edit originated from the MediaWiki API (which is what this abuser and a few more are using), but I ran into some issues when trying to implement it myself. If anyone here is familiar with the MW code base, I'd gladly appreciate some help. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure they will keep tweaking the script in order to bypass these kinds of restriction. Mellk (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another large wave now. Mellk (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are aware of this but I wonder should the WMF be made aware of it, since the nature of the attack leads me to believe more than one device is involved, considering some of these edits are within mere seconds of one another when I was patrolling yesterday. It's possible they are multiple virtual machines, but I don't see there edits being marked as being mobile ones. Fantastic Mr. Fox 21:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The WMF is aware. Giraffer (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, in my earlier comment I meant to require CAPTCHA for all edits made by all non-AC users as a temporary measure, not just edits caught by filter. I don't know how quickly such could be implemented, but I think it just might solve our current problem. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Myrealnamm: It's possible to enable EmergencyCaptcha, and it's possible to disable IP editing entirely if an emergency occurred, but I certainly wouldn't be eager to flip the switch on such a filter, nor is this disruption probably at the level of that. Additionally, EmergencyCaptcha is a severe restriction to legitimate editors with visual impairments, and would be a drastic measure to take, even for a short period. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an IP anymore, nor am I an EFM, but I am guessing that this filter must catch a lot of FPs based off how quickly it was deactivated after the first attack. This has been going on for two days now, with no signs of stopping. Is keeping this filter on long-term even feasible? Lynch44 16:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So...are we blocking these when they turn up on RC patrol? I understand that there are edit filter or other measures being looked at, but for now? And if so, how long a block? Joyous! Noise! 18:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like they're back. I've noticed they've been at it for the past few hours, but only at a relatively slow pace. At the moment they seem to be focused on number vandalism again. Mellk (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We might need to add blanking to the list of behaviors from these IPs. Lynch44 20:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Name and shame?

    [edit]

    Is it worth adding this to WP:LTA for easier reference in case it happens again (as opposed to digging through the archives here)? If so, what should we call them - the 'Thesaurus IP'? GiantSnowman 16:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this would be a good fit for an LTA entry. The people who "need to know" patterns and behaviors are the edit filter managers, and they have their own spaces to work in. Documenting details in a public place like an LTA entry is just going to allow them to alter their behavior, which is the opposite of what we want. As far as names, they don't need a name. tony 18:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that new LTA pages are, I believe, discouraged from being created per WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fair enough. GiantSnowman 20:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have they disappeared for now? I have not seen anything since 31 July. If they re-appear, do we need to open another report here? Mellk (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange distributed disruptive editing

    [edit]

    A large number of IP editors are replacing words throughout articles with synonyms—here’s a few: [26], [27], [28], [29] and many many more. They’re easily found on the recent changes page with the problem filter active. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is the same IPs as in the above 'IP word vandalism' section 37.186.45.131 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it appears so—thanks, I missed that. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible hounding and uncivil conduct by User:JalenBarks

    [edit]

    I am reporting User:User:JalenBarks for repeated uncivil conduct and potential hounding WP:HOUND.

    - Over the past 24–48 hours, this user has nominated multiple articles I created or contributed to (including Karra (singer), Sophia Dashing, Neriah (singer), Precious Pepala, Madeline The Person, Leyla Blue for deletion in quick succession. - In at least one AfD discussion, they referred to my writing as "AI-generated slop", which is a personal attack and violates WP:CIVIL. - Their deletion rationales lack proper policy basis WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and seem targeted toward me rather than content quality. - This behavior is disruptive and discourages good-faith contributions.

    I request administrator review to address potential harassment and enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:HOUND policies.

    Meio2934 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am going to make a very civil rebuttal in response to this report. I have ran Sophia Dashing, one of these articles at AFD, through GPTZero and can confirm that there is some portion of the text in the article where generative AI was used. And while some of the article's sources did come up as "Possible AI-generated slop" on User:Headbomb/unreliable, I can only verify at least part of the information in each of the sources. The other articles will need to be ran through the software as well, and any sources that come up with ChatGPT as the utm_source will need verification as well, as this is as far as I got with it so far. With regards to the user's comments here, I also suspect that this user is still using ChatGPT to write their comments for them. For example, I ran their vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Dashing through GPTZero and it also returned mostly AI-generated.
    At the moment, I have no comment with regard to the other claims presented here, but this user may also need to be investigated further regarding the GenAI use. Jalen Barks (Woof) 05:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't rely on GPTZero to determine whether an article is AI-generated. It has both false positives and false negatives. What particularly in the article jumps out as AI-written to you? To me, while Meio2934's AfD !vote does look AI-written (note the seeming heading that has been copied without formatting as the comment's second paragraph), the article looks pretty human-written given the multiple misspellings and miscapitalizations, one vice LLMs tend to lack. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Sophia Dashing: In particular, the paragraph on Dashing's support of LGBTQ values appears to have some level of AI generation inside it, mainly with the added text after. I can only verify LGBT in the source from ZoMagazine. Also, only a portion of the paragraph that includes her Jezebel award was detected. The only way I can withdraw this one is if the text is rewritten and the legitimate (yes, I Googled to verify this part) WP:MUSICBIO concerns are addressed.
    2. Leyla Blue: I've had to withdraw this one as the paragraphs I was suspicious of were mostly returning human writing.
    3. Precious Pepala: Also withdrew this one on principle due to the lack of the tag Headbomb's code detects on all sources.
    So you are correct that I was quick to the call on most of these deletion discussions. I apologize to everyone, including @Meio2934, for the trouble caused here. Jalen Barks (Woof) 06:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for acknowledging this and for the apology, I appreciate it. Regarding the Sophia Dashing article, I’m happy to work on cleaning that section up to make sure every sentence is fully supported by reliable sources. I’ve already gone ahead and rephrased the section on Sophia Dashing’s LGBTQ support to make sure it stays strictly in line with what the ZoMagazine source states. If you have a moment, could you please review the updated text and consider withdrawing the deletion nomination?
    My goal has always been to improve articles in good faith and follow WP:MUSICBIO, so I’m happy to make any further adjustments if needed. Meio2934 (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing the criteria and confirming the changes, I have withdrawn the nomination.
    All that's left regards Draft:Karra. I've already warned you about cut & paste moves on your Talk page as well as suggested some alternative venues, like Articles for creation or even Requested moves, to get that one published. The rest here is up to you. Good luck with the draft. :) Jalen Barks (Woof) 06:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you so much I really appreciate it, I did that because the redirect link with the name Karra ( Singer) was already existed but it was for her and it was a empty redirected page, I though erasing the draft from karra and copying it onto the redirect karra (Singer) was going to be a better option, but from now on I will just move the page instead of copying from one to another thank you :) Meio2934 (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given at least one editor a warning about calling another editor's work "slop". Even if AI is a factor in their creation, please do not refer to an editor's work as garbage, crap or "slop". It violates civility. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Tamzin and Liz, for pointing this out. I really appreciate it. I want to clarify again that my work is written by me and not AI-generated. I understand my AfD comment may have looked odd because I copied part of a heading, but I always write my own contributions.

    I also appreciate the reminder about civility. Being called “AI-generated slop” felt discouraging, and I’m glad this has been acknowledged.
    <meta />
    Meio2934 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Just to clarify, I accidentally pasted stray HTML (<meta> tags) into my previous comment. I'm learning new coding's now to edit better on Wikipedia instead of visual editing, so it was a formatting mistake while drafting my message. Please disregard the HTML tag." Meio2934 (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d also like to point out how contradictory it feels to accuse me of “AI use” while relying on an AI-detection tool yourself to make these claims. If AI is supposedly not acceptable here, it seems inconsistent to bring in an AI-based program to judge other editors’ writing.
    These tools are not reliable evidence, and as others have said, plenty of well-written human text can be flagged as AI-generated. Wikipedia shouldn’t be making decisions about articles or editors based on speculative AI scans – it should be about reliable sources, notability, and policy. This repeated focus on AI accusations feels personal and disruptive. Also all articles I've created, or helped create were all edited and written by me, I do not use Artificial intelligence to manipulate text or help with writing. Meio2934 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things to respond to this, both positive and negative.
    1. The positive. GPTZero did return mostly human writing on one section each of two articles. Based on this finding, I have withdrawn my nominations for both.
    2. The negative. There's no hiding the use of generative AI when the code "utm_source=chatgpt.com" is present in the reference tag, and this is how User:Headbomb/unreliable spotted the possibility.
    And an admission: I will also take back the "slop" portion of my comments in the remaining AfDs. I admit the incivility this has caused. However, due to the presence of those tags in select sources, the AI accusations remain. Jalen Barks (Woof) 06:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d like to clarify something about the “utm_source=chatgpt.com” in some of the reference links. These tags were part of the URL I copied from social media or a shared link. They’re tracking parameters automatically added by websites, not evidence of AI-written content. The articles I cited are real publications with human authors, and my writing is my own. Meio2934 (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't quite explain how the tracking tags ended up on the URLs in question. They are supposed to be used, at least under normal operation, to tag the source of the originating traffic. If these links were found through google or some other search engine, they'd be tagged by that search engine, or even the social media site they came from, not ChatGPT. There's a step missing here, that I would at the very least appreciate clarification on. Though I am at least aware I'm an outside observer at this point. Daedalus969 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern, and I’d like to clarify further. When I created the page for Sophia Dashing, I initially had trouble finding articles through a standard Google search. I tried alternative search engines and link aggregators to locate news coverage about her. I don’t remember which one I used, but it provided me with direct links to reliable articles written by human authors from established outlets. I read those articles myself and cited them. The tracking tags in the URLs came from the search tool I used, not from ChatGPT or any AI content generation. The writing on the page is entirely my own. Now what might've happened is that at the end they left the tag on it, cause you can see it is at the very end of the link for the article so it doesn't really change if you erase it or not when clicking that is what i guess happened. from now I will not be using google search engines if you also have any to recommend to find articles I will be very grateful thank you :) Meio2934 (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, that should indicate the search engine you used to find the content. If it says "utm_source=chatgpt.com", that very indicitive thatit was chatgpt that was used to search for it. I assume its not infallible, but that will absolutely raise eyebrows. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand completely, I didn’t used ChatGPT to search for but the online engine I used to search the articles might have a directly alignment with them that’s why. There are lots of search engines online these days too never trusting any of those that’s for sure Meio2934 (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources with the chatgpt tag come up in obvious Google searches ("sophia dashing lgbtq", etc.) and I find it hard to believe your (unnamed) alternative search engine returned URLs with a chatgpt source tag 3 different times. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume because they used it to find sources -- I do not really understand what the kerfluffu is about. Does it give the webpage cooties if GPT links to it or something? jp×g🗯️ 08:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to point 2, when I run across references with that tracking parameter - "utm_source=chatgpt.com" - it raises a red flag to me as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    It's not destiny. We can choose not to.calk an editor's work "slop". Just like we can choose not to use other insulting terms. Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm incredibly disappointed that something like "AI slop" has made its way into being a Wikipedia article. Liz is right, just because an article exists for a certain word, that does not mean we should use it in common parlance with other editors. Calling your fellow editor on Wikipedia a hack writer would be just as unacceptable. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hack writer" is a comment on the contributor, "AI slop" is a comment on the content. It cannot be an attack on an editor's work if the editor copy-pasted it from an LLM. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider the employment of both terms in reference to an editor or their work to be unacceptable, regardless of the distinction. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not their work, by definition. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And honestly, this thread and the subsequent responses - especially along the lines of "well you should know better than to have 'utm_source=chatpgt' in your reference" shows how extremely the pendulum has swung in the other direction when it comes to AI acceptability, and it was one of my foremost concerns when Wikipedia started drafting a policy on LLM usage. It's also alarming how the leftovers of web analytics, which is present (and often unnoticed) in most linked URLs, can be mistaken for LLM/GPT usage. It is true and self-evident that we should not allow false content to proliferate on Wikipedia through AI-assisted technology. At the same time, pillorying any editor for even having an incidental (or unknowing) interaction with ChatGPT outside of the scope of a Wikipedia edit, to me, shows a rapid and unpleasant descent into WP:WITCHHUNT mentality. We're so much better than this, or at least we should be. But I fear we're going to look back at ourselves in years time with mighty embarrassment in how we treated other editors in this regard. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked Meio2934's user page and it has Markdown formatting in it, so I am inclined to believe this user is actually using a LLM to create articles and make edits (and their edits have also frequently tripped edit filters for AI-generated citations and Markdown). This observation does not depend on AI content detection; see WP:AISIGNS SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Using **markdown** ( —) formatting on my own user page is my preference of customization, I also add imojis there. My coding is also not the best but I am learning and I do space out so it looks less messy for me on the editing hand. Meio2934 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't know, if you want text to render in boldface on Wikipedia, you surround it with three apostrophes on each side, like this: 
    '''This sentence will be rendered in bold.'''
    I felt I had to mention it because non-wikitext markup, especially Markdown, is often seen when copy-pasting stuff from an AI chatbot into Wikipedia and is not commonly used otherwise. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thank you for the tutorial, I think it might be hard to believe but I really just like how the markdowns look, I really do I think they are cute in a way in my personal writing and essays I often include them. But I’ll change them don’t worry Meio2934 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They make use of bold in their AfD votes, and also earlier in this topic. I don't think I'm witch-hunting if I say these explanations take an incredible amount of AGF to believe. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I checked bold is available as a tool to be used, if bold is not allowed then why have it on Wikipedia ? Seriously, do everyone around here write with no customization at all, I do use bold, I use italic, I use dashes, I use any tool on the writing tools that I available. If you don’t use bold it’s your preference of choice tho. Meio2934 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On Wikipedia, use of boldface for emphasis is discouraged in most cases; the main place you see boldface used in articles is to emphasize the first occurrence of the article title in the lead section. Typically, extensive use of boldface is a sign of AI writing since most (human) editors don't really use boldface that much. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but I just happen to use it, it is a tool and just because most editors don’t use does not mean none will. I do and only in certain places you can check all the articles I’ve created or contributed to, articles in main space I don’t use bold out of nowhere, but when it comes to topics and discussions or replies I like to use them. Meio2934 (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Not that it's really relevant here, but I use markdown-adjacent formatting in ASCII chats because when I started in 1986, it was all I had to work with. Some chats pass them on as written, some convert to markdown.) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I spot checked six different paragraphs from the four articles they have listed on their userpage, and they all come back as 100% AI generated. In contrast, I spot checked six different paragraphs from articles that I have created, and they all come back as 100% human written (which they were). I don't know, seems odd to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d really like to know which tool you’re using that can supposedly tell the difference with 100% certainty. It seems odd that every article you wrote came back as ‘100% human while mine all came back as ‘100% AI.
    The editor who originally nominated my articles for deletion already admitted most of those AI flags were wrong and withdrew the nominations. Only one article had an issue flagged, which I’ve since fixed, and it’s now back online. This is exactly why relying on these tools is so unreliable we’ve already seen they can give false results. Meio2934 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not using AI detection to determine that your edits are likely AI-generated; instead, I carefully look over your edits. For example, this sentence from Precious Pepala, an article that you wrote, is concerning:

    Throughout her early releases, Pepala has consistently drawn on influences like Billie Eilish, Lady Gaga, Destiny's Child, and Aaliyah — blending gospel roots with alt-pop and rock stylings.

    This sentence has two big problems:
    • It introduces a superficial analysis by attaching a gerund phrase (which is common in AI writing)
    • It has a spaced em dash (most editors use the em dash very rarely, or not at all, since it is hard to type reliably on many platforms)
    The same article also has many more occurrences of this pattern of "comma or dash followed by a gerund phrase".
    I am not using an AI detection tool, and I don't need to use AI content detection to arrive at my conclusion. All I rely on is the list of signs of AI writing that Wikipedians in WikiProject AI Cleanup have created from experience. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to respectfully disagree with this assessment. Writing style alone is not reliable evidence of AI involvement. Using gerund phrases or a spaced em dash is simply a matter of how I naturally write. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that prohibits these stylistic choices, and many long standing articles use similar phrasing.
    Assuming AI use based purely on personal interpretation of style is not only speculative but unfair, especially when my edits are made in good faith and supported by verifiable sources. Meio2934 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:DASH specifically does say not to use spaced em-dashes, in fact. Sesquilinear (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The style of writing with gerund phrases that I mentioned above is very prone to introducing original research; it also often fails to maintain a neutral point of view. Here's a relevant quote from Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing that explains the situation pretty well:

    Beyond simply being indicators, the following phrasings and conventions often violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style or introduce a promotional or non-neutral tone; therefore appropriate use of AI chatbots on Wikipedia should not exhibit any of these indicators.

    SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I totally reject the idea that some are basically suggesting, that we should treat good faith as a WP:SUICIDEPACT. If multiple AI checkers, with different algorithms, find many different sections being 100%, the writing is so obvious that anyone who reads on a fifth-grade level can recognize it's AI-written drivel, and there is actually tracking for chatgpt.com left in multiple places, it's perfectly reasonable to assume LLM use.
    LLM usage is an existential risk to the utility of Wikipedia as an ongoing project. I think five years from now, when lax policies have contributed to the permanent enshittification of Wikipedia, we'll regret we took such a "golly gee whiz" approach as a community. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not. jp×g🗯️ 08:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Using em dashes is not a problem — bad writing is a problem (and, conversely, good writing is not a problem). The main problem with this article was that it was badly written and in need of a trim... jp×g🗯️ 11:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I used four different apps, and they all came back with the same results. The second paragraph in this section triggered a 100% result, and it has a source with the "utm_source=chatgpt.com" tag in the URL, and it also has the spaced em dash. In my view, based on how it is awkwardly written, specifically the third and fourth sentences, I think there is some AI content there. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It really does seem like we've a situation where there is substantial evidence of LLM usage - writing style, use of markdown, chat gpt as the source in refs, triggering of AI detection apps, etc. And while any given one of these things, alone, might be a false positive, it does appear that there's a lot of these indicators all clustered together. While it's not the most civil thing in the world to call chatbot output "slop" it does appear that chatbot output was correctly identified. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It would be very unlikely for all of these signs to appear together coincidentally. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. And we really should not be offloading the drafting of articles to Climate Change Clippy chatbot outputs. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    🙄 jp×g🗯️ 09:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    + this. ChatGPT has evidently been used. I don't think it's fair to be uncivil about it, or blindly trust AI detectors, or mass-nominate articles that potentially do meet WP:GNG (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP), but Meio2934 has got to admit they used it. LLMs are very unhelpful in writing articles for a slew of reasons - there's a RFC right now about whether speedy deleting clear LLM submissions should be allowed, and it's skewing towards a yes the last time I saw it, yesterday. LLMs are especially harmful when writing BLPs due to false/exaggerated claims. I don't think a full on ban/block is warranted yet, just a little warning and a note that in the future, stricter measures can be taken. jolielover♥talk 16:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, the main concern here isn't the wording (I do agree it should be watched) or even the use of AI itself (new users can see it as a tool, not realising the pitfalls, and I'm sympathetic to its use as an aid to users who have disabilities). My main concern is how Meio2934 has doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on "I did not use AI" when the evidence keeps piling up that they did. LLM use, itself, isn't a sanction-worthy offence if it's corrected once the problems with it are pointed out. Being misleading and untruthful about your conduct multiple times, however, is. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree we have to be honest about our work and what we do in all senses, and what I did I said I did, I used google search engines to search for the articles which gave me links tied to chatgpt at the very end of the article links. i read the articles and wrote what I thought was useful to do from them and cited, I'm not good in citation most of them have citation errors which I am trying to get better at, and in regards to the spaces and wording and language I did wrote them myself, in fact when i first began writing articles here on Wikipedia I based my article writing style on other singer articles already live cause I was and still am learning. i also focus a lot on writing and fixing articles for musicians and songwriter. Last time I was being accused of editing for payment which I already said i did not and I do not do and they recommended me to clarify that on my user page which I did. I do write very consistent and in the same style for every article of mine, i write them all in visual editing because my coding is a disaster so when i do code i spend time doing it. i do not rely on chatgpt or AI for my writing, I do and did online for sourcing the articles links but i read them myself and write the articles myself. When it comes to the spacing and the bold, and the italics and the ** () ": >< I use these regularly and even tho editors on Wikipedia don't I do because specially the dashes and the "" are often bused I use them often for album titles, singles that are in the middle of the text and At least I thought needed to be added because they are being named inside the context. So i do apologize again if my writing is all the same or different from other authors here on Wikipedia. that also has nothing to do with this but in class our professor talked about this as well about when did the dashes and points and bold became symbol of AI use in general ? even he stopped using them for lessons and test and quizzes because he was being accused of using artificial intelligence and his own research papers and tests and quizzes were being flagged for AI when he never did. I can't stress this enough so no I will not say I used AI because I in fact I did not for my writing what I did confirmed I did was online for searching for news articles via a search engine which very on top above I said they might be tied to chatgpt which gave those awful link tags. Meio2934 (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "writing style" in this long paragraph doesn't come close at all to matching your writing style from your replies above, nor does it match your writing style in the articles you supposedly wrote yourself. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    writing style from "articles" and writing style for responses like yours for example are very different. Besides, tones tend to shift on conversations specially the more you have to talk repetitive about the same argument over and over again. Meio2934 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was simply highlighting that this reply up above and and this one, and this one, don't appear to me to match the style in what you wrote in the long paragraph. I don't know, I could be wrong. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - the writing style in this comment is drastically different than the style in previous comments in the thread. Almost as if this one was in fact 'hand written' entirely while previous ones were AI-generated, or at least AI-assisted. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you and Isaidnoway are absolutely correct. Before, I was maybe 95% convinced Meio2934 was using AI, but I'm pretty certain about it now. I cannot imagine someone who legitimately quickly shovel out replies exactly like ChatGPT can also write, in a discussion where their honesty is being questioned, something like I do say one more time that my writing is done by me and that I didn’t payed to much attention when looking what search engine I was using but even tho when asked the specific link I remember the website design and thus saw it was ChatGPT search engine not AI writing tool which is not the same. LLMs bug me, but dishonesty really bugs me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Browsers keep your browsing history; this is a well known fact. Please share the URL of the search engine search that contains the ChatGPT tagged links; we should be able to reproduce this for ourselves. For example, here's a URL of me attempting to find a changelog for a javascript library: https://www.google.com/search?q=javascript+library+changelog&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1045US1045&oq=javascript+library+changelog&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIKCAEQABgKGBYYHjINCAIQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAMQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAQQABiGAxiABBiKBTIHCAUQABjvBTIHCAYQABjvBTIKCAcQABiABBiiBDIHCAgQABjvBdIBCDQyNDNqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 This shouldn't be a privacy violation, given its only the base search for sources in the article.
    I couldn't figure out how to get link text to not be a link; I've been away from wikitext for quite sometime. — Dædαlus+ Contribs 21:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go the link to the search engine I used to find the articles and use to find articles for artists. https://chatgpt.com/g/g-kRen9yNIt-search-engine when you search they give you the articles and then you open directly from them. Meio2934 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish we could add prints here I have them prints, it is a search engine I found on Google and then for artists that you need more articles that are hidden I use this one and I also often use others but this one is better at least I thought to find articles, they give the articles and you click on the link they give you and it opens write where you need to be. Meio2934 (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You said up above I didn’t used ChatGPT to search for but the online engine I used to search the articles might have a directly alignment with them that’s why.
    And now you are giving a link to chatgpt.com and saying that is the search engine you used. Seems like to me you are digging a hole for yourself here with your contradictory claims. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did said, and it’s true when I write articles I often look out for search engine that best suits I did not looked at it to see which search engine I specifically used, now that you asked me the link I went looking for it and that’s how I found it. I’m being 100% transparent here always, and I already told you as well and even shared the link again that I got from it again for Sophia dashing that I like to search for the articles everywhere so I just go clicking around the search engines, I shared the link search engine GPT gave me and it ends exactly like that. Meio2934 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...okay. Let's be very clear here: you have just confirmed you are using ChatGPT as a search engine and thus previously you have not been truthful when you have claimed you are not using ChatGPT. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said I used ChatGPT for writing, I said I used a search engine online for finding the article, and once asked the specific link it was ChatGPT search engine, not ChatGPT AI two very different tools. Meio2934 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You outright said you didn't use it for search, and then you said above that you did. — Dædαlus+ Contribs 22:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m outdoing myself I see, what I said was I used a search engine online to search for the articles correct, ok. I didn’t record of which search engine I used I used lots. Then when asked the specific link of the engine, I went ahead looking for it based on the website design and thus I came across ChatGPT search engine. Which again is not the same as ChatGPT AI for writing. I do apologize for the misunderstanding but this is what happened. And I do understand your point. Meio2934 (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all the same AI. What you're linking is the same 'ChatGPT AI for writing' that someone has seeded with a couple of prompts and stuck a sign reading 'search engine' on. It's not actually a search engine. These are not 'two very different tools', it is exactly the same thing. MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the link I gave here it says “Search Engine” tho and it gives the same things a search engine would. https://chatgpt.com/g/g-kRen9yNIt-search-engine look search engine at the very end of the tag. Meio2934 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could put a sign reading 'search engine' on a rock, but it would still be a rock. One more time: You absolutely have been using an LLM, and you should stop. MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you say so Meio2934 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides myself, there are at least three other editors who think some of the content in the articles you have written is AI generated, I agree with that assessment, and have nothing further to add at this point, because, to be blunt, I don't think you are being 100% transparent. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand completely why you feel that way, I apologize for all inconveniences but I do wanna state that the articles that we’re nominated for deletion or for discussion of deletion were already withdrew in the sole bases of “AI” use for writing. I do say one more time that my writing is done by me and that I didn’t payed to much attention when looking what search engine I was using but even tho when asked the specific link I remember the website design and thus saw it was ChatGPT search engine not AI writing tool which is not the same. But I understand your statement. Meio2934 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here I just did it again and it gave me this link about Sophia dashing ending in ChatGPT https://medium.com/authority-magazine/music-star-sophia-dashing-on-the-five-things-you-need-to-shine-in-the-music-industry-dd4f220920dc?utm_source=chatgpt Meio2934 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So this particular use of ChatGPT is basically okay, but with any search engine, you have to check the sources you find to ensure they're reliable and actually support what you say in the article, and generally people will give you a lot less benefit of the doubt if you leave the UTM parameters in. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the input, I understand and will look out for this then detail in the tags from now on. Meio2934 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a general consensus here that some of the content, if not most of the content, in articles created by Meio2934 is AI-generated, despite their claims to the contrary. I spot-checked some refs in Precious Pepala, and found they failed verification, an indicator of AI, and at least one unreliable source being used - WP:BROADWAYWORLD. I am proposing a formal warning that Meio2934 not create any more new articles using AI tools, as articles created using LLM damages the project. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I think a formal warning is the most appropriate way forward here. Meio2934 may not have realized that chatbot assisted material was contrary to project goals but they do know now. If they can avoid using chatbots to draft content or to communicate on WP going forward we can close off this discussion. I want to clarify that I also support no sanctions against Jalen Barks at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand completely and will do my best to help Wikipedia to grow, I mean no harm and now that I understand, I will no longer use AI no more of any kind for anything writing or researching, I take full responsibility for my actions regarding the articles I wrote and promise to fix them as well. Regarding Jalen Barks despite my initial accusation, he already apologized for the word use and did as well withdrew the deletion nomination for the articles, so I also support no sanction against Jalen Barks. Meio2934 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think there's the opportunity for them to change - all of us make mistakes initially, for better or worse. I'm glad they've admitted to using it and take responsibility. jolielover♥talk 14:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - It's too bad it's come to a formal warning, but as this makes the expectations of the community clear going forward, this is a good resolution. I also support no action on Jalen Barks, who I believed acted in good faith, if too aggressively. Jalen, if stress is getting to you, please take a Wikibreak and refresh rather than beat up on yourself! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A formal warning for something which isn't against the rules — and "damages the project" in some nebulous manner that is not explained at all — what? jp×g🗯️ 08:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following this at all. They're not being warned to not use LLMs because they used LLMs, they're being warned to not use LLMs because they WP:DISRUPTed the project by abusing LLMs, made a mess, and then lied about it. Someone being warned to not do something they would have otherwise been able to do if they had not abused that something is a thing that happens all the time here, without any raised eyebrows. Some star chamber; nobody's proposed a block or a ban or a wider topic ban, but simply the minimum required to stop someone from editing in a manner they have abused after they would not stop voluntarily. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Meio2934 has kept their word and cleaned up Precious Pepala, and has promised on my talk page to look at the other articles they created to address any issues they may possibly have. Thanks to everyone. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Admission of further misconduct

    [edit]

    Let this be my final say on the matter, specifically that while I acknowledge that I have violated multiple Wiki guidelines in this case, I have reflected on my own time here on the English Wikipedia and honestly do not believe the wider community here should remain trustworthy of me. I will let the community decide what they want to do regarding my future here, but I am openly admitting now that there is further misconduct in my contributions that should not be overlooked. Examples include edit warring, abuse of automated tools, abuse of user rights, and even going as far as to faking my own retirement when things don't go my way (trust me, I don't plan on doing that here now that the article issue is resolved). Even in this very moment, I have also contemplated accepting a community ban multiple times over these past issues, given how far this has gone. Therefore, I now leave it to the wider community here to decide my fate. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Did they actually do anything that violated any policy or guidelines?

    [edit]

    There are a bunch of people saying that this editor slopping prose in mainspace has "damaged the project", or caused an "existential risk", and that they need some kind of formal warning. I understand it is disgraceful that they kept blowing smoke about whether they were using it or not, and this if nothing else is quite rude, but what in the devil are you guys talking about with this stuff about injuring the project?

    Fisrt of all, it is not against the rules to use LLMs — I know this because I created WP:LLM and WP:LLMP, both of which were very concise attempts to make a basic common-sense rule ("users should not use LLM output without disclosing it"). Both of these were condemned forever to bureaucracy hell, the first by getting bloated to incomprehensibility and then sent to the gauntlet of a hopeless RfC, the second by a 2-to-1 RfC in favor of adoption getting closed as no consensus, so the state of affairs is indeed that there is no guideline prohibiting their use, or mandating disclosure — so to speak, this is what everyone voted for — if the idea is to protest that by chewing up random noobs for using em-dashes, I am against this, and if the idea is to punish some actual violation of policy or guideline, then I am all for this, but really, can someone give an example of what was actually wrong about the edits, other than the writing being of somewhat poor quality (extremely typical of the gamut of quality people on Wikipedia typically write and have written for two decades)? What is wrong with Special:Permalink/1295977669? jp×g🗯️ 08:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking into this myself, on the lark that perhaps there really is a problem here, and that probably nobody is going to actually bother to read the diffs to figure out whether it exists or not, I find something very strange. What is going on in Special:Diff/1303518461?
    The single was also included in Rolling Stone’s "Songs You Need to Know This Week," placing her alongside international artists and affirming her arrival on the global pop stage. "Songs You Need to Know This Week". Rolling Stone. December 2, 2022. Retrieved March 25, 2025.
    Of course, this is not well-written, and has blatant WP:PEACOCK language (kind of a puzzling use of {{cn}} rather than just copyediting it out), but we've been dealing with that for about 24 years now. Did people only start doing this in 2022? I guess I didn't get the memo.
    But there is a way bigger fugazi.
    Despite someone claiming to have gone through this and done a source check... this source does not exist! The URL is a 404, and there is no copy of it in the Wayback Machine, except for a single grab (of a 404 page) shortly after this reference was added to the article. There is one article on Rolling Stone with a similar title, from that same day — Coi Leray, RM, Metallica and All the Songs You Need to Know This Week — that mentions the song, but it's at a completely different URL. @Isaidnoway: Why did you tag this as saying the "source does not mention" the statement in the sentence? Did you not notice that the source didn't exist, or did you do all of the aforesaid work to find the original article, and then leave the original (nonexistent) source in the citation with a claim that it had been verified? jp×g🗯️ 09:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I found that Rolling Stones source, which doesn't verify the content added, and found all the other sources that came back with a 404, which is an indicator of AI slop. The user said up above that they take full responsibility for my actions regarding the articles I wrote and promise to fix them as well. Do you have a problem with them taking responsibility for their actions and fixing the problems they created? I thought we encouraged editors to take responsibility for issues they created. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think making up sources is a significant issue, whereas what software the editor has installed on their computer is less pressing. jp×g🗯️ 10:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree it's not that they are using LLMs, but that doing so has caused them to add made up references and potentially hallucinated content. Editors are responsible for any content they add regardless of how they generate the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they are, but what is the purpose of all this dreck about how many em dashes can dance on the head of a pin, why did it need to be proven whether they were using a transformer? Either the edits are good or they are bad. Bad edits are bad if they come from a human, a computer or a potato, without a need for Tuber Detectives. jp×g🗯️ 10:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem here was that they were dishonest about using LLMs and repeatedly denied using them to write articles and comments despite all the evidence to the contrary. LLM usage, by itself, is not necessarily disruptive; not being honest about using such tools is, especially because I don't think this user fully understood the problems associated with unreviewed LLM output (e.g. promotional tone, bad formatting, nonexistent references, etc.) until they were pointed out to them. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources from Precious Pepala: 404 plus failed verification, 404, 404 plus failed verification, failed verification, failed verification, unreliable source. These are all signs of an editor using LLM to create an article, and not bothering to check the sources for verification (one of our core policies for a BLP), or checking the reliability of the sources being used. I think this sort of behavior damages the project, but of course, you are free to think otherwise. Furthermore, drafts are now routinely being rejected by reviewers because of LLM concerns: Draft:WKLR-FM, Draft:Kashmir Sapphire (Kashmir, Pakistan), Draft:Mohammad Ali Nasiri, Draft:Sir Patrick Bijou and Draft:Abraham Peck. There is also an ongoing RfC for adding a new criteria for speedy deletion of unreviewed LLM content, which appears to me, of having an overwhelming consensus so far for adding this option for speedy deletion, maybe you'd like to express your opinion there that it is not against the rules to use LLMs. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not read my original post at all? That is a policy I proposed in 2023! And it has nothing at all to do with running star chambers at ANI. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I read your original post, and I stand behind my comment 100% that articles created using LLM damages the project, as the LLM content may include hallucinated information, fake references, copyright violations, and as shown in at least one article Meio2934 created, content that failed verification, an unreliable source, and multiple sources that somehow returned a 404 error and can't be found archived, when the sources actually do exist when searched for by a human. And it looks like to me that "star chambers" have been running for a while now here at ANI, AN, AfD, etc. From what I've seen, the general consensus is that using LLM is frowned upon in articles, talk pages and discussions in project spaces, as editors are getting blocked, warned and scolded for using LLM. If you'd like to start a formal discussion with a proposal that these so called star chambers be prohibited, please do so, and if you'd like to oppose a warning for Meio2934, please do so, thanks.
    Rationales written by an LLM are unacceptable, LLM use by Gyan Know, likely LLM use, possible serial llm usage in blp space, massive wave of LLM spam, 9t5 ban from using LLM for writing, using LLMs to add content to pages, potential use of a large language model, Going to pblock from mainspace, draft and category space until this is cleared up, as an LLM helps a person contribute a lot of material quickly (which we do not want in this case)., it would be better with an opening statement written by a human, AI-generated article spammer blocked, Your edits to articles smack of subjects just poured into AI and spit out and pasted into Wikipedia, it is painfully obvious that your writing needs work. That's fine, do what you want to do, but don't use your various "tools" on Wikipedia, apparent LLM abuse, and on and on and on. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, the problem is not the use of LLMs. It's that the user repeatedly and explicitly denied the use of LLMs when asked about it, despite mounting evidence that they were. There is no policy (yet) against the use of LLMs, and as I mentioned above as well, they can be aids for users with disabilities, for instance. Lying - to call a spade a spade - at ANI about the use of LLMs when directly asked about it, however, is a no-go. Also I will note that running star chambers at ANI is pretty danged close to casting aspersions and I'm dissapointed to see a fellow admin saying that kind of thing here. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While there is no policy against the use of LLMs, from what I've seen, the general consensus is the community prefers to communicate with humans, not LLMs, and discussions are routinely hatted because of editors using LLMs. Drafts are being rejected because of the problems associated with using LLMs. So while there is no official policy, the community is still taking decisive action to prevent the spread of it's usage on the project. There are numerous templates now to alert our readers and editors alike, that content or sources may be AI-generated, and talk page guidelines which allow LLM-generated arguments to be excluded from assessments of consensus, and if I recall correctly, I recently saw there's an edit filter now that tags edits with potential AI issues. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if I'm reading the above discussion correctly, they added fake references to articles. This is a major issue that should be addressed with a warning (which someone might want to propose, with diffs of adding fake references, assuming those diffs exist). Unfortunately, it's gotten lost in arguments above about dashes and "slop" and UTM parameters. ANI ain't perfect. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Frequentflyer93

    [edit]

    Please take a look at the edits of user:Frequentflyer93. This user seems to have a problem with understanding what independent sourcing are, as he is often using company websites (see here for an example. Plus falsifying sources (a source about flights in 2023 to back up a date in 2026 [30]). He seems to think that WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is a joke, and not confirmed by multiple RFCs. His behaviour is worrying. He has a talk page full with warnings and I am at my wits end. The Banner talk 18:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take a look at the sources I've provided which are independent, for example links to the AeroRoutes website. I have included a source to the TUI flight timetable page as I've seen it used before by other editiors as there are no other sources online. I've also made sure to add "better source needed". Administrators, there are two sides to this story not just The Banner's. He has a long history of reverting users edits when they've provided independednt sources and engages in constant edit wars and disruptive behaviour. His actions are simply unacceptable and is blatantly trying to get me blocked so he can have airport articles edited in a way that suits him. He acts as though he has the final say alone and nobody elses contributions matter. I never falsified any sources as the same source was used for ages on the corresponding airports article for ages. I have since removed the source in question and have added "better source needed" to keep The Banner happy. Lastly, my talk page has warnings all from The Banner as he appears to hold some sort of grudge against me making any edits on here. I'm not familiar with reporting users on here but if I was I would have reposrted The Banner for his actions also. If anyone is at their wits end its me because The Banner never seems to pulled up for his actions on this website. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am only enforcing WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Beside, this edit sets the tone quite right. The Banner talk 18:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are enforcing that be consistent with it and stop contradicting yourself. You deemed this source (https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/250326-orns25ie) an acceptable one when editing Dublin Airport but when the same source was used for my edit on Cork Airport you reverted that edit and said it states no end dates for the routes out of Cork even though it does. This I don't understand. Make what you're saying and so called enforcing make sense. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we not continue this argument here? Frequent, your comments to Banner have been, quite frankly, rude and uncivil. Saying someone has nothing better to do and accusing somebody of trying to get you blocked really isn't constructive, it makes you look worse. jolielover♥talk 18:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I apologise for coming across as rude and uncivil towards Banner. I wish they had at least tried to see my edits as constructive and genuine as I honestly try my best to provide accurate edits and include independent sources where available. It has felt as though Banner kept reverting my edits for a long time just for the sake of it even if I had provided an independent source at times. Maybe Banner could let me know his thoughts/point of view on this so we can avoid it happening again in the future and be civil towards one another. Thank you. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chiming in from the cheap seats, "enforcing" what, precisely? A local consensus, based on RfCs with significant dissension, that doesn't have the status of an official guideline, and that's what you're taking someone to ANI for "violating"? Ravenswing 13:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An example: this edit is especially dodgy, claiming that an article about the "Northern winter 2024/25 season" is evidence of the connection returning year after year. Should Wikipedia not be reliable? The Banner talk 19:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all the link to that article wasn't added by me to begin with and second of all it has been on the Dublin Airport page for a long time so why are you only wanting to remove it now? I would like to make admin aware that you are just randomly removing content that appear to not meet YOUR OWN PERSONAL REQUIREMENTS which is DODGY. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a VPP RFC (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles) is a "local consensus". Sure, it's not a guideline, but an RfC was had and consensus was found and the closure was upheld (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive359#Closure review request for the RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles). That said, both editors' behavior here is subpar. I recommend that you both voluntarily agree to avoid each other, or else the community may need to impose an IBAN to prevent further disruption. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't lie, you two should have stopped interacting months ago. I just want to say that an edit war goes both ways, and it's also inappropriate for one of the people involved in this war to send out warnings; WP:NOTINVOLVED. This series of warnings by Banner shouldn't have happened since 1) Banner is involved, and 2) the warning template is incorrect; it is not blatant vandalism and instead appears to be a disagreement between the two editors (essentially edit warring). Actual content/verifiability of the sources aside, I personally believe that both editors haven't been very WP:CIVIL to each other: Banner for constantly sending warnings despite being involved; Frequentflyer for leaving snarky/rude comments like this. Frequentflyer, I also want to say that verifiability is a core part of Wikipedia and low-quality sources can be challenged. Really, this should have been brought to Dispute Resolutions ages ago. I think that Frequentflyer should have some sort of ban from the page for some time due to their constant addition of poor quality sources and very uncivil comments; Banner, I think you should just consider not sending warnings if you're involved in a conflict, and seek resolution much, much earlier next time. This whole situation could have been prevented. jolielover♥talk 18:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, Frequentflyer93 still goes on, even after this filing. Still adding unsourced info in breach of WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. And this edit is especially dodgy, claiming that an article about the "Northern winter 2024/25 season" is evidence of the connection returning year after year. This is clearly a structural problem to the detriment of the reliability of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 19:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact The Banner still goes on, after this conversation coming to a close where he was also called out for his behaviour, he went and reverted the edits on Dublin Airport. He's trying to deflect from his own actions and portray me in a bad light. Let me be crystal clear, The Banner removed content from Dublin Airport and then posted here accusing me of adding unreliable sources again. The source in question states that the Dublin - Verona connection is a seasonal service which operates every winter season from December to March. Many similar sources appear to be acceptable on other airport articles however, Banner seems to think this does not apply for Dublin Airport which is most bizarre. Not that you should have to but if you search for a flight from Dublin to Verona on TUI's website you will see that flights are available to book from December 2025. This further backs up my argument that the flights operate on a seasonal basis during every Northern Winter December - March. Why is this so difficult for Banner to understand? Its pathetic that I'm including this but if you Google the definition of 'seasonal airline route' it states "a flight route that is only offered during certain times of the year, typically due to seasonal demand or weather patters". I rest my case. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to add an example for you to see. On Dublin Airport here is an example of Aer Lingus's seasonal routes - Seasonal: Brest, Brindisi, Burgas, Cancún (begins 6 January 2026), Catania, Corfu,[citation needed]. If you take a look at Corfu next to it is "citation needed". Banner has no interest in removing that content because he knows full well that Aer Lingus's route to Corfu is continuous and operates on a seasonal basis during the summer so why does he only want to remove content I remove? Frequentflyer93 (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AN/I is not the place to continue litigating your content dispute. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see a general issue here with @Frequentflyer93's editing, and I'm not willing to dismiss this report despite the fact that the filer has unclean hands (per @Jolielover). WP:BURDEN requires that the editor who adds or restores material must provide a reliable source. Edits like this are not acceptable. The presence of a {{cn}} tag is not grounds to restore unsourced content. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I have now removed the content of that edit due to no independent source being available at present. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should do the same for any similar edits that you made. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no similar edits. "I recommend that you both voluntarily agree to avoid each other, or else the community may need to impose an IBAN to prevent further disruption." - I welcome this recommendation you made and hope Banner abides by it and does not attempt to engage with me further in the future. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no similar edits. Yes. There are. See Special:Diff/1303632758/next. You added content that was previously removed and restored it with a {{cn}} tag. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. There are not. I re-added Verona because Banner removed it along with its independent source. This is the source in question which I re-added - https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/241016-tomnw24dubvrn Frequentflyer93 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As that source says: TUI Airways in Northern winter 2024/25 season plans to offer Dublin – Verona service, operating on weekly basis. From 21DEC24 to 15MAR25, the airline operates this route with 737-800 aircraft on Saturdays. But he claims in the summery It states the route is operated on a seasonal basis from December - March. Means route resumes every year during winter season. It does not. The Banner talk 04:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Title of source says in bold "TUI Airways Adds Seasonal Dublin – Verona Service in NW24". I explained in previous comment what a seasonal route means FYI and gave an example of one listed on Dublin Airport which you never remove. You only remove edits made by me. On Dublin Airport under Aer Lingus's seasonal routes Corfu is listed and has no independent source. As you said in a previous reply to Ravenswing "Should Wikipedia not be reliable?", if you want this then remove Aer Lingus's Corfu route with no source for consistency or stick to editing articles you have knowledge of. I work in the airline industry so that's why I edit airport/airline articles. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have a Conflict of Interest? The Banner talk 13:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No conflict of interest on my part. The only thing I have to gain is that Wikipedia users are getting the most up-to-date information added to airport/airline articles based on my knowledge of the subject. I feel no further replies to you are necessary at this point, your referral of me to admin was cleared up with User:Voorts. I owe you no explanations. Take care! Frequentflyer93 (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I just wish to remind @The Banner: that Wikiprojects don't produce anything that can be "enforced". They're just collections of like minded people for areas of interest, they don't get to make policy and guidelines on article structures/content etc. Wikiproject text isn't gospel or in any way enforceable. Wikiprojects can write as much as they want on their guidelines and structures, but it ultimately doesn't mean anything other than a polite suggestion of how it could be. Canterbury Tail talk 14:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moguy

    [edit]

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

    Your Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    User:Moguy, who has managed to accumulate 4500 or so edits to Wikipedia over 8 years with next-to-no interaction with other contributors (38 talk space edits, and very few edit summaries), appears to have difficulty understanding the concept of a collaborative project. Having had an edit the new Your Party (UK) article [31] reverted for perfectly legitimate reasons (i.e. "talked to the article", and referring to local elections that have already occurred in the future tense), then went on to attempt to edit-war similar content into the article, despite being reverted by multiple contributors, in the process adding inappropriate "Don't revert this edit" edit summaries and similar. It took a warning by User:Czello about edit warring to finally stop the edit-warring, though with a thoroughly hostile response "I wasn't aware of the three-revert rule. However, the people who opposed my contributions didn't act with good faith at all. They deleted all of my contributions for BS reasons instead of trying to find a middle ground. I won't repeat my mistakes, but I will stand back with my claims unless I find a good reason." [32]

    Having failed to edit-war, the hostility than shifted to the article talk page, [33] featuring such highlinghts as "bad-faith actors", "whataboutism" (the relevance of which eludes me), "you appeal to authority and behave in a bigoted way", and after I made it clear I wasn't prepared to engage with such relentless belligerence, a final "Hahahahaha, you guys can't provide ANY argument for your case, yet you try to cyberbully me and still claim the moral high ground. You are pathetic." [34]

    Now, I'm not going to attempt to claim the 'moral high ground' regarding civility in general (that would be pushing my luck), but I'd have to suggest that at minimum, one might expect that an experienced contributor would make a token effort not to treat a simple content dispute as an excuse for relentless hostility. Though whether someone who has engaged with other contributors so little really counts as 'experienced' is questionable. Regardless, I'd have to suggest that Moguy needs to be told in no uncertain terms that such behaviour is unacceptable, that taking things to the article talk page should be the first response to a content dispute, and that such disputes are not settled through invective and a complete refusal to take note of what others are saying. And since I have my doubts that mere instruction will get the point across, I would also suggest that maybe Moguy needs to be blocked from editing for a few days, to give them time to familiarise themselves with how this collaborative project is supposed to work (i.e. by reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, along with relevant policy in general concerning article talk page usage and regarding the legitimate use to which a source can be put, and why one cannot cite sources describing past events to justify one's own speculations about the future, which seems to be behind some of this problematic attitude) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A mid to stern warning is probably all that's due here, in particular on civility but also WP:ONUS given their apparent misunderstanding of how inclusion of material works. Much of what they've said in the article talk page is certainly unacceptable behaviour but I can understand why the edit summaries first from DeFacto[35][36] and then yourself[37] when making your reverts could've struck a raw nerve given they appear to focus more on the poor grammar rather than the material nature of the edits, and therefore look like you were only reverting because you thought their English was poor.
    Think this is one of those situations where the initial revert and poor summary as to why it was reverted is what caused this to snowball here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with DeFacto's first edit summary. It isn't reasonable to expect a complete breakdown of everything problematic with an edit when reverting, and attempting to provide one is liable to result in the sort of edit-summary argumentation responses we see. Content disputes are supposed to be resolved on article talk pages, not in edit summaries, and I'd have hoped that anyone with the editing history that Moguy has would know that. And know that "Don't revert this edit" is never an appropriate edit summary for anything. Moguy was clearly set on imposing their confusing content from the start, and I very much doubt that any particular edit summary would have made much difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right in that the edit summaries are limited and shouldn't contain a complete breakdown, but that's why I think the focus on language skills rather than the actual source itself being inappropriate is possibly what led to the inappropriate behaviour here that was otherwise unavoidable.
    Compare what DeFacto said (doesn't make much sense: "talked to the article"? Which "upcoming local elections"?) to a later reversion by Bondegezou (Given none of that then happened, I don't how this is particularly useful)[38]. As someone just reading the history page, DeFacto's summary reads like they haven't actually looked into the material changes of the edit but just reverted for poor English, which I think has an outsized role to play here as to why it spun out of control so badly.
    Moguy was clearly set on imposing their confusing content from the start, and I very much doubt that any particular edit summary would have made much difference
    Honestly I'm not comfortable making that assumption in this case. The comments you've highlighted on the talk page suggest to me it was more that they viewed themselves as being unfairly targeted for their grammar (probably because DeFacto and yourself kept highlighting that in edit summaries as the primary reason for reverting) and therefore were upset as a result. To me this paragraph in one of their replies reveals as much[39]
    One of the reasons my contributions were reverted was the failure to give the name of the aide. Even though the article DID NOT DISCLOSE the name of the aide, the person who reverted my contribution demanded the name of the aide. Is this the experience that you talk about? Or did Wikipedia add arbitrariness as one of its pillars? How should I assume good faith when other users don't even bother to read the article? I am open to a discussion and cooperation, but you guys are not. Give up your strange ideas.
    So yes, while uncivil, I don't believe this was an attempt at imposing content but a rather easily avoidable heated argument if the material content itself had been focused on and not some poor grammar that, if it had been the main issue, could've been easily fixed without reversion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It strikes me that you are reading this with hindsight. Not an option for those actually involved, where issues concerning the content - specifically, the way Moguy seems to be suggesting that the Spectator article (which pre-dates the article subject considerably) can be used as a source for statements about the newly-forming party's future electoral strategy - only really became apparent later, when Moguy was finally persuaded to use the talk page (not that that went well). Up to that point, all we had to go on was confusing wording, and an insistence that their edit had to stand. Yes, different reasons were given for reverting by different people, but that was because there were multiple issues with the edit, and no explanation forthcoming from Moguy as to why they were so insistent on including what, even at their last edit, amounted to a vague claim in an old source concerning something that never actually occurred. The unnamed 'aide' was discussing a hypothetical strategy for the May local elections, in which the aide's organisation appears to have taken no part. And note that the edit didn't explain what the strategy was. It isn't at all reasonable to expect contributors to explain in depth everything wrong with an edit. Not when it makes little sense, appears to be off-topic (clearly an organisation formed in July can't have participated in May elections), and really didn't tell readers anything much anyway. WP:ONUS exists for a reason. So do article talk pages. Edit summaries are not supposed to substitute for talk-page discussion. If Moguy failed to understand why multiple contributors were reverting, the solution should have been obvious - take it to the talk page. Instead, all we got was edit-warring and hostility. I can't see how differently-worded edit summaries for the reverts (or at least, ones that didn't involve mind-reading) would have avoided that. By all appearances, Moguy was primed for hostility from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    People pointing out grammatical issues doesn't excuse the belligerence that Moguy has shown. They've entered into the realms of outright personal attacks with their last comment, and that's on top of casting WP:ASPERSIONS (calling others bigoted) and a general lack of good faith. — Czello (music) 06:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't excuse it, no. But the overall context to me is one of this user getting upset because others had been commenting on their English (rather than the material nature of the information added) and that having tainted the entire issue. If they had initially been told that the source was out of date and therefore didn't materially add anything to the article I believe there's a strong likelihood this would've been avoided.
    Instead both DeFacto and Andy failed to comment on the material changes (in DeFacto's case their words suggesting they hadn't even looked into them) and instead got stuck on Moguy's use of English, which in their uncivil comments is easily identifiable as the source of their frustration/anger (i.e. the comments about bigotry and bad-faith).
    It's why I don't think more than a stern warning is warranted here, because there's no established history of Moguy engaging in this sort of behaviour and because of how easily avoidable this incident could've been if two far more experienced editors (who both have long established history of aggravating easily resolvable disagreements) had better conveyed themselves to begin with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently I'm being held responsible for my lack of mind-reading powers. At least, it looks that way, since until Moguy went to the talk page, it wasn't in any way evident why they were insisting on including this content at all. If they'd done that at the start, I could have explained why policy precluded the source being used that way. Since they didn't, I was working on what I saw. Which was confusing content about hypothetical past events being shoehorned in for no obvious reason. I reverted, explaining why based on what I saw. I cannot be expected to be responsible for not knowing why Moguy was trying to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just going to reply once here rather than two chains.
    I would suggest you re-read your longer comment above and note that in it you've raised several, far stronger and more importantly material reasons to remove their contributions compared to the initial comments about English language ability. These material reasons should've been raised far earlier, and any comment about their English language left at the wayside. The fact is their English isn't even that confusing and was readily fixable if that had been the issue that was so pressing it merited the main focus in edit summaries.
    As to following ONUS and taking issues to talk pages, yes you say these are "obvious", but these things are only "obvious" when you've been made aware of them and there was nothing to stop you or others from alerting them to this. Not only would this has given them a fair chance to make their case before it spiralled, but also would've made your case here stronger because then there's evidence they were aware of the rules and had then broken them. In fact the moment you make them aware to take it to the talk page[40] they do so[41], which if anything is evidence that in fact they weren't aware of said rules, and their edit summaries show a clear intent to justify their edits in response to comments made by those reverting them.
    To me it reads of good-faith, unintentional rule-breaking rather than belligerent edit-warring.
    I cannot be expected to be responsible for not knowing why Moguy was trying to include it.
    But neither can they be responsible for knowing there were material reasons to revert their contributions if the only thing you and someone else is commenting on is their English. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, since I didn't know why they were insistent on including the content, I was in no position to explain to them why this was inappropriate. And if you don't consider "Don't revert this edit" as belligerent I'd like to know why. Moguy was already being hostile before I got involved at all. Somehow though, this hostility is my fault? Clearly not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They mentioned "don't revert this edit" after DeFacto had reverted them while making comments about their English rather than the actual material nature of the edits, and having clearly attempted to resolve the issues raised in the reversion. Again, I don't see that as edit-warring belligerence but good-faith attempts to contribute by someone who from all demonstrated evidence wasn't aware of rules on reversion.
    And no, I never said it was all "your fault", but if you want to take my rather nuanced comments as to how your edit summaries likely didn't help matters as such then that's your decision and probably if anything emphasises just why I believe this avoidable situation occurred. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that nobody else participating in this thread seems to agree with you, I see no particular reason to discuss this further: We have a well-documented instance of an experienced contributor (4,500+ edits) attempting to assert control over article content, while handing out abuse to those who disagree. That, in my opinion, is what we should be discussing here. An actual behavioural issue. Without further rambling discourse on the optimal use of edit summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only people who have participated are yourself, an involved editor who you specifically notified of this, and myself. Hardly an instance of "well everyone agrees with me" but ok.
    I have no problem with ending things here. Quite frankly all I believe this discussion has done is less reveal any chronic or repeated behavioural problems on the part of Moguy, given this is the only demonstrated instance of misbehaviour and I believe has clear contextual reasons for why it happened and could've been avoided, but has highlighted that far more experienced editors could be mindful of how edit summaries needlessly raising English language ability could needlessly enflame issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For personal reasons, I will give my full answer sometime tomorrow. Until then, I want to thank Rambling Rambler for supporting me. I agree with his arguments. Also, you can use he/him pronouns while talking about me. If you have any questions about the incident, I can also answer them when I write my full response too. Moguy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's over 48H since the above was posted, and it looks like we aren't going to see any response. At this point a block seems unlikely, but it seems to me that it would be advisable for someone to make it absolutely clear to Moguy that his behaviour was unacceptable, and that the appropriate way to deal with a revert (and in particular multiple reverts by different contributors) you don't understand is to discuss it, rather than assuming it is 'bad faith' or worse. And that more broadly speaking, communicating with other contributors is a necessary part of participation in the project - which incidentally would include the use of edit summaries as a matter of course. As I noted in the first post, Moguy rarely gives edit summaries, contrary to established practice. I'd post the above advice myself on his talk page, but it might be more effective coming from someone less involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AnLacPubs

    [edit]

    AnLacPubs (talk · contribs) was active in 2020 and 2021 on various Buddhism articles, where it added Further Reading and External Links to translations by Peter Lunde Johnson, published by An Lac Publications (or Anlac Publications), and linked to a Wordpress URL. From the website of An Lac Publications, it looks like it's Johnson's vanity publisher for his self-published translations.

    In the past week or so, several of IP editors have been adding more translations by Johnson published by An Lac Publications to Buddhism articles. I and other editors have gone through to revert the edits. If it can be narrowed down to a blockable IPv6 range, that might help too.

    Those IPs include:

    Apocheir (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    2600:4040:b07d:ce00:f8a4:5e7e:bcad:264d/64 catches all your IPs and a few more. When it comes to IPv6 addresses, it's generally safe to assume that the /64 range is controlled by the same person. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like ChildrenWillListen said, this is just a /64 block, which you can essentially treat as one IP address when talking about logged-out Wikipedia editors. Here's another link to all the contributions under that range: Special:Contributions/2600:4040:b07d:ce00::/64 SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked /64 range for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:AnLacPubs isn't blocked so this is not a block-evading editor. May I ask why we are blocking this IP range? I understand that they have a conflict-of-interest but it seems like we jumped really fast from posting this notice on ANI to enforcing a range block so I unarchived this complaint to ask about it. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They say they're a sock of AnLacPubs here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have unblocked the range. PhilKnight (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who can speak to me in layman's terms so I know what can do moving forward to restore my external links? Thanks! Peter Johnson 2600:4040:B07D:CE00:5049:DB1:D6C6:A3A (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ChildrenWillListen, they didn't say they were a sock. They state they used to use that account but have abandoned it and are now editing logged out. It's not ideal but it's not blockworthy. 2600:4040:B07D:CE00:5049:DB1:D6C6:A3A, please be aware that you have a conflict-of-interest and should not be citing your own work, it's seen as promotional. It's hard to communicate with you when you are editing anonymously but I'll post some information about COIs on your current User talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the user's talk page is an easier place (this thread URL will disappear and their IP will change quickly). jp×g🗯️ 11:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One more today: 2600:4040:B07D:CE00:D5A9:70AF:D612:9988 (talk · contribs) Apocheir (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is already covered under the /64 range; like ChildrenWillListen and I said above, you can generally assume that one /64 is controlled by the same person. Instead of tracking a bunch of individual IPv6 addresses, just keep track of the /64 (Special:Contributions/2600:4040:B07D:CE00::/64). If you need more information, search for "IPv6 subnetting" to find relevant articles. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but the range isn't blocked any longer. I'm pointing out that this editing pattern is persisting after Liz gave him a COI warning. Apocheir (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ziad0tarek952005

    [edit]

    I really don't know why I have to post here, but Izno feels a highly disruptive editor who removes content, who has stripped tables from multiple articles and messed around, being highly disruptive needs an ANI response. The editor has been warned multiple times. But continues, this should be straight forward ban in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Govvy, could you supply some diffs illustrating the problems you see so that your fellow editors can easily see what the problem is you are facing? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I noticed this discussion and would like to clarify that my edits were made in good faith. For example, I recently added a reliable source about Emam Ashour's injury to the article about him (diff) as part of improving the content in line with Wikipedia's standards.
    I'm more than willing to address any specific concerns or discuss any edits that may have been misunderstood. I believe in contributing constructively and have no intention of being disruptive. Ziad0tarek952005 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OCDD 31 July 2025

    [edit]

    User:OCDD has received many warnings for many different reasons. Recently moved a page and provided no evidence it was the WP:PRIMARYNAME, have persistently failed to comply with copyright policy, and have created a bunch of redirects that are being disruptive (Basically ones that get deleted speedily or via discussion shortly after). After reverting TBD medals on Cricketers which violated WP:CRYSTAL, they immediately reverted and kept edit warring. Very important to bring up that they have also persistently uploaded non free files (Which violate United States copyright law which applies to all Wikipedia editors regardless of location) and refused to comply with Wikipedia Policies like they believe they are immune from these policies. They also have a history of removal of content (Like shortening from X National Team to simply National Team. X represents whatever national team it is), and recently removed at fair amount of content on Anahat Singh without a providing valid reason for removal. You can look at their page talk history. A lot is from me, but a lot is also from other editors regarding many non free files. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Servite et contribuere. Please provide diffs that demonstrate the problems that you say exist. Don't expect other editors to go looking for evidence to support your claims. This is part of your job, opening this complaint, and laying out a compelling case that is understandable to other editors if you want action to be taken. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz Oh. Thanks for that notice! Here are some: [42] (Basically the ones that I reverted). I should provide more. Sorry! Understood! Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to apologize to me, I hope you understand that posting insufficient information means that it is unlikely that other editors will respond. If a lack of response doesn't bother you, then it doesn't make any difference. But if you want action to be taken, you should make it easy for other editors to follow your line of argument. So, this really falls on you and how urgent you think this isssue is. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz The current talk page has a lot of notifications of copyright. To prior revisions, there are so many issues. Here are just some of them: [43], [44],[45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] (I went to the version before archive because I accidentally gave a notice to the wrong user), [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. I went to a lot of effort to provide all this evidence. It doesn't have to be a block now, but whatever the next block is, I think it should be indefinite. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can tell this took a substantial amount of time and effort on your part. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Afrika1997 is adding unsourced content to multiple articles

    [edit]

    Last month, I made a report about User:Afrika1997 for adding unsourced content with fake sources that fail verification on Vice President of Ghana. On 30 July, they created an unsourced section on Guang people. On 31 July alone, they added unsourced content and changes on 12 articles. These changes are listed as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. This editor has already been advised on their talk page about the value of adding sources and avoiding original research.

    @Ad Orientem, Alexf. Please have a look. My previous ANI about this editor went unaddressed and archived. Kwesi Yema (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I will soon leave a note at the talk for Afrika1997 (talk · contribs). Post again if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well noted. Kwesi Yema (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this user has received multiple warnings and continues to respond with accusations of bad faith on the part of others. This is not encouraging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem and @Johnuniq. It's been 2 days but the editor hasn't replied yet. Should I revert the unsourced changes they made to several articles? Kwesi Yema (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Afrika1997 Notice has been left on your talk page, and you have been pinged to this discussion. If you do not respond within the next 24 hrs, the edits listed above may be reverted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Afrika1997 last edited at 22:22, 31 July 2025. It's common for newish editors to disappear for a week or two (or forever) when challenged. Feel free to revert their edits, after the 24 hours notice from Ad Orientem above. Let me know if more problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Thank you for the reply. Kwesi Yema (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marc87

    [edit]

    This user appears to have a history of unsourced and unexplained changes. They appear to have an interest in ice hockey. They have made multiple changes to a number of ice hockey player bios, related to birth dates, death dates, birth places, and hand they shoot with, notably to subjects born in the early 1900s. Many of the articles they edit lack depth and sources.

    They have made a similar move at Jack Riley (ice hockey, born 1910) before back in 2013 [66]. They have also made unsourced changes to the article's birth place as recent as 2022 [67].

    They don't appear to engage much with their talk page despite multiple notices. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marc87 has in the past cite "SIHR" [68], which I gather to be sihrhockey.org. User:Djsasso noted in 2017 that "SIHR is user contributed" [69]. User:Djsasso subsequently removed info attributed to SIHR at Jack Riley (ice hockey, born 1910) [70]. The SIHR website appears to be mostly behind a membership and login, so it's not easily accessible and is therefore not a source that is readily verifiable. It may also be unacceptable per WP:USERGENERATED. Perhaps User:Marc87 uses sihrhockey.org, is affiliated with the website, or makes contributions at the website. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Although SIHR website is user contributed, only handful of members have authorization to make edits. Assuming they have reliable disclosed sources and connections to SIHR executives. Marc87 (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that is not good enough and does not satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing standards or verifiability requirements. It's basically its own ice hockey wiki. It should not be used as a source of information here. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. If my edits are not satisfied, I would allow Wikipedia to redirect on whatever it sees fit. No problem. Marc87 (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would encourage you to focus on independent reliable sources. The ice hockey subject on Wikipedia appears to be a poorly moderated project. There appears to be a lot of player bios that do not meet WP:GNG, primarily relying on primary sources or UGC sources. Not every ice hockey player born in the late 1800s or early 1900s is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Just because SIHR or justsportsstats.com (or even nhl.com) has a record of the player, doesn't mean the player meets the notability guidelines to have a Wikipedia entry. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, even the NHL's direct predecessor, NHA, don't have reliable sources. It can only be found from SIHR. Marc87 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you can find them through libraries, archives, baptismal records, etc. Marc87 (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This has to be WP:NOTHERE, but note that his contributions may contain correct information as supported by the sources. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's rationale for making unsourced infobox changes is that "the infobox image of the subject shows them with the stick in their left hand" [71] [72]. Hardly a reliable source and definitely WP:OR which goes against the existing external links. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the article Leonard Grosvenor, he reverted your revision, stating that the profile image of Leonard Grosvenor shows he was left handed. I reverted this because this should be supported by the sources, not the profile image. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Marc87, has been editing for 17 years now so they are an experienced editor but they haven't responded to a User talk page message in 2 years. They seemed to have withdrawn from communicating with other editors around 2016-17. I have invited them to join this discussion but I'm not optimistic. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this is their last substantive edit to their talk page. Their last substantive edit in the Talk namespace was more than 1,000 edits to that namespace ago. They also continued editing for hours after this thread was opened without responding. I am indefinitely partially blocking Marc87 from articlespace until they respond here regarding the valid concerns about their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits were based from the SIHR and it requires a membership to see its source. However, the players' information (eg. images and texts) don't have their respective URL addresses, but user-friendly tabs. So, that's why I didn't include sources in wikipedia, it would redirect to unrelated tabs. Marc87 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't addressed why you are changing article information based on photographs of players holding a stick in one hand vs. another. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's rather concerning, that appears to have taken a mainspace block, to get Marc87 to communicate. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, better that than none at all. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't try to impress me. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a real bot?

    [edit]
    Bot has been taken care of and the operator notified. The block I applied is obviously nothing against you, Bahati11. Just submit an approval request and you'll be all set to go. You're welcome to message me once the bot approval group has given their blessing, and I'll be happy to set it free. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    BahatiBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    After seeing this edit which broke the page I tried to investiage who owns this bot, but couldn't find anything. Is this real? — Czello (music) 15:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And now a second. — Czello (music) 15:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See global contribs @Bahati11: -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Czello and zzuuzz,
    Thank you for your feedback. BahatiBot is a personal bot I developed to help maintain Wikipedia by fixing common formatting and syntax errors. I’m continuously improving it to avoid unintended changes and minimize any disruption.
    If you notice any problematic edits, please let me know specifically which pages or changes caused issues, so I can fix or revert them quickly.
    I appreciate your vigilance and support in keeping Wikipedia accurate and well-maintained.
    Best regards,
    BahatiBot operator Bahati11 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single one of its edits was at best pointless (and therefore cluttering watchlist, which is disruptive) and at worst wildly incorrect and breaking things. Do not continue to use this bot. DMacks (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me help out here - I have blocked the bot, given the disruption detailed above and that it does not appear to have approval. GiantSnowman 15:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GiantSnowman - I just realized that my block overwrote the one that you applied moments earlier. This might've been a blessing in disguise, since the original block had autoblocking enabled. Regardless, I wanted to respond and let you know about it and apologize if I stepped on any toes. :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no toes stepped on at all - thanks! I didn't even think that the default 'auto block' would affect the main account, so thanks for sorting. GiantSnowman 15:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, happy to help! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BOTAPPROVAL, you must have an approved BRFA or an approved trial to operate a bot outside of userspace. Please stop the bot for now and go through that process. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be a bit late to this charade, but I blocked this account as an unapproved bot and left a message on the bot account's user talk page before I saw that this ANI discussion existed. I'm just adding a response here as an FYI so that there's no confusion with why I did so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My blocking must have crossed over with yours! GiantSnowman 15:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blasphemy! I draw my sword and point it toward thee... En garde! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk page civility and bad-faith dispute regarding user:MilesVorkosigan

    [edit]
    Given that the OP is now asking to withdraw their complaint, I'm taking that as an opportunity to close this discussion. If there are still outstanding issues, please file a new and more concise complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am not sure how this works. I am composing this because I am having an issue with an editor on the talk page for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I specifically wanted to bring attention to the recently-declassified annex/appendix to the 2023 Durham Report,[73] which appears to me to be relevant to the article, before making any discussion about potential edits. I made the mistake of highlighting/quoting certain sections of that report before reading the entire thing - specifically two emails (shown in pages 9 and 11 of the document) that were concluded in the document's conclusion itself (page 17) to have been fabricated.

    Several editors pointed out that the specific emails I quoted/highlighted were fabrications/Russian disinformation, and I acknowledged this in subsequent remarks after I read the entire document (as mentioned above, the declassified document itself reaches that conclusion). It also became apparent/was made clear to me that only a few secondary sources had reported on this so far, and as such, edits to the article referring to the declassified document would have to wait until more secondary sources reported on it. I also quoted several other sections of the declassified document, and cautioned against dismissing the entire document on the basis of the two sections I highlighted/quoted.

    However, MilesVorkosigan seems to have assumed my discussion in the talk page to have been started in bad faith, and in the subsequentback-and-forth he has repeatedly engaged in what appears to be intentional misunderstanding/disregard of my responses. He has accused me of using an AI chatbot in my responses (without evidence) - which I personally find to be insulting, and he seemed to be conflating the quoted/highlighted fabricated emails with the entire declassified document by intentionally ignoring or dismissing my quotation of other sections of the document. He has finally claimed that this is not the case, but until that remark, his wording in all of his other remarks suggested otherwise to me.

    I have noted my objections to his characterization of my remarks, some of which as I mentioned are personal attacks. I have explained why his wording implies or constitutes certain aspersions, accusations, personal attacks, and so on. He either denies that he has implied any such thing or completely ignores/disregards my objections in his responses. He has completely ignored my objection to his baseless LLM accusation and has refused to apologize for that particular insult. He has stated that (by quoting emails shown in a declassified document that were determined to be fabricated) I am pushing Russian disinformation. He has asserted that I am lying, that I am somehow "defending" the fabricated emails I highlighted, all without explaining what I have said that suggests this. I asked him to drop it, that I was willing to chalk up our dispute to misunderstanding, but he has not done so.

    I have observed that MilesVorkosigan has a history of bad-faith assumptions and casting aspersions, and unfortunately it appears that our back-and-forth - again, on the article's talk page only, as no editing of an article has occurred - has induced a recurrence of this behavior.

    I am not sure what administrator action or censure is warranted here, but I feel that MilesVorkosigan's language is some kind of violation of wp:agf, wp:npa, and wp:civil at the very least. Maybe something like wp:ecr is warranted for both of us on that article and its talk page, as well as our respective user and talk pages, as we cannot seem to come to some mutual understanding.Ecthelion83 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "How this works", Ecthelion83, if you read the pink instructions at the top of this page, is that you have to present "diffs" or edits that illustrate the problems you are talking about. We can't just accept a narrative statement from you that there are problems, you have to supply diffs that demonstrate what you claim happened so that other editors can see the evidence and assess if action needs to be taken. Without diffs, it's very unlikely that anyone will respond to you. You have to present a compelling case that others can easily follow with your evidence. If you have questions, look at other cases on this page that have been successfully addressed and closed and use them as an example of what should have happened with your report. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. Here are some examples:
    My first stand-alone remark: [74]
    My acknowledgement that the segments I first quoted/highlighted were determined to be fabrications, as well as direct quotations of other sections of the document: [75]
    MilesVorkosigan's first implication that I acted in bad faith: [76] - my response to that remark: [77] In retrospect, this is what seems to have set it off - as I suggested in a subsequent remark, I may have been hypervigilant. This concession on my part has been ignored, as far as I can tell.
    MilesVorkosigan's unsubstantiated accusation of LLM usage: [78] - my response to that remark: [79]
    What I believe to be MilesVorkosigan's characterization of the entire linked report, not just the sections I first highlighted, as misinformation: [80] and [81]
    My clarification that the entire document, not just the sections I highlighted, may be relevant to the article: [82] and [83]
    I implied that MilesVorkosigan seemed to be intentionally misunderstanding or misconstruing my remarks:[84] - this was his reply: [85]
    This was my request to drop it, in which I also threatened arbitration before considering what that might look like: [86]
    MilesVorkosigan asserts here that I am lying and that I am pushing Russian disinformation: [87]
    MilesVorkosigan asserts here that I am lying (again) and that I am "defending a faked quote": [88]
    MilesVorkosigan asserts here that he has not dismissed the entirety of the document I linked, asserts that his command of English is superior to mine (irrelevant and not for the first time in this back-and-forth, but a personal attack nonetheless), and asserts that I'm putting words into his mouth/saying things that he is not: [89]
    My final message to MilesVorkosigan prior to coming here: [90]

    Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    While my personal assessment is that your comments are human-made they are also huge blocks of text. Liz is entirely correct above but also, you might find you have an easier time at article talk pages if you cultivate some brevity. Simonm223 (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken.Ecthelion83 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken but ignored, obviously. See e.g. Special:Diff/1304025881. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read that thread, and while it got a little heated, in my view, there is nothing actionable there. And just a friendly reminder, since you started this report, your own behavior is likely to be scrutinized as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable - I made a number of wording/spelling/punctuation edits to my remarks after having posted replies (some of which alters the tone of my remarks), so I expect that to be examined/scrutinized.
    In retrospect, I think I know where the dispute began, and I acknowledge that I may have been hypervigilant and inferring something from MilesVorkosigan's language that he did not intend. Nevertheless, it has devolved into personal attacks and insults (mostly on his part), and I feel like some form of limited censure could be considered, possibly for both of us. Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming good faith here: it looks Ecthelion83 unknowingly spread disinformation. We should all feel very fortunate that it was caught quickly and not perpetuated. Maybe we can use that feeling of good fortune to overlook any slights, real or perceived, from people that reacted negatively to the spread of disinformation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MilesVorkosigan is now engaging in gaslighting: [91] - my response: [92]
    He continues to assert that I am the one insulting him (when it is in fact he who has done all of the insulting, casting of aspersions, and personal attacks), and I suspect this is a reference to my suggestion of bias - which I walked back ([93]), but he seems to have either ignored or missed this. Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone a little further than walking back the suggestion of bias and have apologized for this suggestion; as he continues to deny that he has made any implications in his wording, I am assuming good faith, i.e. that the implications evident in his wording were not his intent, and I have recommended that he consider his wording more carefully in the future: [94]
    However, given his prior history of assuming bad faith and casting aspersions, I am now requesting that MilesVorkosigan be given a formal warning to consider his wording more carefully. Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the linked conversations. This is a content dispute. It looks like you are personalizing everything being said. That is causing you to derail conversations. You need to focus on content, not arguing with people. You will probably have a better time editing about something where you are less emotionally invested. 107.115.5.23 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, you're probably right. Ecthelion83 (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The mistake wasn't only using a primary source, but using examples in the primary source of fake emails as if they were genuine emails. That's a real big mistake, but we all make mistakes, and it's good that you admitted this mistake when it was pointed out to you.

    The problem is when you were called out for that mistake, you immediately tried to "turn the tables" and create some kind of conduct issue on the part of the person noting your mistake. Miles said, Wait, you knew that the emails were Russian disinformation but you posted them anyway without mentioning it? That's... concerning. and your response was The fact that you consider this "concerning" - despite the fact that I put it in the talk page rather than unilaterally editing the article precisely because I believed it needed to be parsed out in the talk page before any determination is made - is itself concerning, especially in light of the fact that I acknowledged that the report concludes that the specific quoted emails (other emails in the report have been verified as authentic) were composites and not authentic messages. You should consider checking your biases. No, there is nothing concerning about calling your attempt to use a primary document (and to misuse that primary document by citing emails that the primary document includes as examples of fake emails) "concerning." What you did is concerning. More concerning is the attempt to create a conduct issue, escalate it to ANI, and continue escalating further with accusations of "gaslighting," etc. That sort of concerning behavior makes uninvolved editors like me start looking at your contribs to see what's going on.

    And what I find is repeated problems with the way you use sources. From your last 100 talk space edits:

    • At Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 21#"Baseless" vs "without evidence" you were called out by other editors for changing "baseless" to "without evidence," although of the four sources cited, one used the exact word "baseless," and a second wrote the Russian perspective is still so far from our realities in the West that we might be dealing with people from another universe, which surely is more accurately described as "baseless" than "without evidence" (the other two sources, AFAICT, do not opine on the veracity or plausibility of the claims at all). Surprisingly, you wrote the term "baseless" is more frequently used in accusatory or defensive language and carries such a nuance, so you totally understand the difference between "baseless" and "without evidence"--that the second is a watered down version of the first--yet you changed the text anyway, even though the sources aren't using the watered-down term. And you described that change as bringing the wiki prose closer to NPOV, when in fact you were doing the opposite: bringing the wiki prose further away from what the sources wrote, and thus further away from NPOV.
    • At Talk:Old Korean#Ainu, you were called out by another editor for adding text that, according to them, completely failed verification.
    • At Talk:Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa#"Forward swept wings" you were also called out for adding text that failed verification, and it wasn't even close:
      • What you wrote: The Ki-43 is notable as one of the few successful/mass-produced designs with truly forward-swept wings, though the forward sweep of the wing leading edges is minimal.
      • What the source you cited said: Japan did have some success with a forward-swept fighter in World War II – the Nakajima Ki-43. Yet, the Ki-43’s forward-sweep was minimal, barely perceptible, although technically present.
      • How the heck do you go from "have some success" to "notable as one of the few successful/mass-produced designs", or from "minimal, barely perceptible, although technically present" to "truly forward-swept wings"? Yikes!

    Your repeated justification in the above discussions of your changes as "encyclopedic" v. "un-encyclopedic" hold no water. It'd be easier to WP:AGF that these are the mistakes of an inexperienced editor if it weren't for your 18-year tenure or your boast on your userpage of a genius-level IQ. You should be far, far more careful with how you summarize sources. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're mostly on point, but the Ki-43 wording seems OK to me. Not great, but not "yikes" level bad. :-) In this context, I read "successful/mass-produced" as "not a failure or mere prototype". But, yeah, it's not great. The word "truly" certainly is a bad choice. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though it was in the context of summarizing sources (which I will clarify/explain), you have recommended exercising more caution, and that is something I can take to heart, so thanks for that.
    I wanted to ask for clarification - and correct me if I'm wrong here. You left out the first part of my reply you quoted in which I acknowledged that my highlighting/quotation of certain portions was premature. I also conceded that I may have been hypervigilant or overreacted, which appears to have been missed both by MilesVorkosigan and you. Are you suggesting that my reply that you partially quoted (which again, in retrospect, was probably an overreaction on my part) warranted accusations of using an AI chatbot, intentionally spreading Russian disinformation, and attacks regarding command - or lack thereof - of English? Am I inferring too much? I'm asking for clarification here because I have caught myself doing this (inferring too much) from time to time, so I acknowledge that this is totally a possibility - I fully concede that I may have even done that in the part of my reply you quoted.
    I did apologize for the suggestion of bias, which is what seems to have offended MilesVorkosigan, after coming here and looking through the diffs I linked.
    I would like to clarify the examples you give which might indicate my lack of caution with references:
    1. Regarding the "baseless" v. "without evidence" edit - in full disclosure, I only perused 2 of the 4 references, and not seeing "baseless" in either of them I reasoned that "without evidence" was a more appropriate wording that wouldn't substantively alter the meaning of the summary. When one of the other editors pointed out that at least one of the sources specifically used "baseless," I took that to mean that it must have been in one of the references I didn't look at and conceded the point ("[y]ou did claim in your reversion that the term "baseless" is more faithful to the reference(s)/reliable source(s), which is a fair rationale").
    2. Regarding the edit on the Old Korean page that failed verification, I made two mistakes which I acknowledged/conceded. For the purpose of linking the two articles (Old Korean and Ainu) I copied a sentence - references and all - from another article without verifying that the references were summarized correctly, and I inadvertently marked the edit as minor (because my original intent was to make a punctuation/grammatical correction and I forgot to uncheck the minor box before publishing the edit, which was much more substantial). I believe my my subsequent edits are much better.
    3. Regarding the discussion on the Ki-43's wing sweep or lack thereof, I explain that both the source and the text in my edit came from the forward-swept wing article - the source and the text were in separate/different sections of that article but referred to the same aircraft. It should be noted that the sentence that I used from the forward-swept wing page has since been removed - correctly, I believe - by one of the editors who discussed my edit. In the talk page I conceded that this edit was in error because not only is the source questionable (as pointed out by the other editors) and I could not find any other corroborating sources, but also because the point that the other editors made (about the leading edge and trailing edge angles with the resultant optical illusion) seemed to be correct. The source says "Japan did have some success with a forward-swept fighter in World War II"[1] which I had paired with "notable as one of the few successful/mass-produced designs with truly forward-swept wings" - but I now agree that this is not an appropriate summary. However, I didn't pair "minimal, barely perceptible, although technically present" with "truly forward-swept wings" - I paired "the Ki-43’s forward-sweep was minimal, barely perceptible, although technically present" in the source to "although the forward sweep of its leading edge is nearly unnoticeable."Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having said all that, since in retrospect the incident I reported seems to have originated from my overreaction to/inferring too much from what could be a genuine statement of concern, I would like to withdraw this case, if that is permissible. Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, I must be much more careful about both reference summaries and using text from other articles in the future. Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As others have said: Please keep it short. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-only-built-1-su-47-fighter-plane-reason-207996
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Borrisbaron

    [edit]
    NOTHING TO SEE HERE
    Until there is evidence of active, clear PGAMING and/or they actually use that gamed status for ill, nothing to do here. Note also that IP addresses are dynamic and thus "IP with no edits suddenly appears on ANI to comment" is not the red flag "new account suddenly appears on ANI to comment" is. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user, Borrisbaron (talk · contribs), was dormant for 9 years and suddenly came back spamming tiny edits with the justification of "adding punctuation", probably trying to hit 500 edits under WP:PGAME(?). They had also made 20 to 30 quick edits in short bursts on pages like Bernard L. Strehler and Alex Comfort. The only real edits of substance are on a few biographies, mostly about biologists and oddly a single politician from Singapore (K. Shanmugam). Aleain (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How about giving them some rope? If they want to waste their time just to eventually get to say something bad on a contentious topic page only to be met with a swift and unceremonious RBI, so be it. But until proven otherwise, we should assume good faith. 73.38.235.124 (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, 73.38.235.124, this is your first edit ever. How did you find your way to ANI? Are you Borrisbaron, editing logged out? Aleain, have you communicated with this editor? That's a necessary step before coming to ANI. I'm sure that you already notified them about this discussion, right? Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz (talk · contribs), I have not directly reached out to the editor about this but I did leave a note on their talk page linking to this discussion. Looking at their talk page history, past messages about other things have been ignored, which is why I figured it made more sense to bring it up here instead since I likely would not have received a reply anyway. Aleain (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I would assume - based on the content of their comment - that this is one of the long time IP editors who participates in these discussions just as, and often more productively than many other registered long time editors. As above so below 07:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As above, well, you can't (or you shouldn't) base your judgment on their edit history as this is the only edit they have made. I'm not sure why you would conclude they have had a long history here. Just to make a point? Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs are dynamic, no? 37.186.45.131 (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the fact that they are familiar enough with Wikipedia and its policies, guidelines and essays to refer to WP:ROPE, understand why people might WP:GAME WP:XC (in order to be able to edit in WP:CTOPS covered by WP:ECRs), and to subsequently point to WP:RBI if they do end up causing issues suggests to me that the edit history visible from this IP is in fact not representative of their actual experience here excessive linking for illustrative effect. Of course, IPs are human too. As above so below 08:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the time, if I make a logged-out edit (e.g. from a public computer) the IP address will have nothing in its contribs besides that one. They tend to change pretty often jp×g🗯️ 11:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs are human, yes. And it is against policy for any human to use an undisclosed alternate account (or edit logged out) on project pages. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, CU me if you want, you can see the [citation needed] I added from the library a few months ago. jp×g🗯️ 10:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG: Actually, no. If you had not edited from that library within the past 90 days while logged in, the checkuser tool would have no way to link that edit with your account, although it could potentially confuse your edit with those by others who edited from that location. checkuser isn't the magic juju it's made out to be by some. 73.38.235.124 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if we had a banner above IP contributions saying "IP addresses frequently change. The edits here are very unlikely to represent the editing history of a particular person."
    This seems to confuse 50% of admins and 95% of vandalism patrollers. 107.115.5.23 (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a quick look at their contribs, and it looks very much like they gamed autoconfirmed in 2016 and then didn't do anything at all for a decade. By my count they would have gained EC on 9 June (they have 5 deleted contribs) and as far as I can tell the number of EC protected or subject to ECR articles they have since edited is exactly zero in nearly 200 edits since. It is odd that they very occasionally make a large substantive edit like this one while most of their contribs are the sort of progressive multi-stage edits that most editors would just do all at once (example - this is 11 commas in 11 separate edits) which we do often see from permission gamers. But until they actually use an ill-gotten permission, I think this is just someone being eccentric. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Azarelvis WP:IDHT and WP:CIR

    [edit]

    Azarelvis (talk · contribs) submitted a draft at AfC and it was rejected. They received plenty of feedback both on their user Talk page and on the draft's Talk page, but either didn't read it or didn't understand it because they simply resubmitted the same draft. After the draft was rejected twice, they moved the article to Article space. I moved it back and then the editor resubmitted the draft for a 3rd time. Either the editor cannot understand English or they don't care to, either way it is a competence issue and they're wasting editors' time by resubmitting rejected drafts without making changes.

    They are also an WP:SPA so there's potential WP:COI issues too. TurboSuperA+[talk] 07:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    He should listen. Azar, please communicate with everyone so you shouldn't repeatedly submit the rejected draft. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HiddenInformation: UPE, article hijacking

    [edit]
    Editor blocked from editing Article and Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:HiddenInformation appears to be an undisclosed paid editor for the news website GrowJust. The totality of their edits is adding content about the company and CEO. They also added information and created an article (now tagged for speedy deletion)about non-notable "Jeevsea Premium Water"[95], which GrowJust published a promotional article for. It is clear that GrowJust is not a legitimate, honest publication but an advertising firm.

    They have also hijacked an article of the same name slowly [96], avoiding detection. This eliminated all assumption of good faith from me. Ca talk to me! 14:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I was close to an INDEF, but I've p-blocked from content creation to encourage communication in the hope of progress. No issue with someone adjusting the block Star Mississippi 14:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Keizers and Saks Fifth Avenue store locations

    [edit]

    This is the first time I've ever started a discussion here, so please bear with me here. I'm bringing this issue to ANI at the suggestion of User:Nathannah, who brought it to my attention. User:Keizers has over the past several years engaged in disruptive editing regarding the inclusion of a list of Saks Fifth Avenue locations within the encyclopedia. Starting in 2020, Keizers added a list of locations to the main Saks Fifth Avenue article in [[97]]. The list was removed by User:Galatz noting WP:NOTDIR in [[98]], but was reverted by Keizers in [[99]]. Galatz again removed the offending content in [[100]], but once again Keizers reverted the deletion of the content in [[101]].

    In 2021, User:JayJay removed the list of stores in [[102]] citing WP:NOTDIR. This time, Keizers chose to create the article List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations without linking to the parent Saks Fifth Avenue to avoid detection from those patrolling Saks Fifth Avenue. This article was subsequently deleted without opposition at AfD in[[103]]. Instead of respecting consensus, Keizers once again created a list of Saks Fifth Avenue stores, this time under the alternative title List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations, and again failing to link it to the parent article to try and avoid detection. I've brought the current list to AfD at [[104]], but considering the numerous times this user has continued to ignore WP:NOTDIR in an effort to include this information I think a wider discussion is warranted regarding their behavior. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just fixed some internal links here. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted the page under G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. No comment currently as to whether additional actions are indicated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've salted List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations, Timeline of Saks Fifth Avenue branches, and List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations. I really would like to hear from Keizers why (a) they believe this is important enough to need to be recreated multiple times (b) after having been deleted at AfD before (c) and in such a way as to look very much as if they were attempting to evade detection. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Keizers has been editing here for 18 years and has over 26,000 edits so the extended confirmed protection on these pages won't faze them. That's why it's important to engage and talk to them so they understand that the recreation of this article shouldn't be occurring. I'll invite them to come and talk. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. I didn't realise the default salting was ECR now - been awhile since I did that. Will up to full sysop protect, thanks Liz for catching that. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth noting here that I have sent Category:Lists of department store branches by company, which was created by Keizers, to CfD. Despite the category's name, most of the articles in that category are actual articles on department stores with lists of locations, with Keizers being the main contributor for at least a good chunk of those lists (many, but not all, of the articles, were created by him as well). While many of those articles are for defunct chains (which may or may not be a gray area with regard to NOTPRICE issues, but I may be way off base there), Beymen, El Palacio de Hierro, and Suburbia (department store) are not. (For what it's worth, the one currently-extant category entry that actually is a list article after List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations was G4'd, List of Printemps store locations, was not only created by someone else but has never even been edited by Keizers.) I note this for completeness; while not as seemingly persistent as with Saks Fifth Avenue, he has not limited his inclusion of store lists to Saks Fifth Avenue. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Newinwiki8 repeatedly removing maintenance templates

    [edit]
    This discussion has gotten off track.I wanted to close it hours ago and I wish I had. Bring this abstract discussion about COI to a policy talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Newinwiki8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing maintenance templates from Kocaeli Health and Technology University, despite a couple of final warnings at User talk:Newinwiki8#March 2025 and User talk:Newinwiki8#August 2025. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I suggest that this response to this thread merits an indefinite block? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 48hr for the disruptive attempt to remove this thread. I have not reviewed the other evidence, thus there is zero prejudice against further sanctions as needed. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill you might want to extend that, they've actually attempted to remove it twice. Once under the account in question and the other logged out.[105]
    It's the same person clearly, given the only other edit by the IP is replying on the user's talk page in first person as though they were the account holder.[106] Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, twice using the account and once while logged out. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this, the user has created a draft for the topic but it was declined. Then rather than improve it they've just deliberately created the exact same article in main space. I've CSD'd the draft and suggest draftifying the main space article as well as banning the user+IP address given the obvious attempt to bypass AfC and repeated removing of this thread. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the IP—it seems those edits actually came first, which makes me think this was unintentional editing while logged out rather than persistent attempts to evade a block. The 48hr block to my mind is a stopgap measure to allow the community to consider this thread without disruption and force the editor to take it seriously. If there’s any further attempt to remove the thread at this point (not counting Joe-jobs), I think they will have demonstrated beyond a doubt that they are not willing to engage collaboratively. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. For now I've decided to go ahead and draft the main article. Digging into the page's history, the article had already been moved to draft but Newinwiki8 immediately moved it back to mainspace despite having a self-admitted COI[107] so should stay in draft per WP:DRAFTREASON. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the 48 hour block was appropriate. And I untagged the draft, the main space article was already draftified once so doing it a second time is inappropriate according to WP:DRAFTIFY and there wasn't a valid CSD criteria applied. Also, it's not in terrible shape so it can be improved where it is. This editor is a SPA but that's not against any policies. They made the mistake of posting to a couple dozen User talk pages to get attention to their pet article and now we'll see what other editors can add to it. I don't think this incident needs any more tending to. Let's see how they behave when their two day block is over. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I will do it again. Bypassing IP is not difficult". I was happy to go along with a short block, but this does not suggest an intention to contribute productively. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone clarify for me whether being a student at an academic institution is generally considered sufficient to constitute a CoI when editing an article on said institution? I was under the impression that the community didn't normally consider it as such, without further grounds, which would possibly make the CoI accusations on their talk page inappropriate, possibly inflaming the situation. This isn't to say that Newinwiki's subsequent behaviour was in any way appropriate, or that there might not be an actual CoI (i.e. paid editing), but we'd more to go on for the latter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have thought so. Even allowing for the possibility of institutional employment, the relationship between student and institution is closer to that of a customer and a business than anything else. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. Per WP:EXTERNALREL.
    If I'm paying to be a student at a university then I certainly would view that as having a conflict of interest in creating an article about them, especially one that looks to be rather promotional in nature. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, walk that out. If someone holds a Costco membership and is writing positively about Costco, is that a COI, or just inappropriate editing? Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit different though, isn't it? Someone who bought something from Costco doesn't have a particular incentive for the rest of the world to have a positive opinion of Costco, but someone with a degree from a university does have an incentive for that university to be thought highly of. That said, I don't think this is in the same league as paid editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mackensen well in the Costco example I'd say there's the potential it's inappropriate because they have a conflict of interest.
    If someone walked into a local shop and bought a packet of crisps or a coffee, then yeah I wouldn't think that would reach a COI if they then made small matter of fact edits because of how minor the relationship is.
    However similar to what @Cordless Larry has put above, a degree at a university is a multi-year relationship where there is a substantial career and financial incentive in relation to the editor for the university who awards that degree to look good and therefore their degree to look "better". Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "substantial career and financial incentive"? That seems a stretch. Are Wikipedia articles really that effective? Are we to believe that mere article-boosterism is going to result in a 'substantial' career boost etc for the entire student body? Personally, I'm of the opinion that the majority of readers can spot promotional BS well enough on their own, and I'd assume that those in a position to e.g. hire former students would take a critical eye on Wikipedia content, if they consulted it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe it is that much of a stretch as it may seem on first glance. Nowadays what really matters isn't the actual classification on the degree but the "prestige" of the organisation awarding it. So yes, there is a substantial incentive for both the institution (who want to attract more students and therefore more revenue from fees/funding) and the students (to embellish the "worth" of their academic degree) for the institution to seem as prestigious as possible. Anecdotally I know myself and those I know who also went to university or college were rather "encouraged" shall we say to do anything that would to increase said prestige (rate it high in government student surveys, promote it on social media etc).
    Debating just how effective a Wikipedia article itself is as part of that is rather beside the point, the issue is whether there is the existence of a substantive enough COI to view a student editing or creating an article for their institution as breaching the policy, and at this point I think there would be. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, COI editing is strongly discouraged but not prohibited, so it's not actually breaching policy. The promotional editing and removal of maintenance templates is though. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are Wikipedia articles really that effective? Well, there are multitudes of POV pushers here who think getting their preferred POV on some Wikipedia article is somehow more important than talking real world action. Anyway, for the topic in hand, I would say that writing about your academic institution does constitute a conflict of interest because of well-researched social dynamics. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Yes, but as I wrote above, I was under the impression that the community thought otherwise. And we really need to distinguish between promotional editing - which is problematic on its own, and can be dealt with as such - and actual CoI allegations, which refer to specific relationships. Maybe someone can point to past discussions of this - I'm sure it has come up before, hence my comments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It'll probably be one of those situations where there isn't a hard or fast rule. Usually when you think of "student" many probably still think of under-18 mandatory education as opposed to tertiary education. However now with the marketisation and commercialisation of university and college there's likely a greater establishment of a COI than previously.
    As to the distinction between promotional editing and a COI, they can be distinct things but they are admittedly not uncommon to see together. Funnily enough just below WP:COINOTBIAS in the guidance we have the following.
    On Wikipedia, editors with a conflict of interest who unilaterally add material tend to violate Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The content they add is typically unsourced or poorly sourced and often violates the neutral point of view policy by being promotional and omitting negative information. They may edit war to retain content that serves their external interest. They may overuse primary sources or non-independent sources, and they may give too much weight to certain ideas.
    If I was to simply apply that description to this editor just against their previous behaviour it certainly fits. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but you made a specific claim on their talk page: that they had a CoI, and were therefore violating policy by editing the article. As has been pointed out above, CoI editing is discouraged, but not prohibited. You were misstating policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not strictly the case. I used the word "policy" while referring to a specific shortcut ("therefore per our policy you should not be creating or editing articles you have a COI for as set out in WP:COIEDIT") which immediately states "Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously" and then lists several criteria of which three they had gone against (COI editing, deliberately going around the AfC process, and failing to disclose their COI). Given the use of what looks to be LLM generated text (given the odd speech marks in some of their replies) and focus on a Turkish university I assumed they probably aren't English-language native so felt it wasn't the best time to introduce more complex language than necessary, so I used the word policy because it was already being used by what I was referring them to. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:AIV backlog

    [edit]
    RESOLVED, PROBABLY
    (non-admin closure) Not really that urgent, I've seen AIV go longer than that. Besides, that page triggers the backlog notice pretty frequently. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 01:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:AIV is getting close to a mile long if someone could spare a few minutes. I offer some digital cookiecookie cookie's as thanks :) Raladic (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Mr.choppers

    [edit]
    WRONG FORUM
    (non-admin closure) What Andy said --tony 20:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, please look at Hyundai Staria history page (starting at the 2nd of July edit by User:MoCars) and the discussion on my talk page. Basically Mr.choppers reverted my revert which reinstated the model year for the Middle East after it was removed by MoCars and claims that WP:MODELYEARS and Template:Infobox automobile both say that Model Years is for North America use only, even though both pages don't explicitly say that. A decision is needed regarding this matter, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alawadhi3000 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute. WP:ANI does not rule on content disputes. Discuss it on the article talk page, or try one of the forms of dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User 2A04:4A43:874F:FC50:3CBF:EB6D:48C6:54CB

    [edit]
    Run of the mill personal-attack vandalism. /64 blocked for 48 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Personal attack: "You will burn in hell you heretic." I suggest a one year block, with talk page blocked. Jc3s5h (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]
    CONTENT DISPUTE
    As an uninvolved editor, I'm closing this since this is obviously a content dispute, and ANI does not handle content disputes. (Also, it's wildly off topic from what the OP posted.) Additionally, the IP editor involved has already received warnings about reopening discussion about Rambling Rambler's behavior. I would recommend further discussion at WP:BLPN, Talk:Socialist Party (Ireland), or WP:DRN instead. If there do turn out to be actual, urgent behavioral problems and not just disagreement over content, then come back to ANI (and please include diffs if you do). (non-admin closure) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC) Update #1: The IP editor involved has been blocked by Asilvering for 31 hours for harassment. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Edit warring by an IP user, 188.65.190.76, on Socialist Party (Ireland). IP editor has blown past 3RR and insists on readding poorly sourced content that multiple editors have reverted. IP editor cites Wikipedia guidelines but doesn't abide by them. Has an odd behaviour of using <su p> to mark areas of the article for improvement instead of proper maintenance tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeltBrowne (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @CeltBrowne Why was there no mention made of @Rambling Rambler This is a very bad faith report.
    Please see their conduct under my talk page. International Socialist Alternative Socialist Party (Ireland) and specifically ROSA (organisation) which led to the page being locked. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChildrenWillListen
    @AndyTheGrump
    @Liz
    @Asilvering
    @FactOrOpinion
    @JFHJr
    188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Random multiple pinging of editors here is not a good look. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not random, all pinged Users are involved in this matter, and their attention and input is necessary. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a reminder that adding more editors to ping without signing your post in the same edit won't work; you need to add your signature to send the notification. For help fixing this (if you want), see Help:Fixing failed pings. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is primarily a content dispute and did not have to go to ANI. See the IP's talk page, Asilvering's talk page, Rambling Rambler's talk page and the BLP noticeboard for further context. This is the edit that's being contested. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChildrenWillListen The linked edit is now outdated as my newer edit proving a primary source is also contested. Can you please add the newer one, or both edits? 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    188.65.190.67, this looks like a content dispute to me, so I would continue discussion at WP:BLPN and not here, since ANI is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" (emphasis in original) and not content disputes. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes. This is a modified version of that edit we agreed upon at the IP's talk page, but @Rambling Rambler thought that it still violated BLP policy. There is also this edit which removes the source for the disaffiliation. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChildrenWillListen I'm referring to this one which was reverted due to @CeltBrowne reverting the edits made. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this dispute concerns the acceptability of a certain edit and not editor behavior, then this is a content dispute and does not belong at ANI. Please continue discussion on the article's talk page or at WP:BLPN. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The dispute concerns both the behavior of the editor and the content of the edit itself.
    At least
    @CeltBrowne seemed to think so by creating this report. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my talk page for review of their accusations.
    Under both August 2025 posts. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then please review this talk page and notice the one sided nature of the accusations by CeltBrowne and the suppression of my own warnings by Rambling Rambler. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, please review ROSA under this talk page. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that my only involvement was to comment in a thread on this matter at WP:BLPN. And that mostly involved trying to get a clear picture of the issue - I think I made it clear I still had an open mind. [108] Given that I said nothing regarding the behaviour of anyone involved in the dispute, and given that I haven't edited the relevant articles at all, I fail to see why I have been pinged. WP:ANI is not a forum for resolving content disputes, and as far as I'm concerned, that was what was supposed to be going on at WP:BLPN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You were pinged to bring to your awareness of this ongoing report. It's creation is relevant to the discussion at WP:BLPN. Your ping is not a reflection or remark on your conduct. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, the IP editor is being told to "go to WP:BLPN", but at BLPN, they are being told to "go to ANI". As an outside observer, I think that discussion on this matter should probably be kept in one place to avoid confusion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but no. Content disputes don't belong at WP:ANI. And if anyone has an issue with my behaviour concerning the articles in question, I'd like to be given specifics. Failing that, I'm not going to participate here further, since it won't resolve anything. Discussion of this matter is already scattered about multiple pages, and trying to resolve the content issues here is not only inappropriate, but liable to make the situation even worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; this should probably be kept on WP:BLPN if at all possible. I checked that noticeboard and I agree with you that this looks to be a content dispute (which, like you said, doesn't belong at ANI), so this discussion should probably be closed with a recommendation to "use the right forum". (I can do this if necessary.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the actions of @CeltBrowne by making this report and @Rambling Rambler should be reviewed further as they are not conducive to a cooperative discussion on WP:BPLN. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I've got no interest in relitigating anything here as I don't see how it's worthwhile, but you've already been told by @Asilvering to stop bringing me up with the endless tagging of me and saying I should be looked into[109] and you've now tagged me twice here trying to make this about an issue they've told you has been dealt with.
    Please will you leave it alone. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You had no issue engaging in an edit war then had the audacity to accuse me of vandalism first.
    Your conduct deserves review. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, RR has already been warned about this and, as far as I have seen, has taken that warning on board. Please move forward and stop trying to relitigate this. You've already been asked once. This is twice. I won't ask a third time. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems"
    I disagree that they took it on board. Instigating an edit war and continuing to engage is an intractable behavioral problem.
    I have the right to make my position heard here.
    They did not recieve any admin warnings until the damage was already done. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this is a content dispute and that ANI isn't the right place for this discussion. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP editor at The Fantastic Four: First Steps

    [edit]

    Hi, we have an IP editor who appears to be using the talk page at The Fantastic Four: First Steps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a soap box and has started making personal attacks against editors there, basically making it feel like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. They forked one of their discussions off, and when this was pointed out, I performed a NAC directing them back to the original discussion. This was reverted repeatedly, with the IP suggesting I bring the matter here. I know it's rare, but maybe semi-protection of the talk page wouldn't be the worst outcome here... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As one of the editors involved in the discussions and editing this article, I would endorse semi-protection so we can focus on improving the contents of the article rather than dealing with this distraction. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 20:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on their comments, it feels like they are just spamming the talk based on a personal dislike of Marvel or something along those lines. I've been trying to stay out of it honestly. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamstom.97 Please AGF, sir. Wikipedia:Assume good faith Spamming was certainly not my intention, and my words and information I shared say otherwise.
    For the record, I don't dislike Marvel, but I do dislike misinformation on wikipedia articles. I was simply mentioning on the talk page that the press is reporting that the movie is experiencing a disappointing box office, and I did NOT even make a single change to the article itself. And for sharing my opinion, I was dogpiled by two editors, both of which have been blocked before for disruptive behavior. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you. 2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not assumed good faith once in your tirade of the talk page, accusing us of original research, WP:OWN, and being biased without evidence. You are not a victim here, so stop acting like we somehow targeted you. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 20:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trailblazer101 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Give_%27em_enough_rope If you say so.
    In any case, I stand by my talk page contributions, and again, find this matter closed, and moot. Certainly not a good fit for an WP:ANI but maybe a text book example of a matter that could WP:BOOMERANG if you persist. So don't let me stop you at making your WP:POINT.2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    P.P.S.I would take into account the OP's long documented history for being disruptive, edit warring, and for treating wikipedia like a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], and the previous WP:ANI that the other user who just chimed in, for which he was banned for a week, and recommend possible WP:BOOMERANGS here if necessary to deter this absolute waste of time in the form of an WP:ANI.2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This excessive bureaucratic nonsense coming from an IP reeks of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, especially given the mention of the IP being specifically logged out. Personally, I think a SPI might be warranted in this case, given I’ve encountered socks/LTAs in other topics that have said such bureacratic stuff that a newly-editing IP would normally not be aware of. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors are trying to WP:OWN the talk page, making this ANI petty at best.

    This WP:ANI is moot, as the OP certainly knows, given that he compromised in the 'row' we experienced, and reframed my thread (which I am fine with) rather than outright closing it (which I was not).

    So, if I'm moving on, and fine with the compromise here, and the conflict itself with the OP here and the other user that chimed in is essentially resolved, then why are we here?

    If anything, this should WP:BOOMERANG on to the OP here for filing an unnecessary IP clearly in service of a grudge.

    P.S. I'm personally fine with semi-protection, but it's probably not necessary as this was a 'row' which, again, is now resolved, and hence moot, and only involved me and the other two editors. So doesn't make sense to deny other contributors the freedom to discuss the article on the talk page. There isn't an issue with many random IPs on this page. My 2 cents. 2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It honestly sounds like you are just deflecting. Digging up past actions of other editors you disagree with in a dispute is not going to be helpful or sway anything in your favor. You are being disruptive and trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 20:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This WP:ANI is moot, as the OP certainly knows, given that he compromised in the 'row' we experienced, and reframed my thread (which I am fine with) rather than outright closing it (which I was not). I did not compromise, I was not going to edit war with you on the talk page any more than I already had. It's quite clear you think you know about me, even though I've never edited either this article or the talk page prior to today. It's clear that you disagreed with the WP:NAC closure of your very similar discussion, but what you did in response was inappropriate. You revert warred against not just me, but another editor who also agreed with the closure (and a third one who did not engage but did comment that it was duplicative). I viewed that as a consensus to close the discussion so attention could stick with the existing discussion (which you had also started). With this edit, the IP admits to having an account (There is a reason why I am logged out), but appears to be abusing their anonymity to be uncivil and disruptive. WP:SPI might be my next stop.. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just going to provide some diffs here for admins to look at. IP has been resorting to personal attacks whenever anyone (reasonably) disagrees with them: saying one is "obviously triggered" (and also mention being deliberately logged out) Special:diff/1304068309, calling other editors "studio shills" special:diff/1303996657 special:diff/1304010382 among other pointed attacks. There's more examples in the Talk Page thread, but Adam and Trailblazer have both been beyond reasonable with this IP. Nil🥝Talk 20:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say pblock the IP from the page. If things escalate, make it a full block. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree that a pblock would be preferable to protecting the talk page, as it's just the one IP causing an issue here. Nil🥝Talk 21:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that an IP block, even one that blocks an IP range (WP:RANGEBLOCK) would miss them entirely later, as based on their edit summary here (An ANI? On an IP from a coffee shop that I am at?? With you long history of being blocked again and again. Good luck with that, sport.haha) they claim to be editing from a public WiFi location, which would block them (for now) but allow them to circumvent the block later when they leave for home (clarify, before I leave for home). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    12 hours at a coffee shop? I'm going to AGF that they really like their coffee... Nil🥝Talk 21:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure it will be trivially easy for any of you to recognize this person when they return, regardless of which IP address they return on. If they try it in the next week, it'll be block evasion, and they'll be blocked for that without need for further discussion. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the IP for WP:LOUTSOCKing. -- asilvering (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They’re already feigning innocence and deleted the warnings/block notice (which I restored in good faith as they were rightfully given to the IP who didn’t listen). Might need talk page revoked as well if this continues. I’m not buying the “kiosk” excuses. Sounds very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw. Please don't bother with reverting that kind of thing. It's all in the page history and it doesn't really matter if it's still on the talk page or not. -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even for shared IP addresses, WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME only says that notes about an IP being shared should be kept, not other notices etc except the stuff required for all editors. In this case, no one has placed such a note other than the IP themselves making the claim, and there are strong reasons to doubt the claim anyway. Either way, if the IP is telling the truth than the only thing that needs to be kept are the statements of the IP being shared. If they aren't then there's nothing that needs to be kept. So best just leave it, if whoever is behind the IP wants to be silly on the talk page of that one single IP let them provided it doesn't cross into the NPA or BLP line, or get excessive. Better than them messing with other parts of the encyclopaedia. Nil Einne (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User 2803:6000:E001:797:7412:A87D:5E56:D39C

    [edit]

    IP addresses in San Jose, Costa Rica area have been genre warring on Appetite for Destruction, Interstate Love Song and I'm So into You. Me, @Binksternet and @ResolutionsPerMinute are some of the users cleaning up their mess, but they keep reverting. CleoCat16 (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term abuse, block evasion by Special:Contributions/186.5.165.158. The range Special:Contributions/2803:6000:E001:B89:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked twice. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should block the /40 despite a very small amount of collateral damage to good-faith users. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reblocked the range, three months this time.-- Ponyobons mots 21:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gvihar

    [edit]

    This user registered their account only on 17 May, but is nevertheless hassling other users with messages about policies and guidelines that they are clearly not familiar with, or have just made up. See for example User_talk:Victoriaelizabeth9275, where they have been telling a new editor nonsense like "Please avoid making repeated edits. The article has been edited in a way that creates confusion—sometimes content is added, then removed—it’s hard to follow". This is very likely to be making new users abandon their efforts to contribute to Wikipedia.

    The user is apparently being paid for some of their edits, and was already blocked for failing to disclose that. I suspect that their vexatious postings about policies when they are so inexperienced are a crude attempt to distract from their paid editing.

    There appear to be numerous other problems with this user, from pretending to be an administrator (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gvihar&diff=prev&oldid=1290829957), to using LLMs to add hallucinations to articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gvihar&diff=prev&oldid=1303899622). But on the point here, I suggest that the user needs to be told to stop posting any messages about policies and guidelines, until their account is much older and they've demonstrated that they themselves understand the policies and guidelines. 2A00:23C8:D318:1801:5975:A75A:730E:4D79 (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gvihar, please immediately stop warning other editors and explain yourself here. -- asilvering (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for raising your concerns. I would like to clarify that I am here in good faith to contribute constructively and to understand Wikipedia's policies. I understand that my previous messages may have caused confusion, and I acknowledge that I still have much to learn. I will refrain from posting further policy-related messages and instead focus on improving my understanding and editing practices by reading guidelines and observing experienced editors.
    I also want to make it clear that I am not claiming to be an administrator, and if any of my edits gave that impression, I sincerely apologize. If any specific edits were inappropriate or misleading, I am open to correction and will fully cooperate. I respectfully ask for the opportunity to improve and contribute productively.
    The suggestions I gave to new users were not meant to stop or discourage them, but rather to address confusion caused by repeated edits and reversions on the same post. My intention was to help, not to interfere. However, if my approach was not appropriate, I will be more mindful in the future and focus solely on improving my own editing conduct. Gvihar📝 23:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gvihar, you've already been warned about using LLMs on Wikipedia. Please don't do it anymore. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the guidance I will definitely keep this in mind. Gvihar📝 23:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gvihar, I'm struggling to find any problems with the edits made by Victoriaelizabeth9275 on Wormsloe Historic Site. You told them repeatedly editing the article again and again goes against Wikipedia's policies -- which policies are you referring to, and which diffs go against them? From what I can see, they were making good, referenced contributions to a rarely-edited article, so I find your comments on their talk page baffling. Is there more context here? --tony 01:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amaury

    [edit]

    Amaury reverted my edit on the Bunk'd article. All I did was add some periods to the spaces where there are none. Legobro99 (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Legobro99, and you thought this was a matter important enough to bring a complaint to ANI for the community to evaluate? Have you tried talking with the editor? Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Legobro99, you also have yet to notify Amaury that you opened this complaint which is a mandatory step. It would also help if you provided a diff of the edit which you are concerned about. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bunk%27d&diff=prev&oldid=1303949785 Legobro99 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the revert of the edit. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mickeyibarra COI editing and reference removal

    [edit]

    Mickeyibarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing the Mickey Ibarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page, removing the previous version of the page and replacing it with their own version. This version they have added doesn't have inline citations, and suffers from COI issues. They have continued to add this version of the article, despite being reverted many times by other editors and having been warned. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1304118134"