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)
Various flavors of disruption across numerous articles with no communication. Likely UPE. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 14:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
@ChompyTheGogoat: Speaking as a passer-by unfamiliar with the context, I find it hard to see what the disruption is here, in the absence of specific examples that illustrate what you mean. I don't doubt that your suspicions may be valid, but some random spot-checking of the TA edits didn't reveal anything obvious to me and it's been a few days with no other response to this report, so I think you need to provide some specific evidence if you want an admin to be able to take action. R Prazeres (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Random passer-by here. Recent diffs displaying unsourced edits and CIR issues:
Everything I looked at was related to Bengali film or specifically West Bengali colleges/universities. Most of the latter involved notable alumni (mostly film-related, other people in media, some politicians, etc.). Absolutely nothing was sourced or explained. All edits are mobile; are talk page notifications still an issue for mobile users? In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 05:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
That was helpful, thanks. They were still at it today and I think that evidence makes it pretty clear that they're WP:NOTHERE. I've blocked them indefinitely. R Prazeres (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor has received many warnings from many editors (most recently myself, Asqueladd, and Lankdadank) about non-constructive editing, including unsourced changes and what look like personal POV edits about ethnicity and geography (see their user talk page).
They were already blocked temporarily on 12 September for disruptive editing. After the block expired, they resumed the same type of disruptive edits, as I explained here before I made a final effort to try and divert them towards more constructive editing (). After that, they received yet another warning from Asqueladd (), presumably for unsourced and/or POV edits like this, this, etc.
Their newest edits this week once again contain similar problems. This edit deleted cited content, then added a dubious tangent about other ethnicities, which they incorrectly attributed to the citation that supported the deleted content. (I also note the MOS:CURLY apostrophes, which indicates copy-pasting from somewhere else and makes me worry that they are continuing to use AI tools, despite earlier warnings: , .) Additionally, this mass edit manages to add uncited details (see the first addition in the diff), and more unsourced changes are present in this and this.
I believe they have good intentions, but they've received a lot of warnings and a lot of patience so far, and these latest edits make me think they're just going to keep repeating the same problems for the foreseeable future. R Prazeres (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
At a glance, the Black Guard citation looks strange to me, plus it seems to have been published in 2013, not 2012? There's no page number either and a random single word at the end of the sentence. It feels a bit like it's been cut and pasted from elsewhere without any prior review.
The lengthy, overly detailed edit summaries definitely make me concerned that they're using AI. It's possible that a human wrote them, but it would be pretty unusual. They feel more like an LLM confirming the actions it's taken after following a prompt. In solidarity,Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:37, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
They don't seem like AI edit summaries to me, they deviate from the template and editorialize too much for that, and none of the common 2026 tics are really showing up en masse
have not looked at the edits themselves Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Ah, you're the expert so I'll trust your judgement on that! I'm still trying to familiarise myself with the latest LLM developments after being away for a couple of months. In solidarity,Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. To be clear: I'm reporting them here because of their general violations of core content policies, not for the potential LLM usage. Indeed, I don't think their edit summaries are LLM-generated, but it might be an incidental factor in their content edits. R Prazeres (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
LLM-supported or not, my experience about the problems with such user stems from changes to the wording of the articles, as if it were a sort of copy-editing exercise, but with objectives that were not initially stated yet are quite clear (removing the African framework in favour of the Maghreb framework as if the validity of Africa as a geographic concept was into question when it comes to Moroccan issues), and other, more specific changes which introduce absurdities that fall outside the bounds of normal historiography (which the user then apparently defends using anti-Eurocentric fallacies). Some of these include encompassing the territory of "northern Morocco" within "Al-Andalus" in the context of the Kharijite revolt , or perhaps a good-faith inaccuracy mistaking the expulsion of the Moriscos (nominally forced converts with various degrees of assimilation) with outright "Muslims" . As most of these changes are included in mass edits changing the whole wording of the article (within other edits that are perhaps inane in terms of modifying the meaning of the preexisting text too much), they are difficult to evaluate in the absence of honest edit summaries. Given that most of their edits are lacking in any sort of sourcing, the net contribution of the user in question to the project should be assessed in terms of these problematic insertions in the form of POV-driven crusades, and whether their editorial changes concerning only the language actually improve the readability (I am not the best person to assess the latter), in addition to behavioural issues, including the reluctance to address the concerns raised to them.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that is very much the type of thing they've been doing and it often creates a mess that cannot be easily fixed without wholesale reverts. They have not edited or responded since this report was filed, so I've invited them a second time to respond (). R Prazeres (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Update: since this thread opened, CassandraFassi has again made non-constructive edits at another article: unexplained/unsourced changes to ethnic terms again + inappropriately editing a quotation (), which were reverted by another editor (). Prior to those edits, I also invited them twice to comment at this thread (, ) and they have not responded in any way. R Prazeres (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The article and its talk page needs temporary protection. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I disagree. Protection is not designed for defending against a single abuser. Blocks and IP range blocks are the correct way to handle that as clearly laid out in the very first paragraph of the protection policy. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
You misunderstood me. No, I don't think it's an "absolute resort case", therefore, if something will be done besides a block, the page should be protected, a range block should not be applied. Jako96 (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I began substantially rewriting Draft:Ramin Hosseinpour on 24 October 2026 and submitted it to AfC on 25 October. Deacon Vorbis reverted my edits three times on 25 October, labeling them as sockpuppetry. The final revert cited WP:NOT3RR, which provides an exemption for reverting edits by banned users and their sockpuppets, but does not itself establish that an editor is a sockpuppet. I request a review of these repeated reverts and clarification of the evidence supporting the allegation.
Re-closing since reported editor has been subsequently blocked for the same underlying issue. StarMississippi 00:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I appear to have misread this whole thing. Sorry! No action seems to be needed. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thef0rest2(talk·contribs) is advocating for illegal things that I'd rather not say directly. Please block them! TheAwesomeHwyh 21:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I can't see where they're advocating for such things. So far they seem to have just written about it. — Czello(music) 21:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe I misread them then? Thanks! I didn't click on the link that they included for fear of what might show up... TheAwesomeHwyh 21:49, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You didn't misread it. They are adding content about "maps" which is a pro-pedophile (see WP:CHILDPROTECT) term for child abuser. They are also adding content about abusing animals. This is likely a sock of one of our previous animal+child abusing editors. Where is Fuzheado when we need him. ~2026-57263-97 (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
it is not a "pro-pedophile" term. medical professionals use it. And, it's more accurate because not all minors fit the definition. Adding stuff about anti-contact and non-offending MAPs is not at all aligned with someone who wants to abuse children. Even if the stuff i was adding was about more pro-contact groups it wouldn't mean i'm okay with that. get some media literacy and critical thinking skills, please. Movements for MAPs, pedophiles or whatever against hurting kids is a good thing. (that's not to say non-offending means anti-offending, because some of them have no moral issue with what they want to do) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thef0rest 2 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This editor continues to whitewash child abuse - see here ~2026-57229-46 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I think i have to agree with OP's take. That editor seems to be normalizing and glorifying "non-offending"/"non-contact" MAPs by saying "Adding stuff about anti-contact and non-offending MAPs is not at all aligned with someone who wants to abuse children." Heck, he even calls it a a "non-contact" attraction towards children a "good thing" by saying "Adding stuff about anti-contact and non-offending MAPs is not at all aligned with someone who wants to abuse children."
This is usually a tactic used by MAPs/pedophiles online to normalize that whole group. You should re-read what that editor said. Stmbus (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rofraja keeps making high-speed, seemingly unreviewed automated edits using some script (I don't know which one since it isn't linked in the edit summaries) to add titles to references. Most of the time this is useful, but a significant number of their edits are obviously broken and they have not been doing anything about that, after multiple warnings. Here are three examples just from their most recent 50 edits: (completely broken), (obvious generic title), (obvious generic title). The script also frequently messes up with titles that do not use Latin characters, like in . Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Just after this ANI, they have been correcting those edits. (Nwa Mbata) (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
They did fix a few, but then went right back to making the same bad edits (the first three diffs above are from after they fixed a few pages). Some sort of response from the user would be very nice. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The best way to resolve this would definitely be to have Rofraja participating in this ANI Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
They haven't edited for a bit over 24 hours so I won't do anything now. Please let me know if problems continue. If that happens without engagement here they can be blocked from article space until the issue is addressed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The problems with their edits go back more than a year and probably include thousands of poor edits; I recommend an article-space block given their failure to respond here. --JBL (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I have nominated Operation Carbenet for deletion. The article covers the supposed transfer of T-72 tanks from Poland to South Africa in 1990 for testing purposes. Masterchief6865(talk·contribs), the article creator, has responded to this by adding additional citations to the article in these edits. I am concerned that at least two citations were faked or are AI hallucinations posted without fact checking:
One of the references is to a 1997 journal article called "The Integration of Arms and South African Strategic Doctrine (1989–1994)" in the journal Scientia Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies. The full text of all issues of this journal are online, and its website for this issue does not include any reference to this article and it doesn't appear by searching the author's name (the claimed author was one of the journal's editors, and a frequent contributor). I also can't see it in other journals by searching Google Scholar or a general Google search
Another reference is to the SIPRI database of arms transfers from Poland to South Africa, with this supposedly supporting the entire lead. Searching the database for transfers from Poland to South Africa returns no such transfers. Searching for transfers to South Africa from any supplier during any year does not show any records for T-72 tanks (the subject of this article).
As this may be a deliberate attempt to influence the results of an AfD by adding seemingly high quality sources that do not in fact exist, I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review this. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I apologize, I admit that I did use AI and I am sorry for that, but are the rest of the sources I found up to speed? Masterchief6865 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
that's on you to answer, not someone else. You should remove every source you found unless you've actually looked at it and verified what it says. (I'm not actually against using AI to find sources, its a useful tool and i also do that. But you have to read the sources before using them. If you do a Google search for the term and then blindly add the first article that comes up, you would have the same problem-- the article has to come from the sources, not the other way around.) ~2026-57228-39 (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, I checked the sources and from what I see its up to speed, but I actually meant if someone could check and tell me if the sources are notable or not. Masterchief6865 (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
(same person, logged in now) ok, for this citation:
Foss, Christopher F. (1996). "South Africa develops T-72 tank upgrade package". Jane's Armour and Artillery. Jane's Information Group. ISBN978-0-7106-2686-8.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: periodical has ISBN (link)
The ISBN number youve provided is for the 2005-2006 edition, but youve said 1996, so I wasnt sure which you meant, but i assume the 96 edition-- the 95/96 edition does have an article on the T-72 in South Africa, but its not under that title. Can I ask where you read this article? Do you have a physical copy of the book or do you have it online?
Hi @Tioseafj, the second link is to the Ysterplaat air show in 2006 where they showed off the T-72 IST Tiger and when it comes to the first reference you brought up, i saw a few posts of the book online and i saw a PDF that contained the section of the T-72 but i didn't know the ISBN number so i searched for the ISBN number and inputed that, if you could put the correct ISBN number in i would be very thankful. Thanks Masterchief6865 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
As the nominator for both Loggim program and GT Series Cannon, articles authored by the user in question, I do hold the same concerns over sourcing. Looking back at this user's other articles, I do recognize a now-deleted article he made on Ongezellig, both because I also happened to participate in the XFD, and also as a topic which I later happened to make a draft on myself.
I think that the pattern of inadequate and subpar sourcing could be explained with the use of AI, which has since been admitted. However, the issue with the assessment on the applicability of sources cannot be blamed on AI. I think the more important thing is to provide the information the user could learn how to critically assess sources: WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and WP:Source assessment.
Making an article is a more difficult task than many think, especially for people who don't have English as a native language, and I think that's the ultimate reason why AI was turned to for sourcing. TansoShoshen (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso
page locked and editors warned for continuing the same behavior. StarMississippi 00:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have restored the original headings twice (1, 2) per WP:CITEVAR and WP:REFSECTION, but Ihardlythinkso has continued with the edit war. Ihardlythinkso has a long history of this type of behaviour. Khiikiat (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
More correctly, Ihardlythinkso and yourself are involved in an edit war. Anyway, the TA is correct; if this belongs anywhere, it is at WP:AN3. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have zero history of edit warring. The issue is over two small and conservative article format improvements, previously a different trivial issue he kept reverting (over "and" instead of "&"), where Khiikiat didn't partipate in the Talk discussion about it. Now he/she does the same, and retaliates like this! Methinks the issue is not edit warring but rather his/her behavior re WP:OWN, and, by quoting two misguided/inapplicable MoS policies at me, also of WP:COMPETENCE. --IHTS (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Just noting that having zero history of edit warring has no effect on whether or not you are participating in an edit war. Which, looking at the history of List of ECO codes, you (and Khiikiat) are. Since this has continued despite being closed as wrong venue: I have locked the page for 48 hours. Both of you discuss on the article talk page to establish consensus, which is what both of you should have been doing instead of edit-warring and sniping at each other in the edit summaries. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First, the clearest evidence: Since Oct 1, they have posted more to the talk page than every other user combined, and added more bytes than the next four users combined. Stats here. Textbook bludgeoning.
User has engaged in extensive WP:SYNTH, as described in previous ANI thread. Synth was removed, and after the removal got near-unanimous support (one other user continued to advocate inclusion), they started an RfC on the exact same issue.
While that was going, they brought up 5 separate discussions within 5 days, including another RfC on an issue that had been discussed only two days by three editors (who both disagreed with them).
I advised them on October 17 to slow down, that the volume of changes they were attempting to make was disruptive. They continued, and on October 20 I advised them both of the disruption from starting many RfCs and their bludgeoning. Their response was to accuse me of bad faith, trying to remove opponents, etc, and indicated they would continue.
This has become very disruptive of that page. They did start the page, but as they brought up, WP:OWN is a thing. It’s very difficult to keep up with all the issues they bring forth, especially when they action them once they receive support from the one editor who agrees with them. The drain of community time from the various RFCs, which have not done RFCBEFORE, is also substantial.
They have described my attempts to address their behavior as very clearly a bad faith accusation (diff), implied I was sadistic )diff) and when asked to remain civil, doubled down on it (diff).
They have begun splitting content into new articles wholesale, so a page block wouldn’t solve the issue. I think a TBAN from authoritarianism, broadly construed, is the most effective way to prevent disruption. When SuperPianoMan noted their goals don’t align with Wikipedia’s, they noted: I suspect you're right. (See also their page on their motives.) So they may be due for an indef per WP:NOTHERE. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Well obviously I disagree for a multitude of reasons, which I'll get into in a bit. But I'll briefly state I had more or less disengaged from editing the page which I stated, in response to which this editor re-ignited tensions by telling me, out of the blue, that I would be better off starting a "global politics fandom" than editing Wikipedia. When I called him out, he told me not to accuse him of sadism, in response to which of course I doubled down. If an editor tells you to essentially write fanfictions instead of editing Wikipedia with the clear implication being you are incapable of high-quality writing, then yes, I am going to call this sadism, as a WP:SPADE is a spade, and I am not going to take one-sided incivility for the sake of a social performance. This editor took a situation that had completely resolved itself, threw a grenade in the room, and for whatever reason, took me to an ANI for reacting to said grenade. But like I said, I'll reply to the rest in a bit. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Noting that I am not engaging with Alexandraaacs1989 here directly, but if anyone has any questions for me or would like me to respond to something they said, I'm available to answer questions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I will begin by saying that obviously I do not WP:OWN the article. But it is relevant that I created the article from the ground up, writing significant original content, improving and re-organizing other articles along the way, without significant help from other editors when it came to actually constructing (as opposed to policing, which I should clarify is not necessarily bad) its content. So make no mistake that the only reason why this article exists at all is because of the hard work I have put into creating it. In the process, there were a variety of challenges to my writing, which of course I felt inclined to respond to. Responding to criticisms of your writing on talk pages as an article is being written is common practice among editors most involved in writing an article in the interest of moving the discussions forward. It seemed clear to me if I didn't respond, no one else was going to put in the work to defend the perspective I was taking (not necessarily because it was an unpopular perspective, but because only a few editors seemed invested enough to iron this topic out). I was eventually told to disengage by the editor who started this ANI (whom I will note has made two total contribution to the article: the first deleting a hyperlink to the 2010s decades article (which I challenged here, in response to which the editor did not respond to any of the points I had made and simply stated This is not compelling. I'd like other editors to chime in, as the two of you seem to have the same opinion on a great many topics related to this article that don't always match community opinion.) and the second which added three words), so I gave it a day or two for others to make their own changes to the article. No significant changes were made, so I resumed making RS-based improvements to the article, in no contradiction of any talk page consensus, and being mindful of leaving helpful edit notes every step of the way. Importantly, no issues have been taken with the content of any of my edits from this point to now, aside from the fact that I remained editing frequently, which is neither a policy violation nor inherent WP:TE.
They have begun splitting content into new articles wholesale
This is bringing a content dispute into an ANI. In the interest of compromise, I suggested various avenues through which we could move forward, including splitting the article into new subtopics so we could migrate RS-supported information elsewhere. No one replied to my split proposals (including the editor who started this ANI, who is now holding it against me), so I figured I would go ahead and start them myself in the interest of preserving deleted content. These are literally draft articles that were created in the interest of abiding by the consensus for a narrower version of the page, and I cannot conceive how creating entirely uncontested Draft:21st century pro-democracy protests or Draft:21st century innovations in protest tactics is disruptive behavior that belongs in an ANI.
SuperPianoMan and I obviously disagree on a great many things, but most recently he implied he understood I am WP:HERE to write an encyclopedia, so again, this many-against-one argument does not seem to hold any weight.
@Alexandraaaacs1989: I had previously been satisfied with your response to my concerns on your talk page, but Okay, I don't really care at this point about anything other than having a home somewhere for these details, I just want to write. (source) makes me very concerned that my initial assessment of your motivations is in fact correct.
Regarding I only ask if you remove content, you document each case where you do so explicitly somewhere in this talk page so I can perform migration myself as needed.: are you aware that the userpage policy says that [User pages] should also not be used as storage for old revisions, deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content.? (emphasis mine)
This summary of the situation by @GenevieveDEon encapsulates my concerns perfectly: Alexandraisaacs has fairly clearly stated that she just wants to write about the current trend of autocratisation, using the 'third wave' concept as a convenient hook on which to hang it. (source)
Was there something I should've been apologizing for? My intent was to make it clear their message had been read and understood. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Addendum: I also think that draftspace should not be used to host preferred versions of disputed content. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The migrated content was disputed due to it allegedly being outside the scope of the article, rather than due to being otherwise disputed, making it exactly the kind of content you would want to split into a new draft or article in my view. I expand on this here. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
When I said this, I now agree I should have worded that better. But this was more or less out of exhaustion due to what felt to be an interminable set of demands with no end in sight. I was really trying to just make a plan so we could move forward and I could have a space to write, since it was growing clear opposing editors were not backing down. I'm mainly on Wikipedia to write and improve articles, and getting sucked into an endless talk page discussion that didn't seem to be going anywhere was a bit tiresome, especially when I wasn't getting the sense other editors were working with me to get to a point of productively moving things along. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I believe this is perfectly within the scope of ANI. A simple content dispute may not be ANI material, but when a content dispute spreads to multiple drafts on Wikipedia, with little limiting factor, then that does become conduct rather than content. Yes, there's nothing wrong with creating drafts. but when they're on general topics that basically become syndicated versions of the content dispute, we're getting into a bigger problem that requires general attention.
I do think there is some ownership behavior in this concept. While I do think AI1989 is here to write an encyclopedia, I think there's too much personal investment in this scaffolding used to describe 21st-century events. I would be fine for now with taking an assurance of backing down this area to work on other things as being in good faith, but otherwise, I have an inclination that a topic ban from frameworks describing 21st-century authoritarianism may be beneficial to the encyclopedia. In other words, making edits that describe Viktor Orban's actions OK, but edits characterizing those as part of a wider concept such as democratic backsliding or part of the third wave of autocratization not OK. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm sure it's no surprise I disagree here, but just since this is a case against me and I would like to respond in a specific manner to each point rather than leaving open to interpretation a smaller set of general comments I previously made, I will just say I am just not sure what specific behavior is in violation of guidelines.
It sounds like a lot of criticisms come down to me clearly having an area of interest (I do), which I would characterize as the consequence of seeking to create articles in what I believe are blindspots on the website. And only one article I have created has ever been deleted (it was merged rather than deleted in whole) out of dozens of articles created in total and there's unanimity that the Third wave article deserves to exist, so I really don't think there's a case I don't write DUE content pertaining to authoritarianism in the 21st century, which I have done more than a little work with. That's precisely the reason I started so many RfCs - because as someone pretty familiar with this article space, there is very little history in the way of consensus regarding the degree to which Wikipedia is allowed to acknowledge autocratization, and by taking the initiative, I am helping us create global consensus on these very central questions for us to adhere to.
when a content dispute spreads to multiple drafts on Wikipedia, with little limiting factor Well if you read through the discussions on the talk page, you'll see the central argument of people defending the deletion of content was that the "Third wave of autocratization" is something we have to speak of in narrow terms (i.e. not using RS that are not explicitly about the "third wave", as opposed to 21st century autocratization more broadly), or else any content about autocratization could just be plopped on the page, which others but not myself believe is a serious concern. So by this reasoning, it makes sense for a split to occur moving the content into another draft, considering the central reason the content is being contested is due to it belonging elsewhere, which many in the discussion have admitted are substantiated by strong RS/are DUE on Wikipedia more broadly.
If we're talking about the Viktor Orban thing, we could argue about RS characterizations and MOS:SEEALSO, but this is getting into a content rather than behavioral dispute.
As for ownership behavior, I get it, but at the same time I am the only person who contributed to the article in question, which I feel like entitles me to reply to criticisms of my writing beyond what is typical of anti-WP:BLUDGEONING advice on an article talk page. I get this sounds a bit entitled, but when another editor has disproportionately contributed to content on a page and it's prima facie defensible content, I recognize that this entitles them to at the very least defend their content, since they understand the page's history better than most.
I get that I touch a lot of controversial content, but I do really try never to violate the spirit of consensus on this website, even when it doesn't go my way, which you'll even see in the discussion in question where I took the initiative to restore a version of the article I disagreed with because of a consensus with which I was less than happy. Are there any specific policies you believe I'm violating? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Struck to avoid bludgeoningAlexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm confused by Textbook bludgeoning, regarding an article page, because that's not what WP:BLUDGEON refers to. What you're describing in your accusatory diff is called active editing, not bludgeoning.CNCin solidarity (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor I may have phrased it poorly. The bludgeoning and states are for the talk page. The link I use to support this is also for the talk page. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
They are very clearly bludgeoning the talk page. They've added almost 30,000 more bytes to the talk page than the next most active editor. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, I'd misread my bad. I see you what you mean now. CNCin solidarity (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
As a third party, several points:
The editing concerns a high-profile topic of global importance; while slightly academic, it arguably nonetheless sits at the intersection of controversial topics defined by ARBCOM, or at the very least has characteristics that typically define such topic areas. As such, it is natural for alertness to politically motivated manipulation to be high on all sides.
I do not see where Alexandraaaacs1989 (A1989) clearly stated they were going to disengage in that comment. My understanding was that they were suggesting that they would attempt to migrate material rejected by EducatedRedneck (ER) to other articles, which may not adequately address complaints pertaining to the material (which I have not reviewed).
On the other hand, I agree that telling them where else to take their writing is unwarranted and frankly out of scope. Basically, if you're starting a sentence with something like "I'm going to state this as gently as I can", you may want to very much reconsider that sentence, because that's a condescension red flag. At this point, I am not closing my mind to the possibility that ER was engaging in grave-dancing - which would assume it was clear to them that A1989 was truly disengaging, on which, at this point, I have not examined evidence pointing in either direction.
It does appear from skim-reading the talk page that several editors thought A1989 wasn't fully editing within guidelines.
Looking at the outcome of the current responses to the RfC started by A1989, it is not clear that A1989's position is universally and summarily opposed. In addition to an early support, the reluctant oppose (GenevieveDEon) and the separate query for proposed phrasing (Redwolf Milkshake Fox) lead me to this conclusion.
A1989 is the principal author of the article, having made 83% of the edits, and being assigned 96% of the authorship. By contrast, the talk page shows much more diverse participation. Having to answer to a "backseat gaming" crowd is a very uncomfortable position for an author to be in. It may be worth understanding more fully why there wasn't full scale collaboration on this article, with several individuals contributing material rather than just one. As with any single-author article, looking from a distance unfamiliar with the entire history, it is possible that the single author has edited either at great pace, or defensively, or both, accounting for the pattern. Avatar317's removals of material may provide clues.
On balance, I assess it as unlikely that any trouts should fly in one direction only.
The numbering of my remarks is arbitrary and for convenience only. It should not be mistaken for any kind of prioritisation.
Finally, looking at the recent escalation, I would assess this to be within the remit of ANI. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I genuinely believe that A1989 is here to build an encyclopedia. I have no doubts as to her bona fides. I also have no particular recommendation for the outcome of this ANI case. However, I am very frustrated that A1989 seems not to hear the distinction between chronological reportage of specific events and local trends on the one hand, and large-scale historiographical theories and metanarratives on the other. I really do not understand her insistence on yoking the extremely well-documented, widely-written-about current trend of autocratisation to the historiographical theories of Huntington et al. As it stands, we are currently saddled with an article whose title and lead paragraph relate to the latter, but whose body text relates only to the former. I suppose my ideal would be to move the material that is actually about the 'third wave of autocratisation' to Waves of democracy#Autocratization, and to have a new article with no transcluded material that is about the much more widely accepted idea of a current autocratic trend. I don't know exactly what title that new article should have, but I shall be very relieved if it does not include the words 'third' or 'wave'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I want to apologize to Alexandraaaacs for the "blog or fandom" comment. My intent was simple; an editor expressed furstration that they weren't permitted to put the content they wanted into the article, so that was what sprung to mind as a way for them to have full creative control (blog) or freedom of content with collaboration (fandom) for that project (Third Wave of Autocratization). Based on the responses here, it came of as condescending and offensive. I don't understand why, but I accept that it was. It wasn't my intent to cause harm, just an (apparently utterly inept) attempt to help another human being find what they said they wanted. I'm sorry that I caused offense and pain; it wasn't my intent, but that doesn't take away the harm. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I for one appreciate this apology, I wasn't impressed with that comment. CNCin solidarity (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology, it's alright:) Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
After thinking about it some more, I think I understand what you were getting at. I'm going to take a break from Wikipedia and work on some other projects that give me more freedom in my writing. I left some notes at my userpage about areas that others are invited to improve upon in my stead, in case it's of any interest. Hopefully someone will take up this challenge, but if not, I'll likely get back around to it myself in due time. Happy editing all ~ Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Most or all of this dispute is within CTOP(s), and I think that this is something where tempers have risen too rapidly over controversial content, escalating something that didn't need to be escalated. Looking at this ANI discussion so far, as well as the linked one just before it, a lot of the same editors keep showing up. There are obviously some walls of text here, from more than one editor, and not all of it is readable. Although I agree that this is something more than a content dispute, and as such is something reasonable to bring up at ANI, I don't think that anyone here needs to have administrator actions taken against them. I have interacted a lot with Alexandraaaacs1989, and I have always found that politely explaining how it would be helpful to adjust some aspect of editing results in sincere acceptance of the advice. The opening claim of "not here" is without merit. Now, I'll try to politely explain that editors should avoid walls of text, dial down the assumptions of bad faith, and try to work this out, perhaps by getting more eyes on the topic. There are a lot of things pertaining to possible redundancies of content about AMPOL and autocracy where it would be most helpful to have widely-advertised content RfCs about what to do with the content, and this is at least the second time in the past few days where I've said this at AN and ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
There is a clear issue with this editor's collegiality. Six days ago they opened a deletion review for a template, and in their opening statement they cast aspersions towards myself and PARAKANYAA. Today I made a perfectly good faith edit to an image they placed in a WP:SIDEBAR in which I did not remove the image, but used the thumbnail version and added the attribution per the Flickr posted CC-BY license for this image. They reverted with edsum calling my edit passive aggressive and their talk page comment accuses me of "backseat editing". Repeatedly this editor assumes bad faith. Indeed they rushed to ANI against me when I removed non WP:BIDIRECTIONAL links from a massive WP:SIDEBAR they created. Despite which, I did not pursue a WP:BOOMERANG at the time, and nor was I much interested in posting here. But as long as they continue to assume bad faith, even while they are at ANI, there does seem to be a behavioural issue that needs addressing. I am not sure about any kind of topic ban (nor interaction ban), but I think a warning is in order. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I think I was very polite in my comment — a softly-worded request voicing concerns is not an assumption of bad faith. And I didn't call your edit passive aggressive — I called your edit note (No opinion on whether [my recent edit] is even appropriate.) passive aggressive, which I still believe to be true. In the deletion review, I explicitly said my assumption was that you are purely interested in keeping our sidebars tight and on topic, i.e., that you are here in good faith, but that I was still uncomfortable with a pattern of deleting content that I was seeing. Constructive criticism/voicing concerns about topics on which we disagree is very different from assuming bad faith. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
[Uninvolved party] An edit summary of that general description may simple reflect a wish not to take responsibility for the content. For instance, one may copyedit a recently inserted section without wanting to express an opinion in support of that inserted material. I consider it possible that this was the case here. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
That's fair, and I understand why that comment could be interpreted that way. But if I undo an edit you made, leave a set of "corrections" to your edit, and leave the final remarks "no opinion on whether your edit is even appropriate." - do you not see how this could come across as passive aggressive? What function is the word "even" serving in that sentence, if not expressing a degree of exasperation? If someone plausibly told me I was coming across as passive aggressive, I would assure them I'd work on my tone (or at the very least talk it out) rather than not responding to their concerns and bringing it straight to an ANI to be used as leverage against them, which feels a bit opportunistic (not assuming bad faith). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I did not undo your edit. And it is not the issue of the edit that is the problem. It is your leap to an assumption of bad faith that is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm again going to say that I think all editors are escalating this too much, but I'll also say in particular to Alexandraaaacs1989 that you should be more careful about the language that you direct at other editors who disagree with you; I think some of what you said to Sirfurboy was needlessly personal. It's better to politely seek input from other editors than to criticize, and to accept whatever consensus comes out of that. Please take this as a friendly warning, in the hope that this does not continue to rise to the level of needing an administrator to act. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
you should be more careful about the language that you direct at other editors who disagree with you; I think some of what you said to Sirfurboy was needlessly personal. It's better to politely seek input from other editors than to criticize, and to accept whatever consensus comes out of that. Thank you for the tangible advice. I thought about this and did some thinking, and this is my current understanding:
You say what I said to Sirfurboy was needlessly personal. I think this is a fair criticism.
You say to be more careful about the language I direct at others. I think this is a fair criticism. Sirfurboy has also repeatedly criticized me for assuming bad faith. While I'm not sure I would go quite that far in characterizing my actions, I understand how the way I directed my language at him created the impression of an assumption of bad faith, which is problematic. I often get a bit myopic during my interactions with others when I'm fixated on making a large volume of edits as quickly and efficiently as possible, sometimes at the expense of my interactions with others. Maybe before conflicts going forward, I should take additional time before writing comments so I do not lose sight of the emotional impression my words create during interactions beyond their literal substance.
You say it is better to seek input from other editors than to criticize. I think this is fair, but that while I should have conveyed myself better, I also think healthy criticism on Wikipedia is important (not to imply the way I handled this was particularly healthy). I'm hesitant to consistently seek advice from others because obviously volunteer time is limited (I do not like feeling like I'm nagging), and drawing others in is often unlikely to be fruitful, so based on my understanding, it's best to resolve things person-to-person when possible. I even think the most recent disagreement between the two of us has been more-or-less resolved as a result of the talk page discussion, but Sirfurboy might be inclined to disagree.
I also think that I tend to get annoyed (which is not reasonable) when I feel that content I am writing is consistently being policed by uninvolved editors in helping create or write the content (which is why I linked back-seat driver). I understand the need on Wikipedia for editors to correct mistakes of others, but when editors consistently remove or "fix" the content of others without starting courtesy talk page discussions, while leaving edit notes bordering on terse, it is very easy for me to experience a deeper sense of hostility and to get aroused beyond what is appropriate. That said, when you say I should go to other editors to create external consensus rather than arguing, I think that's a reasonable solution to these kinds of situations, so going forward, I will save your consensus-building advice for resolving situations where there are deeper-seated or seemingly intractable issues. However, I am not entirely sure how to go about raising perceived issues with another editor's behavior in a way that does not come across as overly-personalizing the conflict. Maybe using softer language with more consistent and explicit assurances that I am assuming good faith is the answer, which I will work on going forward unless you have alternative advice regarding this bullet point.
The only thing I will ask of Sirfurboy in response is that he makes a greater effort at starting talk page discussions regarding disagreements to facilitate conflict resolution, as opposed to making changes he likely suspects are likely to be contested and seeing whether anyone will challenge them. Maybe it's unreasonable to request this, but after a WP:BOLD edit I recently made to a contentious article, I left a comment describing my changes to make it easier for other editors to analyze/criticize my edits as needed. I think if Sirfurboy made a greater effort at leaving these kinds of comments, that would make it easier to avoid escalation going forward. I also feel that when I have in the past attempted to create mutual understanding with Sirfurboy, he has disengaged with or scolded me, which contributed to a sense of animosity towards this editor. If Sirfurboy would be more willing to engage during meta-discussions about how to resolve disagreements between us, this would make it easier for me to understand where his edits are coming from and I would appreciate it.
I hope this seems like a reasonable analysis of the situation, and please let me know if not. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@Alexandraaaacs1989: While I *FEEL* that you've often ignored my opinions/advice and assumed bad faith against me - we can leave those things behind.
My advice to you is to NOT be fixated on making a large **volume of edits** as quickly and efficiently as possible, but rather to spend more time thoughtfully creating content that follows Wikipedia's policies. IN MY OPINION, that will make it more likely that your edits (the content you create) will become a permanent contribution to Wikipedia rather than be reverted/removed, and you will spend less time arguing with others; time which can be used to compose new quality content. As an easy example, lately there have been lots of large content additions done with AI (not by you) and those have and are being removed, with the size/volume/number of the additions being irrelevant as to whether they get kept or removed. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a note that I perceive Alexandra as an extremely well-intended editor who is trying her best to work hard to be of help for Wikipedia in constructive ways. As such I strongly object to any punishment against her. David A (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:NOLEGALTHREATS — Appears to be entirely unprompted as far as I can tell, as the previous thread was archived simply due no inactivity for months. •Quinn(talk) 16:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alofi Niue
Alofi Niue indef'd without TPA by asilvering for harrassment. - The BushrangerOne ping only 17:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am a CheckUser on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and I request a review of the following case by an sysop of the English Wikipedia.
In June 2024, a series of accounts began appearing on the Portuguese Wikipedia advocating for the replacement of Portuguese-adapted personal names with anglicized forms. These accounts began using public pages quite aggressively, including directing criticism at specific users, in violation of a community policy.
This case became known as MaoMaoApotecária. From the outset, I made it clear that multiple people were involved, to the extent that two separatediscussions were opened to allow the community to express its views on the matter. In other words, this may be a coordinated effort involving different individuals who share the same agenda.
Since then, new groups of accounts have emerged on the Portuguese Wikipedia, using multiple sockpuppet accounts to promote the same agenda. In the last few days of September 2026, the account Alofi Niue intensified its aggressive behavior, repeating the same abuses observed in other accounts associated with this scheme. Upon reviewing its edits, I found that many contained elementary errors, raising suspicions that these errors were intentional and intended to provoke reverts, thereby creating pretexts for initiating editorial disputes with other users.
I blocked the account and explained the situation, making it clear that no technical confirmation of its connection to the other accounts had been established, but that the behavioral context, taken as a whole, points to an apparent association. I also added the standardized tag: "Behavioral evidence suggests that this editor may be associated with MaoMaoApotecária."
The problem is that the Alofi Niue account has turned to the English Wikipedia in an attempt to have its block overturned, seeking support from editors who do not even hold sysop privileges on the Portuguese Wikipedia. In addition, the account has begun contacting me directly on my user talk page.
I have no intention of reassessing this case, as there is evidence that one of the objectives of this scheme is to destabilize the editorial environment by exploiting the available discussion spaces for that purpose. This is all the more concerning in light of a recent discovery: another user possibly linked to the same scheme is causing problems on the French Wikipedia by making erroneous edits, being reverted, and then persistently challenging those reversions and filing appeals generated by AI, thereby placing an additional burden on editors in that community.
I have not assessed whether the Alofi Niue account has made positive contributions to the English Wikipedia. However, I do not consider it acceptable for the account to use this community’s space to address issues pertaining to other communities, especially in a persistent manner that disrupts other editors. I ask the English Wikipedia community to take the necessary measures to put an end to this behavior, whether by blocking the account, protecting my user talk page, or taking any other action it deems appropriate. Based on my experience with this scheme, I do not believe this behavior will stop voluntarily. Edmond Dantèsd'un message? 01:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm too naive but this does not feel like actions taken in bad faith. Because you disabled talk page access and emails in Portuguese Wikipedia Alofi Niue may have felt like this is the only way to get a second opinion. I think technical confirmation should be pursued. PharaohCrabspeak𓀁works𓀨 02:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
It's not as if it takes much assessment as to whether the account has made positive contributions here; they have. I imagine you're within your rights not to reassess the case, and Alofi Niue certainly can get no redress here for actions on another Wikipedia. But as far as violations of English Wikipedia practice goes, there haven't been any. You haven't so much as told them not to post to your talk page here. Nor have you -- as the instructions at the top of this page require -- informed them of this ANI complaint (which Johnuniq did). Nor are they spamming your en.wiki talk page; they sent a single message. What "chronic, intractable" issue do you claim exists here? Ravenswing 03:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this case to more people's attention, as that is exactly what I have been trying to do for 3 weeks (but had been until now unable to do so, as @Conde Edmond Dantès irregularly blocked me, and all my IPs, for life, from editing even my own page, or those of other editors or admins on Portuguese Wiki).
The case: 3 weeks ago, I was, without any warnings, discussions or previous bans, suddenly banned "for life" from editing Portuguese Wikipedia by @Conde Edmond Dantès as the "result" of a Sockpuppet investigation thread, even though he has admitted in Portuguese, and now just admitted up here in English as well, that the investigation actually showed no basis to the claim that I might be someone's sockpuppet.
Even though up until my ban I had never heard of @Conde Edmond Dantès, or of any of the three accounts of whom I was accused of being a "sockpuppet" (@Skyshifter, @MaoMaoApotecária, or @OEditorSecreto), and even though I had never been banned even for one hour until then, @Conde Edmond Dantès gave me an infinite, all-inclusive ban on Portuguese Wikipedia, along with all my IPs, and banned me from editing even my own page, or his own, or those of other Administrators and Checkusers, where (by Wikipedia rules) I should have had the right to appeal this absurd block - and the whole block, as is recorded, was done under the false allegation that I was a sockpuppet.
After weeks completely unable to appeal the block (because Portuguese Wikipedia is afaik the only one in the world in which no edits are allowed by unregistered editors, meaning that even if I could get myself a new IP that @Conde Edmond Dantès hadn't already blocked for life, the only way for me to appeal that block would be by creating a second user, which then would have finally given him "valid" reason to say I was "using a sockpuppet"), I tried contacting other editors and himself here on English Wikipedia, still doing my best to force myself to believe it could have been just one (reeeaally long series of) serious moderation mistake(s) committed by @Conde Edmond Dantès, in good faith.
But up here, he just admitted that he is fully aware that the technical IPs checks showed I am *not* a sockpuppet of MaoMaoApotecária, and yet he gave me the permanent, unappealable ban that would only be allowed under Wikipedia's rules if I had been a sockpuppet - in other words, he just confirmed that he abused his Wikipedia Checkuser’s privileges; that he did it fully aware of what he was doing; and that his objective was to prevent me from pointing out publicly, at the Portuguese Wikipedia, what he was doing.
Now, in case anyone might be wondering (like I was, for days, right after my ban) *why* an Admin would violate so many rules (committing such a long series of violations that, if correctly assessed, must now naturally lead to him being sanctioned and having his Portuguese Wikipedia Admin status and Checkuser privileges removed) in order to ban someone whom he didn't know and who had never even heard of him before, he pretty much "explained" it above: as I was completely unaware of until then, the story is that there is a years-long "war" in Portuguese Wikipedia, opposing, on one side, @Conde Edmond Dantès alongside a tiny minority (a handful) of other long-time editors, who, along with him, have for years and years been "defending" the chastity of the Portuguese language and its Latin origins by "Latinizing" every single foreign name of article used at Portuguese Wikipedia. For years now, they have done so by quietly (without discussing the issue with the majority of the community, which is against it) by renaming foreign country and city names used in Portugal, Brazil, Angola and all Portuguese-speaking countries to obscure Latinizations, such as changing Kinshasa (the form used in all Portuguese-speaking countries) to Quinxassa, or Saskatchewan to Sascachevão.
Then 3 weeks ago, having never even heard of this "debate", and having never heard of @Conde Edmond Dantès nor of any of those other users, I naively questioned on Portuguese Wikipedia moderators’ discussion page why the country of Kiribati was called Kiribati in every single Wiki except Portuguese, where it had been quietly moved to "Quiribáti" months ago, without discussion. My questioning led the majority of other moderators, who oppose such moves but simply don't pay as much attention to the issue as the handful of Latinizers, to revert the move, which apparently triggered @Conde Edmond Dantès and his clique, leading them to immediately point fingers at me saying "another sock ofMaoMaoApotecária!". Apparently (and I have only learned all this in the past 3 weeks, by trying to understand why I had been blocked) that was a user or admin who shared the majority's opinion that such Latinizations are ridiculous, but cared more than most so tried to fight the clique's position, and then got banned for life; and also apparently, ever since then, every single user who tries to question any of these Latinizations is immediately accused of being a "sockpuppet" of this same user, and when IP checks show the accusations are absolutely unfounded, @Conde Edmond Dantès now talks of an international conspiracy.
Up until 4 hours ago (when I tried reaching out to Conde Edmond Dantès here on English Wiki to point out that he had commited a serious, yet forgivable moderation mistake by banning me with a "sockpuppeting", "eternal" ban, when the technical check, as he himself admitted, had shown that I was not a sockpuppet (on his own words here: "On this case, it was not possible to identify a direct connection [between this user and the previous, banned ones], which would suggest the involvement of a fourth party. One possibility is that some form of external coordination or influence is at play, leading individuals who already hold a negative view on the matter [of Latinizations] to adopt the same course of action and repeat similar behaviors. Finally, I inform that I have blocked the aforementioned account.") Up until then, I was doing my best to believe it could all be good-faith mistakes on his part; moreover, I was giving him an opportunity to solve the issue by admitting he had made a mistake when he applied a sockpuppeting ban on me all while admitting the technical checks had showed that I was a different human being who was not evading any previous blocks.
However, his reaction - by ignoring my contact and coming directly here and (without even notifying me, as has been noted) trying to get me blocked and silenced also here unfortunately confirms that he is fully aware of what he is doing, which is to abuse a series of Admin’s and Checkuser’s privileges in order to silence, on Wikipedia in Portuguese (and now here as well), anyone who might even start questioning his "editorial" bias on Wikipedia in Portuguese.
For those reasons, and for having admitted here to have knowingly commited an administrative abuse in Wikipedia Portuguese (by giving me a ban-for-life for allegedly block-evading while admitting the IP-checks indicated I had to be a different person who was not evading previous blocks), and for abusing his position as an Admin in Portuguese Wiki to try to also irregularly get me silenced here on the English Wiki, I believe that @Conde Edmond Dantès should be sanctioned on Wikipedia in English, even if such sanctioning won't really affect or bother him much, as he only really uses the Portuguese Wikipedia. Therefore, I would really appreciate advice from any English Wikipedia Administrators or more experienced users on how to handle the abuses committed on Portuguese Wikipedia, meaning my unjust and illegal ban from Wikipedia Portuguese under a false accusation of being a sockpuppet, even when he himself (who is one of only four Checkusers on Wikipedia in Portuguese) admitted he knows that is not the case. Finally, thank you very much for anyone who actually read through all this. ~~~~ Alofi Niue (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Experience shows that people who post indignant walls-of-text are usually not a good fit for Wikipedia. I have no interest in how locations are named at the Portuguese Wikipedia but the above looks like what an activist on a mission would post. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
That's not a question for enwiki. The ptwiki block should be dealt with on ptwiki or (if that is impossible) through Meta. A ptwiki admin blocking an editor for actions on ptwiki is not smomething that needs to be discussed on enwiki. What can be discussed here is whether Alof Niue is abusing enwiki (e.g. by canvassing editors, by harassing editors, ...) and whether Conde Edmond Dantès is abusing enwiki (e.g. by harassing someone they are in conflict with in ptwiki). Please stick to those issues, and direct people to the right location for non-enwiki stuff. Fram (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
This question is really quite central to this dispute. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
You are welcome to do whatever judging you desire at whatever point you desire. I am here to do as OP has requested, and review the case. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Please take the non-enwiki bits to your or their talk page then. They don't belong on the enwiki admin noticeboard. Fram (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I want to note here that i think this is him trying to give us record of disruption on other wikipedias so we can have a better idea of Alofi Niue's history, is this correct? Tankishguy 16:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
To make this clearer, the Alofi Niue account reproduces a pattern of editorial behavior associated with a group of individuals whose activities on Portuguese Wikipedia are intended to cause disruption.
his topic was opened on this page at the stewards’ direction, who, surprising as it may seem, are dealing with other similar cases across several Wikipedias. In fact, it was the stewards themselves who informed me about the case on the French Wikipedia. It is important to bear in mind that these appeals represent a continuation of the disruptive behavior observed on Portuguese Wikipedia. After being blocked on that edition, the user began reproducing the same pattern of conduct here. As I have already mentioned, I have not examined the user's other contributions to this Wikipedia, nor do I have any interest in doing so.
On Portuguese Wikipedia, however, the conduct of the group associated with MaoMaoApotecária is already regarded by many as being driven by bad faith. Only someone unfamiliar with the history would fail to take it into account when assessing these individuals' requests, particularly in light of the indications that discussion spaces are being used as instruments of disruption.
This is precisely what Alofi Niue is doing here: using the spaces on English Wikipedia to destabilize the Portuguese community. Edmond Dantèsd'un message? 16:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I am very grateful to user Fram for pointing out the specific diffs of the disruptive behavior that the account in question has been exhibiting in this case. However, I believe it is important to clarify that, in my view, this behavior is deliberate and in bad faith.
My aim in presenting the history of these accounts on the Portuguese Wikipedia and, to a lesser extent, the French Wikipedia is to provide sufficient context for you to understand the pattern of behavior observed and assess the requests in light of that history.
If, after reviewing the matter, you conclude that there are no grounds for blocking the account, I will respect that decision. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to prevent the English Wikipedia from being used as a means of challenging or attempting to overturn decisions made by the Portuguese Wikipedia community, thereby diverting discussion spaces from their intended purpose. Edmond Dantèsd'un message? 16:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
My opinion is that there is some reason to block, as you have described cross-wiki abuse and there appears to be some disruption, quoting @Johnuniq, "...People who post indignant walls-of-text are usually not a good fit for Wikipedia." but that is not my choice here, but an admin's.
Tankishguy: Each Wikipedia has its own particularities, which makes it difficult even for me to identify the correct procedures to follow without risking making a mistake. One example is notifying the account involved, which is done automatically on the Portuguese Wikipedia but may require different procedures in other editions, as appears to be the case with the English Wikipedia. If you could confirm that the request was submitted in the correct place and that it now simply awaits review by an administrator (sysop), that would already be a great help. I am quite busy, and on top of that, the time difference with the United States can be as much as ten hours, depending on the region. In that regard, it would be easier to coordinate things with someone in the United Kingdom or even Australia. To give you an idea of my workload, I have just replied to seven emails before posting this comment. Edmond Dantèsd'un message? 20:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The request is in the correct place and everything is in order. But could you please answer my question, @Conde Edmond Dantès, about how the editor is supposed to appeal their block? If they have no way to appeal their block, this is an issue for the U4C, not for here. If, after being correctly directed to the U4C, they were to continue to try to enlist editors to their cause on en-wiki, and in particular to repeatedly try to contact you, the blocking admin, then, yes, we surely would block them for harassment. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm with Fram in that we're exceeding our jurisdiction here. This should not become a precedent of how different WMF properties can be tilted against one another. Meta exists for exactly this kind of thing, and meta is where this should be sent. If the disruption, as is alleged, has already engulfed the pt, fr and en wikis, the case has no business being here. Even if someone were to make a block here, it appears that even the proposer of the motion believes the matter might plausibly pop up at es or it next. In short, I don't see how this even COULD be properly addressed here - neither making a pt unblock nor a global ban are options available at this venue. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I am not proposing to make either a pt unblock or a global ban here. I am asking a simple question, the answer to which will tell me whether anyone needs to be blocked for their behaviour on en-wiki at this time. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not criticising you, there just seems to be this implied undercurrent of a submarine orchestrating cross-wiki disruption, and if that's the case, we're shooting at a star destroyer with toy guns by making local blocks. I have to admit I do not fully understand why stewards, as is alleged, would warn local wikis about a threat that's in the stewards' domain to take care of. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
In Brazil, there is a well-known expression: "drying ice." I’m not sure whether there is an equivalent expression in English-speaking countries, but it describes an exhausting, repetitive effort that produces no lasting results and fails to address the root of the problem. I am fully aware that the MaoMaoApotecária case fits exactly the scenario you described. This can be quite discouraging and makes me less inclined to engage in dialogue with these individuals, as I know they are unlikely to follow the guidance and may even turn to artificial intelligence to formulate their responses.
I am fully aware that, sooner or later, another individual will appear on the Portuguese Wikipedia displaying all the red flags associated with this group. Most likely, a check will not lead to any definitive conclusions, as multiple people are involved, and the blocked user will do everything possible to challenge the measure and stir up conflict around it. This time, it happened here; next time, it may happen somewhere else.
And as a checkuser, I can say that even for stewards, these cases are not easy to resolve. What seems most apparent is that the most serious abuse occurs on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where the behavior takes on an aggressive and disruptive character. On the French Wikipedia, by contrast, the other user has been making low-quality edits, getting reverted, and then posting lengthy blocks of text that appear to have been generated by artificial intelligence.
The point is that there is no obvious connection between the different Wikipedias; what we see are various ways of disrupting the environment. The impression is that the ultimate goal is simply to harass other editors. Edmond Dantèsd'un message? 23:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
in english speaking countries. It's usually called Putting a band aid on it. Tankishguy 23:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Tankishguy: Interesting! We also have the expression "putting a band(age) on the pain," which is much less common than the one I mentioned earlier, but conveys the idea of applying a temporary fix without addressing the root of the problem. I really like Italian expressions: Combattere contro i mulini a vento and Svuotare il mare con un secchiello. Their meanings are practically the same as that of the expression drying ice. Edmond Dantèsd'un message? 23:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
We should probably go back to the behavioral dispute at hand. I still support that indef, but also you are arguing against an arbitration committee member And we are essentially deadlocked until we have another opinion. Tankishguy 23:57, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The Portuguese Wikipedia has been without an Arbitration Committee for nearly 20 years, and I’ve been involved in the project for 11 years. If you could let me know who is responsible for each level of dispute resolution here, that would be very helpful. Edmond Dantèsd'un message? 04:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
essentially, An arbitrator is part of a group of admins/checkusers/oversighters that oversee the highest level of dispute resolution, and dispute resolution is Talk page -> DRN -> ANI (sometimes) -> ArbCom. Tankishguy 12:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The block imposed does not prevent any user from appealing it, since Portuguese Wikipedia provides a dedicated email address for this purpose, which is publicly disclosed in the relevant policy. The block merely prevents the abusive use of the "email user" feature within Wikipedia itself. This does not prevent the affected user from using Gmail, for example, or any other email service to send their appeal to the designated address. Had the appeal been submitted properly, it could certainly have been reviewed by someone more competent and, above all, genuinely interested in the matter, with the possibility even of the issue being brought up for discussion on Portuguese Wikipedia. The decision to harass third parties on another Wikipedia constitutes further evidence of the group’s disruptive behavior, precisely the kind of conduct that led to the accounts being blocked.
Just to clarify, when I brought the case to the stewards, following my usual procedure, one of them requested the account details because they considered the behavior in question similar to that of another case, which I was previously unaware of. I referred the matter based on the suspicions surrounding MaoMaoApotecária and, to my surprise, was informed of another case and, subsequently, of the incident involving French Wikipedia.
I carried out the check and found that the data do not match. The MaoMaoApotecária case involves multiple individuals, and the recommendation to bring the discussion here clearly goes beyond the conduct of these accounts on this Wikipedia, since they are causing problems on other projects. However, they are likely operating within the bounds of the rules here, given that some of these accounts are even extendedconfirmed. Edmond Dantèsd'un message? 22:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Great, thank you. In that case this is clear harassment, and given that he is still pinging you to ask about this block after you have clearly said what the appeal pathway is, I shall block and revoke talk page access. Cheers. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
"I carried out the check and found that the data do not match" if this is the case then it seems possible that Alofi Niue is in fact not a sockpuppet. It feels like other users in this thread take for granted that he is but the evidence seems limited and the actions that he has taken feel like a reasonable response for a less experienced editor that feels like they have been blocked unfairly to take. PharaohCrabspeak𓀁works𓀨 11:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
{non-admin and uninvolved comment) Some years ago, Conde Edmond Dantès and I worked together to improve an enwiki article. A year or so later, I came across the remains of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN and sent them to WP:AFD, where they were disposed of. There were bits of it in ptwiki also. I notified CED, and they too were disposed of under their procedures. (I declined an invitation to join in the discussion, saying that they were doing perfectly well without me.)
I have no opinion on the subject-matter of this thread. I do however believe that editors of all Wikipedias should work together toward the same goal. Narky Blert (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I will be withdrawing from this discussion, as I feel I have already devoted far too much time to this matter. I want to emphasize that this decision has nothing to do with any of you personally; the exhaustion stems from the case as a whole, which has been dragging on since 2024. I believe I have presented the issue comprehensively and included all the relevant caveats in my proposal. I even made it clear that I had not assessed the account's other contributions and left the decision entirely in the hands of the English Wikipedia community. In other words, if the community concludes that the case warrants a block or that such a measure is not appropriate, I will respect its decision. At the very least, I ask that this attempt to revisit, on this Wikipedia, a decision made on another be brought to an end. Edmond Dantèsd'un message? 23:33, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Fram I just want to say that sending one message to @Conde Edmond Dantès and to each other PT-Wiki Checkuser and Adminis here on EN-Wiki not only doesn't seem to be any violation or abuse, but is exactly what was recommended by more than one PT-Wiki Admins I managed to contact in these past 3 weeks, that being the only remaining way for me to contact him/them to appeal my irregular block, as recommended by Wikipedia's rules.
As for his "claims" that his admitted abusing of Checkuser privileges was "justified" to stop a world conspiracy against him, I can only say: please check all my IPs and history and data and editions, and I have no problem even making my real ID known if needed, as the truth is: I didn't edit Wikipedia in 2024, I don't know any other Wikipedia users in real life, and up until 3 weeks ago I had never heard of @Conde Edmond Dantès or of the accounts he accused me of being a sockpuppet or a fellow conspirator of (MaoMaoApotecária), or of any debates about place names on Wiki or of any conspiracies.
Finally, after his erratic behavior and confessions of wrongdoing here, I now believe he has been abusing his Checkuser's privileges to silence, by falsely associating with a banned user anyone who contradicts him on PT-Wiki, and he does so in a way that the unjustly-banned user is left with absolutely no way of appealing the ban or contacting anyone on PT-Wiki. So I also would like an answer from @Conde Edmond Dantès to asilvering's question: how can I exercise my right of appealing the block that he admitted up here was done in contravention of Checkuser's guidelines, when his abuse precisely prevents me from using PT-Wiki at all, forever and through all my IPs, even to contact other Checkusers or Admins to question my block? Thank you again. Alofi Niue (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
And, on what really concerns the English Wiki: I believe @Conde Edmond Dantès also committed an abuse here by opening this motion, ignoring the alerts that say that this page is for “urgent incidents”, and doing so without tagging me to prevent me from knowing or defending myself, and doing so after I transparently and within-my-rights tried to contact him and other PT-Wiki Checkusers and Admins here as a measure of last resort. For all these violations and bad-faith actions, I believe he should be blocked on EN-Wiki, regardless of his status on PT-Wiki. Alofi Niue (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Conde Edmond Dantès trying to bring this to our attention? no. and Alofi Niue, you are getting into territory of Aspersions. file complaints against him on ptwiki, not enwiki Tankishguy 13:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
At the risk of oversimplifying: Alofi Niue hasn't done anything sanction-worthy on English Wikipedia and we sanction for English Wikipedia conduct. There's already explicitly a path for cross-project sanctions: global blocks and bans. Neither is relevant here. Now, Alofi Niue, I think we can say that Edmond Dantès has explicitly told you to stay off their talk page, except for the explicit exceptions. Can't we just call it a day? I understand that this editor may be causing a problem on Portuguese Wikipedia, but we have plenty of similar English Wikipedia problems to concern us here, on English Wikipedia. If you really feel there's cross-project abuse sufficient for sanctions, then talk to Meta. Just while writing this short message, I'm sure we have had five new LLM editors creating drafts, three violations of WP:CT/SA, and one editor swearing that the person using their IP address and device to make an identical edit is not a sockpuppet. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
CoffeeCrumbs: The only good thing coming out of this case is the realization that the AI slops problem is not limited to the Portuguese Wikipedia, but is affecting Wikipedias around the world. On the Portuguese-language version, the volume of edits has increased so dramatically that it is already threatening to make the work of many editors unsustainable.
As for your point, over the past year, I’ve had to deal with serious cases of doxxing that led some editors to step away from the Wikipedia I’m active on. Some trolls were literally collecting private information, often the names of victims’ family members, creating accounts on other Wikipedias, and making edits specifically to draw the victims’ attention to them. I even have confirmation from a Wikimedia member that someone went so far as to file a complaint with the organization against an administrator of the Portuguese Wikipedia, relying entirely on AI-generated arguments.
My work is entirely focused on combating cross-wiki abuse, and I communicate frequently with the stewards. This is practically the first issue I’ve had to bring to your attention in over a year. Perhaps you still haven’t fully grasped the extent of the harassment, since whenever a user mentions "@Conde Edmond Dantès" or links to one of my subpages, I receive an automatic notification, regardless of which wiki it happens on. Not to mention the other editors he has contacted privately, who have reached out to me asking me to do something about the situation because they themselves don’t want to deal with the case. Or do you think these responses aren’t clear enough: Hyperxzy say "Back here to bother people on the English Wikipedia again?" and Skyshifter say "Please stop contacting me about this matter"?
This started here in early October, but I chose to leave the situation alone until now, especially since he returned about a week ago, behaving even worse than before. I decided to bring the case here because he was blocked on the Portuguese Wikipedia precisely because he exhibited red flags consistent with a pattern of behavior primarily characterized by harassing other editors and instigating editorial disputes. Now, he is using the English Wikipedia for the same purpose. I reiterate that I will respect your decision, but, based on my experience with this kind of behavior, I honestly don’t find it plausible that he will stop of his own accord. Edmond Dantèsd'un message? 03:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thef0rest 2 advocating for "non-contact" MAPs
User blocked, T&S notified. Acroterion(talk) 16:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know there was already a ANI for that editor, but TheAwesomeHwyh seems to have misread what he said or meant and there werent any block for Thef0rest 2. ever since the closure of the other ANI, the problematic editor has seemingly going much further into his advocacy for pro-pedophilia ideas.
Thef0rest2 is not only advocating for illegal things, he is also advocating for the normalization of pro-pedophilia ideas. That editor seems to be normalizing and glorifying "non-offending"/"non-contact" MAPs (see , ,), withwashes child abuses (see ) and has even openly claimed that "non-contact" attraction towards children is a "good thing" (see )
This is a common tactic used by online MAPs/pedophiles to normalize their whole group (and pedophilia). Please block that editor. Thanks!
this is not an attempt to normalise CHILD ABUSE. it is seperate. i don't think adding content, in a pedophile adovacy groups page, about non-offending and anti-contact advocacy, is out of place (sorry if my grammar is weird i'm super tired rn)
can yall people stop calling me an abuse advocate or some shit. Also i DID NOT say non-contact. i said ANTI-contact movements explicitly against abuse, (which focus on harm prevention, btw). these are very different. non-contact is mostly used by those who actually dont have an issue with abuse and only refrain due to legal or social reasons while anti-contact is just a regular person who happens to find kids attractive, while also being against acting on it by offending or hurting kids in any way.
If i am "pro-pedophilia" i'm pro those attracted to children having a place to go so they can be prevented from harm. Those are the movements i am sharing. Virtuous Pedophiles, B4U-ACT, Anti-contact, non-offending. Do i have to agree with you and say pedophile means evil instead of it being an attraction that does not have to result in harm to children? Thef0rest 2 (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of normalising child abuse. I accused you of promoting and advocating the normalization of pedophilia (even thought pedophilia is empirically linked to child abuse). Based on the National Library of Medicine, Pedophilia is defined as a sexual interest in prepubescent children (which is what you are advocating for).
You are also actively WP:TE in the page Pedophile advocacy groups by pushing your own views and possibly even WP:BLUDGEON in this noticeboard as well. Pedophilia should not and will never be normalized and the advocacy of such views is pretty gross and i doubt Wikipedia wants to allow these views to propagate in their pages. This isnt even mentioning the fact you've made a draft page of a pro-zoophilia forum too. I have a huge feeling this account is a WP:SPA. Stmbus (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Could you explain how making 2 modestly sized posts on this noticeboard, one each for sections made about them, constitutes bludgeoning? GabberFlasted (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
sorry, my wording on the bludgeoning was wrong. Its an error on my part
However he was definetly WP:TE and pushing his own fringe ideas as seen in his post history so im glad that he has been blocked now. Stmbus (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Even if the stuff i was adding was about more pro-contact groups it wouldn't mean i'm okay with that. Describing those who sexually abuse children with the whitewashed term "pro-contact" is abhorrent. Reading it made my skin crawl. The "contact" here is child molestation. It's like describing a serial killer as a "pro-contact violence-inclined person".
I do think it's very important to differentiate between child molesters and non-offending pedophiles who are seeking help for their mental disorder and keeping themselves far away from children. I think when you start whitewashing by describing them as "anti-" or "pro-" "contact", "minor attracted persons" is when we run into trouble. A pedophile is a pedophile, and there are pedophiles who do or have assaulted children and there are those who don't or haven't. There are no "pro-contact minor attracted persons". Athanelar (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Their only other edits are to their draft which bizarrely seems to give tips on accessing bestiality porn, And all of its information on that topic and on the topic of the zoophilia forum it relates to are completely unsourced, which begs the question of where they're getting their information from. Athanelar (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Indeffed for fringe POV-pushing and clear breach of the advocacy prohiibition in WP:CHILDPROTECT. Acroterion(talk) 12:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
No prejudice against community siteban. Acroterion(talk) 12:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Block makes sense but in terms of community ban, maybe simplest to just leave this for the foundation/WMF ban? I know they can be a bit slow at times but they seem to deal quite well with these concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep open for potential ban?
Brings back WCNA25 to me Tankishguy 12:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Have T & S been informed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
T&S is aware, and the less said here the better. Acroterion(talk) 16:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
This entire situation is depressing and disturbing. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
more just disturbing than anything else, coming from a guy who has seen it all. Tankishguy 16:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
User:CentennialElections and alternate election pages
This user is apparently doing nothing except creating sandbox pages with contrary-to-fact election results. All of these pages have now been nominated for deletion at MFD and consensus is, of course, running to delete them, as web hosting by a non-contributor and as biographies of living persons violations. But this would be a textbook case of a user who is not here to contribute if there were a textbook. I think that an indefinite block is in order.
Robert McClenon (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Labratscientist political witch-hunting, meatpuppetry, and canvassing
Some time ago I reverted an edit to a page because (in my view) it was overly hagiographic and I restored it to more neutral wording. 1 Labratscientist then proceeded to without explanation, discussion or an edit summary to revert back to the non-neutral wording. 2 Since there was no explanation or discussion, I reverted it back to the NPOV wording. 3 And it stayed like that for about two months. However, a few days ago an IP address reverted again to POV wording but this time levelled egregious personal attacks on me — unrelated to the article or content — tantamount to a political witch-hunt. This was reverted by another editor and I warned the IP user not to make personal attacks.
But then Labratscientist posts on the talk page of the article where, instead of discussing the relevant content of the article or engaging in dispute resolution such as the BRD cycle, user starts casting aspersions calling my contributions to totally unrelated matters “highly disturbing” and, by his own admission, engages in meatpuppetry. This meatpuppet, whom he canvassed, was the same one with a most heinous personal attack against me in the edit summary. And when I confronted Labratscientist with all this, they proceed to accuse me of gaming the system!
I believe this is a serious matter because Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project, and this can only be described as a baseless attempt at a political witch-hunt. It crosses a line and goes directly against the core principles and rules of Wikipedia.
P. S. The aforementioned “highly disturbing edits” Labratscientist lists as examples are me removing completely unsourced content.
Your link to the TA's statement is - you had the wrong link in your original post. Are you asserting that this is WP:LOUT and that, contrary to their protestation, Labratscientist is the one who made the wumao comment? Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Regardless of that assertion @Labratscientist needs to read WP:NPOV. The hagiographic edits to Jimmy Lai were bad enough that I'd be worried about a WP:COI if it weren't pretty clear that it's run-of-the-mill POV pushing. If it's just POV pushing from Labratscientist I'd suggest a warning. If it turns out they're doing LOUT Socking to engage in personal attacks and then disavow them I'd suggest a topic ban from all 20th to 21st century China topics at minimum. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the wrong link, I have corrected it now. I think it should definitely be investigated if this is in fact WP:LOUT. It's definitely suspicious behaviour for a day old IP account. SigillumVert (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I missed the "I asked someone to edit this on my behalf" statement the first time through. WP:LOUT is neither here nor there if WP:MEAT is admitted to. It's still a form of socking to engage in personal attacks with disavowal. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I didn't mean to meatpuppetry, I was going to write the article. If you prefer, I could just stop editing Jimmy Lai, I would not be an enjoyable experience for me to write it either way. Also, what is LOUT Socking? Labratscientist (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I guess I will be banned? Can I still edit the films tho after the "topic ban from all 20th to 21st century China topics"? I am only interested in them either way. Labratscientist (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I should add that the edits I did on Jimmy Lai was to add the Leung Chun-ying controversy and the threats to him along his media tycoon career. If I just remembers them, they should be pretty representative from the pan-democratic view of Lai, I think. I only needed to add this two points and I was done with that article. Labratscientist (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Again, it's a straightforward question: did you ask another editor to make the edit with the wumao edit summary? Simonm223 (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Actually, never-mind, you answered that at article talk. Since you openly admit to WP:LOUT to insult another editor and call them a Chinese state agent while edit warring a POV push, yeah, you should stay away from this. In light of your statement above and with respect for your admission of what you did I would propose the following: Indefinite topic ban from 20th to 21st century Chinese politics this would allow you to work on articles about Chinese movies in most cases (except those that become embroiled in Chinese politics like Wolf Warrior). Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I support this topic ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
One quick question. Can I still do works about politics? Works like Sunless Days. Or is it stricter... Labratscientist (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
There's one in mind I was kind of avoiding, the other is to translate Hong Kong Connection. Hong Kong Connection should be fine. Labratscientist (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The TA (under two TA accounts from the same IP) has been editing for some time. Some of the edits relate to Israeli (not Jewish) nationality issues, others to Macedonian and in one case Colombian nationality. They largely concern basketball players who's playing career is now in another country from that of their birth. While there may possibly be issues per MOS:NATIONALITY with some of the edits (it can get tricky), I can see nothing to suggest this is motivated by any particular form of prejudice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
he did do an edit of a russian person who was anti-Russian invasion of Ukraine while citing russian sources so idk if hes pushing for his views
Generally speaking, patterns require multiple data points to establish. A single edit that isn’t self-evident vandalism isn’t cause for an ANI case. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Targeting in what way? Most of what I'm seeing is changing X-born American to X-American (example a basketball player changed from a Macedonian-born American to a Macedonian-American. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
It should probably be noted here that StarKB1985 appears to be a single-purpose account, with only 60 edits. These almost all concern The Exodus Movement and one of its spokespersons, Elizabeth Pipko. It appears to have been a single edit by the TA to the latter that led StarKB1985 to start this ANI:thread. This particular edit may possibly be problematic regarding the assertion regarding Israeli citizenship (it cites the New York Post, which by consensus isn't WP:RS - I've not been able to access the other sources), but a single edit doesn't constitute 'targeting'. It is entirely possible the TA isn't familiar with Wikipedia policies, and no attempt at communication has been made prior to this thread. Accordingly, I'd advise both the TA and StarKB1985 to take the time to find out how Wikipedia treats these issues, and then to communicate, initially at least on the relevant article talk page. ANI threads are not a substitute for engaging with other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
very little to go on here so this is not a hard accusation, but the combination of circular refs to Wikipedia (Special:Diff/1381725988) and edit summaries fairly similar to known AISUMMARY templates make me a bit suspicious Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
According to their userpage, this account is operated by Muse, an AI assistant, which violates WP:Bot policy and WP:NOLLM. Cicada1010 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this violates the bot policy, it states "any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user pages, user talk pages, user's module sandbox pages and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval." MetalBreaksAndBends (One for all) 19:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I declined to block this case at AIV because it was not obvious to me based on the description that this account is in fact a "bot" account. And, it struck me as a reasonable use of an alternative account.
One would need to argue that the user of this account is not taking the care necessary according to WP:NOLLM to see this as blockable, but that is not an AIV decision. Izno (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I've blocked. I think it is sufficiently clear, and it was indeed violating NOLLM. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Surely AI agents are by default in violation of WP:NOLLM and getting into the weeds about the bot policy is irrelevant anyway? Athanelar (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
AI agents are in extreme contravention of WP:BYHUMANS, but fortunately that's an essay, not a guideline. guninvalid (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
NOLLM is about llm text in content? An agent could check sources or suggest edits so long as they only edit their or their operator's user space. MetalBreaksAndBends (One for all) 01:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Except that LLMs don't actually give sources more than a superficial skim (if that much) and are so unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy any suggested edit would be suspect. —Jéské Courianov^_^vThrillerNight! 07:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
That's fine so long as they're not writing the actual text of the edit. For example, if someone wants to ask AI to review an article for them to identify coverage or npov gaps, there's nothing wrong with that at all. When I've noticed AI agents doing that on talk pages I've mostly left them alone as harmless. If any of them were doing it at scale I'd block them under the bot policy. If an AI is outright writing drafts, though, wherever they may be, I block for NOLLM. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I've only found one agent like that, I really need to up my game. MetalBreaksAndBends (One for all) 18:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The usual path for upping one's game in this way is admin-->SPI clerk-->checkuser. Cheers. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Verified Edits being removed by bots User:Guninvalid
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Self Explainatory Gunivalid is botting ~2026-53549-58 (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
User:guninvalid isn't a bot. Untamed1910 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Firstly, you're supposed to notify any editor you're starting a discussion about (I've done this for you). Secondly, what evidence do you have? The only interaction I see between the two of you is a couple reverts that don't seem botlike at all. If you're having a content dispute, accusing another editor of being a bot isn't the way to resolve it. Streetr4 (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I suffer from a serious case of WP:Wikipediholism, but I can assure you I'm not a bot. This discussion most likely stems from my reverts on both Ninomae Ina'nis and Mori Calliope. The warnings on your talk page are templates which have been written by the community and can be used by anyone by using {{subst:uw-blp2}}, including by yourself. guninvalid (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I also have a suspicion that this user is a sockpuppet, but I don't have solid enough evidence for even WP:SPI, so I'll leave it there. guninvalid (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Of who? If it's another temporary account, I can check with WP:TAIV. Streetr4 (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
If I knew, I would've opened at SPI already. It's only a suspicion so probably not worth pursuing unless someone else wants to echo it. guninvalid (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you meant you knew of two temp accounts and weren't sure if they were connected. Just based on what I can see, they don't have any blocks on their previous accounts, so unless they have a named account they're probably not a sockpuppet. Streetr4 (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user page contains attacks against and insults toward others，and sent me a message containing insults(see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:薏仁將#h-操你妈傻逼！-20261028052400) . Additionally, this may be a puppet account belonging to the user XiaoFui; the username itself is aggressive and insulting in nature. I request that an administrator intervene to investigate and take appropriate action. Thank you.--薏仁將 (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The username above is incorrect, but safe to say the offending user has now been given their customary solipsism block. I imagine it'll be locked soon given their edits. —Jéské Courianov^_^vThrillerNight! 07:08, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply, and to the administrator for the prompt handling of this matter.--薏仁將 (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Teresa Najera
SOCK AND MASTER BLOCKED
I've blocked the TA sock, and added a sitewide block to the sockmaster. I've also encouraged them to cease the block evading behavior and appeal their block on the sock master account. Hopefully that ends this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Content gets injected back by IP address repeatedly
In the article Hudson Rock an IP editor repeatedly re-inserts the biography of their founder which is a previously deleted article. I could not notify any user because it seems to be a rotating IP address. I think the page should be marked as protected. Thanks! PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything to do here. The last time this was done was was over two months ago. This is not an urgent matter warranting a protection. If the problem begins happening again, I recommend making a request at WP:RFPP. But, a consistent pattern of ongoing (not two months in the past) behavior will likely need to be shown to warrant a protection. I'll add it temporarily to my watchlist to help keep an eye on it, but it's not worth protecting at this time. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Actually I'm curious why you keep removing all of it, when the result of the AfD was indeed to merge that information into the Hudson Rock article. If you think it can be cleaned up, then fair enough, but the process was followed and it was agreed to merge it in. Canterbury Tailtalk 16:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
There is nothing to be merged in my view, because the biography is a duplicate of company activities. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The result of the AfD is that there was sufficient content to merge and edit in. Consenus is against you here, and you're the one edit warring to remove content the community decided was appropriate. This isn't the IP at fault here. And you know this, since you were the one that opened the AfD in the first place. You are slow burn edit warring for your preferred version, which is still edit warring. As you know, deletion is not cleanup. You appear to have taken on ownership of the page against multiple other editors. I suggest you remove it from your watchlist and stay away from the article. Canterbury Tailtalk 12:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
This isn't the place for content discussion so I'll keep this brief but IMO cleanup is the clear solution here. The information is clearly not duplicative, it includes significantly more than is being removed. However most of it doesn't seem like it should be about the founder but instead the company. So the solution would be to move it around and re-word it so it's about what the company did rather than what the founder did. There's one bit at the end which seems to be abound the founder so that should be kept about then. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
That's a content dispute. We don't protect articles to take out one party in the content dispute. And it would be odd for a "merge" to result in no change to the merge target. You'd think the result would have been "delete" instead, if there was nothing in the source to merge. —rsjaffe🗣️ 00:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
What a completely disruptive man! Shows no regard. The concept is disputing an honorable man is a deliberately unfunny act on society. - ~2026-57846-38 (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
User is accusing me of being a sock while already blocked . Maybe time to remove talk page access. User was blocked for sock puppetry and and personal attacks in the past. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
DGHMC says there's a "rumor" you're a sock — says it several times, in fact. I've revoked tpa to stop them peddling rumors, which is an overly convenient way of impugning someone's character while retaining deniability. Quite unacceptable. Bishonen|tålk 15:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC).
Sorry, I thought that fell under personal attacks, as I thought I saw a rumor considered that on a thread once. Thanks. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
As a post-closing footnote, it does fall under personal attacks; Bishonen was merely clarifying the sort. - The BushrangerOne ping only 17:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Software to track wikipedia editors
WRONG VENUE
User encouraged to take this up at WP:VPW. —rsjaffe🗣️ 19:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"[We've built software to track Wikipedia [editors]…"]
This appears to be an industrialized doxxing threat from the Anti Defamation League. Is there a way to formally ask the WMF to request clarification on what exactly they are doing?
If you could ping me in - I am currently gathering evidence in a relevant case, and it would be good to know if there is, or is going to be, a venue to present it. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since the request is about global privileges and the new concerns are about activity at meta, any requests need to be at m:Steward requests/Global. —rsjaffe🗣️ 19:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I am proposing a temporary global ban for User:MakaylaHippo1998 for many reasons. One, she has made inappropriate requests on enwiki, and has been partially blocked from AIV and UAA before for it. Secondly, she continues to make similar inappropriate requests on Steward requests/Global on Meta. The Meta abuse likely stems from her not differentiating between cross-wiki LTAs and single-wiki LTAs. Thus, I propose a global ban for her for a period of 3 to 6 months. ~2026-57499-26 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
(Non-admin) Are there diffs to prove this behavior? This is also your first edit, reporting this user.
Ezéchiel Péquay has been changing a bunch of pages about punk rock to add the new wave music genre, using older sources representing an outdated understanding of the music. At the Punk rock page, Ezéchiel Péquay made two such edits, reverted by Issan Sumisu, and then the TA Special:Contributions/~2026-57225-00 came in and restored Ezéchiel Péquay's preferred edit. An accusation of socking voiced at User talk:~2026-57225-00 brought a quick response by Ezéchiel Péquay who had been pinged.
Note that the person now editing as Ezéchiel Péquay was previously active from 2023 through 2025 by way of an IP range, making statements about punk rock such as "Punk Rock not Rock" in the edit summary. At the same time, a parallel path of activity can be seen at Special:Contributions/Nosferatu Verlaine who insisted upon inserting punk genres from older sources. No blocks were issued back then. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend more time looking at more of the pages being affected, but noting two things. 1) The change example given by Binksternet above is a pretty clear example of using a logged out ID to be pretend to be someone other than one's named account in a dispute. (In fact, that change was so obviously intended to deceive that I was going to link to it in this comment before I realized that Binksternet had already done so.) 2) It appears that the underlying problem is that Ezéchiel Péquay does not understand how the terminology around punk rock and "new wave" was used in the 1970s, and how that differs from later usage. Virtually any punk rock band getting media coverage in the 1970s is going to have contemporary sources referring to them as new wave, because that was the usage at the time. The source that they are attempting to add to the Never Mind the Bollocks article is a perfect example: it is entirely unsurprising that the album was considered to fall under the new ware umbrella in 1977, but I cannot imagine any music criticism in the last 30 years and maybe in the last 40+ years referring to the album as new wave. CAVincent (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Ezéchiel Péquay continues to edit war on Punk rock, despite an on-going discussion on the talk page. He has also taken to accusing others of vandalism when restoring challenged edits across multiple articles. See here, here, here and here. --Escape Orbit(Talk) 13:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Disruptive OP of LLM-generated complaint indef'd. If any editor in good standing believes there is an issue here, they are welcome to make a posting in their own words. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am requesting an independent review of the conduct of User:Athanelar in the Articles for Creation Help Desk discussion titled: Second Opinion on Draft:LilRockit
I originally asked for advice about a newspaper source. My question was answered, eventually, and I made clear that I no longer needed assistance.
The discussion became focused on accusations and assumptions about how I write and communicate, rather than my original question.
Athanelar and others accused me of posting AI generated responses, suggested I was treating editors like idiots, and replied sarcastically, “Never heard that one before. Never.”
After their first response to my post I marked the discussion as resolved, but these additional remarks have left me feeling personally targeted.
I understand that editors may disagree with me or question my contributions. However, I am asking whether these personal remarks from them and others in my query are consistent with Wikipedia’s expectations of civility and respectful communication.
I am asking for the conduct in this discussion of all editors to be reviewed.
As I mentioned in one of my Help Desk responses - what good is it asking for help if you are just met with personal assumptions, dismissive remarks and rude responses that are unnecessarily confrontational. I have found all but one of their behaviour unacceptable. Volunteers or not - There is being helpful, then there is being ‘helpful’. BlueOrbit26 (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
At the top of this page and when you start a new topic you are notified that When discussing a user, you must notify them on their talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=}} ~~~~. Please make use of {{userlinks|ExampleUser}}, {{pagelinks|PageName}}, and explanatory diffs in your report.
Not the word "Must" for the notification. Please notify Athenalar. And diffs would be helpful. —rsjaffe🗣️ 00:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Unrelated to this thread I have INDEFfed BlueOrbit26 for DE. This report should likely be closed unless someone sees merit. I have not looked into it in any aspect. StarMississippi 01:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I am reporting Ilamxan for slow-motion edit warring, hostile edit summaries, and an explicit refusal to discuss content disputes on the article talk page.
26 October 2026: Rather than responding on the talk page, Ilamxan waited six days and performed consecutive reverts without participating in the thread:
The editor is repeatedly restoring an unqualified version of the text using edit summaries while explicitly rejecting talk page consensus-building. By selectively quoting the source and omitting who subsequent historians were, they are stripping the historiographical context. Despite an open thread on the talk page for nearly a week, they refuse to engage.
Requested action
Temporary page protection on Arab Iraq to halt the edit war.
An administrative warning to User Ilamxan requiring them to use the talk page and establish consensus before re-inserting disputed text, per WP:BRD. Thegiantofgiants (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
"Mostawfi describes the provinces of Iran in 20 chapters, beginning with Iraq (ʿErāq-e Arab) or “the heart of Irānšahr,” … This mode of conceptualizing Iran’s history and geography has been followed by other historians since the 13th century."
It does not say Persian geographical and historical works, just historians. As a matter of fact the Hamdallah Mustawfi article says "A highly influential figure, Mustawfi's way of conceptualizing the history and geography of Iran has been emulated by other historians since the 13th century." You're trying to imply that this method is was adopted by "Persian" historiography specifically when thats not supported anywhere.
And Mostawfi is not limited to the Ilkhanid period, he lived afterwards and is already influential on his own. Everything is backed by the source as it said, what is there to discuss? Ilamxan (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Pushing a non-neutral interpretation (WP:NPOV / WP:CONTEXT): The cited source (Ashraf 2006, Encyclopaedia Iranica) specifically discusses Persian historians writing about medieval Iran, and every single "other historian" named in the text is Persian. Ilamxan refuses to engage with neutral contextualization, pushing a literalist reading to make it sound like this Persian-centric geographical framework was accepted by non-Iranian historians in general.
I request temporary page protection and a directive for Ilamxan to use the article talk page Thegiantofgiants (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I still fail to see where the source limits it to Persian historians. The other sections filled with Persian historians have nothing to do with that paragraph. This is just one source that claims that Arab historians used the nickname too hence it was not just Persian ones (The Abbasid Caliphate: A History, Tayeb El-Hibri, 2021, pp. 48, 9781316872253). Ilamxan (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
User:Amandamillsaps74: Continually restoring AI-generated content despite several warnings
When I pointed out that AI-generated content is not allowed on Wikipedia, their response (Special:Diff/1381517234) was Respectfully, I decline your edit suggestions and will continue to undo your activities as I discover them., so they clearly do not care at all what Wikipedia's guidelines are. (Isn't it great when people attach "Respectfully" as if it's some magic incantation that will substitute for having to be respectful?) Therefore, they should "respectfully" be blocked. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
There's a parallel in English courtroom practice, in which "I submit that" means "My argument is", whereas "I respectfully submit that" means "Your Lordship is an idiot". Narky Blert (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I mean they're just going to re-add the AI writing after a week, by all indications this does not seem like someone who cares about anything but cramming their non-compliant AI slop into an article Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Probably but that gives time for the AI to be investigated properly and a full block to follow. CambridgeBayWeather (Alappaa), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 18:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Seconding the fact that this AI use is absurdly blatant and undeniable, and continuing to readd it and lie about it is disruptive editing per WP:LLMDISRUPT. Indef and move on. Not sure how that isn't the default reaction to somebody being informed about a guideline and responding with "no thanks!" Athanelar (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello administrators. I am a new user, and I am using my private subpages to practice making templates for a fictional country and an airline.
A user with the account name ~2026-54957-04 left a fake warning on my user talk page, claiming that my sandbox pages are "fake articles". They do not seem to understand how sandboxes work and are harassing me.
Can an administrator please look into this and tell this user to leave me alone so I can practice in peace? Thank you! 3r4388 (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Here is an screenshot as evidence. 3r4388 (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
It's OK to practice in your sandbox, and it's extremely premature to invoke WP:NOTWEBHOST after a few hours, but I wouldn't call one polite warning "harassment."
There's a more pressing issue, though: the sandbox articles appear to be AI-generated. There's no guideline, exactly, against AI-generated content in sandboxes, but if you plan on creating articles outside of it, you need to do that without AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
thanks, but im not planing to create articles outside it, you can give them an warning. i deleted the message because i thought an actual administrator accutaly posted it but i noticed some stuff: no admisntrator can use an temeparory account name. 3r4388 (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I see no need for a warning, since the politely worded notice they placed on your user talk page was not harassment, even if the user ought to have waited a bit before placing it.
You have to notify other users when you start a thread about them here. You do not seem to have let the TA user know – please do it now. Thanks! --bonadeacontributionstalk 13:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
If you're not planning to create articles outside your sandbox, what is the purpose of your edits in your sandbox? EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
To learn how to edit (im not gonna use AI) 3r4388 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a free host for your fiction. If you're only creating content not intended to improve the encyclopaedia, then you're arguably not here for the right reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Presumably as they are a new user they want to see how edits and formatting will look and don't want to accidentally disrupt an existing page. I don't think what they are doing is unreasonable.
However I think the talk page notice was also reasonable and coming to ANI was premature. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I concur. We should take them at their word that they're worning, and not WP:BITE a newcomer. 3r4388, as you can see, fictitious articles make people around here nervous. I'd recommend copying the source of an article you intend to edit and put that in your sandbox; that would let you keep experimenting without making others worry about your intentions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia editors don't have to be admins to leave polite notices on other editors' talk pages, as the TA did on yours, or even more strongly-worded warnings. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@3r4388 There's a relevant guideline here literally called WP:FAKEARTICLE, which you do in fact seem to be in violation of.
Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles but are not intended for mainspace. This is exactly what you seem to be doing, and this TA is correct to inform you of it. That said it's not a big deal, you're obviously acting in good faith and trying to practice editing, but you suould be aware of the relevant guidelines here. Athanelar (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
JMK started to edit Falun Gong topic in June. Since then, they have made 218+ edits on the Falun Gong page, 173+ edits on the Teachings of Falun Gong page, dozens of edits on other Falun Gong-related pages. In these edits and related talk page discussions, I have seen many of the same behaviors mentioned above. The following are some examples:
Adding an AI-fabricated quote to an article and later denying having added it: On Sept. 12, JMK added this quotation "casting off the mixed physical illusions of the mortal flesh to reveal their true spiritual form." to the Teachings of Falun Gong page, attributing it to scholar Benjamin Penny's book The Religion of Falun Gong (p.217). However, this quote was not from the book, but rather generated by Gemini, as they later admitted. Another editor removed it, saying "content does not seem to appear in Penny's book." JMK restored it, saying in edit summary: "Make one more falsehood, and with God as my witness - I will report immediately to ANI".
Then, JMK challenged that editor on their user talk page, saying "why are you lying to me?". After that editor provided the actual paragraph from page 217 of Penny's book and asked them where they got their quote from, JMK admitted they got it from Gemini. They apologized, struck through their earlier comments, and self-reverted that edit.
But on Oct. 5, when I mentioned this incident on Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong as an example of JMK adding original research to articles, they replied "I didn't think Google Gemini would lie but I never added it to the article and I self corrected and struck it out in talk". But they did add the AI-fabricated quote to the article and did it twice, as mentioned above.
WP:Bludgeoning: In JMK's Taiwan TBAN discussion, bludgeoning is a major concern raised by editors. JMK promised "If I bludgeon again, I will accept a permanent topic ban." In the Falun Gong topic, JMK appears to be engaged in the same behavior: they replied to almost everyone who disagreed with them, often with long-winded comments.
In this WP:RSN discussion that JMK started about an academic source on Falun Gong, they made 16 out of the total 32 comments, often long;
On Talk:Falun Gong JMK made 55 out of the total 111 comments since Aug. 2 (excluding older threads already archived), many with long texts;
On Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong JMK made 33 out of the total 71 comments since August (excluding 3 threads started by JMK that no one interacted with), many with long texts.
Casting aspersions and making uncivil comments and edit summaries:
"if you continue to keep replying to me with these overt falsehoods then I will consider building a case to report to Ani specifically about how you keep advancing these extreme falsehoods"
"You need better reading comprehension."
"Don't be obtuse." on Aug. 7 ; on Sept. 13
"Don't be disingenuous… don't insult my intelligence."
"That is bull." in edit summary
WP:ICANTHEARYOU: JMK agreed in June to drop an opinion article by a non-expert, then proposed to restore it in Oct. as a secondary source and a journalistic investigation. The following timeline shows how much it took for JMK to acknowledge it is an opinion piece:
June 19–20: Two editors, including me, explained on the Falun Gong talk page that an opinion piece by a non-expert on ABC News is not a reliable source for factual claims about Falun Gong's beliefs and that it is a primary source. JMK eventually agreed not to add the source back.
Oct. 3–4: JMK proposed to restore it as "a secondary source (ABC News) reporting the teaching". Another editor replied that it is "an opinion article (labeled clearly)".
Oct. 7: JMK proposed an RfC draft calling it a "secondary source" and "independent journalistic investigations by ABC News". The editor reminded them that it is an opinion article and a primary source, and that this "has also been stated multiple times." JMK changed the wording to "the ABC Religion & Ethics article" but still listed it among "secondary sources".
Oct. 13–14: The editor reminded JMK again that it is an opinion article, not an ABC report, and that "WP:NEWSOPED states clearly that opinion articles are primary sources," citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. JMK replied "I am not going to term it as an opinion when it's arguably a statement of fact." JMK changed the RfC draft wording to "an opinion piece" 23 minutes later.
The above are the same type of behaviors raised in the Taiwan TBAN discussion (Bludgeoning, ICANTHEARYOU, and AI use), despite JMK's promise there not to bludgeon again. I hope admins can take a look at these behaviors and decide if a TBAN from Falun Gong should be given to JaredMcKenzie. MrGerLib (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I want to note at the start of this that I was briefly involved in at least one of these discussions (regarding the ABC source) and actually agreed with JMK that it should be included, with attribution, as I think the accounts of people who leave charismatically-led new-religious-movements can be significant at getting at issues that NRMs tend to treat as being for within-the-community-of-worship only. However, notwithstanding that agreement, I share some of MrGerLib's concerns. I do want to note that there are definitely some WP:CPUSH issues with the Falun Gong pages and this is certainly not new. I do remember, with the opposite of fondness, back when the FLG and the Epoch Times had paid employees whose job it was to edit Wikipedia all day, pushing pro-FLG narratives, and I've been concerned to see some of those pro-FLG narratives returning such as the push to downplay the far-right extremity of the Epoch Times.
But, the thing is, that the presence of CPUSH doesn't justify disregarding consensus and certainly doesn't justify the abuse of AI. I don't think JMK has comported themselves in a positive manner at these pages. I don't think they're alone in this regard. I am loath to explode additional drama into the drama board and so I'll say I don't think these issues are sanctionable at this time with regard to other parties. But I do hope an outcome of this discussion will be increased general and neutral scrutiny of Falun Gong pages and won't end at just expanding one editor's TBAN and calling it a day. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, Simonm223. I am not familiar with the history, but I'd welcome neutral scrutiny of Falun Gong pages. Regarding the opinion article by an ex-practitioner, I am not talking about any content dispute here, as that has already been discussed on the Falun Gong Talk page. I am concerned about how JMK characterized the source and how much it took for them to do so properly. MrGerLib (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that's a content dispute and best left to article page. I honestly mentioned it to situate that, when I say I agree JMK's behaviour has been sub-standard that's despite the fact that I actually agree with them about some of the content dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
This is rich and an unfair characterisation.
Bulk of my other edits are carefully sourced via non paywalled sources. I do not have a habit of using Google Gemini in backing my edits. However it was one time when after I felt disillusioned how they misquoted Ownby when their editor added in a quote from Penny's book - in which the page was not available for preview to the public.
So without being able to read the source and check that edit easily, I made the one error of asking Google Gemini who mislead me in the quote. Afterwards, I made a promise to myself that I will never trust Google Gemini again and struck out my comment, apologized to the user and that issue was resolved promptly and long ago.
Using Gemini is a one time error that I would not repeat again so it is not an urgent or persistent issue.
I don't have issues with other editors and there have been disputes while @Simonm223 and @Binksternet would constantly revert edits from a certain group of editors while also backing my edits as proper and well sourced. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
This complaint by MrGerLib appears to be an attempt to take back control of the Falun Gong topic group narrative, as MrGerLib is one of a group of editors who continually promote Falun Gong's interests and diminish criticism as much as possible. The pro-Falun wiki editors always team up against anyone who dares to expand Falun Gong pages with well-cited critical material, which means the defense against that onslaught appears to be bludgeoning when in fact it is answering multiple editors. If MrGerLib succeeds in shutting down JaredMcKenzie, then the Falun-favoring editors will have their way with the topics, pushing non-neutral aspects and interpretations. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Since you brought up two of my edits, I will just explain them briefly here. For the first edit , I've already resolved it with Simonm223 on my user talk page . It is an editing issue, not a POV issue. Even JMK didn't disagree with that edit, which was initially made by 23impartial, and restored it. See this talk thread. Regarding the second edit , I didn't remove any content. I only added in-text attribution to two scholars in Chinese universities, per WP:Academic freedom and Wikipedia.
BTW, on August 6, after their edit in the lead was reverted, JMK pinged you , and 15 minutes later, you restored their reverted edit, saying "Rv... restore well-cited summary of scholars". But it turned out that 2 main clauses in that edit were not supported by any of the 5 sources cited. JMK eventually removed that sentence from the first paragraph of the lead. See this talk page discussion. . MrGerLib (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Frankly the idea that "you can't trust them (academics who work with) commies" is one of the most perverse misinterpretations of WP:NPOV to rear its head on this platform. Should we qualify that Ownby's FLG book was published by a UK state institution? Or that he works for a Canadian state institution? State institutions are no more neutral in allied capitalist countries than they are in antagonistic socialist ones. That someone thinks this is an appropriate sentiment to utter on Wikipedia is deeply dangerous to our mission as a neutral, international knowledge base. Simonm223 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
China's academic freedom index is near the bottom among all countries. The UK and Canada don't have this issue. Major universities in China are all state-run, which is not the case in UK and Canada. Their governments don't persecute Falun Gong either. WP:Academic freedom and Wikipedia gives an example of in-text attribution: According to __ scholar at Moscow State University..." I was only following that example. MrGerLib (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you are assigning too much authority to a single index composed by a single German university to then discount the academic contributions of every scholar in the most populous country in the world and in the process making WP:SYNTH assumptions about what "academic freedom" means and how it might apply to due weight. This is patently ridiculous, even if it is a popular opinion among POV pushers who want to right the great wrong of socialism. Simonm223 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I started writing a very harsh response because the gemini thing just seemed insane - I really don't understand why anyone would go to an LLM for a quote of all things. For a 2 minute summary maybe? But asking for a quote is asking to be lied to. Now that Jared has said this was a one time error, I think we have to take him at his word (barring any future recurrence, at which point the word goes out the window).
The issue of standing by the fabricated quote, again pretty terrible in isolation, but the user says this is part of the same one time error. You really can't trust LLMs, and it's kind of a WP:CIR issue not to know that, but hopefully that's been rectified now.
Disregarding the Gemini thing, the rest of OP's evidence is convincing. The bludgeoning at the RSN shown in OP is very clear (like 2 thirds of the words are from this user), as is the diff from the TBAN discussion less than a year ago where Jared says they now understand bludgeoning and take responsibility to avoid it. The ICANTHEARYOU evidence seems solid too.
I am open to the suggestion that there is a pro-Falun side imposing its will numerically - such things have been known to happen - but @JaredMcKenzie even if that's the case, are you going to say that the evidence posted here is wrong? It seems right to me. And if it's right, do you have any suggestion for how you would prevent yourself from editing this way, rather than other people having to prevent you? Samuelshraga (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
There is much context missing from OP's report.
When he claims that two others support him. He is basically referring to the group of pro Falun Gong interest editors that are constantly supporting each other and have been problematic on Falun Gong article in which veteran editor like @Binksternet and @Simonm223 can also confirm.
Here is just one example of why they have been difficult and why I became skeptical of them. Recently, I mentioned to @MrGerLib that Li Hongzhi does in fact predicts doomsday scenarios since he talks about evil aliens will take over humanity and that our future society will have people where our organ and limbs no longer work, but only his believers will be spared and saved. That is obviously within the grounds of apocalyptic pseudoscience and cult mythology.
However @MrGerLib doesn't want to admit that it's an end of world religious theory and so they reply to tell me that such a prediction is not "that much different to experts warning us how AI will destroy humanity". That is an absurd comparison that completely misses my point. As experts warning about AI risks are not equivalent to some religious leader making extraordinary claims about evil alien and exclusive salvation for his followers.
Also before my Gemini error, the wider group of pro Falun Gong editors had just argued with me that Ownby claims that Li never made anti-science teachings. They even give me his quote while simultaneously saying this but it's them who misquoted Ownby.
Ownby quote:
One of Li Hongzhi’s favorite themes is that of modern science. Again and again in his lectures, he returns to the limitations of the scientific paradigm and the blind arrogance of the world scientific community. Not that Li’s vision is antiscientific or necessarily antimodern in the way that, say, some Mennonites’ world views might be understood to be. On the contrary, Li claims to speak the language of modern science and seems quite content that his followers take advantage of all that modern science has to offer—indeed, without modern telecommunications, most notably the Internet, Falun Gong most certainly would not have achieved its present form.
It is very clear that Ownby was saying that Li was very critical of modern science and hence it's disinfo to say the opposite. I find it shocking that they will give me that quote above and tell me I am wrong for not agreeing with them. I don't feel they should get away with that. But nonetheless I did not report it but let it go.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
So here's the thing. @Binksternet is correct, as I was alluding to in my own comment, that there are CPUSH issues at the FLG articles right now. And what @JaredMcKenzie describes above is exactly that - an example of CPUSH tactics. I don't personally think that justifies using quotes pulled off of Gemini without checking sources (I think anyone familiar with me knows I tend to be a sources-first sort of person). So this kind of squares the circle as to why I agree with them on content but not on comportment. Of course the end result of this is seeing just one editor other than myself pushing back against obvious CPUSH tactics was that I went to edit other things that wouldn't give me a headache and they ended up here.
I've said, above in this thread, that I don't think comportment at the FLG pages rises to sanctionable. Yet. I'd suggest, in light of Bink's statement (which I do somewhat reluctantly agree with) that JMK be warned that any further abuse of AI would lead to sanctions and that, hopefully, the attention this thread creates will bring some new blood to pages that desperately need it. Before we end up with yet another Arbitration case about this contentious topic. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
+1 It's not just the CPUSH tactics they use. When I done the diligent work of correcting their misinformation, these pro Falun Gong editors sourly responded by casting aspersions at me like I am a problematic editor making up a non-existent issue. Really, that conduct is what's solid grounds for a warning/ or community ban.
Rather than just acknowledge the substance of my concern, they questioned why I raised it in the first place and starting a petty fight. You can imagine how that is very frustrating when I had legit grounds to challenge their misrepresentation of a source and had taken the time and effort to explain those grounds.
That doesn't excuse my own actions for the Google Gemini mistake but at least I apologize for that. Regardless in the end, I find it hard to continue with them and no longer wish to talk with them further. Lately, in all my final threads with them, I given up and they all end with me stating it is clear we cannot agree with each other but other users like @Simonm223 and @Binksternet etc, agree with me and hence there is no consensus. I have made it clear to themm that I am not willing to continue debating the issue directly, and further discussion should ideally take place thru rFc. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@JaredMcKenzie, I'm not very impressed by blaming others. You've apologised for the AI misuse, so I'm going to draw a line under that. I think the warning suggested above would be redundant, both because you've already apologised, and because whether you're warned or not there's no way another instance of AI misuse will pass, people here are extremely wary of that. I'm more concerned by the bludgeoning/IDONTHEARTHAT/source misrepresentation bit.
On that, you have a choice. You can either bluster it out, blame everyone else, and hope that this report doesn't come to a conclusion on sanctions and that you skate on this one. It could happen, ANI is very disorganised and a lot of serious reports get archived without action. Or you could consider your own behaviour reflectively, tell us where the portrayal we've received is false, where you've fallen short, and how you might change to fix that. I would extend a lot of credit to the editor who chooses the latter course. And I'm probably not going to pay much attention to your opinion of other editors until after that. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, no, I agree with Binksternet that the claims of bludgeoning and IDHT are seriously over-egged here. The thing that bothers me is a failure to adhere to sources. IF JMK will commit to avoiding that comportment this thread can be closed IMO. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
They are overstating it. When I say stuff like don't insult my intelligence and that I will report them if they do it again, there is background. I actually have on multiple occasions tolerated their falsehoods of me.
Here, this editor nitpicks where on the talk thread, I had accidentally called Britannica as a secondary source instead of tertiary. It's not a big deal and I fixed it as soon as they raised it the first time but they falsely claimed WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as if editors had to repeatedly tell me that Brittanica is tertiary and I refuse to listen to them.
At the beginning, I let that fib go but later on, they reply with a snarky comment again saying - The fact that you think the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is trivial says a lot. After which I warned them not to make up inflated claims on me and will take to Ani if they continue with this and also asked for an apology, which they have not given.
Regardless, for the mistake I did make - Google Gemini error - I at least made a proper apology to the user on their talk, struck out my comment and have not repeated that error since. I believe my last message to them on that error was civil and resolved. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Your description of my position on the apocalypse issue above isn't accurate. Here is my full comment on the talk page. Regarding the discussion about Ownby's quote, here is the WP:RSN thread so that everyone can see its full context. MrGerLib (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Really? I told you that Li predicts the world will end where it's either evil aliens going to destroy us or our bodies won't have functional organs and li can only save his followers.
Yet you whitewash these claims by saying - "I don't see how that is much different from what some experts have predicted recently about AI potentially wiping out human civilization in the future if we don't slow down its development"
So it seemed very clear to me that you wanted to present that prediction as not so much a crazy doomsday claim but closer to a scientific opinion. This allows you to civil pov push that Li was not predicting an end of our civilization in a religious cult-like manner..
Regardless the key issue with Danny's statement is that it's an absurd lie of omission. Danny wasn't interested in explaining how followers expect a coming apocalypse but mislead people into thinking nothing of that sort is taught by Li. I believe his statement will risk misleading readers when he said "Li ALWAYS discourage predicting doomsday theories". I prefer proper explanations like from Palmer and Penny who explains how Li doesn't set a specific date for judgement day but just says it's coming and also after the Apocalyptic event where most of us are being destroyed for not believing Li, the world will start a new civilization from scratch. That would be more honest. Danny's statement by itself would easily mislead others and why I preferred its better to be removed. But you defend that comment despite any neutral editor would agree with me it's heavily misleading to say the least and is best removed.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
To be fair to MrGerLib, there was more than just using AI in that part. In order, it was: Using AI, threatening to take another user with ANI for 'making a falsehood', doubling down at the user's talk page, and then misrepresenting what happened later on.
Though, to be completely fair, I am inclined to believe Simonm223 that I don't think these issues are sanctionable at this time with regard to other parties. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, that comportment from JMK needs to stop. I do think they should be warned that any such continuance would lead to a topic ban. I do also think they should get that warning rather than just kicking them off the raft. After all the efforts to downplay FLG apocalypticism, FLG anti-medicine positions and Epoch Times extremity as a far-right disinfo vehicle have been pervasive on FLG related pages lately. I do suggest lending some very limited latitude to people acting up in such cases. Basically I'm saying WP:ROPE is relevant here. And for more than one editor. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
To be fair, Thomas Meng was arguably oversimplifying or misrepresenting Li's position by implication. It risked suggesting that Li considered other religions effective for achieving consummation through cultivation in the modern era. However, I was familiar with reliable sources that directly contradicted that implication. That's why I doubted their interpretation.
When I later reverted my edit, I explained to them that their given quote itself doesn't establish that Li consider other religions effective in the modern era. I also cited David Palmer who explicitly describes Li position that other religions have been declining and that Falun Gong is superior to orthodox religions including Christianity; and that now all other religions are incapable of bringing salvation to humanity. (A very different picture from the one implied by their edit)
Orthodox religions, i.e. Taoism and Buddhism (for Li Hongzhi, Christianity is a form of Buddhism66) have long been in decline, and today practise only external forms. They are now incapable of bringing salvation to humanity. Buddhas and gods no longer pay attention to these religions67; rather, they are now studying Falun Gong by the myriads68.
Ultimately, I am uncertain if they quoted Penny right but I decided in the end to take them on their word. We resolved the issue productively where I acknowledged my own error while addressing the misleading implication of their edit, without further speculating about their intentions.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I've edited a bit in this topic area and will say it does not bring out the best in anyone involved (which is why I have mostly avoided it despite having quite the interest).
The AI misuse is bad and I have the impression of JaredMcKenzie as at times being overly hostile in discussions. At this stage, I do not see the need for much more than a warning: stop with the AI issues especially and try to be less harsh. Beyond that I am not seeing the need for a topic ban provided they take the warning.
The rest of this is a content dispute and is best not litigated at ANI. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
This account was created back in 2013, but has stuck to reasonably modest edits throughout its tenure, until just a couple weeks ago. I was alerted by this major revision to a featured article, about +25k of wikitext. Looking at their contribs, I see similar edits to other Mario franchise-related articles in this time span. This is strong circumstantial evidence on its own of sudden LLM use, and I went to the user's talk page to ask about it, when I see two other people have already brought it up, User talk:2005-Fan#Mario Family. I was just going to add a third voice, when I looked at their denials, which also reek of that overconfident LLM tone. At this point, I think more is required. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 16:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you file an AINB case as well for analysis and cleanup? ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Done (maybe even correctly?). That's a...daunting list of open cases:(. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 18:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
also AI edit summaries everywhere e.g., Expand gameplay (moveset, cap loss, 3D castle hub, course mechanics, Secret Stars), development (hakoniwa design, swimming animation, soundtrack, localization), and re-releases (1998 Player's Choice, 2015 Wii U VC); convert Fan projects list to prose, replace unreliable IGN wiki refs, and fix CS1/markup errors per WP:VG/MOS, Comprehensive overhaul: expanded development history (Koizumi interviews, concept design evolution) and media appearances; integrated verified citations to resolve {{cleanup rewrite}} and {{original research}} tags; copyedited for neutral encyclopedic tone per MOS:VG., etc Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
It's a bit unfortunate that someone suddenly retires due to an ANI without providing their input. I honestly think there could have been a discussion and perhaps a sound resolution if they were willing to talk this out and fess up to the LLM usage. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
or, god forbid, actually read the guidelines first Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I've indefinitely blocked from mainspace. They're welcome to communicate and request an unblock if their retirement is a brief one StarMississippi 16:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Attempting to start an RFC on the ZAK SMITH page titled: How should the Zak Smith article be updated to reflect recent reporting on the conclusion of Smith's litigations?
WRONG VENUE
This page is for urgent incidents and chronic behavioral issues. This issue is neither of those. Further, this appears to be forum shopping given ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. There's nothing to do here. Go back to the article talk page and attempt to achieve consensus moving forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I generated a new RFC on the ZAK SMITH talk page [Zak_Smith] which was almost immediately collapsed and deemed as AI generated by editors historically policing the page. Any help in this matter is greatly appreciated. There are new sources and the information on the page should be updated per BLP policy.
Background:
A September 2025 RFC concluded that sexual abuse allegations made against Zak Smith should be covered in Smith's biography in a truncated form, consisting of 1–3 sentences incorporated into another section, alongside an update on the litigations. (Previous RFC https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&oldid=1313205361)
Since that RFC, the litigations, including a central litigation between Smith and his ex-wife (Morbid/Nagy) have reached final appellate outcomes and sources have reported on Smith's litigation as a whole.
From The Weekly Footnote: “Smith sued successfully over these claims five times in five different defamation suits across the world (including in Canada where Nagy now resides, Los Angeles, New Zealand, Australia and Switzerland) against Nagy and those who repeated the accusations. Many of his models testified on his behalf.“
The current wording does not reflect the final outcome of the litigation between Smith and Nagy. The question is how to incorporate that outcome (and others) while retaining the scope of the previous RFC.
Several sources covered the legal outcome of the Nagy/Smith case as well as Smith’s other legal cases:
In February 2019, due to allegations of sexual abuse by several women including his former wife, adult industry performer Mandy Morbid,[16][20][21] Wizards of the Coast announced that they would be removing all references to Smith from the print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition, OneBookShelf announced it would no longer work with Smith, and he was also banned from attending Gen Con.[16][22][23] Smith denied the accusations and filed defamation lawsuits against Morbid and other people.[20][24] His defamation suit against Gen Con was dismissed in May 2023 after Smith deliberately violated discovery rules by failing to respond to Gen Con's requests, a decision upheld by the Washington Court of Appeals in October 2024.[25][26]
Question:
How can the article be updated to reflect the outcome of Smith's cases?
Suggested replacement wording:
In February 2019, following allegations of sexual abuse by several women, including his former wife, adult industry performer Mandy Morbid,[16][20][21] Wizards of the Coast announced that it would remove references to Smith from the print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition, OneBookShelf announced that it would no longer work with him, and he was banned from attending Gen Con.[16][22][23] A defamation suit against Gen Con was dismissed in May 2023 after he failed to comply with discovery obligations, a decision upheld by the Washington Court of Appeals in October 2024.[25][26] Smith was never charged with any crime but responded to the resulting online harassment by successfully suing those who made and repeated Nagy and company’s allegations five times in five countries including a verdict in August 2026 against Morbid herself.” [new sources]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've got to say, this looks pretty bad. A guy was
accused of some pretty heinous crimes, which we write about;
he lost noticeable work because of it, which we write about;
he sued in court and lost, which we write about;
then he sued in court, and won, with a ruling that the accusations were unfounded unsubstantiated - which we don't write about?
And when he tries to complain on the article talk page, his complaint is closed, without response, and when he tries to complain here, his complaint is again closed, without response, on a technical issue? Come on, folks, this is just wrong. This is exactly what WP:BLPKIND is about. I'm going to go to the article talk page, but I have to say I am disappointed in the response he is getting here. --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
To understand the situation better, you might want to look at the previous RFC in the talk pages, the Arbcom request about it, the ARCA about it, the previous time (still on the talk page) where someone got blocked for raising this, and of course Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/FixerFixerFixer. If your assumption is correct and the person complaining is the article subject, he is evading several blocks. - MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Also with a ruling that the accusations were unfounded - that's not really an accurate summary. - MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Correct, "unsubstantiated" was the word. "Last year, Smith came out the victor. Ottawa Superior Court judge Marc Labrosse dismissed both Nagy’s defamation and sexual battery actions, after finding “Mandy (had) not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she did not consent to the sexual activity at the time and that Zak knew or ought to have known that she did not consent” ... Meanwhile, Smith was successful in his defamation suit against Nagy’s unsubstantiated charges ..." --GRuban (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Best of luck to you. I came into the last RfC trying very hard to be neutral and source-oriented and what I got for my trouble was I got doxxed. I will not touch that article again. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
We need to be very careful about using these weak sources and particularly using the court judgment as a source, since the summary you have here is not at all an accurate summary of the judgment. As I've written about this before, I'm concerned about using the court as a source. It rules that some pretty incendiary stuff was truthful, and we'd be opening the door to Smith's critics as well with it - I don't want a second wave of SPAs asking why we can use the judgment for statement A on one side of the dispute but not statement B on the other side. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
~2026-57880-53 has made three attempts to remove significant sections of content from Transgender Trend, two of which were filtered automatically. They are kvetching in response to warnings on User talk:~2026-57880-53 and making insinuations which may be considered personal attacks. It is clear that they are here to try to manage the reputation of Transgender Trend, to stir up trouble and generally not here to improve Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The whole "massive red flag" text might be enough for an indef alone, my word. Beta Beta Beta - talk 01:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
(involved) I agree with DanielRigal here. This user has cast multiple aspersions, including seemingly insinuating that DR didn't care about 'vulnerable children' just because DR didn't agree with the user's edit (which the user called a 'massive red flag', as Beta Beta Beta calls out above), claimed I was 'spreading false information' for calling TT, a group labeled as anti-trans in its article lede, anti-trans in my warning message, and cast another aspersion accusing DR of not liking truth. I would support an indef, at least for the very serious accusation relating to trans children towards DR (which reminds me of a similar aspersion cast against DR by another now-blocked user). ✦Inzessin✦(talk) 01:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Talk page abuse, threat of death, please revoke TPA, thanks. -Lemonaka 02:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Already done — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Legal threat by a TA
Hello, a TA (~2026-57859-18) has made a legal threat against me and personal attacks in a since reverted reply to a standard uw-unsourced1 warning on their talk page. Strongshorts (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
That's not a legal threat, though they are incorrect. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
In a previous revision they said "I will personally sue you' " Strongshorts (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Blocked. They did remove it from their page, but the subsequent comment doesn't really reject the threat. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The user replied to the block notification with another legal threat. Also the first one was removed by a Recent Changes Patroller, not them themselves Strongshorts (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Personal attacks: ConflictFan has called me "disingenuous" (1), "stone-headed" (2) and " disruptive", described my contributions as "slop" (3), and accused me and user:Benyamin of "sealioning" when we requested reliable sources (4). I objected to these personal attacks, but he continued making them (5). He also asked Benyamin, "Are you a sockpuppet?", without providing evidence for this suspicion (6). ConflictFan has repeatedly accused me of using AI in my contributions to this article, suggesting that I cannot form my own opinions. I have good reason to disagree. According to XTools, I have contributed more content to the fa:پرچم ایران article on Persian Wikipedia than any other editor. I made these contributions before AI tools became widely available.
Disruptive editing: ConflictFan requested secondary sources for the section "Standardization of the Lion and Sun". I respected his request and provided two secondary sources (Mo’tazed and FOTW) (7). To my surprise, he ignored them. On 19 October, he proposed deleting the section, claiming that it relied exclusively on primary sources (8). The following day, without receiving any response from other editors in that discussion, he removed the entire section along with its references (9).
Possible conflict of interest (self-promotion): ConflictFan modified Sodacan's design on WikiCommons. He then created his own website, iranflag.org, and has been promoting his modified version on Wikipedia with the help of WikiCommons. I have no objection to him running his own website, but I do object to him promoting his personal work on Wikipedia. (10 and 11 and image)
I would appreciate an administrator reviewing these concerns. As ConflictFan continued making personal attacks even after I objected, I no longer wish to engage in further discussions with him. Shfarshid (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I mean this comment does show some AI Signs itself. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah there is some AI usage that should stop it seems from OP, but the (1) insult of stone headed against OP are very much problematic as well. (2) is a content dispute ill suited to ANI. (3) is problematic as well, if an editor is self promoting somehow on Wikipedia . The discussion of interest (i think) here Talk:Lion and Sun flag#h-Infobox flag designs-20261019003200 seems to have degenerated as well. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 14:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Dorud,
Your contributions on the take page and article Lion and Sun flag do count as disruptive. I explain thoroughly in this message why I believe so and asked you to be more constructive. Regarding disingenuity, you also claim that the modern designs that millions of Iranians use have no historical basis and therefore should be completely disregarded, however you made an artistic interpretation of a postage stamp and passed it off as a historical flag and want it to show up at the top of the page.
Below is an excerpt of that aforementioned talk page message for reference:
Extended content
Hello @Shfarshid. Apologies for the delayed response. Before I address what you raised, I want to first guide you to this excerpt from a guideline so that we have a chance at arriving upon a consensus:
A disruptive editor often exhibits these tendencies:
Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.
Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.
Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} or {{more citations needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is problematic.
repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
Tendency #4 is particularly relevant, because you are selectively engaging ad nauseam. I hope you can appreciate that I try to address each of your points in my replies, but when it's your turn to comment, you do not appear to put in the same effort to ensure a constructive discussion. It becomes extremely difficult to collaborate with you when you repeat the same things while ignoring my explanations and my pointing out the flaws in yours. Therefore I ask you from hereon out to please take into account what I am writing to you and address it in your replies.
Several other tendencies in that list also coincide with your contributions, but since you are not being receptive, it is harder for you to improve on them.
Now, regarding your reply itself, I would first like to show you this:
While editors who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors, and editors who consistently vandalize are vandals, it is still required that editors be civil to one another. However, being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable or credulous.
Your behaviour and contributions do indeed count as disruptive and disingenuous. There is no getting around that. If you would like to know why I believe so, I provide some explanations in this collapsed section:
Extended content
Repeated use of large language models to generate content is considered disruptive, as the amount of effort required to clean such content up is disproportionate to the amount of effort required to create it. Users who persist in doing this even after being warned may be blocked.
A disruptive editor often exhibits these tendencies:
Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.
Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.
Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} or {{more citations needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is problematic.
repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
You pass off your own artistic interpretation of the wreathed flag as a historical design when all you cite is a grainy image of a stamp and you don't provide any proof showing that the design was ever used on an actual flag.
You overstate the relevancy of your preferred design, entirely overlooking real-world usage by Iranians. You purport that your primary sources (none of which include any proof that the government adopted it as the official design) are encyclopaedic while claiming that everything else is unencyclopaedic.
Partaking in sealioning: you are repeatedly asking for sources, though refuse what I provide because they are not 'reliable' even when your own aren't any better.
This taken into account, I nevertheless concur that a kinder way to phrase it would have been "While I agree Wikipedia should be implementing an automated systemto combat editors who engage in a disruptive and disingenuous manner like your actions match, that system does not exist yet -- and so when presented with blatantly obvious proof of AI use, we should point it out and take action". If you wish for me to phrase things like that, that's perfectly fine and I agree to it if it means we can start focusing on finding a consensus.
I also never insulted you by calling you stone-headed; I only described your actions as such. If you read the full conversation you will understand why I deem the way you contribute to be obstinate:
Under due weight your flag shouldn't be present in the infobox at all. I have nevertheless compromised and suggested to show your preferred variant in addition to the two common designs. However, despite this you are still acting stone-headed and trying to get your little-used version to supplant all others. Please understand how unreasonable this is.
You never gave any reason for why you would manually max curly quotation marks and straight apostrophes in your message. If you had written these yourself, I'm sure you would have a reason for that.
Now I see the only secondary source you have provided is an article from Flags of the World, but it doesn't even show your design in the same rendering. Even then, it is one of the sources on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page listed as "Generally unreliable":
Extended content
Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website."
Every other source you provided was a primary source. You also wrote an entire section interpreting primary sources without any secondary sources to back up your preferred design. When I point out the issues with that section, you did not respond.
I encourage everyone in this thread to read the full talk page to get a clearer picture of the situation. Regards, ConflictFan (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
As a slight aside - is it acceptable for a wikipedia user to update a flag an upload it to wikipedia? Also how does this differ from https://flagofiran.com/? Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
iranflag.org and flagofiran.com are just websites that host the flag for people to easily reference.
So my understanding is that ConflictFan is of the opinion that the old flag has not been standardized and they have a project to standardize it. This is interesting from a COI perspective because it appears that ConflictFan is not selling this design and has made them available under an open Creative Commons license. As such I am unsure whether that constitutes a COI. However it does raise a WP:RS question concerning the standardization of this flag. If there is, in fact, no standard for it then I don't really see a problem with using whichever flag best represents what we can see in use. If there is a standard that should have a citable source saying so. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@ConflictFan: Hmmm. So, if someone were to say you are acting like an asshole, fucktwat, dipshit, shit-for-brains...it's ok because I'm describing how you're acting, not how you are? Note: I am NOT saying you are or are acting like any of these. I am highlighting that your distinction between "acting" vs. "are" is not an appropriate line in the sand. WP:NPA is quite clear about this; "Comment on content, not the contributors.". Please stop making such statements about anyone. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Hammersoft you raise a valid point, I definitely could have phrased that in a much less antagonistic manner and I apologise to Shfarshid for that. ConflictFan (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Simonm223 (Just to provide historical context about this subject): there was never any single standard of the Lion and Sun flag at any point in history. Shfarshid's preferred variant was one of several in use by some government agencies during the 1970s but it never fully caught on and most Iranians until the 2010s used traditional designs. In the last decade two new designs (1)(2) emerged and those are what the majority of Iranians use nowadays. For whatever reason flag manufacturers really liked to mess with the proportions of the lion, and so I made that website and a construction sheet so that the design could be more consistent. As you said it's all public domain and I won't ever make a dime off of this. ConflictFan (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
AntiHitPeace is an SPA, with a username which implies a POV or battleground attitude, who has been trying to whitewash the article James A. Lindsay to remove or attempt to explain away significant facts about the subject.(diff) That's just worth a warning but the real action is on various Talk pages where they have responded poorly to those warnings (See User talk:AntiHitPeace) and issued bogus warning template looking messages on other users' User Talk pages (diff and diff). I also feel that this edit, reinstating the bad content, has an edit summary which steps over the boundary into outright dishonesty. There is no realistic way for anybody, even a fan of Lindsay, to interpret that edit as "Reverted back to political neutral phrasing". Now they are kvetching at Talk:James_A._Lindsay#Abusive_references_to_Wikipedia_rules, which is at least the correct venue, but not in a constructive way. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
