Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

JaredMcKenzie's behaviors

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

JaredMcKenzie (JMK) was indefinitely Topic Banned from Taiwan, broadly construed, in November 2025. The main concerns editors raised in that discussion included WP:Bludgeoning, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, edit warring, use of AI-generated comments, etc.

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)

Having interacted with JMK in this topic area, I think this is a wise take and agree completely. Neither side of these content disputes comes across as appearing reasonable. IMHO @JaredMcKenzie is well meaning and brings the evidence, but should focus on learning pro-collaboration behaviours like dropping the stick and avoiding the wall of text if they are going to be productive. Oblivy (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I’ll briefly comment here since I was mentioned. I was involved in a few of the conversations brought up and have witnessed occasional hostility from this user. If a warning would be most appropriate, I think the issues of bludgeoning, incivility, and AI misuse should be addressed in the warning. The bludgeoning did become a bit disruptive and stalled progress at times. 23impartial (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

The real issue there needs to be boundaries. My own conduct can certainly be improved, but it did not happen in a vacuum. I am willing to agree to mutual rules where if we can't agree with each other, we do not make disparaging remarks or pressing another to keep replying when it's been expressed that they don't want to argue with them anymore.

Lately, when I can't agree with them and there is usually me and a few other editors disagreeing with their group, so I suggested we should stop this back and forth as it's unproductive, and resolving the disagreement through an rFc instead, if others are willing.

Yet in response, I have received uncivil attacks/false slander addressed here - as well one of their editors rejecting need for proposed rFc and imply I was unable to respond and so that I must not leave and instead address their point in full. Diff - So after their encouragement, I did. - However, I do not wish to participate in endless arguments involving a rotating group of editors presenting me arguments that I believe are unpersuasive. Nor should my lack of continued response to allow this pro FG group to portray as if matter is settled.

This is not merely hypothetical. Example is this thread where they argued to remove a sourced edit from a reputable book from Helen Farley on how FG teachings on Medicine resulted in many deaths. They refuse to listen to me and @Binksternet on not agreeing to have it removed but we stopped replying. Despite there was no concensus to remove info from a reputable Oxford published book, this group went ahead and removed the info.

My only point is that disengagement is not an admission of defeat, nor does it establish consensus. If you genuinely believe your case is well founded, then when an editor tells you that discussion is no longer going anywhere and suggest rFc, respect this and allow the wider community to assess the disagreement. I think we can be at least able to disagree without throwing personal attacks, or pressuring others to keep arguing and dismiss need for other dispute resolution processes. I am asking for that courtesy to be mutual and am equally willing to extend it to others. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the Farley removal, there was no consensus to add the source. Per WP:ONUS, "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content." The source has a citation error and WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies too. As PARAKANYAA suggested earlier, we'd better not relitigate content disputes here, as this is not the right platform for that. Thanks. MrGerLib (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

There were a couple discussions involving you and JaredMcKenzie that I was also involved with, and the difficult, wall-of-text, repetitive mode of back-and-forth, are apparent with many of the frequent Falun Gong page commentators.

In your case, I have still never seen something quite like your recent omission in "the News reported, compiled and researched by ... Xinhua ....” when in fact the source said ""News reported, compiled and researched by Asianone, Meta Press Service, Indian Abroad News Service, Xinhua, DPA, Bollywood Country", when you were contesting with JaredMcKenzie about a source.

Your mutual back-and-forth on the talk page became hard to follow after that point.

The editors who are active on those talk pages are having major issues communicating with each other. And the mutual text walls between them dissuade other editors from getting involved (which might turn down the "heat" and facilitate a more focused discussion). As best I could tell, this is a mutual problem.

So I am not fully up to date, but from my exposure to your discussions, I would encourage all sides to calm down, not attempt to cast aspersions, and regardless of your judgments about each other's motives, try to pare down the acrimony and text walls. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I think you are referring to South Asian Post's (SAP) partnership with other media outlets listed on its contact-us page. I didn't add any content from that page to the article. I only pointed out SAP's relationship with Xinhua as a concern about whether SAP can be a truly independent source on Falun Gong, as Xinhua is Chinese gov's state news agency. I singled out Xinhua because it is the only media outlet on that list that is from the Greater China area and the only one run by an authoritarian state that is relevant to this topic. But after you told me to move on, I didn't insist on this point anymore in later discussions.

As I pointed out in my initial post above, about half of the comments on these talk pages were made by JMK. I occasionally made longer comments to respond to JMK's long comments, but I made much fewer comments. MrGerLib (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

AimiqaXerni

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

He edited a lot of unsourced details in many beauty pageant articles, so I tried to warning him on his talk page already but he didn’t stop. Can admins block him for a few month or do something that can stop him? can you check this user please, thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

AimiqaXerni Looks vividly WP:IDHT. A block then batch revert may needed. -Lemonaka 10:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I tried to use Test or Unsourced warning to let him know and reported before, but nothing happen, hope disruptive warning format will can stop him this time.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@PradaSaetiew: Why did you personally have to warn this user around ~120 times? Don't you think that's a bit excessive? XXBlackburnXx (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Oh come on, it was only 106 (including the ANI warning) Celjski Grad (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

because I just want him stop to adding unsourced details in the articles, after first warning he didn’t stop to add unsourced details and I was report in this page before but nothing happen, so I removed my warning already today after it’s too much warning and he didn’t care the warning that I tried to explain.

/anyway in Thai Wikipedia’s admin ever advised me that should warning Test1 to 4 (or other waring formats) before report to admins soon in noticeboard after Test4 or level 4, that why in english Wikipedia I was used Test1 to warning him when I was reversed unsourced edits in every pageant articles that I read and found, after then I used Test2, 3 for next steps before I report again here, but this week I tried to use Unsourced1 warning format to warning him, because he didn’t care about Test1-4 warning formats.

and because I was tried to explain to him that his edits are unsourced or poorly sourced, such as source from Youtube or Facebook, but he never care and still edited same unsourced details back into the articles.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If you said it’s too much warning, I will not do any warning to him in his talk page again, I will do only reverse or remove unsourced details in the articles with reason, not warning in his talk page.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Generally, if four warnings did not work, you should not place any more but should look at other options. There is no reason to think additional ones will help. M kuhner (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

yes, I was warning his edited for some articles to Test4 already, and some just Test1, but after Test4 he didn’t stop, and reported in this board last time it’s nothing happen, after then I just warning him by Unsourced1, 2 formats again. But now I removed it all, because it’s too much and he doesn’t care about warning.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I find it's best to give a warning then see if it continues - if there aren't any further problems after your warning then there's no need for another.

Once it gets to level four then it's definitely time to escalate for admin/community review, because they're clearly not listening.

It might be that they aren't aware of their Talk page and a short block can get their attention, or you might encounter someone who just doesn't care and more severe sanctions might be necessary. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Last time after Test4 I was reported in this board but nothing happen, then I tried to warning by Unsourced1-2 again, but still can’t help to stop him, then I try to report again this time hope admins will checking some.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

We've got this report open now, so it'll get a proper review - this is just advice in case you happen to come across something similar in the future 🙂 In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:15, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Note: I reviewed and caught some crafty additional information from the user AimiqaXerni, it seems a massive behaviour to me. So I could believe this report is necessary, but not completely sure that the user is trying to understand the valuable on their added content or they are carefully aware of violating WP:NOTHERE. TienMinh-mun6xnChing (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

All right, so now I will once again explain my side of this sole shenanigans by Saetiaw.

- First of all, it's correct that I am responsible for all my edits (even the ones after my account got from 2-week to 3-month banned) through out the recent Top Model & The Face wikipedia pages and I am proud of those edits. Because I did my research to contribute it to only the Top Model & The Face page.

- Second, I have explain about this problem last year about The Face Thailand 6 edits on Vietnamese page and the "Devil" decided to do the edit but I didn't like it so I change it back. I have explain about it and everyone agree and give a civil warning on that page (because if they don't agree then my account would have been blocked at that moment). But clearly this "Devil" doesn't even want to do a proper work and research and just want to be the only one take the full control to do whatever and here are my 2 proofs: / When I decided not to touch the Viet page of The Face Men Thailand 4 and just like I expected, no update, no effort of edit and nothing so when the show ends, I took matters into my own hands / & / The Face Vietnam 5 right now. / Beside, there is the English & Thai wikipedia that the sky is the limit but mysteriously somehow decided to chose the Viet page.

- Third, I will only talk about 2 main problems about on The Face edits: the contestant informations and the prizes. Here is my respond: Those are literally on the internet and on the show, because they said it. So what is even the problem: because I didn't put reference about it or I just put gibberishs or the "Devil" simply didn't even watch the show and do what it wants because who cares?

- Fourth and obviously, this "Devil" wants to play a dirty revenge by bringing the excuse of "overly and unsource details" to blatantly deleted the Top Model post-show career that I have wrote for over 3 years on several Top Model pages. I mean be serious:

+ Why would I put random things in someone works because all of those lines are my researchs on every website online (whether active or archive as well as social media) to put that on the edits.

+ Those edits have been done and got no complains until this talk happen. All I simply do is put it back and that's it.

+ If it's too much detail then shorten it and you might have a excuse to target me if I change it back.

+ If it's unsource detail then fine delete that detail.

+ If "Youtube is not a reliable source" then delete that source because what else can be substitute if you don't tell me so I can find alternative.

+ If the reference link is from a blog, which is why I put it on invisible lines to not violate as that is and probably the only source of that person's post-show work.

+ If the post-show articles are not necessary, then someone better right now go to America's Next Top Model pages and delete those post-show careers edits.

+ Also, Top Model are beauty pageants? Disgrace.

- Lastly in my opinion, clearly this "Devil" have bitter beef with me since The Face Thailand 6, in term of how we edit the show page. It's like my edits are better that someone hate it so deleting it will make this "Devil" world a better place.

In conclusion, I already got blocked and I said it once and I said again: I said what I need to said, whether is this one or last year, and all of you finally get to hear from both sides. That's it for me and thank you for getting to this point.

P.S.: all of the supposed curse words have been substituted and there is my 2 messages:

to Veritas: Just by the name, you pick your side and that's said more than just words. Okay.

to Saetiaw: haech-ai-ey. AimiqaXerni (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

You have to find a good source before you adding a newest details into the articles by yourself first, not just adding a lot of details or everything that you see from pageant’s fan pages, Instagram or Youtube without a good source, and let’s other editors looking for a source for your details all the time.

/And after other editors removed your edited and said it’s unsourced, poorly sourced or disruptive, you have to looking for a good source to confirm your details when you want to put it all back to the articles, or give the reasons, not just reversed everything back without nothing and don’t care the warnings and Wikipedia’s rules.

/You always seen the warnings and reasons from other editors when your edited are removed, why you didn’t care about the warnings and Wikipedia’s rules (Verifiability, Reliable sources and Disruptive editing) both on English and Vietnamese Wikipedia?.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm reading through this, but I'm having trouble understanding you.

• If it's too much detail then shorten it and you might have a excuse to target me if I change it back. If it's unsource detail then fine delete that detail. Are you saying that you'll continue to add unsourced claims and you consider it other people's responsibility to verify the information that you're adding? That other volunteers have to check you work and add a source or delete your edit if they can't find one?
• If "Youtube is not a reliable source" then delete that source because what else can be substitute if you don't tell me so I can find alternative.If the reference link is from a blog, which is why I put it on invisible lines to not violate as that is and probably the only source of that person's post-show work. Just because it's the only available source, that doesn't mean it's a reliable source. The same goes for YouTube - you must still follow the Verifiability policy.
• Re. All I simply do is put it back and that's it. If someone removes something you've added, then you must go to the Talk page to reach a consensus on whether it can be added back or not. Anyone can remove unsourced claims, you need to add a source if you're going to reinstate it.
• Lastly in my opinion, clearly this "Devil" have bitter beef with me since The Face Thailand 6, in term of how we edit the show page. It's like my edits are better that someone hate it so deleting it will make this "Devil" world a better place. What do you mean by this? Are you calling PradaSaetiew a Devil? This reads like a personal attack, you're calling them names and saying they're removing your edits in bad faith so I'd appreciate if you can clarify what you're actually saying here.

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:47, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

He still back to edited the samething that adding all of unsourced and poorly sourced details into the article The Face Vietnam (season 5).--PradaSaetiew (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I think is clear evidence that he editor in question has no intention of changing their approach. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Please block him forever, because he still didn’t understand and not accept the Wikipedia’s rules to editing a good source for the articles, he edited unsourced, poorly sourced and disruptive details on both English and Vietnamese Wikipedia, so he got blocked on Vietnamese Wikipedia for 1 month right now, because after he got blocked for the first time in Vietnamese Wikipedia yesterday so he still using an IP Address to editing the same details back into the same articles today, that’s means he doesn’t care about warning and Wikipedia’s rules anymore.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

He didn’t not stop, he still back to edited the samething in the same article by adding all of unsourced and poorly sourced details like a Tiktok link into the article The Face Vietnam (season 5).--PradaSaetiew (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

They've not edited for three days, seems they may have unfortunately contracted ANI-flu.

I'm really not impressed by the "devil" comments, which feel like personal attacks to me - I'm sincerely hoping I've misread that aspect. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:45, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Maybe because Vietnamese admin blocked him in Vietnamese Wikipedia for 1 month and he’s angry that Vietnamese editor also commented about him here.

I’m also wonder why he called other editor as Devil, and waiting to see if he use other IP address to editing the same details and articles in English Wikipedia like he did in Vietnamese Wikipedia after he got blocked.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

~2026-47089-17 - WP:CIR issues from a possible language barrier, repeated and continuous failure to use sources, suspected use of WP:LLM to create articles

~2026-47089-17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Above user looks to struggle to understand our core policies despite repeated attempts by several people to engage with them per their talk page where they've managed to receive a substantial number of warnings regarding unsourced content from half a dozen editors in a very short period, including edit-warring these additions. One example which I raised with them is this one where they claimed one company no longer owned IP with the edit summary "because I don't think Hasbro owns Julius Jr. and I strongly doubt I see any source confirming that Hasbro now owns Julius Jr. otherwise." which is not only unsourced but goes against what was already sourced in the article.

My attempts to communicate with them have led me to conclude that they don't appear to have a good understanding of written English, with their replies to myself being strange and at times hard to understand, such as saying that they don't understand why I removed their unsourced additions as "I was only assuming good faith and being honest." (two things unrelated to my removal) and later that they don't understand my concern regarding "how are my comments lack to make sense". Their limitations regarding their use of written English (and it leading to a failure to understand core policies) is also apparent elsewhere, such as this conversation on failing to provide a reliable source for someone's date of birth with another editor where they stated "I get that the birth date seems to be WP:UNSOURCED, but I don't quite understand because I showed you a link to Google Search showing all the WP:SOURCES regarding to Naylor. Yes, at least note, they were not as WP:RELIABLE, as you were primarily worried about, but still. All the sources confirmed that Naylor was born in 1953." which seems to further showcase they simply don't understand our requirement for reliable sources.

Finally as part of this I looked at a rejected article submission on their talk page just to understand why it was rejected and I noticed this comment where, following a reviewer highlighting they rejected the AFC submission because sources used appeared to be AI-written, this user replied thinking that the reviewer was suggesting the AFC submission itself was created using AI which they admitted to using ("look I only used some WP:AI because it was basically too hard to create the other way. Super hard. I did not mean to go too deep in this article."). So it also appears they're using LLMs as part of their contributions (which may explain some of the sourcing issues).

Overall, despite the clear attempts to contribute in good faith it is apparent to myself this user is unfortunately more often than not simply introducing errors that others keep having to clean up, sometimes repeatedly as they fail to understand why their additions have been removed and will instead re-insert them sometimes several times over. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I am not using WP:LLM for these. --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

As a further example of their failure to understand the problems they are causing, earlier I reverted clear automated mass changes they'd made to a BLP article where they'd attempted to replace all instances of someone's surname with their mononym in the article body which introduced numerous basic errors. Despite trying to explain why this was a problem they instead repeated the exercise with the completely unintelligble edit summary of manually reverted one change with one tactical error attached and have now left a long response on their talk page defending their actions with completely incorrect and irrelevant links to MOS:PERSON (a link to the use of pronouns) and WT:BLP (a talk page for a policy)

Again, they simply don't seem to know what they are doing and the issues it's causing others to then have to fix, and when others attempt to explain this to them they aren't able to understand what others are saying to them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I am actually not affiliated with any kind per WP:COI, yet told you about it earlier ago. --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

The fact you think anything I've written above was a suggestion you had a Conflict of Interest is just further evidence that you lack the necessary ability to understand written English to contribute constructively. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I've previously warned @~2026-47089-17 and I share @Rambling Rambler's concerns in terms of continued non verifiable inputs and a potential language barrier.

Edit behavior - @~2026-47089-17 regularly adds content based on what they believe to be true, without sources (despite having been asked to provide sources on their talk page).

I've reviewed many of the edits made by the user, and have reverted several as I couldn't verify them.

The edit pattern seems to indicate a WP:CIR issue or a language issue (or both), as the user's behavior isn't changing despite repeated warnings. Here [], for example, the user made a change with the edit summary "Again, you can use my talk page for help if this is not sourced." - there was no "if" about it, it was a change without a citation (and I could not find a source so I reverted it).

Regarding the potential language barrier, here are some examples of edit summaries where it (to my ear at least) doesn't read like someone with a strong grasp of English:

[]

[]

[]

[]

I think a temporary block to allow the user to review the policies, and perhaps other editors' editing approaches, would be beneficial. GreyZoneLife (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

But there is no other way possible if I don't read Google enough and I have great understanding constructive English and I don't clearly "write whatever I want", I believe that is false. I record many sources. --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I think we can take the above non-responsive 'response' as further evidence that this individual lacks the necessary skills in the English language to usefully participate here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that you write "whatever you want", I'm stating that you regularly make edits that do not have a citation to back them up, and that in several cases, other editors cannot find a source to back them up. A core principle of Wikipedia editing is that everything has to be verifiable (Wikipedia:Verifiability), and with your edits that's not always the case. A good example is [] when a significant claim you added was reverted, with the editor asking for a source, but you readded the information with an explanation, no source, and now that content is still there with a citation needed tag added. I myself couldn't find any source to back up the claim when I tried. GreyZoneLife (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I'll try better next time. Okay? 😉 --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

• It's coming up on a year since I started urging the community to recognize that editors who use AI to generate article or talk-page content are unsalvageably incompetent. Indef and throw away the key. EEng 20:53, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Quickly followed up on this to see if the editor had followed through on their promise to do better and found they've gone to continue a slow edit-war they've been undertaking the last month or two at A+E Global Media regarding it being labelled as a "subsidiary" in the infobox where they've now progressed to leaving an unwarranted and inaccurate "disruptive editing" warning on another editor's page citing their failure to follow the WP:COMPANY notability guidelines (which are completely irrelevant).

Still appears this editor is suffering from a significant language barrier that is hindering their ability to make constructive contributions or usefully communicate with those they disagree with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

What? I am using Wikipedia constructively and I'm rather useful. Why are you accusing me of things? --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

No, you're not. The completely unwarranted warning you gave someone for "disruptive editing" literally has you admitting their edits were correct.

Enough. Just because it is a subsidiary of a parent company does not mean all of it should be "Subsidiary" and "Parent" included under the underlying infobox. See WP:COMPANY for more information.

So you're openly stating you're removing accurate information repeatedly for approximately two months for no reason. It's your behaviour that's "disruptive editing", not everyone else's. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I've been having my time wasted because you scolded at me with messages two times. Again, you're ignoring my question, why are you accusing me of things? --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Because 1) you continue to push edits without sources, even when challenged [], 2) when justifying your stance you cite Wikipedia policies that have no relation to the topic at hand (see above), and 3) you warn other editors with whom you're in a conflict, again citing irrelevant guidelines [].

This despite you having three days before stated "And I especially will no longer just go off a tangent without reading the policy. Simple." [] GreyZoneLife (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Exactly this. The fact they've amassed 9 warnings and a block on their talk page for adding unsourced content in the last two months yet are still doing it is absurd.

Either they are being genuine in their claim that they don't understand what you, I, and half a dozen others have been saying to them (WP:CIR) or they perfectly well understand what we're saying and are feigning ignorance to continue their disruption (WP:NOTHERE). Both require an indefinite block at this point. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: I don't know what competence has to do with and I most certainly am here to build an encyclopedia. Citing sources always helps me wherever I go. Look, I don't have time for this further time wasting. I got to get back to work. --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

By that means, the conversation shall be over. I'll really cooperate with WP:RS and WP:V, but I can't look at them right now. --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

"I don't know what competence has to do with" says the person who then immediately screws up a BLP infobox to declare that someone was born at the age of 56. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

There is a misconception, Mike McFarland, the English voice actor of Master Roshi from Dragon Ball was born fifty-six years ago, not at the age of fifty-six, a grown person whose eternal abundance lifetime can't appear as an adult. It's over. --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

The above gibberish once again demonstrates that this TA lacks the necessary competence in the English language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw, markdown in in August, triggering paste check Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:16, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/~2026-47089-17 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:31, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that they've since made another unsourced edit (now reverted) and a draft edit with grammar issues that I'm finding difficult to read in parts. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:58, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

support block fwiw. The only other wiki they've edited was frwiki where they triggered paste check with a creation , I can't read it though Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:15, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Edits 1 and 3 make sense given the content in the articles. Edit 2 is a logo, so I don't know how correct that is. 4th edit is a new article, I haven't reviewed that. GreyZoneLife (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

The first edit was fair, as there was this sentence in the article already:

"WordWorld is an American animated educational preschool television series based on the books and the wooden puzzles of the same name."

But I haven't been able to verify that sentence so I've removed "based on...". GreyZoneLife (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I looked into the English version of that French article (Serendipity Point Films) and I think what it highlights is that it'd be useful to do a checkuser on this TA, because just from a casual read of edit summaries in the article's history as well as the just poor written English in the article itself I'd say it's very obvious every single IP and TA in its history is the same person as this current TA. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

CUs can't connect named accounts to TAs/IPs or go fishing, all the related TAs are listed at AINB, the only other edit to another wiki they've made was Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:45, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Also despite the fact that article would appear to use sources, it's clearly very apparent upon any scrutiny of them that this person can't properly understand written English. For instance at Serendipity Point Films (an article about a Canadian company) it reads "In 2026, Serendipity launched an unnamed Macau-based venture for the world premiere of Hong Kong-filmed Girlfriends"

The article it's cited against in the very first line states "Taiwan’s Serendipity Films is expanding with a new venture in Macao."

They're so lacking competence they're confusing Canada for Taiwan. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

There's also reason to suspect WP:COPYVIO is going on to some degree. A check on Earwig shows sentences copied straight from sources, including at times taking quotes and then presenting them as written prose. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Poor language aside, the content is also questionable. This section, completely unnecessary to the article: "In 1986, Jennifer Dale, a Canadian actress separated from Robert Lantos, and it was not confirmed that Lantos had any allegations, but rather it was his intense life driven among filmmaking and his outspoken public persona were recognized as overarching pressures following issues.[3]" in the French article makes less sense. Translation: "In 1986, Jennifer Dale, an actress, broke up with her founder Lantos.[3] It was an intense life, devoted to the production of films, which became a major reason for divorce.". So the user is editing multiple wikis without mastering the language sufficiently. GreyZoneLife (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it to draft. I started trying to clean it up but it's just filled with completely invented claims about living people that aren't present in the sources cited. An example was a claim about the company logo which read "Lantos designed the logo to emphasize his childhood spotting a beautiful monarch butterfly" which is absolutely not present in the source. Instead it says he based it on observing a butterfly in 1998 when he was 49.

They are quite literally just making stuff up regarding BLP subjects. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

(just noting that the /32 and /28 is pblocked by @Ponyo and @Ohnoitsjamie respectively from a bunch of articles for LTA socking) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:06, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Those are partial blocks targeting LTAs that have used those ranges. /32 and /28 ranges cover billions of addresses. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 14:13, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Star Mississippi has thankfully now blocked this individual Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Personal attack and insulting the community from User:Multigammer

WP:HOUNDING by User:Sirfurboy

Our editor interaction history

Over the past year, I believe that Sirfurboy has been tracking my edits via my user contribution history/via my user page/via closely examining all edits I make to sidebars he is watching. He is persistently challenging my edits across multiple independent templates and articles. This editor has never made an additive edit to the articles or templates below. This has taken a significant toll on my ability to function as an editor and has contributed to my decision to distance myself from Wikipedia. The majority of my remaining time on this website has been spent defending content I created against continuing deletion challenges by this editor, which escalated over the past two weeks.

For context, I created the following three templates in early 2026:

• Template:Immigration policy of the second Trump administration sidebar
• Template:Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies sidebar
• Template:Gaza genocide sidebar

Timeline:

• 19 March 2026: Template:Gaza genocide sidebar
  • Sirfurboy noted, based on my user page, that I created the above three sidebars.
  • One day later, Sirfurboy removed 26 articles from the template per WP:BIDI.
• 21 March 2026: My mistakes
  • In a very hasty decision after I misinterpreted Sirfurboy as teling me to take him to an ANI, I began an ANI against Sirfurboy which failed. I regret the way I handled this entire situation, and I made other edits that embarass me to look back on. I was aggressive towards Sirfurboy because I did not feel like he was using a collaborative tone or carefully reading the words I was saying across multiple discussions, including ones not included in this timeline. Since then, I have grown as an editor and have made a serious effort to do better at conflict resolution.
  • Sirfurboy came to my talk page regarding another discussion, and Tryptofish kindly volunteered to mediate this discussion and suggested a two-way self-imposed IBAN. I initially agreed, but understanding I was likely to continue encountering Sirfurboy across multiple pages and seeking to de-escalate/take responsibility so we could maintain a cordial relationship, I apologized to Sirfurboy. Sirfurboy did not respond.
• 6 April 2026: Template:Immigration policy of the second Trump administration sidebar
  • In a series of edits other than just this one, Sirfurboy deleted 19 articles from the sidebar per WP:BIDI.
• 22 April 2026: Template:Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies sidebar
  • Sirfurboy, in a series of deletions in addition to just this one, deleted somewhere in the realm of 60 or more articles from the sidebar per WP:BIDI.
• 2 July 2026: Template:Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration sidebar
  • Sirfurboy nominated this sidebar for deletion citing WP:BIDI, which failed.
• 21 October 2026: Template:Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies sidebar
  • Viriditas restored the deleted articles from the sidebar by Sirfurboy.
  • Sirfurboy undid this restoration of the BIDI links.
• 28 October 2026: Template:Immigration policy of the second Trump administration sidebar
  • I added an image to the sidebar.
  • Sirfurboy added copyright attribution to the sidebar's image that I believe was very distracting and unnecessary.
  • I began a talk page discussion, where I politely addressed him: Sirfurboy, edits like these that make the sidebar less accessible to readers (for the sake of unusually stringent interpretations of copyright policy), without starting talk page discussions about your proposed changes that you are probably aware are likely to be contested, create an impression of backseat editing, and in my view this is beginning to resemble something of a pattern across the many sidebars I've seen you contribute to. I mean this respectfully, but if you'd like to continue editing this sidebar, I'd really appreciate if you could demonstrate you are willing to engage in constructive/additive edits, in addition to edits that remove or "fix" problems you believe other people introduce while leaving terse comments like No opinion on whether [another editor's recent edit] is even appropriate. This avoids putting the burden on other editors to do the work of fixing the problems you believe are present with the sidebar, as opposed to starting discussions in a collaborative tone that are conducive to ironing out potential issues on the template talk pages. Thank you ~
  • Sirfurboy then recommended sanctions against my account on an ANI.
  • In the interest of de-escalating the situation (even though I believe there was clearly no cause for an ANI based on Sirfurboy's comment), I took accountability for not being kinder and asked in the final paragraph: 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.
  • Sirfurboy did not respond.
• 2 November 2026: Template:Immigration policy of the second Trump administration sidebar
  • Sirfurboy deleted the image from the sidebar, without leaving a message on the talk page like I politely requested.
• 3 November 2026: Ilhan Omar
  • Sirfurboy had no history of editing this article.
  • I added (authoritarianism) (immigration policy) sidebars to a section in the article.
  • Sirfurboy left a comment challenging their inclusions on the page.
  • I responded Sirfurboy, with respect and while assuming good faith, I am going to politely tap my finger on WP:HOUNDING. Over the last year (editor interaction analyzer URL), you have contributed to talk page discussions I've been involved in across many topics to an extent that eclipses interactions I've had with any other editor on this platform. I cannot reply to all of your challenges against content to which I've contributed. I don't know whether you are looking at my user page, my user contribution history, or whether you're simply closely examining all of my edits to sidebars I created, but whatever the case, I am once again asking you to stop and am now disengaging.
  • In the interest of listening to Sirfurboy's concerns about image loading time on another template after he changed my mind regarding one of the multiple issues he took with the image, I unpromptedly reduced the loading time of the image on Template:Gaza genocide sidebar.
  • Sirfurboy deleted the image from the sidebar.
• 6 November 2026: Template talk:Immigration policy of the second Trump administration sidebar
  • Sirfurboy started an RfC to remove the image I added to the template after I achieved consensus for the image's inclusion.
• 7 November 2026: Template:Machine learning
  • I added Confirmatory factor analysis to the template, and added the sidebar to the article.
  • Sirfurboy had no history of editing the template or of editing the article, nor have I seen him make any previous edits in the statistics/machine learning space.
  • One day later, Sirfurboy deleted this article from the template, in addition to removing 51 other articles from the sidebar, again unilaterally without achieving consensus per WP:BIDI.
• 9 November 2026 (not hounding but relevant context)
  • In Talk:Ilhan Omar, Sirfurboy replied Just found this. No, I am not hounding you. I am not even replying to you. This was his first time acknowledging my request from 6 days earlier to stop hounding ("just found this"? did he not read the ANI to which he replied a day earlier which excerpts the exact comment he claims to have "just found"?), and saying I am not even replying to you, as if the reason behind HOUNDING is him replying to me in that discussion alone, ignoring the substance of the entirety of this ANI and misrepresenting the situation to outsiders in what, to me, appears to be a clear attempt at ragebaiting me into losing my composure since he now is sensing the discussion is no longer going my way. I am trying incredibly hard to assume good faith, but this appears to be part of a calculated effort at getting me to engage in sanctionable behavior so that he no longer has to deal with me. This, paired with refusals to engage in any prior attempts at de-escalation, in addition to not answering either of my questions about why he is only using BIDI exclusively to remove content or how he found Template:Machine learning, in addition to him stalking my user contribution history and mass deleting a template to which I contributed right after I asked him to stop hounding (also a likely attempt to goad me into overreacting in this ANI, in response to which he got to use his stockpile of unrelated misbehavior evidence against me; and a template to which he never previously contributed), in addition to him significantly escalating challenges against content to which I contributed right after I announced my hiatus (of which he was likely aware, as he was involved in the ANI directly preceding it which has also been used as evidence against me), in addition to undertones from previous interactions with him where I felt he was omitting important context of which he was aware to make his own version of a page more likely to succeed, in addition to prior misrepresentations of information for which he has never apologized (x2, where he lied by omission to an admin about being "pinged into a discussion" and discovering the sidebars that way — yes he was pinged into the authoritarianism sidebar discussion, but omitted how he visited my user page to discover two additional templates to which I contributed and regarding which he has since persistently challenged content), reeks of Machiavellianism. This is clearly the accusation he wants me to make, so fine, I will make it, per WP:SPADE, considering the evidence. He has repeatedly engaged in behavior that has ever-so-slightly crossed the line, which myself — being someone deeply involved with this subject — he knows will notice, whereas if I try to explain the totality of the evidence I will come across as an unhinged conspiracy theorist and end up being sanctioned for causing this dispute more visibly. If that means my account is going to be blocked, then so be it, but this pretty unambiguously appears at this point to be what's going on and I hope that just because I am annoying/have not conducted myself in the best way (which I am working on) does not prevent others from seeing this, but I'm not optimistic considering the role of social capital on Wikipedia and how me having less than him will likely determine the outcome of this discussion more than any other factor.

I have been trying very hard to be patient, to be kind, and to assume good faith following my initial hasty ANI and previous tone that was unnecessarily escalatory, which I'm not proud of.

But how did Sirfurboy find Template:Machine learning and Confirmatory factor analysis, which are both unrelated from the topics of Gaza and US politics? I really struggle to believe that Sirfurboy came across these pages by coincidence while seeking to learn about factor analysis techniques and machine learning exactly one day after I made additions to these pages (x2), without having made any previous contributions to either of these pages.

I also question why this user has only used BIDI to delete sidebars from articles (and vice versa), as opposed to simply adding sidebars to articles in question to correct the discrepancies himself (when doing so is appropriate). This has created an unnecessary burden on other editors to re-add the sidebars to each article in question (and vice versa) which has consumed significant volunteer time (e.g. does semi-supervised learning really not belong on a machine learning sidebar?).

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest of this, I agree that mass-removing links from templates is a very sub-optimal way of achieving WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, especially when the links are otherwise appropriate, and that it's odd that Sirfurboy appears to have never tried to add the template to the linked articles which are missing it. Loki (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Really need to amend WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Content editors simply have a problem keeping up with the mass amount of spam that comes through these. There should also be a discussion about the fact that we have so many articles without a lead image because these are in their place and aren't seen by 80% of our viewership. Basically discussion should be linked spam or educational imagery? Moxy🍁 02:45, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

The links in a template are mass added. E.g in this template (which Alexandraacs doesn't mention, because they assume I am targeting them, rather than overstuffed SIDEBARS , a now blocked LLM using editor created a template with well over a hundred links (it was 167 when I got to it). No attempt was made at the time to make any of this BIDIRECTIONAL, and then this template was inflicted on some of the pages. As of yesterday only 25. SIDEBARS are a major source of synthetic pseudo-narrative. Their collation is often by a single editor, always by a small number. The collation is not based on any inclusion criteria. The "tightly integrated" requirement is ignored, as is the requirement that things be bi-directional.

Alexandraacs has attempted RFCs to ignore the bi-directional guideline rather than doing the obvious thing of adding the template to relevant pages, and also argued at the village pump for the removal of the ONUS policy so that they can restore BIDI removals without adding the links to the pages. Their goal is to make it easier for single editors to add these collations. In the ANI thread about them, archived just yesterday, they said (and were pulled up on) that they were fixated on making a large volume of edits as quickly and efficiently as possible, sometimes at the expense of my interactions with others.

WP:BIDIRECTIONALity is, however, the only method by which the inclusion of an item in the template can even be scrutinised by more than a single or couple of template editors. If one person can create these, one person can challenge them. Objecting to that principle is an objection to the way Wikipedia works. We don't want table stuff added all over the encyclopaedia as quickly and efficiently as possible, without scrutiny, or the possibility of review. WP:SIDEBARs are not taxonomies. They are editor collations, and necessarily synthetic. More scrutiny is needed for these, not less.

This, however, is a content issue. I don't think ANI is the place to discuss it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to get too sucked in, so I'm going to keep my response restrained and focus on the main two questions I have for you:

A) How did you discover Template:Machine learning and Confirmatory factor analysis, which you never previously edited, one day after I made my first addition to these pages in a while (and four days after I asked you to stop hounding)?

B) Why have you only used WP:BIDI to make mass removals of articles from sidebars (and to nominate sidebars for deletion), as opposed to simply correcting the discrepancies yourself by adding the sidebars to article pages? (Semi-supervised learning is a foundational concept in machine learning, and removing it from a sidebar about machine learning per BIDI is one example of an edit that feels disruptive.) Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

On B, if I may give my perspective, and this part is basically just a content issue, most of the entries that were added were inappropriate. SIDEBAR is for major entries, they are not supposed to be all comprehensive at all. You are consistently trying to make them totally comprehensive of the subject matter, whereas a sidebar is, per WP:SIDEBAR, supposedly to be a "tightly related" selection of a few items. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I have been published in academic journals and have presented at academic conferences pertaining to this topic. That being the case, let's examine some entries from the most recent mass deletion.

There are four main types of machine learning: unsupervised, reinforcement, semi-supervised, and supervised:

• Supervised learning — Deleted
  • First sentence: In machine learning, supervised learning (SL) is a type of machine learning paradigm where an algorithm learns to map input data to a specific output based on example input-output pairs.
• Semi-supervised learning — Deleted
  • First sentence: Weak supervision (also known as semi-supervised learning) is a paradigm in machine learning, the relevance and notability of which increased with the advent of large language models due to the large amount of data required to train them.

Artificial neural networks are the basis of most modern machine learning algorithms used by AI companies, and they are largely the reason why the modern AI boom has been so far-reaching in society (for better or worse). Nearly every major AI tech company in the AI boom has relied upon artificial neural networks:

• Artificial neural network — Deleted
  • First sentence: In machine learning, a neural network (NN) or artificial neural network (ANN) is a computational model inspired by the structure and functions of biological neural networks.

Same for deep learning, a technique used in artificial neural networks which has also been foundational in the AI boom:

• Deep learning — Deleted
  • First sentence: In machine learning, deep learning (DL) focuses on utilizing multilayered neural networks to perform tasks such as classification, regression, and representation learning.

Linear regression is a foundational statistical analysis/ML technique. It is a concept you will learn in the first week of every statistical machine learning course.

• Linear regression — Deleted
  • In lede: Linear regression is also a type of machine learning algorithm, more specifically a supervised algorithm, that learns from the labelled datasets and maps the data points to the most optimized linear functions that can be used for prediction on new datasets.

I could go on, but for now, let me instead list every other article that was unilaterally mass-removed from the sidebar by Sirfurboy (presumably without having any knowledge in the field):

• Feature learning
• Batch learning
• Neuro-symbolic AI
• Neuromorphic engineering
• Quantum machine learning
• Classification
• Generative modeling
• Dimensionality reduction
• Density estimation
• Data cleaning
• Semantic analysis
• Apprenticeship learning
• k-NN
• Naive Bayes
• Confirmatory
• LDA
• t-SNE
• Bayes net
• Isolation forest
• ESN
• reservoir computing
• Boltzmann machine
• LeNet
• AlexNet
• Physics-informed neural networks
• Transformer
• Electrochemical RAM
• Policy gradient
• Self-play
• Crowdsourcing
• Coefficient of determination
• Confusion matrix
• ROC curve
• Kernel machines
• AAAI
• CVPR
• ECCV
• ECML PKDD
• EMNLP
• ICCV
• IJCAI
• ML
• Glossary of artificial intelligence

Which of these do you believe are inappropriate on a machine learning sidebar? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Most of them because these are not for every single example related to the topic, but a major series of tightly related items. Sure, those are all machine learning topics, no one disputed that, but I am unconvinced that they are tightly related as the whole field of machine learning is incredibly expansive. The ideal sidebar is actually a "part of a series" template of a few dozen or less tightly related topics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, this feels to me like a deflection, but since I'm trying to avoid getting sucked in, I am politely disengaging from this thread. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandraaaacs1989 and @Sirfurboy would you both be willing to accept a voluntary logged two-way interaction ban? Both of you could still edit the same templates but you both could not revert each others edits. I think this is a step in the right direction that would try to keep things civil. You both have a lot to give to this project and I would hate to see one of you leave over this. If you take a step back from your history you both can see how much work you've both put in to this project. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:42, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

No. As Alexandraacs knows, I was pinged into those discussions, and what you are proposing will prevent me from editing on those pages. There is no hounding. This is a content issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

👍Dr vulpes (Talk) 10:16, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I think if this needs to be litigated it should be at WP:AE, where admins can sort through larger volumes of evidence than ANI is capable of reasonably dealing with. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

This would probably be a good idea:

I saw this lengthy filing and swore something that hadn't been brought up was an ANI filing by Alexandraaaacs1989 that I recalled taking part in where they'd essentially made an LLM-assisted sniper filing against Sirfurboy after they'd had a dispute with someone else, digging up every ANI filing ever to try and get them blocked. Turns out my memory was slightly faulty and it'd been against AndyTheGrump, someone they'd had a similar dispute with.

With that in mind, alongside reading this new filing and some of Alexandraaaacs1989's editing, to say all this is incredibly focused on the WP:CT/AP area is a massive understatement. Alexandraaaacs1989 seems to be wanting to include anything and everything to I assume document their view of how the Trump presidency is a threat to democracy that when reading comes across as borderline obsession that seems to be turning into grudges with certain editors who are "getting in their way" so to speak. I don't see anything here that amounts to hounding because Sirfurboy is someone who is already active (and has been for years) in templates and discussions on articles relating to contemporary politics, meaning there are perfectly understandable reasons for the edits they've made that Alexandraaaacs1989 can't help themselves but see as deliberate acts against them personally.

To be perfectly honest, in all this I checked talk pages for related discussions and saw the most recent state of Alexandraaaacs1989's one, where currently it's taken up by them saying a week ago they're going on a Wikipedia hiatus because of the way they are unable to keep themselves from taking editing here way too personally and editing in a way that really seems like they themselves know is fundamentally about WP:RGW and is causing conflict as a result. That hiatus never seems to have happened and instead they've clearly then gotten into more arguments and disputes.

As a result, I do wonder if the best move might be for the community to impose restrictions on Alexandraaaacs1989 regarding WP:CT/AP because they themselves appear to admit at length that they know their editing activities are destructive for their own wellbeing but don't seem able to restrain themselves from continuing to act in that manner. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

While I am not surprised unrelated conflicts from several months ago that have since been resolved are being held against me here, there was no sniper filing as I have already explained to you, but I'm not getting sucked into this again. The editor was aggressive across many interactions, I was not the only one who felt this way, I was reckless and hasty in the filing, and I've since improved as an editor/changed my views/learned to be more careful. I'm not responding to speculation about me being unable to restrain myself, as it were.

What specific policies do you believe I have violated? RGW only applies if there is disruption (like if I'm adding unverified claims to articles), and editing CT/AP is not inherently disruptive. Do you have specific policy-based evidence of continued disruption you could provide in this discussion? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

This is purely a content issue and if there is a behavioral issue I am not convinced that Sirfurboy is the one at issue. This is not hounding as Sirfurboy explains above.

We have so many problems with sidebars, and people adding terrible crufty links into sidebars, we really do need to have some discussion about this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I am respectfully noting here you have supported Sirfurboy's deletions across the aforementioned content disputes prior to this ANI. This does not undermine your perspective, nor am I trying to turn this against you in any capacity — I just wanted to politely point this out so it doesn't appear this is the perspective of an uninvolved editor. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Takes lots of time to delete the link spam i.e Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 5#Culture sidebars part 9 vs mass creation and spam addition. Basically months to delete - seconds to make. Moxy🍁 15:42, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I understand your perspective and believe there is 100% truth to it — as with everything, it's definitely a balancing act. But isn't this bringing a content dispute into an ANI? How did Sirfurboy know I had edited Template:Machine learning and Confirmatory factor analysis if he wasn't tracking my edits to challenge them via my user contribution history (WP:HOUNDING)? That's the reason why I started this ANI. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Looking at someone's edit history to see if they've made similar mistakes on other pages is not hounding. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

similar mistakes I address this point in paragraph 3 of this comment below. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING is "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor" while "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." You've quoted your own previous comments about Sirfurboy, but as far as I can see, you've not provided anything that indicates Sirfurboy has such an aim and is not correcting what they see as related problems on multiple templates. What indicates an aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress? NebY (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

You make a good point — let's break WP:HOUNDING, based on your articulation, into two categories: actus reus (the act of the alleged crime, i.e. tracking my edits and persistently challenging them) and mens rea (the intentionality of the person during the alleged crime, i.e. doing this with the intention of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor).

• The way I see it, per the above, the 7 November 2026 edit(s) (he removed the sidebar from the article and removed 51 articles from the sidebar one day after I made my first change in a while to Template:Machine learning, right after four days earlier on 3 November 2026 I asked him to stop WP:HOUNDING me, which he ignored, and which is a template to which Sirfurboy had never previously contributed, and which is part of an article/templatespace to which I have never seen Sirfurboy previously contribute) is unambiguous proof that Sirfurboy was tracking my user contribution history with the intention of challenging my edits. This contributes to actus reus — the act of tracking and challenging my edits — and mens rea — the act of tracking my edits with the intention of of creating annoyance or distress right after I expressed annoyance and asked him to stop doing exactly this.
• This edit by Sirfurboy reveals that he tracked my user page in order to discover two additional sidebars to which I contributed, in addition to Template:Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies sidebar, to which another editor pinged him to contribute. This contributes to actus reus.
• Sirfurboy has never engaged with me when I attempted to de-escalate or create mutual understanding (per my documentation in the timeline above, namely in the 28 October 2026 section, and the 2 November 2026 section frankly felt like he was flipping the middle finger, as it were, to my previous polite request from 28 October intending to keep tensions low). This contributes to the mens rea element of WP:HOUNDING, revealing the editor is uninterested in creating mutual understanding or de-escalation, which leads me to assume the editor is challenging my edits and deliberately refusing to engage in a way intended to create irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor.

As a parenthetical, I also don't believe mass removing articles from sidebars that are clearly related (such as removing reinforcement learning from Template:Machine learning per my reasoning here) qualifies as fixing unambiguous errors (per WP:HOUNDING), i.e. the stipulation that HOUNDING may not equally apply regarding the fixing of unambiguous errors is not relevant to this case. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

You've quoted "fixing unambiguous errors" in order to assert it's irrelevant, but WP:HOUNDING - as I excerpted above - also mentions correcting related problems on multiple articles. So far in November, Sirfurboy has edited twelve templates, {{Christian nationalism US sidebar}}, {{Machine learning}}, {{American nationalism}}, {{Far-right politics navbox}}, {{Anarchism sidebar}}, {{Conservatism US}}, {{Gaza genocide sidebar}}, {{Christian culture}}, {{Indian cuisine}}, {{Pakistani cuisine}}, {{Attributes of God in Christianity}} and {{Immigration policy of the second Trump administration sidebar}}, some for the first time, some also edited as far back as October 2025 along with many others, citing WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, MOS:DECOR and WP:NAVIMAGE. Of those twelve, you'd edited three. Do you regard the editing of the other nine as indirectly hounding you? NebY (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Do you regard the editing of the other nine as indirectly hounding you? No, of course not. I don't believe he is only hounding me, per se — I believe he is hounding editors maintaining sidebars more broadly, [EDIT:] No — as far as sidebars go, I am only focusing on the four relevant sidebars, regarding which I believe he is engaging in hounding Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2026 (UTC) rather than resolving disagreements using the consensus-building process, because he does not like these sidebars and because has found this strategy (per WP:ONUS) to be more effective than using the consensus-building process to achieve his vision of what Wikipedia should be. But for the sake of this discussion, I only focused on hounding I've personally experienced.

When you say Sirfurboy has edited twelve templates, I think this would be more accurately characterized as Sirfurboy has consistently mass deleted articles from (and has inhibited the addition of images to) templates without playing any role in constructing or adding to these templates, using user contribution histories of editors with whom he disagrees to identify additional templates from which to mass remove content, without attempting to create consensus, relying on WP:ONUS creating a bureaucratic hassle for other editors seeking to preserve the templates, and without leaving talk page notices regarding these WP:BOLD edits despite repeated requests from other editors, in addition to trying to remove many of the sidebars in their entireties without putting in any effort towards migrating content to alternative formats like navboxes, without preserving/archiving deleted content, without making the WP:BIDI fixes himself, without engaging in attempts by other editors to de-escalate, and without giving any ground regarding these deletions.

He is correcting related problems that others do not agree exist in a way that he knows is likely to be challenged based on different understandings of policy and community consensus, arguably WP:WIKILAWYERING (abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm) in the process (e.g., WhatamIdoing argued I looked into BIDI for sidebars recently, and there were a surprising number of them that don't follow BIDI. {{LGBTQ sidebar}}, for example, contains 207 links but appears in 245 articles – nearly a 20% discrepancy) (q.v., another more literal interpretation of guidelines than their spirit to defend the disruption (x2) of content). I'll also note WP:NAVIMAGE, as argued by Einsof, is neither a policy nor a guideline, and I'm perfectly happy to ignore this one given how completely out of step it is with actual practice, and that Sirfurboy, I will assume accidentally, misrepresented the words of MOS:DECOR which directly contradicted the point he was making.

All that considered, does tracking my user history and challenging my changes to technical topics about which he has no expertise really not constitute WP:HOUNDING? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

No. That you think he is wrong does not make it hounding. That you think it is annoying also does not make it hounding. Hounding is when someone sets out specifically to annoy you.

In this case Sirfurboy is editing in good faith and attempting to improve the encyclopedia as they see it. If their edits happen to annoy you as a by-product that is unfortunate but not against policy. MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

That you think he is wrong does not make it hounding. That you think it is annoying also does not make it hounding. None of the reasons I provided regarding WP:HOUNDING have to do with me thinking he is wrong or thinking he is annoying. I will leave you with the words I already wrote, which explain in detail my argument as to why I believe he specifically set out to annoy me (q.v. mens rea). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I read that and understood your argument, and nonetheless I think you are just wrong. That Sirfurboy knew an edit would annoy you does not make it hounding, because they had a valid reason to make the edit anyway. MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

You're presenting Sirfurboy not engaging with you in the ways you specified as he specifically set out to annoy me. That is not convincing and it's unfortunate if you are convinced of that. NebY (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

WTF is "hounding editors maintaining sidebars more broadly"? That makes no sense. It sounds like you don't understand hounding at all and suggest you drop this before we start to consider whether it might really be the time to site ban you since this is hardly the first time you've come up with some crazy idea that makes no sense or have been to ANI where you are solely or primarily at fault. Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

That seems like a draconian extreme overreaction. Alexandra is a very productive and well-intended Wikipedia member. She just feels like she is being disproportionately attacked. David A (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

If an editor keeps causing more problems then productive edits, then no it's not an over reaction. And it seems to me it's at least getting close to that considering the personal attacks in this thread and the fact they're been in so many AN//I threads where they seem primarily at fault. A number of which they initiated. Perhaps a ban on opening threads would work but frankly that's such a harsh and risky measure that I'm not convinced it's worth it. If an editor after all this time and attempts to help them still can't understand the basics of what's okay here then there's not muchw e can do. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, I had a quick look at all the threads in the ANs where I can find Alexandraaaacs1989 's name, to ensure I was being fair and wasn't making a personal attack. And I largely stand by what I said albeit with some caveats. The first thing I'll say I should have been clearer. While opening a thread when it turns out your behaviour is a bigger problem is very bad, it's still a significant concern if you open a thread where no one feels there is a problem or at least one worth the ANs. Especially when you keep at it for too long and/or you effectively make a personal attack when opening the thread, as happened here by unjustifiable accusing Sirfurboy of hounding. Also there were more threads opened by Alexandraaaacs1989 which were clearly reasonable i.e. lead to some sanction or action against another editor than I remembered. One problem for Alexandraaaacs1989 is that editors will tend to remember the bad more than the good especially since with Alexandraaaacs1989 it does tend to involve sprawling long threads that last ages. But also this isn't AFD or something. I think most editors here will agree that considering the cost to editor time & especially the problems that arise from accusing an editor of something unfairly, opening unjustified threads on the ANs is generally a significant problem especially if most editors seem to agree there was really no reason to open it, even if you opened a number good threads. In many ways this applies to commentators too of course, I fully recognise if I say stuff that others feel is unjustified or unreasonable on ANI too often, this is a problem given the time that may be taken responding to it etc. Oh and this does apply to Alexandraaaacs1989 too for any threads they got involved in. (I'm not saying good to bad ratio is irrelevant but IMO it's something that matters less than in a number of other areas.) But to be clear even if an editor doesn't open a thread if reasonable concerns were raised about their behaviour even if it did not amount to sanctionable behaviour this still adds to concerns. (The editor opening the thread may or may not have made a mistake that is separate from concerns overthe behaviour.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Well, I continue to maintain that Alexandra seems to be an extremely well-intentioned and productive contributor, and as such it would be overzealous and a huge loss for Wikipedia to ban or sanction them instead of giving them guidance/coaching, but I am elsewhere attempting to help them understand that they must be careful to stop shooting themself in their feet over and over by taking setbacks personally (rather than being satisfied with the times they manage to do a lot of good), and by initiating lengthy report threads that risk to cause boomerang effects simply because other editors find them too time-consuming to deal with. David A (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I'd add that it's contradictory to claim an editor is trying to achieve their vision by abusing onus while also saying they're hounding. If an editor is relying on the other editor needing to seek consensus for their change and so knowing it's more difficult just reverts knowing they won't have to do much, this might be a problem in some cases. But it's not hounding since they're not trying to annoy the other editors, just relying on the fact it takes the other editors more work so they're more likely to "win" against these other editors. Unless you're claiming they're also hoping the other editors get some annoyed they give up but this is almost impossible to prove since you've shown there might be a simpler motivation which is not hounding. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I struck hounding editors maintaining sidebars more broadly and reworded it. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Also just wanted add "Sirfurboy has consistently mass deleted articles from (and has inhibited the addition of images to) [12] templates" again shows they're not hounding. Assuming you're correct they're not following editors to annoy or disrupt them. They're not following them at all. They've found a set of now 12 templates where they're ensuring their way/vision is preserved by deleting everything that doesn't fit it etc. They're not trying to annoy anyone, they're just ensuring their vision is preserved. They don't give a damn who the editors are, just what the outcome in these templates is. Editors who edit the templates against their vision will be reverted whoever they are and editors who edit the templates within their vision will be left alone. And it could be the same editor doing both. This could be a problem but it's not hounding. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I have updated the timeline regarding a new comment left by Sirfurboy. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

This case by Alexandraaaacs1989 against Sirfurboy strikes me as disruptive and a perversion of WP:HOUNDING. I've been recently involved in the editing Template:Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies sidebar, and commented on October 30 in a related matter at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Viriditas. There at AE, I referenced the ANI report made here last week about Alexandraaaacs1989's editing. ANI report is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1239#WP:BLUDGEON, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPA, and WP:TE by User:Alexandraaaacs1989 on Third wave of autocratization. As I mentioned at AE, Template:Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies sidebar is becoming an editorial coatrack, and it looks like the other sidebars mentioned here, all created by Alexandraaaacs1989, probably are as well. I have two main points now. First, if an editor creates a navigational template, then that editor should not be surprised to find one or more of same editors frequently coming into contact with them on many of those articles included in that navigational template. You, the creator of the template, have introduced and/or enhanced the connection between all those articles! It's absurd to consider any increased contact there as hounding. Second, just about a week ago, Alexandraaaacs1989 promised here at ANI that "I'm going to take a break from Wikipedia and work on some other projects that give me more freedom in my writing." I think that promise likely contributed to EducatedRedneck graciously withdrawing their case against Alexandraaaacs1989. And now we are right here back a week later, and Alexandraaaacs1989 is on the offensive, creating more drama. Boy, that was a quick break! I see the proposal below for 3-6 month block for Alexandraaaacs1989 has been closed, but I think that got derailed from the start on the wellbeing grounds. Perhaps, we should consider a block solely on the grounds of disruption. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm only going to respond to the break on my talk page/why I am still making edits frequently post-hiatus, because it has now been repeatedly insinuated that due to the hiatus/continuation of edits, that I am incapable of controlling myself and deserving of sanctions as a result, as it were (though I do greatly appreciate the community's recognition of the paternalistic nature of the wellbeing-sanction argument). My own opinion regarding this line of thinking (per WP:SPADE), which of course is biased and may not be correct, is that this is the result of how I have not engaged in otherwise sanctionable behavior, yet many editors who do not like me remain nevertheless annoyed and therefore are seeking the next-most-likely punitive avenue to succeed. I am not insinuating bad faith, but I do believe that this is at the very least the subconscious mechanism underlying this behavior — many editors want me gone, that fact is very clear (which of course was part of what contributed to my decision to make distance from this platform), and they are seeking to characterize me as an unpredictable liability to the community using my hiatus comment as their silver bullet in the absence of policy-based and specific evidence of disruption. So let me explain what I have decided to do regarding the hiatus so we can finally put this matter to rest:

I am no longer going to create new articles or templates, and I am no longer going to expand articles or templates in a significant capacity indefinitely (I will likely return to this in a few months, but otherwise I am indeed taking an indefinite break) since these were the main sources of interpersonal conflict. I also decided that I am only going to maintain/continue watching current articles and templates I have already created and continue making occasional minor quality-of-life improvements or additions, while hovering in talk page discussions to occasionally leave my two cents from a distance.

Since announcing my hiatus on my talk page on 28 October, Sirfurboy has on 6 occasions across 4 independent templates/articles, per the above timeline, continued to challenge content to which I contributed. Since I am in maintenance mode, this has kept me into a state of persistently making edits defending against the deletion of content to which I already contributed. This is why I have continued to make a high volume of edits, and it's why I am now leaving an ANI notice — Sirfurboy did not engage with me in my multiple attempts at de-escalation, and it is now clear — per Template:Machine learning and Confirmatory factor analysis changes, which more or less unambiguously confirm this theory — he is tracking my user contribution history with the intention of continuing challenging my limited edits on this platform (or, more specifically, tracking and mass-deleting content relating to templates to which I've contributed, which I am surprised more people do not believe qualifies as obvious WP:HOUNDING per my previous comments). I cannot remain on this platform if Sirfurboy is going to continue keeping me under the magnifying glass and, according to his discretion, mass-deleting content from topics to which I contributed on the basis of what myself and at minimum two other editors (not many, but I'm not alone in this sentiment, and additional editors have expressed adjacent sentiments) have agreed are esoteric interpretations of policies that significantly deviate from the norm of how these policies are applied across the rest of the platform.

I hope this clears things up regarding this particular point. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it particularly does. If I'm reading your above points accurately, you're saying you *would* be on a hiatus/maintenance mode, except that you feel you have to defend yourself on this particular issue which is keeping you editing. So, I'm confused as to why if that's the case, that you're seeking to involve yourself in a seemingly unrelated WP:AE request, one that is likely to be particularly dramatic, given the subject matter? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:51, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Because after Samuelshraga suggested taking this to AE above, I looked into the page and noticed an editor with whom I have semi-frequently interacted has sanctions requested against them, and consensus regarding penalties appeared to be split, so I analyzed the situation seeking to understand whether sanctions were appropriate and left a comment opposing sanctions to reduce the probability of this editor being sanctioned, which I do not believe would be appropriate or improve Wiki. I mentioned I would like to hover in talk page discussions to occasionally leave my two cents, and I have a bit more time to do so on weekends. But again, this really feels like it's focusing the conversation on the legitimacy of my informal self-imposed hiatus rather than the (I believe) pretty unambiguous evidence I've brought forward that this editor is tracking and challenging my edits.

Also, sorry if my tone here is a bit frenetic — definitely not trying to escalate the conversation and just want to clarify once again I'm not (in my perspective) yelling at anyone here and am doing my best to maintain a civil tone. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Since announcing my hiatus on my talk page on 28 October, Sirfurboy has on 6 occasions across 4 independent templates/articles, per the above timeline, continued to challenge content to which I contributed. Since I am in maintenance mode, this has kept me into a state of persistently making edits defending against the deletion of content to which I already contributed. This seems like a straightforward description of WP:OWN. Samuelshraga (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

• Page 1: I created Template:Immigration policy of the second Trump administration sidebar, Sirfur found it by examining my user page and challenging it.
• Page 2: I contributed for the first time to Ilhan Omar pertaining to sidebars I started. Shortly after, Sirfurboy made his first contribution to the page challenging my proposed content.
• Page 3: I created Template:Gaza genocide sidebar, Sirfur found it by examining my user page and challenging it
• Page 4: I contributed to Template:Machine learning and Confirmatory factor analysis, and one day later Sirfur, who has refused to answer my question about how he discovered this template and article to which he never previously contributed, discovered this template and mass deleted 50+ articles from it.

WP:HOUNDING: Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Very loud sigh. There are a bunch of things that I've already said in other drama board threads that relate in one way or another to these template disputes: that this issue keeps popping up in one form or another over and over again, that Alexandraaaacs1989 means well but needs to keep things more succinct, that this is something that has escalated needlessly and could have been avoided if editors just didn't rush to escalate it, and that the largest part of this is a content dispute that would best be dealt with via a carefully crafted and widely advertised RfC. Can I have that printed on a tee-shirt? Probably not.

Anyway, I've interacted a lot with both Alexandraaaacs1989 and Sirfurboy, and I have generally good opinions of both of them, and I don't really see anything here that would justify sanctions against anyone, beyond just telling everyone to dial it down. In my opinion, the midterm elections in the US that happened a few days ago probably have helped resolve some political issues, but it's obvious here that they didn't resolve the disagreements between Wikipedia editors about the various templates that include a lot of pages that, one way or another, involve Trump, and characterize him in ways that editors can disagree about. On top of that, add the fact that the templates link to a lot of pages, and have been placed on a lot of pages. And on top of that, add a generous topping of various arcane rules about templates, including but not limited to bidirectionality and where to put them on the page. It all adds up to: mountains being made out of molehills. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

In many top level Canadian articles.......we understand that editors and perhaps some of the 15% of our viewership that are on desktop may appreciate the link spam... however we understand an educational illustration is obviously better for an article overall....thus we use {{If mobile}} we're appropriate.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_of_Canada

VS

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_of_Canada

Those that really dislike the link spam and the fact that it takes up space where an educational image would be more beneficial for our readers should simply use the template above and realize that the vast majority of our readers don't see these types of templates anyways..... thus best concentrate on what they do see. Moxy🍁 01:25, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Isn't Canada becoming our 51st state? I'm joking, please don't anyone get offended. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

we've been trying to join the Americans for centuries ...for some reason they don't like us..... Too polite and educated I guess.....lol. Moxy🍁 01:31, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Since there appear to be no meaningful solutions on the table to this feud and since you raised the point above that we should amend BIDI, maybe we should simply start a VPP (maybe with an RfC? like trypto suggested) to see whether we can loosen BIDI. If BIDI is loosened, it would mean editors are no longer able to make mass removals on its behalf, it would mean we're not forced to spam up articlespaces with sidebars for the sake of not violating BIDI (like you mentioned, and I've ended up in feuds with other editors who didn't like the spam while I was forced to defend their inclusions because if they were removed it would violate BIDI, e.g. recently on Talk:Ilhan Omar), and it would put enough of this dispute to rest that it shouldn't keep popping up everywhere/no sanctions should really be needed (even though I technically still believe Sirfur hounded me/etc, but whatever (update to the timeline today). That said, every time I find myself at VPP, I never manage to convince anyone of my own perspective (I think I need to reflect on and change my writing style), so I'm thinking someone else should be the person to begin this process, and I could support this proposal or help otherwise iron out the details during the consensus-building process if this would conceivably be helpful.

Separately... I've had the thought of making it so that sidebars are significantly more collapsable (i.e. so they don't display each section and would essentially only be a header with "\/ Expand \/" text at the bottom of the header, or something along these lines). This could address the spam aspect as well and maybe I could do some light coding, but that's off-topic from BIDI.

Just spitballing solutions because I do really want to resolve this productively and swiftly. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Knowing your audience is a good first step. Try to limit yourself to 50-70 words for each reply (I use the word counter extension in my browser), and to only reply when absolutely necessary, minimizing your participation. Let the discussion breathe to avoid the bludgeoning accusations and allow people to present their own opinions without a reply. I say this as someone who has faced similar issues and is undergoing reform and rehab when it comes to engaging in discussions. I know what it's like being able to generate thousands of words in under 10 minutes, but Wikipedia culture looks down on that and expects brevity. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :) Maybe the browser word counter is what I need, I'll try it out! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Looking at what happened at Ilhan Omar, you WP:BOLDly added two(!) of your sidebars, they were objected to, you found a reasonable compromise on one of them so you added back ... both. Despite the explicit and continuing objection to the second. Discussion has petered out, with the status quo explicitly not reflecting consensus, because you have exhausted the other editors' attention. Whereas your attention, and willingness to contribute, is never exhausted - even when there are formal word limits in place or an explicit consensus against you.

I'm thinking of this AfD, where you bludgeoned, blew past the word limit, did very funky and annoying things to "rectify" that, and have since sought to overturn - and misrepresent - the consensus that nonetheless resulted.

Or of this page, where you introduced blatant WP:OR, that was also false (the "non-UN document" thing). In response to an OR tag, you added a citation that didn't make the claim or carry the quote from your OR.. You then defended it energetically on talk claiming WP:NOTCOM. Finally, after it had been pointed out to you that it was not only OR, but literally a misreading by you of the primary document, and you had seemed to accept this and retract the claim, you returned months later to advocate re-introducing it into the article.

Several more examples recommend themselves, but I think that's the point. Above you've suggested that the meaningful solution could be to go to the village pump and change policy to win your content dispute. This after your attempt to get the other person in the content dispute sanctioned began to fail, if not backfire. There is in fact a problem here - multiple problems in fact: WP:ADCVOCACY, WP:OR, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:OWN. Bludgeoning may be the easiest one to measure (and it's definitely there) but it misses a lot of the issue. I strongly suggest that you consider how you would limit your own editing before somebody suggests limiting it for you, not for your own wellbeing but because of demonstrated disruption. Samuelshraga (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

An RfC would be about content, which isn't going to be decided at ANI. But my advice would be, at least for a start, to focus on what the templates should contain and what pages they should be on, and consequently how those things should be decided – but not to be about changing guidelines like BIDI, which would have implications that go far beyond the particular subject area. Editors should first have a collaborative process to decide how the RfC is constructed, and then have the RfC itself, and realize that this is going to take time. It's useful to remember that this is within the scope of AMPOL, which allows the RfC to be conducted under CTOP. As a result, editors can put out a call for one or more uninvolved admins to oversee the process, under CTOP rules. I'm saying these things because nothing will be accomplished if editors just show up at an RfC to "vote" for their own biases and to complain about the fairness of the RfC process, and it's clear to me that this is a very real risk, with all the disagreements in this contentious subject. For an (admittedly over the top) example of how this worked successfully for an earlier battleground, see WP:GMORFC. But don't expect any shortcuts. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

The issue here is not politics sidebars, it is all sidebars. Several of the sidebars at issue have 0 to do with politics at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Request Alexandraaaacs1989 is blocked from this discussion, unrelated to any wider proposals, as they are now repeatedly editing their own comments that have been replied to in contravention of guidelines (WP:EYOC). Tagging an uninvolved recently active admin @Black Kite Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Barring truly egregious behavior (which is not in evidence here), no one is going to be blocked from a discussion to which they are a party and the request to do so is absurd. Wordy or messy ANIs are perhaps not the most advisable way for someone to ensure something they're concerned about gets a hearing, but the need to ensure that all parties are heard and get a chance to respond to accusations or counter-accusations against them is clearly more important than mere talk page guidelines such as WP:EYOC. Counting this one you've made three separate requests for a boomerang against Alexandraaaacs1989 in this discussion; is it your desire that they not be allowed to reply to those? And do you think that that is an actually reasonable or sensible thing to request? --Aquillion (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

The very first diff I supplied has them introducing a fresh allegation against someone (namely claiming they deliberately "lied by omission" to admins) into an existing comment with no acknowledgement of the change. This change was made some 30+ hours after the comment they placed it into is timestamped and appears to be a direct rebuttal to an existing reply, thereby vastly reducing the likelihood that the person the allegation is about would see it and respond further. As far as I'm concerned that's egregious because it creates a perception everyone who had already replied to the original allegations ignored it.

This is the heart of my issue with this, and in my view you're failing to appreciate that Alexandraaaacs1989's repeated violations of guidelines is denying other parties the reasonable chance to respond to accusations made about them by Alexandraaaacs1989, because those other parties are not reasonably likely to check previous comments for new allegations being made in them and give their view on events.

Your line therefore about my supposed "desire" to stop them replying not only appears to contain an insinuation of bad faith on my part but also completely misses the point of the request. Namely that the issue is that they weren't replying to people, but instead changing what others had been replying to. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

with no acknowledgement of the change - I acknowledged the change here. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2026 (UTC) I need to disengage. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

You should really stop going back and editing old posts, timelines, whatever. You are not doing yourself any favors by flouting Wikipedia community norms like this. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

A single brief completely out of sequence comment that is not placed with the actual change, doesn't specify what the change is or its contents, and isn't a reply to Sirfurboy's comment is not reasonable acknowledgement. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

The added section is labeled "9 November 2026". The ANI began on 8 November 2026, which is clearly labeled in the ANI signature. From this it pretty clearly follows the 9 November 2026 section was added after the ANI began. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2026 (UTC) I need to disengage. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

No it doesn't "pretty clearly follow", because editors expect new comments and claims to follow after previous comments. It is not fair or reasonable to assume anyone who has already engaged with the post to scroll back up to find new allegations you've inserted subsequent to their responses.

This is precisely why we have the guidelines in place which you keep breaking. Even in the proposal section below you commented at 17:20UTC that you'd "stop replying to comments from here out in this thread unless I am asked a direct question" only to then 40 minutes later, after multiple people had already responded, reworded your comment to "I'll stop replying to comments from here out in this thread unless I am asked a direct question [EDIT: or replied to directly] which I can only surmise is so you don't look like you're yet again going back on your claim to no longer be taking part so you could once again try to have the last word.

Because the thing is, despite your own suggestion I was in bad-faith attempting to use your failure to adhere to your hiatus as some "silver bullet" to get rid of you permanently, it's all part of the same good-faith concern I just have (which I would for any editor here) in that you have explicitly said that your current pattern of participation in Wikipedia is causing negative consequences for your own mental health to the point you yourself have stated you need a break from it, yet despite that seem so completely incapable of actually stopping yourself from this need to have the last word, spending hours rewriting posts again and again and again, and unable to accept that nobody else can see the personal vendetta you have been seeing in Sirfurboy's editing going on eight months now that you opened and have made nearly 250 edits to this single ANI thread in less than 48 hours that I think the only way you'd actually be able to stop and take said break is if limitations of some form were placed on your editing to prevent such behaviour you have said is causing you harm. In absence of this all I'm assuming is that you will continue to drive yourself into an even worse place mentally before expressing that in such a way that you just end up with a permanent block and nothing good comes of it.

At that I'm just going to leave this thread because clearly it's never going to go anywhere in terms of the sanctions you're demanding be put on Sirfurboy, and there's no point continuing to engage with you because clearly no-one's comments are getting through to you about how it's your own conduct that people are expressing concerns about. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite this thread, and despite warnings on Alexandraaaacs1989 own talk page that they should avoid bludgeoning, there is no indication that they intend to do so. There is a content dispute at Template talk:Gaza genocide sidebar over whether the SIDEBAR should have a photographic image. Alexandraaaacs1989 has been heavily bludgeoning discussion there. I suggested they were bludgeoning when they started repeating the same point over and over in various parts of the discussion. They challenged the characterisation, leading me to write this at 19:52 yesterday: . Three minute after I posted this, they opened an RfC, without replying to the response (Template_talk:Gaza_genocide_sidebar#RfC:_Should_an_image_be_used?_If_so,_which_one?).

Now, to be fair, they were clearly working on that RfC for more than 3 minutes (not least because they needed to write their 565 word first survey response). Although, if they were intending an RfC, this pinging in an editor they believed would support them was not a WP:APPNOTE, even though it was prior to actual posting. But okay, an RfC brings in more eyes, and that is not a bad thing. However the way that the RfC was put together is, perhaps, telling. This comes off the back of a previous RfC, similarly about a SIDEBAR image in which there was procedural discussion about my choice to have separate survey and discussion sections, per WP:RFCRESPOND and common practice. I pointed out that Robert McClenon, among others, commonly does it this way, and asked if he would comment. He was kind enough to do so, saying, inter alia:

I do have an opinion that comments in the Survey complicate closing and make it more difficult to reach rough consensus, and the purpose of an RFC is to reach rough consensus. There is no positive value to comments in the Survey, which only result in back-and-forth, and are likely to bias the outcome in favor of the editor who uses their bludgeon more.

It is therefore interesting that Alexandraaaacs1989 deliberately chose to have an RfC with threaded discussion, and immediately has begun WP:BADGERING in that RfC threaded discussion. ZLEA was quite clear in their !vote that none of the suggested images are appropriate, and chose option A - no image. So Alexandraaaacs1989's can you please give an example of an image that you believe would aid navigation at 2:28 14 November, is not really appropriate, and I would respectfully appreciate a different example is clearly badgering. My pointing out they are bludgeoning their own RfC led to yet more accusations of bad faith from them .

To be clear then, as this thread has already shown, Alexandraaaacs1989 is strongly inclined to bludgeon in discussions they feel strongly about (just look at how many edits they've made, both here and on those discussions!) They are also inclined to characterise those who disagree with them as being in bad faith. This is not a new thing. It has been going on for a year. If they can't even dial it back when this has been pointed out in an active ANI discussion, then maybe it is time for someone or the community to step in. We have had workable bludgeoning restrictions in the past. The log of sanctions gives quite a few examples. But at this stage, I'd happily support some kind of formal warning rather than a sanction. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Sirfurboy's assessment of Alexandraaaacs1989's actions. Granted, I have responded to all of Alexandraaaacs1989's resposes, so I'm probably guilty of unintentionally encouraging their bludgeoning. The tipping point for me was Alexandraaaacs1989's continuous WP:BADGERING that Sirfurboy outlined above. - ZLEA ^TǀC 15:29, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Derek J Moore and paid editing / COI

Apparent co-ordinated editing by SPAs at Nury Turkel

• Nury Turkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• OrbisLex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RafeTaylor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bizuyghur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yalqun Tash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ApikiMika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nturkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over at Nury Turkel, a number of highly suspicious SPA accounts have removed and/or advocated for the removal of, the well sourced allegation that Turkel engaged in sexual harassment and subsequently resigned from the Uyghur Human Rights Project against multiple established contributors One of these SPAs made a thread at BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP:_Nury_Turkel--paragraph_on_allegations_and_resignation. Not counting the opinions of these SPAs, there seems to be an overwhelming opinion to retain the content. I am concerned that these accounts are sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry aimed at distorting the Wikipedia consensus regarding the issue. An account claiming to be the subject (Nturkel) has also posted to the article's talkpage, again requesting removal of the content. A sockpuppet investigation has been opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bizuyghur covering two of the accounts, which came back as "possible" that they were the same person, but the investigation seems to have stalled, and new accounts keep coming out of the woodwork to remove the content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Even before the co-ordinated SPA editing, I had raised my concern about possible COI editing by the @OrbisLex account on the COI notice board (here). I am becoming even more convinced of the problem as the SPAs multiply. A further problematic element is apparent WP:LLM use across some of the meatpuppet, sockpuppet, or off-wiki canvassed account (see the notice board discussion linked above). JArthur1984 (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I've requested article protection at WP:RPPI. --Hipal (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I’m replying so my silence isn’t read as anything other than not having had time to read everything carefully.

I have no connection to Nury Turkel and am not paid by anyone. I’m not Bizuyghur, and I haven’t asked anyone to edit or comment for me on- or off-wiki. I raised the BLP concern because I believe the paragraph goes beyond what the sources support. The details are at BLPN.

I removed the paragraph three times and shouldn’t have kept doing that. I haven’t edited the article since 30 October and won’t while this is discussed.

I use AI tools for research, fact-checking and typo fixes, and I’ve also used them to help draft some of my posts. I’m happy to answer any questions about that or anything else.

I’d ask that the BLPN discussion continue alongside this one, where I’ve set out the sourcing points. OrbisLex (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

For the record, the sockpuppet investigation found the following regarding the alleged connection between Bizuyghur and OrbisLex The technical connection is Possible - they share an ISP, and from the same region. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I think there's an important distinction here. SPI finding was "Possible" not confirmed. It says the accounts shared an ISP and were from the same region. That doesn't prove the two accounts belong to the same person or that anyone was coordinating edits.

I also don't think it's fair to call editors "highly suspicious" just because they've questioned the paragraph or its sources. People should be able to raise concerns about content without having their motives questioned. We should remember WP:AGF.

The paragraph is still being discussed at BLPN. I removed it once and explained my reasons in the edit summary. My concern is that it leaves out important findings from the investigation, RFA's later removal of its coverage, and UHRP's public statements that the allegations were unsubstantiated and that there was no pattern of sexually inappropriate conduct. These are important facts and shouldn't be overlooked.

I also question whether the Sautman book and the Turkish publication are reliable sources for these claims, particularly given their reliance on the now-removed RFA story and UHRP statements. Calling the paragraph "well sourced" doesn't answer those questions. We need to look at what these sources actually say and whether they support the paragraph under WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

This is not about taking sides or deciding which editors should prevail. It's about looking at the evidence fairly. We're discussing allegations in a living person's biography, so we should be especially careful about what we include and how we present it. Bizuyghur (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Fresh accounts like Yalqun Tash (talk · contribs) coming in to edit an article in order to to WP:TAGTEAM edit war against established users, or like ApikiMika (talk · contribs), coming in to weight on BLP discussions is highly suspicious. It is of course perfectly fine for Nury Turkel to make his case on the talkpage to remove the content on BLP grounds, disclosing his inherent conflict of interest, but attempting to manipulate Wikipedia via what seem very likely to be a mass of meatpuppet/sockpuppet accounts is not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Hajiani, Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen and AI use

• Hajiani, Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen (talk · contribs)
• Hajiani, AMB Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen (talk · contribs)

This user (apparently with two accounts) started by pasting in apparently AI-generated lumps of text at the end of a dozen or so articles, mostly duplicating information already in the article. Here is a representive edit . All of these have been reverted by a variety of users - annoying, but manageable.

But today this has advanced to the creation of new AI-generated articles directly in mainspace. I've moved a couple of these to draft, and someone else has moved the rest. But this is ongoing and I think it needs stopping. Draft:Who_Changed_the_History_of_Sri_Lanka is representative of these new articles. Note the very AIish Under the theme "Women Who Shaped the History of Sri Lanka," this topic examines the contributions made by women to the political, cultural, and social history of Sri Lanka, spanning from the medieval period to the modern era. Historical records, inscriptions, and academic research provide evidence of women's participation within political spheres, society, and national movements. preface to the article.

I warned the user about AI editing some time ago and got a AI-generated response. Warnings since then have not elicited any response.

As usual, those times when they don't use AI (for example here), the writing style is very different. MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. I have also been posting warnings on their talk page warning them of creating LLM articles and using LLM in their edits. I haven't received any sort of response from the user. It seems they either don't care or fully understand. Perhaps this is also a WP:CIR issue. My Pants Metal (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

They have just created Ancient Glass-Bead Production at Giribawa, Sri Lanka, which is close to WP:A3. I'll see if they develop it in the next few minutes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

They also just created Veralugasmankada Iron-smelting Furnaces which is again, LLM text. I've moved it to a draft for now. My Pants Metal (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Hajiani, Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen: please can you stop posting new articles and discuss your behaviour here? It is likely that, if you carry on posting LLM articles and not communicating with others, you will be blocked from posting directly into mainspace. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello ,

Have great day,

The article on the subject was written by me. I am a sociologist who studied stone as well as archeology at Kelani University. As someone who has studied archeology, I have studied places of archaeological value and collected information. In the countries I have visited, South Indian countries, West Indian countries and some countries in Europe, I have studied and acquired information about things of archaeological value, and in addition, I have collected facts from newspapers and various books. My uncle also has a library with valuable books that I have collected. I intend to write to WikiPedia in order to benefit from the knowledge of my death and the valuable documents in my library. I am a senior citizen and I live in the present. During the time I am spending, I intend to write to the newspapers and Wikipedia with the idea that I should take some advantage. I use the voice typing method when writing Wikipedia. In that way. If you have doubts and problems with the documents I prepared using that method, I intend not to write. Not that there aren't other strategies for getting ideas out into the world. I believe that if an article written by me in Wikipedia is taken away from the place I posted it on a topic (topic) that has not been written before, it will be recorded as having been written by me. The languages that I can write are English, Sinhala, Tamil and Sri Lankan Malay. Thank you, Best Regards!

ආයුබෝවන්

සුබ දිනයක් වේවා

උක්ත මාතෘකාවටකරුණු ලිපිය ලියනු ලැබුවේ මා විසිනි. මා සමාජ ජීවිකාවක් ගල් මෙන්ම කැලණි විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයේ පුරාවිද්‍යාව පිළිබඳව හැදෑරූ අයෙක්මි. පුරාවිද්‍යාව හැදෑරු අයෙකු වශයෙන් මා විසින් පුරාවිද්‍යාවත්මක වටිනාකමින් යුත් ස්ථාන අධ්‍යානය කර තොරතුරු තොරතුරු රැස්කර තබාගෙන සිටින්නෙමි. මා සංචාරයේ කළ රටවල් වන, දකුණු ඉන්දියානු රටවල් බටහිරින්දියන් රටවල් හා යුරෝපයේ සමහර රටවල් රටවල් වල, පුරාවිද්ධාත්මක අගයකින් යුත් දේ පිළිබඳවද, හදාරා තොරතුරුමා සන්තකයේ ඇති, අතර ඊට ඊට අමතරව, පුවත්පත්හා විවිධ ග්‍රන්ථවලින්ද කරුණු රැස් කරගත් කරුණු මා සන්තකය ඇත. මාමා සතුව මා විසින් රැස්කළ වටිනා පොත්පත් සහිත පුස්තකාලයක්ද ඇත. මාගේ මරණයෙන්ඇති දැනුම හා මගේ මගේ පුස්තකාලයේ පුස්තකාලයේ ඇති වටිනා වටිනා ලේඛනයන්හී, ප්‍රයෝජනයක් ලබා ගත ගත යුතු යනඅරමුණින් මා විකි විකි පීඩියාවට ලිවීමට අදහස් කළෙමි. මා ජේෂ්ඨ පුරවැසියෙකු වන අතර මා ගත කරණු ලබන්නේ සැදෑ සමයයි. මා මේ ගත කරනු ලබන කාලයේදී ද, යම් ප්‍රයෝජනයක් ගත්ත ගත්ත යුතු යැයි යන අදහසින් පුවත්පත්වලට හා විකීඩියාවට ලිවීමට අදහස් කෙරුවෙමි. විකිපීඩියාහී ලියන අවස්ථාවේදී මා පාවිච්චි කකරන්නේ , Voice typing ක්‍රමවේදයයි. ඒ ආකාරයෙනි. එම ක්‍රමවේදය භාවිතා කර, මා විසින් සකස් කරනු ලන්නාවූ, ලේඛනයන් පිළිබඳ ඔබට සැකයක් හා ගැටලුකාරී තත්ත්වයක් ඇති වන්නේ නම් , නොලියා සිටින්නට අදහස් කරමි. ලොවට අදහස් බෙදා හැරීමට තවත් ක්‍රමෝපායන් ද නැත්තේ නොවේ. විකිපීඩියා හී මා විසින් ලියූ ලිපියක්වූද, මින් පෙර නොලියූ කරුණක් ( මාතෘකාවක් ) පිළිබඳ , මා පල කල ස්ථානයෙන් ඉවතට ගෙන, පල කිරීම වළක්වන්නේ නම්, මා විසින් ලියනු ලද්දක් බවට, සටහන් කරනු ඇතැයි මා විශ්වාස කරමි. ස්තුතියි , Best Regurds ! Hajiani, Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

 partially blocked I have indefinitely partially blocked Hajiani, Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen from articlespace due to the unsatisfactory responses to date here, and in response to AIV report(s) about their promotional posting in the interim also. Mfield (Oi!) 06:25, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Should their alt account Hajiani, AMB Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen (talk · contribs) be partially blocked as well? My Pants Metal (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I have indefinitely fully blocked it as a undisclosed alternative account. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Ggck2/Flavonoids Yet Again

Ggck2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last month, Ggck2 was brought to ANI not long after being unblocked (the original block was disruptive COI editing and then maintained because of lying). A topic ban was proposed and discussion of it kind of petered out inconclusively.

October discussion

After a month away from editing, Ggck2 has now returned, and immediately resumed edit warring at Flavonoid , , , . Getting Ggck2 to use the COI edit template has been challenging, because of their insistence (in the summary) that there has to be an active consensus that they have a COI on an edit for it to be considered a COI edit.

Rather than seek discussion or any of the normal WP:DR steps, Ggck2 has now taken the step to file an extremely frivolous ArbCom request after being warned on their talk page by two different editors about edit warring.

To pick up where the last discussion ended up, I don't see any signs of this problem resolving itself without sanctions. User:Rosguill admirably took a leap of faith in giving Ggck2 a chance to return despite the dishonesty and ongoing COI issues, in (I believe) the hopes that this editor could work within Wikipedia's constraints and improve our articles in this area. I believe that this has not worked out, and as such, propose that Ggck2 be topic-banned from food science and nutrition, broadly construed.

I believe here is at least some chance that, forced to edit topics in which they do not have a difficult COI to navigate, they may learn to learn to work with the Wikipedia community and maybe even someday return to this topic area successfully. I support an indefinite block/community ban as alternate options, though I prefer the simpler topic ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Support. ArbCom request was hilarious. Jako96 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I haven't looked through this in depth but my impression of the October discussion was that Ggck2's concerns were partially vindicated, with some participants calling for boomerang sanctions against Zefr (and others agreeing with the case against Ggck2). ARBCOM wasn't the appropriate next step, but I don't think it's unreasonable for an inexperienced editor to come away from an inconclusive ANI thread and think that this comprises the community exhausting efforts to deal with the case. The edit warring, however, is completely unacceptable and I don't understand why they would have thought that was appropriate, so that may in the end be actual cause for sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Support - immediately resuming an edit war upon returning is not a good idea. Hopefully they can be normal in other topic areas. GarethBaloney (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Ggck2 has been given plenty of advice and chances, if you look at their talk-page. There was already a long discussion about their behaviour on this noticeboard a few weeks ago. They can't be trusted in the nutritional content area. There are millions of articles to edit on Wikipedia but they keep disrupting the flavonoid one. Looking through this users edit history is nothing but disruption regarding polyphenols. They have not added anything valuable to the project. So much time has been wasted on Ggck2 by users giving advice that has been ignored; I believe a topic ban on anything nutrition related is justified. Carrot juice (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on human nutrition. This is a textbook example of COI-tainted editing causing needless friction and wasting wider community time. Wikipedia simply does not need contentious unduly pro-flavanoid editing and the drama it causes. If Ggck2 can edit on any of the millions of other topics productively, then that would be a good outcome. Bon courage (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN for now. Support indef topic-ban from flavonoids topic area and mutual interaction ban with Zefr. Let them prove they're here to be anything but a Cato-the-Elder. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 21:37, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I apologise for using ArbCom prematurely - I naïvely assumed this to be a less formal way to come to a solution that provides me with a clear guidance on how I should proceed. At least to me, the ANI thread was inconclusive - hence I have made a request for information on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard Special:Diff/1384538723, where I was directed to WP:EXPERT.

Regarding the accusation of "edit warring": I have made several changes to the Flavonoid article in recent days, and the first two (Special:Diff/1384710117 and Special:Diff/1384712550) were accepted and corrected by @Zefr (Special:Diff//1384716423). I did interpreted this as a sign that following the ANI discussion, we have found some kind of common ground were an editing is accepted.

I have made a further edit today which was - in my opinion - very similar to the ones made before (Special:Diff/1384887441)) and supported by relevant references, and suddenly, they were reverted with a WP:COIEDIT comment. Considering the edits the day before, the discussion on ANI and the advice I have been given, I did consider this to be unreasonable, especially as none of the edits introduced fundamental changes but simply corrected outdated and incorrect information.

Admittedly, I have found myself in a difficult position. Prior to the ANI discussion, @Zefr declined an WP:COIEDIT request on the topic in question (metabolism of flavonoids) without engaging with the scientific argument. Now, they have simply reverted an edit that was based on WP:MEDRS and meeting all relevant criteria and refused to engage. Reverting the revert was unwise, and I apologise for doing this. However, being essentially blocked from contributing by an editor who declines any edit they disagree with - makes contribution difficult.

As I have said before in ANI: I would like to contribute on topics where I have expertise - and I am more than happy to follow the relevant rules. But the recommendations I have been given were contradicting. When using WP:COIEDIT, it was queried why I believe that I have a COI just because it is my research area Special:Diff/1378667727. As part of my unblocking, I have asked @Rosguill for advice - and I have tried to follow this advice (Special:Diff/1371806329).

I am still in the same situation as before: some editors expect me to use WP:COIEDIT for all edits in the wide field of nutrition, others find this excessive, and I appreciate that an excessive number of WP:COIEDIT simply add to the queue. I do not wish to upset anyone, I would simply appreciate a clear guidance on what to do, so that I can follow it.Ggck2 (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Having considered this, I think it might be in the interest of everyone if I take an hiatus of several months. If this needs to be formalised, please let me know. Ggck2 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Support topic-ban at the very least on flavonoids, but a nutrition/food science t-ban seems appropriate as well. No doubt the editor has the ability to locate, digest, and summarise information that others can't in the field of nutrition. However, between the dissembling during their attempt to be unblocked earlier and now their laser-focus on making sure the flavonoids article says what they think it should say, I don't believe the potential benefit outweighs the very clear disruption and I find it difficult to believe they won't dissemble again. Meadowlark (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

One could apply the same criticism to others: why are all of my edits that provide data that show that polyphenols are not rapidly excreted, do not have low bioavailability or have an physiological effect (supported by WP:MEDRS evidence almost always and instantly reverted (or requests declined) without providing any scientific justification? My expertise are polyphenols - it is a subject I am familiar with and I can contribute according to WP:EXPERT. I would feel uncomfortable editing topics with which I am unfamiliar. Ggck2 (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

The dull duty of a Wikipedia editor requires the ability identify, understand, and summarise appropriate sources to produce a tertiary text. This generally doesn't take particular expertise in the subject matter. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Bon courage, expertise may not be required, but it is still a highly useful asset to the project. Many errors or misleading statements would require a non-expert to consult each and every source, whereas they would be obvious to an expert or enthusiast upon reading them that they are wrong. And I've read plenty "dull" content on Wikipedia written by editors who did exactly what you describe, and had no talent in the topic. You describe a process which frankly is entirely replacable by AI, if one merely wants dull dutiful teritiary text. -- Colin°^Talk 09:30, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Obviously - but there is also a duty to ensure that the text is correct. The statement in question - which I had suggested to change for some time - was:

Flavonoids are poorly absorbed in the human body (less than 5%), then are quickly metabolized into smaller fragments with unknown properties, and rapidly excreted.

This is factually wrong - but an explanation of why this is wrong with secondary sources was simply rejected. Obviously, one can have very different opinions on the level of detail that should be included - and an experienced editor will have considerably more understanding of this than I do. However, it is difficult for me to understand why one change is accepted, another change is rejected with WP:COIEDIT as justification. Ggck2 (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I can only presume that other editors have good reason to decline or revert your edits, Ggck2. Whether that's because they believe that the sources aren't MEDRS, that the sources don't say what you have summarised, that the information isn't due, that you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be making the edits, or something else entirely I don't know. What I do know is that in my opinion you have been more disruptive than helpful in this area, and the unblock appeal gave me no confidence that you will be truthful if you feel that being dishonest will be more advantageous. Meadowlark (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

"Flavonoids are poorly absorbed in the human body" is a factual statement as they are nearly all bound to sugar molecules (glycosides) and do not pass straight through the intestinal wall. Please see "Research has now proven that flavonoids are poorly absorbed by the body, usually less than five percent, and most of what does get absorbed into the blood stream is rapidly metabolized in the intestines and liver and excreted from the body . Also "In general, the bioavailability of flavonoids is low due to limited absorption, extensive metabolism, and rapid excretion" . Ggck2 holds WP:Fringe views about polyphenols and that is why they were reverted. Carrot juice (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Actually, this is a very interesting point, because in nutrition, bioavailability is often used different - which can be confusing. And with flavonoids, it is quite complicated as not all have a sugar moiety (e.g. flavanols are not glycosylated). Referring to the total amount of metabolites excreted can be more informative and is quite commonly used:

"However, total urinary recovery of flavonoid metabolites varies between less than 1% for some anthocyanins, 30% for some flavanols and about 70% for some isoflavones.[27]"

They are rapidly metabolised - as is written in the text - but not necessarily rapidly excreted, this depends on the compound. Some metabolites have half-lives of >6h, others reach their maximum concentration after 12h, which I don't think is generally considered to be "rapid".

The reference you use is a media report from 2009 - the reference I have used [] is a systematic review which, in my opinion, clearly meets WP:MEDRS. And the statements therein are commonly accepted in the field of flavonoid research and are definitely not WP:FRINGE. Ggck2 (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I might add that a 2023 systematic review [] describes a fairly high bioavailability for one group of flavonoid.

Ggck2 (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, there is a simple definition of bioavailability in nutrition - it doesn't fit your narrative so you move goal posts. Papers 22794138 and 36207170 co-written by Daniele Del Rio who is your colleague, and you have published letters and papers with him. You have a massive conflict of interest. Everything you cite is by the same group of researchers, the ones you are personally involved with. It is impossible for you to be impartial in this topic area. Carrot juice (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

There is a difference between the definition of bioavailability and how it is interpreted. One might not like it, but this doesn't change the fact that it is commonly used.

Paper 36207170 [] is a review conducted by a large group of authors from several European countries - it meets WP:MEDRS. The fact that I have collaborated with some of the authors (none of them is a direct colleague) does not mean that the results are unreliable or should be dismissed. In a small field such as that of flavanols, it is very difficult to find publications of authors one has never collaborated with.

You accuse me of a conflict of interest - could you please tell me which WP:COI criteria are met that are not explained via WP:EXPERT?

The changes I have suggested are supported by various sources - including the source you have just cited [] which states:

"In general, the bioavailability of flavonoids is low due to limited absorption, extensive metabolism, and rapid excretion. Isoflavones are thought to be the most bioavailable of all flavonoid subclasses, while anthocyanins and galloylated catechins are very poorly absorbed (8, 22). Yet, given the wide variability in structures within subclasses, it is difficult to generalize the absorbability and bioavailability of flavonoids based only on their structural classification."

This largely agrees with my suggested edit. Ggck2 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Comment Those in support may wish to clarify what exactly they are supporting, given that the motion was "an indefinite block/community ban as alternate options, though I prefer the simpler topic ban" which, by my 'rithmetic, provides for three different sanctions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

CoffeeCrumbs said "I believe that this has not worked out, and as such, propose that Ggck2 be topic-banned from food science and nutrition, broadly construed." Therefore, supporters including me support the TBAN. Also, supporters except me did include TBAN in their messages, except GarethBaloney said "Hopefully they can be normal in other topic areas.", so all supporters support the TBAN. Jako96 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Oppose topic-ban because the editors involved in this dispute and community in general have not helped this expert editor contribute their expertise to the project. Instead I see a couple of anti-nutrition fundamentalists determined to keep out anything that suggests food might be good for you (that's a little joke by the way, not something to pick apart) edit warring with a new editor who clearly hasn't figured out how Wikipedia works yet. There's no serious talk page response other than mocking. The first !vote on this ANI page is to laugh that they thought arbitration might be a solution. You know, the concept of "arbitration" is exactly what this needed, because the editors Ggck2 was up against were behaving terribly too. That that particular form of arbitration is unsuitable is only something experienced editors know. Laughing at a newbie (Jako96), should imo deserve a 24hr block and/or ban from this noticeboard. Their question at the COI noticeboard was met with a link to WP:EXPERT and nothing more.

Once again ANI fails to serve Wikipedia's core interest: the response to an expert getting into quite typical difficulty on their expert topic is to mock them and enforce that they must instead edit articles on English Literature or whatever. Don't you see how, em, "laughable", that is? Clearly the current situation isn't acceptable. Maybe a solution would be to hold the threat of a topic ban over Zephr and CoffeeCrumbs and MrOllie unless they together actively work with Ggck2 to educate them (as one might a friend who one had invited to Wikipedia, not as a enemy who one hates with passion) about our requirements, without the use of heavy implements and sharp sticks, and find a way to use their expertise on Wikipedia. Do the fellow edit warriors have any interest in working with others who are knowlegable but not entirely aligned with their personal beliefs and prejudices? I see no evidence of that on the talk pages or user pages, and for me, that's more concerning than some newbie getting themselves into trouble with editors who want them to get into trouble. -- Colin°^Talk 09:30, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Maybe a solution would be to hold the threat of a topic ban over Zephr and CoffeeCrumbs and MrOllie unless they together actively work with Ggck2 to educate them.

I'm having a hard time taking this as good faith comment; I have never directly commented on nutrition or food science as far as I can remember. Feel free to point out a diff if I'm mistaken. So to characterize me as an "anti-nutrition fundamentalist" is absolutely preposterous. Ggck2 has a very short rope after being unblocked following a long stretch of lying and evasion. You should propose your WP:YESEDITWARIFEXPERT idea over at the Village Pump. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to parse out whether your "solution" is good faith or not, but you surely must understand the several problems inherent in expecting unpaid volunteers to be compulsory instructors. But if you think such mentoring is a good idea -- and it almost always is, after all -- I've my own solution in hand. You mentor Ggck2. You're certainly motivated to help here, and you've been around long enough to know the rules of the road. Ravenswing 10:02, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - proposed sanctions seem harsh for an edit war. I would support a temporary ban of the article in question. I have to echo @Colin's assessment; reviewing the history and talk page of the Flavonoid article, there doesn't appear to be real effort from other editors to work with Ggck2.

Zefr replies to Ggck2's comments with very short responses that don't drive towards a solution or shared understanding (compare with this to another user elsewhere).

Here, Zefr indicated the wording was too complicated, but did not propose a simpler phrasing when asked by Ggck2.

Zefr discounted an easily verifiable fact that is unrelated to Ggck2's COI, and this inaccuracy (that the EFSA approves drugs) remains in the article today -> I corrected it myself in the meantime.

Most recently, Zefr responded over a month after Ggck2 created a talk post.

I am not excusing the edit war, but the situation is likely frustrating for Ggck2 and it is not surprising that given the lack of collaboration on the talk page, he decided to edit the page directly.

Rather than a ban, a more constructive solution would be to pair up Ggck2 with a more experienced editor willing to guide them through the wiki processes and support with translating complicated topics into easy to understand language. GreyZoneLife (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Oppose CBAN, as that seems premature. Support temporary article space ban or partial blocks, which would allow editor to propose changes on talk pages and build consensus for edits. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 14:27, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban, with two comments: (1) there is no point in insisting on building consensus on talk-pages because Zefr in particular is not open to compromise; consensus is basically impossible (the umpteen RfC's and abandoned DR on flavan-3-ol are ample evidence), and (2) the argumentative situation in phytochemical articles makes it extremely unpleasant for anyone to edit in those areas. This ANI is yet another example of ANI being weaponised to win a content dispute; I don't doubt the good intentions of Ggck2's opponents, but I regard the anti-Ggck2 group as somewhat unaware of their own limitations and at risk of becoming a net negative to the quality of phytochemical articles; we need Ggck2's side of the argument to retain balance. Elemimele (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I think this discussion has reached a point where it might be best to pause. I am very used to scientific disagreements, and I don't mind being criticised. But I do think that one can disagree without piling on personal attacks. Speculations about my relationship with other scientists, comparing fairly main-stream opinion in flavonoid research (that are supported by sources that all sides seem to agree) with Panspermia and accusing me of "pumping out countless papers for the last 10 years claiming polyphenols offer all sorts of of protective effects against major chronic diseases" (which is demonstrably wrong) are - in my opinion - a step too far (see Special:Diff/1385069087).

I do not wish to upset anyone, and I would have appreciated if this discussion could have been had without personal attacks. As I have said before, I'm happy to contribute and it would have been helpful to have the rules to follow outlined in a way that is as unambiguous as sensible. But it appears that this is not possible. Ggck2 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Ggck2, I believe my opinions were accurate. I just read a paper you published in 2002 claiming health benefits from dietary polyphenols. You have been at this for over 24 years but never provide the evidence. It's ok publishing all this mechanism or pathway data, I applaud your dedication and you are an expert on molecular structures. But this personal group of researchers you are involved with 24 years later have still not provided any good clinical evidence that polyphenols offer any significant health effects. It is all just noise. I realize promoting polyphenols is your career and day job and I am not saying your research is not legitimate but you obviously have a massive COI on this topic. It's not just the COI, you have been arguing for all sorts of health benefits from polyphenols for nearly 3 decades so I don't see how you could impartially contribute to a page in this area when we see a lot of disruptive edits. BTW before anyone weighs in and accuses me of an anti-polyphenol bias, 4-5 years ago I was a big believer that polyphenols had significant health benefits and I was adding sources to Wikipedia but I realized I was wrong. Similar to the last ANI thread this has gone off topic again so it's not worth continuing this discussion about polyphenols here. Carrot juice (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

The three papers I have published in 2002 were all about metabolism of polyphenols - claims about potential health benefits of compounds might be in there (I can't remember), but my work always focused on metabolism and the identification of metabolites. By all means, scrutinise my publication record - it's public and you might notice that I have published null results as well as results that show an association with health. You might however also notice that I am very clear about potential adverse effects. You make very bold claims that I have been promoting "all sorts of health benefits from polyphenols" for the last 30 years - which is simply not true. If you make such an accusation, I think you should provide evidence.

And I think here is a conflation of different questions:

• How are polyphenols metabolised? - this is the core question for the discussion here. There is ample evidence - some of which cited by you - that polyphenols (please note - this is a much larger group than flavonoids) vary considerably in their metabolism, with some having a bioavailability (in the loose sense used in nutrition) of considerably more than 5% - and some remain in the body much longer than 12h

Whether these compounds have a physiological effect or an health benefit are quite different questions, and for the majority of polyphenols - or flavonoids - I simply do not know and therefore would not suggest any edits in this respect. As you know, I have an opinion about one group of polyphenols, but I have learned - and understand and completely agree - that this does not meet the evidence threshold for here.

You also accuse me of WP:DE: I have attempted to work within the rules and guidelines given to me.Ggck2 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I have attempted to make an edit to an unrelated topic (Hippuric acid), using two references, both of which have been reviews. This has instantly been reverted by @Zefr with the justification that these references were outdated - even though they refer to biological pathways:

Special:Diff/1385675789

This edit has nothing to do with health benefits or my research; I know some of the authors of one source, none of the other source.

I would really appreciate some guidance on what I should do.Ggck2 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Uyghur mass changes (general sanctions topic)

Disruptive editing and reverting by Thinkspank101

Thinkspank101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has twice reverted edits on Tarbela Dam to restore a bizarrely unstable and duplicative version of the page that is literally full of errors and duplicate code and sections. Multiple posts on their talk page has been ignored. After the first post of mine, they ignored it and just reverted the edit anyway violating multiple policies. It is also worth noting that this user has a lengthy history of refusing to WP:ENGAGE as all but 1 of the many posts on their talk page warning of behavior have gone un-responded to. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:54, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Well, this just uglier. The Tarbela Dam article has significant copyright violations. Some of it was introduced March of 2016 when significant elements of the article were added by an IP that were directly copied from a Government of Pakistan website. The material was removed, but then re-added by a now checkuser blocked account (User:Willard84). There were also significant elements that were copy/pasted from https://www.dawn.com/news/1167908 copyvio report. That article's dated to March of 2015. Some massive revdels are in order. This is a big mess. I'm inclined to revert all the way back to March of 2015 and work forward from this version of the article. Even that one may have copyright violations in it, but it becomes a bit more complicated due to copies from Wikipedia itself to external sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

The issue appears to stem from additions by Srksrk, I've just reverted a couple of their other additions that also duplicated the articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

It goes back a LOT longer than that. This dates to at least 2015. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I meant the current issues with edit warring at the article, rather than the longer term issues the article.
Thinkspank101 is now at five reverts for that article today, and seems totally resistant to discussing the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:12, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

• Unrelated to their conduct issues -- their username may be a violation as well, as it could be a reference to spanking, a form of corporal punishment involving the buttocks. While it's definitely not too egregious, I felt it still may be worth mentioning. (No opinion on the issues at Tarbela Dam. I was monitoring the discussion at #2026 Italian unrest and saw this.) 🎮 Gommeh sign - talk 16:22, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but have we really reached the point where metaphorical spanking is called out as taboo (complete with an explanation of what spanking is, for those who don't know -- titillating though I might personally find that to be)? I mean, c'mon. EEng 03:38, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps we have hit that point, but maybe I was being paranoid. 🎮 Gommeh sign - talk 04:57, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

  Ya think? EEng 04:11, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

• I think that usernames like that fall into the area where it's allowed but, when coupled with conduct issues, it can be used as evidence of WP:NOTHERE or other fundamental conduct problems, and as a rationale to act faster. Someone with an potentially edgy / trollish-sounding username gets less rope because it casts any conduct problems in a different light and makes them less likely to be innocent mistakes. --Aquillion (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I've pblocked them from articles and moving files/pages. Their conduct is most concerning. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Thinkspank101 decided to create a sockpuppet at ZackZack101 (talk · contribs) in a vain attempt to get around their partial block. I've blocked ZackZack101 as a sockpuppet , modified Thinkspank101's block to be sitewide , and warned Thinkspank101 about continuing this behavior especially as regards WP:THREESTRIKES. It may become necessary to semi-protect the article. I will keep monitoring. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Now just a gosh darn minute thar', Hammersoft. THREESTRIKES ... is that the spanking thing again, you sly dog? EEng 04:11, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Facepalm I don't understand people. What is the goal here?? Le sigh... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:06, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Whatever they think they're doing at Tarbela Dam, their edits at Neelum–Jhelum Hydropower Plant were almost entirely bad, and this was vandalism—unless they were not competent to read the title of the reference. (I've edited the version from before they started.) Yngvadottir (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced, NPOV edits, LLM usage, BLP violations (part 2)

Athena0018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor was brought to ANI (by me) due to identical issues 2 months ago Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1234#Unsourced, NPOV edits, LLM usage, BLP violations, but after the ANI thread was brought up they did not respond and stopped editing for several weeks and so despite the fact that several editors identified in that thread that there were severe problems with their edits, nothing was done. @Kowal2701 identified markdown italics and several editors noted their misleading edit summaries. I am going to copy paste my last post:

"This user has been warned time and time again by multiple editors for months, but the behavior continues, and attempts to discuss with them on talk or their talk are almost entirely ignored.

They frequently add totally unsourced content this is frequently on BLPs (see this edit where they add swathes of negative content to a BLP, totally uncited) Their edit summaries are frequently misleading; they removed thousands of bytes of obviously cited content with the edit summary "unsourced content" removed content that went against their view without an edit summary . They frequently remove large swathes of sources for no reason, while leaving the content, creating a BLP violation , or editing multiple BLP articles to call them "cult apologists".

As noted by @Gurkubondinn on their talk they also appear to be LLM translating content from French Wikipedia without attribution or declaration, including obvious machine translations Special:Diff/1373057379. I believe their responses are also AI translated? All their edits show "edit check (paste); their non-translated edits are very poor in terms of grammar . So this may be a WP:CIR issue.

Many of these edits also display blatant POV pushing. This has been going on for months, they have been warned by multiple editors. They refuse to comment in response to any of the numerous warnings on their talk page. Literally all of their edits are POV pushing in the "cult"/"new religious movement" topic area."

Their edits continue to be problematic. Most of their edits still show "edit check: paste", which appear to be LLM involved . The misleading edit summaries and POV pushing continue as does the addition of totally unsourced content . The overall POV pushing and the undisclosed LLM use is the most concerning, it is very blatant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Or for example, this edit, just now, where it removed sourced content for no reason with a misleading edit summary . PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

This is not POV pushing , the source simply does not support the claim.

This is not totally unsourced content , it is explained below in "Criticism of objectivity". Athena0018 (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

How does the source not support the claim?

You added There are suspicions that the book was edited by Moon. Carlton Sherwood was hired by the Washington Times, a newspaper created by Moon, when he worked on this subject. This is not sourced and not in the article. All of your edits have some issue like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

And further, have you used LLMs to make any of your edits? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Seems clear this person edits disruptively on cults/NRMs and should be tbanned. Does their disruption extend to any other topic areas? ꧁Mangroves꧂ 15:08, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

No, they solely edit about this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

(triggered mw:Paste Check ~40 times in only 139 edits ) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:21, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

The misleading edit summaries continue. Here they removed a block of text as unsourced - when it is very obviously sourced! See the last thread for more examples. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

2026 Italian unrest

Reywas92

Unsourced edits by FilipinoTiger

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

He edited unsourced details many times in MGI All Stars 2nd Edition such as in 1 Nov. and 10 Nov. in Selection Committee’s part.

/I was explained when I removed his edits as unsourced already, but he still put same unsourced details back into the same article without source and no reason, like selection committee’s names. Can you check his edits, warning and explain to him, or block him for a few day if still adding unsourced details in this article and other articles?. I seen other editor warned him about unsourced edited in his talk page before.

/and his unsourced edited are looks like IP address ~2026-57156-07 edits in this article or in Selection Committee’s part?.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Telovemi97

Telovemi97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After being taken to AIN for LLM-generated articles (which have all since been moved to draftspace), went and followed it up by violating WP:NPA on their talk page against Kowal2701 (also gonna need a revdel on there as well). ShadowBallX (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Also apologies in advance if this is the wrong place to report this (I don't usually make reports like this, I just thought it made more sense here than over at AIV) ShadowBallX (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I just need to apologize, I shouldn't have snapped Telovemi97 ^{Some random stuff} 22:24, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

they've apologised, probably fine to close this Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:44, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

User:XYRIYSX is making changes on my userpage, please tell him to stop

~2026-43032-84 failing to abide by style guidelines or communicate (part 2)

A month ago, I made a post on this board about ~2026-43032-84 who wasn't following style guidelines correctly, was getting into edit wars over those incorrect edits, and was not communicating in any way. Afterwards, they seemed to have cleaned up their act, until a edit on November 2nd (which I just found now) that involved the same unwillingness to follow the style guidelines. As the account has now expired, there's no use to commenting on their talk page. If they are continuing to make such edits on a new temporary account, I have no way of finding and fixing them at the moment. Atriskofmistake (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

~2026-52864-78: Incivility, disruptive editing

Not vandalism, nor otherwise a matter for ANI Star Mississippi 17:49, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

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

---

Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

~2026-52864-78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Shark Tale (diff): actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. User vandalized the article by claiming that it's "undue and unnecessary for any critic or aggregator to get a special box". This is clearly just them trying to force their own views onto articles. They've also been rude towards fellow editor Binksternet and accusing them of being harsh. They've also been snarking at them and adding their own original research onto articles. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Remind me what they did which appeared rude to me? I'm not remembering. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Their talk page had them snark at you. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

“Your revert and threat of blocking above accused me of WP:NOR not paraphrasing poorly. That comes across as harsh. The underlying problem remains, the article body does not do enough to support the (albeit obvious) associations that other parts of the article assert. I look forward to seeing your attempts to improve the article.” - the user. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I quoted that right from their talk page, by the way. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

This is obviously not a vandal. In fact, I'd say the temporary account is correct. Why not use dispute resolution? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

@NarutoSan6000: Wikipedia has procedures which may not be apparent. In particular, please do not mention "VANDALISM" for what is a content dispute (diff). See WP:VAND for what is regarded as vandalism here. I don't know who is right but ~2026-52864-78 gave a very good edit summary with a plausible explanation. That means the article talk page should be used. The last edit on that page was in May 2025. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Oh ok. I think I must have mistook it for vandalism then. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Never mind, then. I've removed the warning from their talk page and undid a few of my reverts of their edits. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Concerns regarding biased edits to Xwedodah

User:Asieon does not recognize core citation policies like WP:OR WP:CITE WP:RS

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

User:Asieon does not recognize or understand WP:CITE WP:RS WP:OR. Per edits , they added content that was not sourced, based on only primary sources, not found in the source they added, and sourced to a fringe "pseudohistorian" Lee Deok-il . I alerted them to this multiple times but they refused to recognize their behavior and tried to get me to engage them in talk discussion . However in light of the clear cut nature of adding content without sources , their belligerent language over basic Wikipedia policies , extensive editing history going back to 2022 , previous run-in with OR issues , and prior block over socking , I thought it would be more prudent to just bring the issue here than continue engaging with the user. Qiushufang (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

This is rather disingenuous IMO. In my defense, I have stated multiple times that all the edits were properly sourced. And since Qiushufang was the only user who had issues with my edits, I respectfully asked them to engage with me in a discussion as seen here. The user also accused me of "belligerent language" which I am genuinely confused as I was neither hostile nor aggressive as seen in my response: here. In fact, I had to ask them to refrain from using negative nuances when approaching someone they have a dispute with. All in all, this is clearly indicates a violation of WP:AFG, WP:ASPERSIONS as well as WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:PA as the previous issues I had it resolved through proper discourse. In which Qiushufang has not engaged with. Asieon『✉』 12:04, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

To counter the "unsourced" postulation, I hereby provide the sources I in fact did provide:

1. 中国が基礎をつくり日帝が釘を刺した ‘平壌’ の漢四郡 - by historian Lee Deok-il. Yes, this historian is considered fringe but the sentiment is shared across other sources, even in government in regards to the existence of Kija Choson. #1 #2, #3, #4 and many more. Changing the source due to author's reputation does not change what is being said in the article.
2. '단군신화' 조작, 그 처참한 현실 - by Lee Taeryong. This article properly discusses about how Naka Michiyo debunked the existence of Kija Choson and considered it "fiction (虛構)".
3. 『初 朝鮮王準爲衛滿所破 乃將其餘衆數千人走入海 攻馬韓 破之 自立爲韓王 其後絶滅 今韓人猶有奉其祭祀者。』 Book of the Later Han, Dongyi chapter (東夷列傳)

This above is in fact a primary source that was not present in the original version (only alluded to) which I added for better context. I did not use this as a "source" but as quote for better readability and context for the reader. In fact, I added it because the user questioned it first: "the named text was not written in ancient China, perhaps it's the wrong text?" It was to clarify that it was indeed from the same text.

So again, the user's assumption that I "made edits without sources" is clearly blatantly wrong. I am happy to have done my research, and asking for Qiushufang to refute my findings is not a "belligerent" reaction, but a genuine, heartfelt request for clarification as per WP:CON in which the user simply did not comply. Asieon『✉』 12:20, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

The addition at the bottom here has no citations at all. The Korean government sharing the same opinion as the pseudohistorian does not improve their reliability as the government itself has been criticized for citing the pseudohistorian Lee Deok-il . If the same content can be found in a reliable source then use that instead. The OR issue found here is not addressed - the content is personal analysis and not directly stated in the source. Tthe article subject does not appear in the source and the source does not have any direct statements for it. You cannot do analysis and deductions not found in the source. The WP:PRIMARY source is disconnected from the first source in another section and Wikipedia does not primarily rely on primary sources. The primary source says nothing about periodization, which works differently for China than the West and generally begins after the fall of the Han in 220 AD. I did not assume good faith for the reasons stated in my opening incident report. This is not your first rodeo, you are a multi-year editor, have had another user explicitly explain how OR works, have socked with multiple accounts in the past, lied about it , and gave yourself a barnstar for good measure . Nothing in your history suggests you are an inexperienced editor, and you have had integrity issues in the past, so I am treating you as such. Qiushufang (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

What's funny is that you could've engaged this discussion with me in my talk page and not cause a scene here, but you already chose to do this.

I'll go by one by one.

1. The addition at the bottom here has no citations at all. That is because the page that is being alluded to clearly has it written that the state existed in 108 BCE. I did not imagine that number, it is clearly written on that page and in maps since 2008.
2. The Korean government sharing the same opinion as the pseudohistorian does not improve their reliability as the government itself has been criticized for citing the pseudohistorian Lee Deok-il Let's use that logic in reverse. Both The Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Ilbo are very conservative, right-wing newspapers in Korea. Meaning, both newspapers are HIGHLY biased towards right-wing agenda similar to Wikipedia's attitude towards FOX News which I think does not comply with WP:RSPS.
3. the content is personal analysis and not directly stated in the source. How is that OR? It is clearly mentioned in Kija Chosŏn page, historians such as Sin Ch'aeho, Ryū Imanishi, and Naka Michiyo (with proper sources) clearly refuting Kija Chosŏn's existence.
4. Wikipedia does not primarily rely on primary sources. Hence why I never used it as a source in the first place.

Finally, I do not really care about your reasons for not assuming in good faith. It is still against Wiki guidelines and especially does not warrant the personal attack I received. If you have issues with my edits/reasoning, please stay on topic, and don't bring up irrelevant past drama to reinforce your argument because it has nothing to do with King Chun or Wiman. Asieon『✉』 13:21, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

None of the reasons you gave are even remotely appropriate for not including a source or using non-RS. Just because something is alluded to does not mean it is sourced and just because right wing media criticizes something does not make it more reliable. Lee Deok-il is a nationalist pseudohistorian outside the mainstream academia by any reading of their work . There is simply nothing in the source included in the edit that mentions King Wiman or Chun or a flight to Mahan. This is original research because it is your personal deduction. Your consistent refusal and avoidance of even acknowledging the issue is the behavioral issue here. I am proposing for an admin warning and further prohibition if the issue continues. Qiushufang (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

And like wise, just because the reputation of an author is bad doesn't mean the primary source they are alluding to is false. Same logic.

Also, I am inclined to believe that you are being intentionally dense. Where in the edit does the source allude to King Wiman or Chun or a flight to Mahan?

The edit was:

However, due to the existence of Kija Chosŏn (first mentioned in Shiji and later in the Book of the Later Han) itself being scrutinized by Korean and Japanese historians, the claim (due to the nature of its connection to Kija Chosŏn) is also often scrutinized.

This was the original statement. There is a reason why the preface to the statement was written in the first place. If the kingdom of Atlantis is scrutinized then the authenticity/historicity of the ruler of Atlantis is also scrutinized because it likely never existed in the first place. You don't need to prove that Atlas was the King of Atlantis when Atlantis itself didn't exist. That is counter-intuitive thinking.

Also, trying to silence me after threatening me, lying and personally attacking me is quite low. Asieon『✉』 13:58, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, the same newspaper that you provided has supported the very argument I made.

Because again, it is logical thinking. Nitpicking whether there's a source for every single claim doesn't undermine the overall message that was being sent. Asieon『✉』 14:11, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

You can see in your edit that the attached content is more than that where the source was used to justify another statement Supposedly, King Chun fled to Mahan and called himself the "King of Han (韓王)" though it is not accepted by modern Korean historians (see Mahan confederacy's misconceptions). This is not in the source. The example you used is also still original research in isolation and the example of Atlantis you gave is exactly what WP:OR tells you not to do: Even with well-sourced material, if an editor uses it out of context, or to state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, that is original research; see below. Qiushufang (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Also, the aforementioned source does allude to the edit I made as it says this: そこで今西龍は1922年 ‘箕子朝鮮伝説考’ で箕子は楽浪の韓氏が家門を輝かせるために箕子の後えいだとかこつけただけであり、朝鮮人の先祖ではないと否認した。 which in fact does coincide with the statement of due to the existence of Kija Chosŏn (first mentioned in Shiji and later in the Book of the Later Han) itself being scrutinized by Korean and Japanese historians. Asieon『✉』 14:11, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

This reply was made after mine, which I restored. Please avoid editing a comment after someone has already replied or edit over an already existing version. Qiushufang (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

That is not out of context. If you simply stated: Can you provide citation for the flight to Mahan statement. That would've sufficed. Also to keep the record straight, the source is added after "[...]is also often scrutinized" not the sentence you claim it to have been which is "[...]though it is not accepted by modern Korean historians". That is simply not true. Please check the page again.

Also, the misconception section of Mahan confederacy clearly explains it better under Shim, Jae-hoon (2002), "A New Understanding of Kija Chosŏn as a Historical Anachronism" p. 278-279. Why is it necessary to add the same source when the explanation is much better presented in an article much better suited for the topic? That criteria is not even in WP:OR. Feels very nitpicky. Asieon『✉』 14:40, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Stop talking to each other. You're both making it vanishing likely that anyone will look at this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I clearly offered to resolve this privately. Qiushufang decided on their own to bring it here. Asieon『✉』 14:44, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of the action performed by Qiushufang, I have added necessary additional sources to alleviate and accommodate to Qiushufang's criticisms. Though the user did antagonize me, personally attack me, and defamed me, I do consider their feedback worthy (as they did not leave a single comment for reverting changes this time) and provided actual insight for bettering the articles.

For some reason, Qiushufang acts hostile towards me, but I will let them know that there is no personal grudge between them and I, and in hindsight, this could've been solved if they reached out privately. Asieon『✉』 15:48, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I want to start by saying I have not fully clicked through either editors links, and have for the moment just skimmed the comments on this thread. I reverted the page back to Qiushufang's edit due to this ANI discussion (which at least from my read, appears to be ongoing) to prevent further edit war, but Asieon says this has been resolved?

From my brief read of this, I get the feeling that Qiushufang and Asieon are still in disagreement (because Qiushufang has not given their consent if they actually agree with Asieons old and new edits), I don't think Asieon's edit summary was appropriate nor entirely accurate. Ill have to do a more through read later but I do not think it was right to say this ANI has been resolved. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Having read through this a bit more, I do think its correct to say that Lee Deok-il is certainly a fringe pseudo historian pushing a Korean nationalist POV and it would be very inappropriate to cite his works after reviewing the links. If Asieon's point that other historians share this view (and it is entirelty possible for legitimate historians to share an overlapping view with a fringe historian) then only the legitimate ones should be cited and Lee's should be removed. I strongly urge Lee's work not be pushed as any credible historian would not be saying the Hwandan Gogi is a real work of history. I am very wary of citing government sources unless its absolutely needed, whether it be Korean, Chinese, Japanese, etc, just because government agendas can absolutely mess with accuracy.

Kija Chosun's existence and the issues around it are a whole other can of worms, which I think both users have legitimate points on (the Kija myth itself, like the Dangun myth, only appeared millenias after their presupposed date, and both the Kija and Dangun myth were politicized even back during Goryeo and Joseon for various Korean-Centric (Dangun) or Sinophilic (Kija) purposes), but regardless, I strongly encourage Asieon to not have new edits on the Old Chosun topics until this ANI is resolved. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

It is not a dispute I started anyway.

I am more than happy to replace Lee's source with a less controversial one as I said, the sentiment is shared by multiple authors and historians. Again, I am more than willing to cooperate. It is entirely up to Qiushufang who started this dispute. Asieon『✉』 18:48, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

"Again, I am more than willing to cooperate."

It's funny how I get the blame of "behavioral problem" when my initial stance was this from the very beginning.

Instead, I get personally attacked first and get blamed second, because the person kept asking for reasons, not asking for better sources. Simple as that. I don't know what to say, truly. Asieon『✉』 18:36, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Asieon, I think for now a good starting point please remove all and any sources that cite Lee as they are a controversial historian. I understand you might be upset but Qiushufang provided some good faith criticisms.

I would like to lower the tension in this ANI while we wait to see what other users might suggest. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I need more specification. Remove and leave it unsourced? Or must there be a replacement source? Asieon『✉』 10:48, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

@Sunnyediting99: What legitimate points about Kija Chosun are you referring to? It is immaterial to Asieon's use of OR and SYNTH, which is the reported issue. Since they have decided that this ANI has ended and the issue resolved (it has not), they have synthed together a frankenstein paragraph at Wiman of Old Chosŏn with multiple inline citations using a dead link, "Shim 2002" an incomplete citation copied from Mahan confederacy, an ohmynews article concerned with the historiography of Tan'gun, ujeil an unprotected site, and another article on the historiography of Tan'gun. Not in any of these sources is the basic premise of the synthed statement Supposedly, King Chun fled to Mahan and called himself the "King of Han (韓王)"[2] though it is not accepted by modern Korean historians (see Mahan confederacy's misconceptions). However, due to the existence of Kija Chosŏn (first mentioned in Shiji and later in the Book of the Later Han) itself being scrutinized by Korean and Japanese historians,[5][6] the claim (due to the nature of its connection to Kija Chosŏn)[7] is also often scrutinized,[8] as in native Korean records, no king named "Chun" is found in any of the genealogy. substantiated. I challenge @Asieon: to provide a statement from these sources which states directly something approximating "King Chun fled to Mahan but this is not accepted by modern Korean historians", otherwise this is simply WP:OR. A statement such as "Kija Choson is considered an anachronism by the mainstream academia" based on WP:RS would be much easier to substantiate is my guess. Qiushufang (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I do believe I provided a source somewhat answered your "challenge" or assertion already?

특히 마한은 기자조선의 후예가, 진한은 진나라의 유민이 세운 것으로 기술하는 등 삼한의 주도세력을 중국계로 파악한 것은 일연의 소중화주의적 면모가 여실히 드러나는 대목이다. 또한 모든 사실을 기술할 때 그가 신봉한 중국측 기록을 주요 자료로 삼고, 국내 자료는 이를 보완 설명하는 주석으로 처리하는 정도로 이용한 것에서도 그의 소중화적 면모를 확인할 수 있다. This is just an excerpt, but the author is very critical towards Iryeon and others for believing things without scrutiny. 고려 후기의 소중화주의자들도 기자동래설을 그대로 믿었다. Which means "[people] believed [Kija Choson theory] without question." The author Lee Heegeun is said to be a historian, and unlike Lee, he seems credible.

In regards to the other sources, I do not know the content of the sources as it was present prior to my edits. I only used them because they were pointing to the same sentiment found in the other article.

Regardless, I think you have your answer. Asieon『✉』 19:25, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

The more appropriate statement based on that quotation would be "X author believes that Iryeon's claim that Mahan was founded by Gija is unsubstantiated and based on Sinocentric historiography. Gija Chosun is considered to be a historical anachronism by scholars." without mention of King Chun since it is a general statement. Qiushufang (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I never mentioned King Chun when using that source. Again, you are getting yourself confused. Asieon『✉』 19:36, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

None of the other sources mention King Chun either. That's the point. It is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because none of the sources mention King Chun or his flight to Mahan.

Qiushufang (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself (which I hate more than anything in the world). The point of source/edit was to indicate that the claim found in the Book of the Later Han, where it asserts that King Chun was the descendant of Kija, is not reliable. And there is no historical/archaeological evidence that substantiates the claim outside of ancient Chinese primary sources such as the Book of Han (asserted), Shiji and the Book of the Later Han. Following this, claiming that King Chun fled to Mahan as also stated by the Book of the Later Han (the same book that asserts Kija Choson) cannot be substantiated or proved.

Again, I repeat.

Kija Choson is not accepted by modern Korean academia nor Japanese academia. Only Chinese academia supports it, but it lacks archaeological evidence from native Korea. Asieon『✉』 19:48, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I (based on numerous historians) am criticizing the claims found in the Book of the Later Han which asserts both the claims you are fixated on. The same way historians criticize Samguk yusa the entire book for being unreliable.

Just because historians don't directly mention King Chun's flee to Mahan doesn't mean it is real, because again, no native Korean records show this. Only Chinese records, specifically the Book of the Later Han posits this. Which in and of itself is highly criticized similar to the Samguk yusa. Asieon『✉』 19:52, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Qiushufang, I wanted to clarify I read Asieon (and your) comments on this ANI + a significant amount of the edits made though Asieon has made a lot of edits so its a bit hard to keep following theirs. I think Asieon's comment about scholars questioning Kija's existence "historians such as Sin Ch'aeho, Ryū Imanishi, and Naka Michiyo (with proper sources) clearly refuting Kija Chosŏn's existence" is a legitimate point I was referencing since that is something that is disputed by scholars. Now they obviously need to provide better sourcing for that too but that is something that they have some legitimate grounds on.

That said, as inferred (but not stated so I want to clarify) from my previous comments I do mostly agree with your concerns and your overall position. To any readers, Qiushufang's point on the King Chun is a good example of this. Asieon is not providing appropriate sourcing, and a lot of what they are commenting and posting is either borderline OR or is OR. I dont want to drag out this point but to anyone who reads this Qiushufang is raising some very legitimate and valid concerns on Asieon's synth + OR.

It does not help that Asieon tried to claim the dispute was over when it wasn't. Asieon, again I STRONGLY encourage you to stop arguing with Qiushufang and either find reputable, academic sources or articles published by historians that directly support your point, or to just drop the stick. Trying to edit war is not an appropriate response to Qiushufang's concerns. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I did find reputable academic sources written by legitimate historians that are not controversial. Qiushufang just did not read them properly and I had to repeat myself multiple times.

I asked them to take it to my talk page, they refused. I ask them to start a discussion on the article's talk page, they refused.

I can't keep engaging with someone who is clearly deflecting every olive branch I am extending and put the blame on me for "edit wars". They flat out refuse to communicate. Asieon『✉』 20:07, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Asieon, Qiushufang did read them properly (hence why they found you cited Lee, it would require them to read your source to know who you cited). While it probably would have been advisable for them to start on the talk page for either your own or on the article, it is their right to go to an ANI as well. They have raised serious and very legitimate concerns with what you have added onto the page.

Additionally, please do not accuse them of not reading sources properly. Unless you have direct proof this is bordering on a personal attack. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I kindly request you to read the conversation above. It is not a personal attack but a direct observation that took place in regards to a source that was clearly added prior to Qiushufang's "challenge". That indicates that they did not in fact believe my words nor read the sources I provided properly. Qiushufang's opinion on Lee was made hours ago. His new "challenge" happened mere minutes ago.

I am not frustrated over their direct approach to ANI. I'm frustrated over their lack of actions AFTER they brought up the topic in ANI. And speaking of rights, I have the right to feel frustrated based on their actions too. Asieon『✉』 20:32, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I have and still am reading through Asieon's sources, multiple times. I noticed in one of Asieon's sources that they introduced "King Chun" in parentheses in one of the translated quotations when it is not in the original language, which seems to be a minor infraction of WP:TRANSCRIPTION but just continues their trend of original research and how they WP:SYNTH together content.

I'm not sure what Asieon means by my "new challenge". The problem was stated from the beginning (King Chun is not mentioned in the source). They added new sources and content to the pages since the start of this ANI , which still have the same problem. There are ways around this to say something similar according to the sources used (example), but this fact seems to have eluded Asieon or maybe they object to it.

You've been pretty even handed, but it should be apparent that there are some WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT issues going on . I've stopped responding to them because it's repetitive to keep saying "what you're describing about how you use sources is synth" and they've started shouting in bold. Even their responses to you have been avoidant of addressing the issue. They just don't seem to get it but I'm not sure if it's deliberate or WP:CIR. They already have a storied past, which they describe as irrelevant past drama, but past user history tends to predict current behavior. Previous tactics trying to invalidate another user's concerns one way or another and being on the other side of the argument over source validity don't suggest this is simply an inexperienced editor. After 4 years and 2,952 edits, other users should not have to haggle with them over talk discussion to provide a source for unsourced content or have to explain in minutiae why you can't just link to another page as a source. Their ability to admit issue with their sources such as Lee also seems contingent on others forcing them by virtue of numbers rather than independent analysis. I do not think I am being ungenerous in this description. Qiushufang (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Bold fonts don't indicate shouting. It's emphasis.

Second, I have tried to alleviate the situation by providing better sources, and yet I get warned not to edit further.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that I haven't provided better sources when you won't allow me to. That's nonsensical. Asieon『✉』 11:18, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Fair point Qiushufang I think you are providing an accurate description on this, I was hoping it wouldn't have to escalate further but at the rate its going its going to happen. The IDHT appears to be the more serious issue of the two atm.

Asieon, when I say provide better sources, you can provide them here in the ANI rather than push them onto new pages. What you were previously doing was add new sources/edits onto a page as an ANI was ongoing so I had asked that you stop to prevent an edit war. Please do not confuse my comments with Qiushufang's.

Realistically, the best way to resolve this is to hopefully get more users to provide their input on this to help render a decision on Asieon's OR/CITE issues. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I am moving on from this ANI. I think I've already made my point and I don't want this to turn into another Guile's Theme situation, which I'm sure you remember, where I'm just repeating myself ad infinitum. My last point is that saying roughly the same thing while sticking to reliable sources really isn't that hard. There are many ways to imply the same conclusion by just stating the source's content without having to link multiple sources together in a single sentence or paragraph, which frankly just scares readers away anyway. Having 5 different sources interspersed throughout a 3 sentence paragraph is a good way to make sure nobody takes it seriously. Qiushufang (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame you, I don't think I told you this but I thought you handled the Guile situation very well given how bad their behavior deteriorated near the end (and just how long the whole situation went on for, that was one of the longest ive ever seen on Wikipedia).

As for this ANI I hope other users can provide their input and help address Asieon's behavior. Its clear we need more input/thoughts on the issues. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I checked Asieon's latest edits at Chun of Old Chosŏn, and there is rather obvious WP:OR. At the moment I'm not familiar enough with the their edits to comment on other behavior issues raised here, though. Esiymbro (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

The "unprotected site" is actually from 울산제일일보 a city-run newspaper of Ulsan.

The OhMyNews article clearly says this: 상나라가 망하자 '조선'(漢의 고을) 땅으로 들어가 살았다는 단순한 기록인데, 고려 유학자들은 기자가 우리나라 왕이었을 뿐만 아니라, 오랑캐인 우리 민족을 교화시킨 '성인'이었다고 추앙했고, 조선의 유학자들은 기자를 성현으로 만들어 '기자광풍'을 일으키면서 기자 숭배가 극에 달했으니, 참으로 어처구니없는 과거사이다. which is also highly critical of Kija.

The incomplete citation can be fixed.

You just don't seem to read the sources I provided comprehensively. Because they're all in there if you actually read them. Asieon『✉』 19:34, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Note that besides Wiman of Old Chosŏn, much of Chun of Old Chosŏn in its current form with unsourced content are by Asieon. I realize that Wikipedia standards are low, but is it really that much to ask for a source when someone adds unsourced content? I really don't think any of this has to do with our stances on Kija Chosun, which I have not stated, edited, or even disapproved of. My basic stance here is that the academic opinion is that it did not exist, and a statement of that nature based on WP:RS is more than OK, but that is just not the issue here. Qiushufang (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Both Qiushufang and Asieon are clearly editing in good faith, so I can't help thinking that this discussion should be held in a talk page rather than at ANi. You've both said more than enough here to make your positions clear, so please allow others to weigh in now. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Persistent editing of date of birth at Johnny Walker (Indian actor)

(COI - I am involved in editing the page in question.) There is persistent editing of the date of birth by IP editors at Johnny Walker (Indian actor), despite constant requests to first discuss the issue at the talk page. I'm not sure protecting the page would be conducive as it's such a minor issue, but the IP editors refuse to engage in discussion on the talk page.

There is history for disputes around this birth date - there are a large number of conflicting sources out there, variously claiming dates in March 1924, November 1924, and November 1926. The last discussion about birth date on the talk page was from an IP editor adamant that it was November 1924, and the current influx of edits are to change it to November 1926 based on a recent post on X from his son to commemorate his centenary.

Not sure what should be done about this, if anything. — Jumbo T (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

So I can see they've been told that there's no consensus, but they've responded with So, I don't care who disagrees with me. I have full right to edit here & if I'm in edit war, then are you doing????

They're also continuing to edit the page in question after others have tried to explain things on their Talk page and they were asked to engage on the article Talk to reach a consensus. I can't say for sure if the other TA(s) that have edited recently are the same person; whilst it's the same area there's a proxy showing up.

As background, it looks like there's conflicting information on the DOB so there's debate over whether to include it at all, but the TA feels that a specific book is the best source and won't accept otherwise. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:30, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

BTW I'm primarily referring to Special:Contributions/~2026-59686-93 as this is the TA that's currently still editing, has been warned and has responded to warnings.

I'm not sure if Special:Contributions/~2026-59879-66 is the same person, they've made one edit and don't show up in the same locale.

Special:Contributions/~2026-59825-45 could be TA-93 but it's hard to be sure with only one edit.

Overall I'm most concerned about TA-93's unwillingness to collaborate with other editors & edit warring. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:40, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I have semi protected the article @Jumbo T @Blue-Sonnet to stop the disruption while you and other established/interested editors discuss the issue. Star Mississippi 17:56, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully this helps steer interested editors towards the talk page. — Jumbo T (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

The editor has now begun making the same edits on the article disambiguation page. , Celjski Grad (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Potential topic ban evasion by Zorawar385

Fluddsskarkize and abuse of Wikipedia to pursue a personal vendetta

AA8675309 NOTHERE

Incivility, edit-warring, pov-pushing, and general nothereness from London3calling

London3Calling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring at Pedophile Protection Party. Then they used scare quotes, and added a source that doesn’t address the claim. (the source doesn’t contain the word “Republican”)

Personal attacks in response to criticism at User talk:London3Calling#November 2026.

Unencyclopedic tone and edit warring at White House State Ballroom.

Strange unsourced edit at Public humiliation. No, the sources they add do not verify the claim. Imagine my surprise. And one of them is an official site of the Ahmadiyya movement. Not exactly a go-to source to use for the claim.

Edit warring over a sensationalist presentation at Wealth of Donald Trump.

They’re belligerent in their editing, they demonstrate a weak ability to engage with sources, they’re rude in their communications, they haven’t demonstrated any talent for this that might mitigate their poor conduct. I think it’s more likely than not that this editor is as unsuited for a collaborative project as they present themselves to be, and they should be indeffed. Mikewem (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

+1 Beta Beta Beta - talk 21:31, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

INDEFfed from mainspace. Likely headed to a site wide one for American Politics issues, but trying to be optimistic. Star Mississippi 23:06, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and thank you for trying to be optimistic.

There are identifiable npov issues in some of the articles and content that L3C has struggled with. L3C may have a talent for identifying potential npov failures (in the American politics space, and maybe in the European politics space), but obviously we all have to learn and follow the same rules of the road, and we all need to be able to engage with sources. Mikewem (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

You blocked me INDEFINITELY from ALL editing without even giving me the chance to defend myself? Even when none of the accusations from Mikewem stand up to a closer look?

How could I possibly have edit-warred despite not breaching the 3R rule??

What exactly was strange or unsourced about the editing at Public Humiliation? It literally just adds context that helps enlighten the average reader whose first instinct when they see crucifixion is not what the Romans had in mind. And the sources DO in fact verify the claim. The source by Time literally backs up what I said vis-a-vis the meaning of crucifixion back then differing from what it is now due to Christ

And the Wealth of Donald Trump article is arguably the strongest example of Mikewem outright lying. There was NOTHING sensationalist whatsoever. I changed the sentence structure to flow better and make sense of how Trump brands literally everything under the Sun.

I am not belligerent in my editing style - I was just hostile to Mikewem because I can spot a bad-faith editor who's targeting me when I see them and Mikewem going and undoing half a dozen of my edits within a span of minutes whilst offering incoherent criticism of said edits didn't help. Which you would have known, Star Mississippi, if you had atleast waited for me to reply to these accusations. London3Calling (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi London3Calling. 3RR is only a bright-line rule. You can still edit war by overriding an edit once a day, a week, or a month. The issue is that, once your edits are disputed the first time, we expect you to stop editing and work to build a consensus with other editors or pursue some form of dispute resolution. Woodroar (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I changed the edits and added sources wherever Mikewem or any others reverted my edits. Not a single one of them was a blind revert on my part where I just gave a spiritual middle-finger to whoever had reverted my edits. I added sources and changed the edit to be flatter if required.

Reprimands for being snarky are one thing but an indefinite block? London3Calling (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Which is why you retain access to respond @London3Calling. If folks believe your edits are an improvement,you may be unblocked. Star Mississippi 02:18, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Shoot first, ask questions later...?

I do suggest you have a look at my edits and the incredibly tame nature of those edits. Mikewem's not wrong that I really need to start adding more sources after my edits, but after he reverted my edits, I quite literally did that. And then he just claimed the sources didn't back up what I said (they quite literally do) London3Calling (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree that an indefinite block was unnecessary, but London3Calling, I'd advise you to be more civil in your talk page responses, as some of your replies on your talk page were problematic (don't call people idiots or accuse them of pretending to misunderstand you) and making comments like that frequently tends to lead to getting blocked. That said, I would support unblocking you under the assumption that such incivility will not become a recurring problem. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 19:40, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Yea, I apologize for that. Really need to keep a check on my snark. London3Calling (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

• Star Mississippi, seems like another overreach by you. London3Calling had a clean block log, go going from clean to indef seems, again, excessive for an active user. Why not a few days to start with to "teach", although the user is correct in this case that they did bring a cite as requested to an edit and it was reverted for an unusual reason (for a cleaner AfD or something). Maybe jumping the gun a bit with the indef? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

• Further comment. New but active editors are going to make a lot of mistakes, and it takes time to learn the ropes here. For someone active and trying, especially with a clean block log, the jump to indef should be scaled with the usual 24, then 31, then weeks, etc., blocks, not indef without very much discussion of the problem at the users talk page. See my kind-of-new essay which centers on bringing the situation for a full disccussion at their talk page before an ANI is established. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

  Indef doesn’t mean forever, it means until an admin is satisfied that the issue is resolved.

  L3C is allowed and encouraged to discuss desired improvements and engage with source text on article talk pages.

  Not to speak for a admin, but since they are new and this is their first block, it might only take like a half dozen constructive comments on the talk page or pages of their choice to demonstrate that they understand our basic conduct norms. Mikewem (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

• As long as they understand exactly what other editors are concerned about, which is why the talk page discussion before ANI seems essential. A warning template is not a discussion, it can easily be seen as a formal threat by a new editor, even one who is pretty active and seemingly interested in building the project. A quick INDEF with little discussion seems a breach of ANI rules, especially for someone who can be described as inclined to trying to improve the project. At least that's my two cents (wonder how much 2 cents has inflated since that expression became common?). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Randy Kryn here, and think that the Indef may have been hasty. I also think that the essay is really good and very much makes sense here. I think that maybe with a bit of discussion with the editor we can (hopefully) reach a point where they are able to make contributions to the project again because from what I can see they are extremely passionate about it. (Also it would be around 38 cents, I believe?) ‹The Dark Horse›ν ^{speak with me} 16:57, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah I do think L3C is a mixed bag of edits some of the edits do seem like good addition but others like what is added to Pedophile Protection Party and the edit warring there are very much nothereness, I think an indef ban was really quick and a few days, week or 2, or topic ban would have been better suited, thats just my 38 cents though. Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

  It's not a breach of ANI rules, which we have discussed before @Randy Kryn. You're welcome to request that change at the VP.

  @London3Calling is welcome to request an unblock and it will be reviewed. Part of the point of partial blocks is to allow the discussion to continue while stopping the edits to which they had not responded to until they lost access to edit. Communication is not optional. Star Mississippi 17:10, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

  Star Mississippi I think you didn’t leave the standard you’ve-been-blocked notice with appeal instructions.

  Though, I would hate to see L3C leap into an appeal before adjusting their communication and learning where the line is. I imagine an appeal that contains personal attacks etc might reasonably lead to a site block. Mikewem (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for flagging that @Mikewem, I have remedied. I'm not sure what happened. Star Mississippi 17:53, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

(←) Good block per WP:BATTLEGROUND. In solidarity, Miniapolis 23:29, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

• The appeal instruction for their first blemish on the block log was not placed for over 18 hours? I thought this was an administrator noticeboard, how many admins actually watch over it, as it somewhat surprises me that nobody has yet removed the indef and maybe given a 31 hour block to give the Wikipedian the weekend off. Do you realize that the potentially very productive editor might just leave Wikipedia because of this comedy of semi-errors? London3Calling, I hope this doesn't discourage you, and that you stick around and learn the ropes, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, are you sure that this case was either an "urgent incident" or a "chronic, intractable behavioral problem"? EEng pointed out the importance of the word "intractable" existing in the ANI instructions (in a comment on the talk page of the linked essay). It's not a very familiar word, which is why maybe most admins and editors don't take it into consideration when a concern has not been fully discussed and an attempt to work out the problem at the editors talk page has not occurred. That an accused editor's behavior must be defined as "Intractable" seems an extremely important part of the ANI process, and maybe many ANI regular editors have forgotten it exists. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn you are absolutely welcome to propose a change to the reporting processes. I know it's something you're passionate about. I also have thoughts on changes and who knows, we might agree on some. Neither of those is for discussion in this thread. If you want to pursue that conversation, my TP is open rather than a continued derail here.

On the actual topic, When L3C requests an unblock, someone will review it. If you want to make an issue about my not notifying them on their talk, you're absolutely welcome to file a report. If you think that was malicious on my part and not a script glitch of some sort for which I've already apologized, I'm a little disappointed in you. No one has removed the indef because L3C hasn't requested it in any format. When they do, it likely will be. If they're sincere in modifying their snark, especially in CTs they likely won't be blocked again. Star Mississippi 14:42, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello Star Mississippi, and thanks. Yes, will come by to discuss the visibility of the criteria if this isn't the ideal place to discuss it. I seriously have never focused on the key word "intractable" until EEng pointed it out, maybe a hole in my literacy. And no, of course I do not think you act malicious (another good word) in any instance, here or anywhere. Mistakes occur, as do apologies for mistakes. Please note I don't report anyone anywhere, and if I have in the past that probably included being partially at fault. Don't know if London3Calling plans to request removing the indef or not, it would be nice if they do (please do L3C, with indication that you understand why some fellow Wikipedians may be concerned about your edits, and hopefully pay more attention to language and actions - although hopefully everyone understands that not a one of us edits perfectly and treats others with angelic holiness at all times). But, yes, the criteria language is very specific in who should be brought to ANI and when that should occur, which does seem to be partially if not totally ignored sometimes. Again, thanks to EEng for pointing out that "intractable" has specific meaning in this context. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

I think I once suggested that non-emergency ANI postings (i.e. those postings claiming an intractable behavioral problem) should require a "second" from someone. That at least would filter out most completely groundless postings, and might keep off of ANI a large proportion of those postings which are premature. Not sure, of course, how the "seconding" process would work. EEng 15:40, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Mass rollback with dismissive edit summary

On 12 November 2026, Jay8g (talk · contribs) reverted a series of independently sourced corrections to Topical steroid withdrawal with the edit summary "roll back to last version that isn't a complete disaster."

The rollback reversed multiple distinct edits, including removal of an unsupported timing thresholds, clarification of an indirect prevalence estimate, removal of an uncited claim about recovery duration, and improvements to citations, etc.

To keep things orderly and clear, each of the changes had been made individually, with edit summaries identifying their purpose. Jay8g's blanket reversion provided no specific objections to the individual corrections or their supporting sources.

I am requesting an independent review of the wholesale reversion and the accompanying dismissive edit summary. I would also appreciate guidance on how to address the individual corrections without entering an edit war.

Revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1385323914 Corinna Kennedy (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

@Corinna Kennedy, your first step should be to communicate with Jay8g, either on the article talk page or their user talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Both steps have been taken. Jay8g was notified on their user Talk page, and the matter has been raised on the article's Talk page for independent editorial review.

The ANI report concerns the conduct accompanying the wholesale reversion of individually documented, sourced corrections. Corinna Kennedy (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, neither of those posts are what I'm suggesting. You should talk to Jay8g, ask them to explain the revert, discuss with them why you believe the edits were constructive. Admins don't mediate content disputes. Schazjmd (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

@Corinna Kennedy, look at the state in which you left the article. Then look at absolutely any other Wikipedia article on a similar topic and note the differences. You took a properly formatted article and left it a complete mess. Feel free to try again, but actually look at other articles to see how they're written and formatted. Jay8g [V•T•E] 23:21, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, you have now twice characterized my edits as a "complete disaster" or "complete mess," yet have not identified the specific issues supporting that assessment.

The alterations were all textual edits within preexisting sections, including corrections to citations -- which were each individually documented, providing clear explanations of the changes and their supporting evidence.

The page flows the same, but you are insistent, so I ask you to be specific and not make broad, sweeping claims condemning a fellow editor's work as a 'complete disaster' and 'complete mess' when all text edits were made within preexisting sections and all related to cited works.

So that we may bring this page into alignment with cited source material, I ask, again, which provisions of the Manual of Style have my edits violated. Corinna Kennedy (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Have you gone through some other articles and looked at how they are written compared to how this one was written? That's always the most helpful thing for new users. Also, please read MOS:LEAD for starters.

For the rest of the article, I've brought back your changes, but the lead needs a lot of work. Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:41, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

@Jay8g: I fear that labelling edits as a "complete mess" is uncivil. Had you worded it in a way that doesn't strike people as rude, then this thread likely would've never existed in the first place. Beta Beta Beta - talk 00:34, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Jay8g, I have no doubt of your well intentions, however your input here still hasn't made clear how anything can be improved.

And, I sincerely want the page to represent the best it can be for the content material credibility and information accuracy generally. It was a huge mess of a page well before I began picking and my goal was to bring the material into alignment -- with no alteration to flow or construction. I had plans to spend a lot more days along the same vein I was travelling -- so your input is really valued here.

But, it's three-times now you've just vaguely waved back to look in some yonder direction which still feels incongruent because my edits all reflected cited material.

So, I ask, could you perhaps provide only 2 or 3 examples? From that, I am certain I will comprehend your meaning more clearly and be able to navigate forward in a more learned matter. (I have noted a cite name typo, that one I know but that doesn't fall under your claim.) Corinna Kennedy (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for replying to the wrong comment... I am having a much needed tub time and will close this window. Corinna Kennedy (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Here's a great place to start: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Medicine. Medical topics aren't something I know all that much about, as I said, but I'm sure there are some there that are similar to what you're looking for.

You seem to be focusing on the sourcing part of things. I can't really comment on that, but it seems like you know what you're doing there. It's formatting and, simply, making it look like a Wikipedia article that you need to work on.

I can see if I have time to sit down and work on a rewrite of the lead section you wrote at some point.

I apologize if what I said earlier didn't come across as I intended it. I can tell that you mean well too and I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise. Jay8g [V•T•E] 01:08, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

@Jay8g, I'm not a heavy contributor but I have been somewhat active with editing pages over 10 years so I did wonder if my language choices contributed to some issues in this article. In the TSW article, some edits done were to bring language inline with meaning, for instance when use of 'peeling' was replaced with the accurate 'desquamation,' per source material. The reason for the materials' use of desquamation is to represent an ongoing process which is more involved and disruptive than superficial peeling -- so scope was being lost.

TSW is a really challenging topic to write above due to the longstanding controversy around it — which leads to so much lack of clarity, and more uncertainty. That weight contributed to that lead section you note. I will take a look at some articles on that link you shared and revisit it with that in mind.

Thank you, I can only do better from good criticism so do appreciate your time. Corinna Kennedy (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

@Corinna Kennedy, you might find it useful to read MOS:LEAD as well. Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I see what is being called out clearly now.

I created a supportive narrative around origin to lead the reader back to solid ground — those two teaching doctors with years of first hand experience training while treating patients of the condition in an academic clinical over many years and who both settled with one position which is that primary causation was avoidable, if things are properly treated this condition should not exist as there was little need to use the medication. Thus addressing the iatrogenic nature of the condition, while the rest of the material generated around the condition presents promotion to further iatrogenesis. That explains the message contained in a lead which within the reality of the condition contains the only solid part of the entire article.

This is an iatrogenic topic regarding one of the most well known and relied on medications, it represents a classic hot potato — one that's been subject to heated debate with active management since a 2005 FDA roundtable took on the matter of creating safe OTC prescribing practice guidelines. I summarized the bulk of the report and learned they shelved things to be resumed at a later date after the roundtable learned, as they all sat with their own inputs finally hearing from other silos, how far reaching this situation was, how confounding the specialists reports were insofar as what was showing up — ultimately comprehending how little was understood regarding how exogenous override of the GR disrupts regulatory function well beyond the skin.

Guess what they did with that info. ;)

I try not impose my thoughts outside of settings, because it would undermine the point of expending energy around it -- my hope was to maintain a high level of that conscientiousness when representing existing material... but, I came with blind spots and mine showed up here.

As much as I look, I can't find anything that aligns for guidance on how to present what has so many opinions and represents such a clash of medical dogma, scope of injury and social outcry. Corinna Kennedy (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if this is out of place, but for context I thought it helpful to highlight the unique energy around the material

This narrative captures a broad overview of the situation, written by NIH Dr Ian Myles (LCDR_IAM) it substantiates the complexity. Full disclosure my opinions are cited as well here (#101, Biomarkers).

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2026.1786331/full Corinna Kennedy (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

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

User has been removing the country of birth from Elyanna (1, 2) without justification, and obviously against reality and RS (user even added a source that explicitly says she was born in Nazareth, Israel). User was warned but has again made the same disruptive edits and even lied in the edit summary saying: This is the stable version before the destructive modifications. You can check the country was there until November 7. It's not the "stable" version and there's no reason to remove it either. Candyfornia (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like POV-pushing in violation of WP:CT/PIA to me. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 06:06, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I have no comment. Nazareth is not in a disputed territory in Israel. In any case, the user is p-blocked from Mohamed Al-Fayed where (judging from Talk:Mohamed_Al-Fayed#Allegations) they repeatedly attempted to whitewash the biography by removing the section on the posthumous sexual abuse allegations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:07, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

This is definitely PIA-related disruption; I've ECR'd the page for a month as it "ordinarily" doesn't fall within the CT. No comment regarding or prejudice against additional sanctions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Edit-warring at List of people scheduled to be executed in the United States and violations of WP:V

• List of people scheduled to be executed in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Шалкер Гам (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robertpd85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The list states, among other things, ethnicity of inmates scheduled for execution. Many other lists do this as well, such as List of people executed in the United States in 2026. Ethnicity in these lists is a property maintained by the US department of corrections, which, at least until recently, only recognized White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American as possible ethnicities (I think it calls them "races"). Sometime in October, Nidal Malik Hasan was added to the list, with his ethnicity listed as "Arab". Whereas he is presumably of Arab origin, "Arab" is not a recognized ethnicity by the Department of corrections. I opened the discussion at the talk page (I first mistakenly thought he should be classified as Asian, but was soon corrected that he should be classified as White). As far as I am concerned, the discussion never resulted in any consensus. For whatever reason, the edit-warring started, in which a bunch of TA users were reverting to Arab, after which the article was protected . The edit-warring resumed after the protection expired, with the two above users reverting providing no reasons or bogus reasons. Шалкер Гам currently has less than 60 edits, a significant part of which they made in these reverts or at the talk page of the article (4 reverts, one with the reason that Arabs in "modern classification" are classified as non-white, three referring to the talk page claiming there is consensus for Arab); Robertpd85 has less than 300 edits, 5 reverts referring to the consensus at the talk page (they never participated in the talk page discussion as far as I see). Reverts by Шалкер Гам look coordinated with the TAs, though of course I can not check it. I had repeatedly to remind everyone that WP:V is not optional on Wikipedia, both in the edit summaries and on the talk page, only resulting in Шалкер Гам asking me to provide the source that Hasan is classified as white . After I had to explain again how WP:CONSENSUS works they at least stopped reverting; they also proposed to list Hasan as Middle-Eastern (which allegedly corresponds to the new classification by the Department of Corrections). After I said that this could be a possible solution, but would require a RfC and would apply not just to Hasan but to all inmates Robertpd85 resumed reverting saying that there is consensus in the discussion and I am the only one who oppose . It is probably time for an uninvolved administrator to have a look at the situation, to see whether Шалкер Гам's further participation in the English Wikipedia is beneficial for the project, and whether Robertpd85's and possibly mine behavior is this episode helps to improve the encyclopedia. Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I think we should list people's ethnicity based on what reliable sources say even if it doesn't correspond to an official category. It's trivial to find sources that describe Hasan as Arab I doubt most secondary sources on the subject are calling him "white". (t · c) buIdhe 16:46, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

This would be perfectly fine with me, but shouldn't we then just call Chinese inmates "Chinese" rather than "Asian"? And should we call for example Nicholas Ingram "English" or "British" rather than "White"? If there are people willing to make this change they should organize an RfC and spearhead the reform. At the time, I do not see any interest in this beyond Hasan. Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

TPA request

Personal attack by IPs

• ~2026-60090-10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-60009-51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These IPs have made personal attacks by using highly offensive and abusive language in Tamil at and . This abusive behavior has been ongoing since June 2026 involving multiple sock accounts and IPs documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deakin Macquarie/Archive and it has become an endless cycle of abuse. Requesting admins to take serious action on this matter. Thanks! Tonyy Starkk (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

The underlying IP has been blocked as a VPN and a rangeblock also applied. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Baginda 480 and sockpuppets

User:Baginda 480 has used many sockpuppets, with both logged in and temporary accounts, and is still editing articles like Mukhriz Mahathir and others. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Baginda 480 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baginda 480/Archive. Currently active sockpuppets include ~2026-60151-44 and ~2026-59863-73. Furthermore, this user edits at a really fast pace, so I suspect that they use AI. I wanted to ask if the user should be range blocked for some time? Also, we should probably protect the Mukhriz Mahathir article. ~~~~

Simas10 (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm the reporter of the most recent case in the SPI and noticed that the behaviour had been going on for a long time since early October (and maybe even earlier), hence the long list of TAs in the recent report. Who knows how long this continues if no one reported them? The editor will edit on mostly articles that are relatives to Mahathir Mohamad. This genuinely feels like a whac-a-mole, if the current solution is to monitor all the related articles and report every TAs to SPI.

I'm not sure about usage of AI. Many of their rapid edits or adding wikilink or just adding a few words, which is annoying to check against, since there are as many as 250 edits to a single article from the socks. I also noticed that the edits are all mobile edits. But I do suspect their edits are not neutral, examples: unexplained content removal at , and WP:PEACOCK editing at and Ismail Mohamed Ali. Syn73 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

@Simas10: A new TA just restored your revert: ~2026-60258-26 (talk · contribs). Clearly they are not intending to stop anytime soon. At this point I'm confused as to why does the editor has to save their edits for every single sentence / wikilink / reference added, on a mobile device nonetheless? Syn73 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

In one of the recent rapid fire edits, I noticed that they added a reference, and then throughout three consecutive edits, edit the reference by adding the date params, correcting the publisher, and fixing the url (the initial url with https:// does not work). Maybe there are more WP:LLMSIGNS if we look further. Syn73 (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

User:Ilikeoceanliners123

Ilikeoceanliners123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a young editor (i.e. still at school). He has also edited as ~2026-58901-50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ~2026-57246-25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ~2026-54055-12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and ~2026-50193-88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There has been some minor edit warring. More concerning is traits of WP:NOTHERE failure to assume good faith. Omnis Scientia has been on the receiving side of some of the failure to assume good faith. On the plus side, there is some evidence that if this editor was to mature a bit, then he could become a productive editor - see Draft:SS City of Atlanta - which had been improved since the original declination of the move of the article into main space. Suggestions seem to have been taken aboard there.

As a new editor, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a ban and a block, so comments made at my talk may be a little confusing. So, why are we here? The reason I am raising this editor's conduct here is because we clearly cannot carry on like this. I consider myself WP:INVOLVED here, so am not going to be taking any administrative actions against this editor myself. I'm not looking for a ban here, but I do wonder if a shortish block (say a month) might grab his attention and make him grow up a bit. Another option, which might have a better outcome in the longer term, is for an experienced editor to mentor him for a while, if one can be found willing to do this. Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

All parties involved have been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate Mjroots' starting this though I am quite sorry it had to go this far. This user does not seem to care about improving their habits. They are far from WP:Civil and don't take any advice or straight up ignore it. In general, if I gave advice to another user, they heed it and nothing more is then said. In this case, I've had to repeat it several times but to no avail.

They have refused to learn to properly cite sources. Indeed, had it not been for User:Phoenix's efforts - providing a number of resources and rewriting the original draft - I don't think the draft mentioned above would have been improved at all. Outside of that, they have made numerous changes based on reasonings like "why does it say this???" or "everyone knows that", most of the time without citing a source or citing another Wikipedia article without verifying it.

As for assuming good faith, just one example of their general response: when I edited the short description since they made it quite lenghty, they undid my minor correct to say: "Not to be rude, but this is my article I'm working on. If me and Phoenix could just work on it that would be great." And I told them that they don't own any article, to which they told me to "stop". This happened on Phoenix's user talk page where they decided that myself and Mjroots were talking to them for "some stupid reason".

I will add in a few other examples of their past lack of WP:Civilty and WP:Etiquette.

• A week or so back about not citing sources as well as leaving rather unnecessary comments in edit summaries. They wrote jibberish in response.
• Misuse of an article talk page to misrepresent something I said and my POV; we were talking about this on their talk page and they decided, on their own, to go and make this very unnecessary section. Of course, they told me to it was a joke and I should have known that.
• On their first account @Imjustme123 and at that talk page, when I pointed out their inability to assume good faith on my part.
• One my first advices on this talk page about tempering their language in edit summaries which are, even now, quite aggressive (once example is this). Below the first section they were asking me to find sources for them despite me pointing out they are in the article they were incorrectly understanding which I was explaining to them. I got a quite frustrated with their attitude here since they were asking me something I already told them where to find and then pretty much called me a "liar".
• This was a few days back. I had come to their talk page to tell to cite sources regarding some unsourced changes they made earlier that day and ended up leave it in the section in which Phoenix kindly provided they resources to help out with the draft. You can see for yourself how they reacted differently to two different things I said.

The above links provided by Mjroots are further examples of this exact sort of thing.

I will add that the user often then claims they "misunderstood" what I told them and then seemingly hides behind the fact they are autistic to excuse their behavior and expects anyone who has an issue with their behavior and attitude to drop it and let it go. I don't think that is a good excuse.

I also sometimes feel they are not being full honest - you will see how they claimed not to use AI only to then say they used AI to find sources (they admitted to doing so again a few days back, I notice). Previously, they have admitting to being false about how much research they did on the first time they editing on here only to later deny it. I showed them proof of their statement and they said I misread what they actually meant.

Personally I don't think there is any hope for such a user who doesn't even care to want to improve their way of editting. I've tried to help out where I can since I know they are a school student. But they are simply not receptive to any advice and are prone to seemingly overreact given that they WP:SHOUT.

As for me, I've tried to behave as appropriately as I can manage in my dealings with them. I checked their edits and where possible, I found sources for what information they added. I have assumed good faith and been as polite as possible. I am sorry for the few times I might have lost my composure but you can see why I might have. Omnis (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

DoeDoIt's disruptive editing

DoeDoIt (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring to introduce poorly sourced content at three articles: Sjaak Swart, Piet Keizer and Davy Klaassen. I explained on their Talk page why their sourcing was insufficient. They didn't respond but twice re-instated their changes.

They're a mobile user so it may be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. That doesn't change that it's disruptive. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Clear SPA with WP:FANCRUFT issues. GiantSnowman 11:46, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Legal threat

See Lorstaking (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Aside from this, what the heck is going on in the first sentence of the associated article? The huge uncited history section? The paragraph that’s all bolded for some reason? --JBL (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

I blocked the user to start with. Note that the article is not currently up to our standards. Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Repeated restoration of unsourced content and disruptive edits by Caltine

• Caltine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ali al-Haidari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Restoring unsourced content

Caltine has repeatedly restored unsourced material to Ali al-Haidari:

1. 11 November 2026
2. 11 November 2026
3. 13 November 2026

This continued after the need for reliable sources was explained in edit summaries (11 November 2026, 12 November 2026) and on their talk page (12 November 2026). No sources have been provided.

Introducing grammatical errors

Caltine also makes frequent edits that introduce grammatical errors into previously correct text. On Ali al-Haidari this included changing "who" to "whom", using incorrect prepositions with dates and changing correct verb tenses (Special:Diff/1385030773). This continued after the specific errors were pointed out (11 November 2026, 11 November 2026). Further examples of grammar mistakes being introduced include:

1. Herut: "with its leader Menachem Begin became Prime Minister" – ungrammatical sentence structure (Special:Diff/1385585564)
2. Mohammed Balas: "she became a member" – incorrect pronoun for a male subject (Special:Diff/1385206423)
3. Mohammed Dalwan: "is currently serving as a member ... since July 2026" – wrong tense with "since"; should be "has served" (Special:Diff/1385209521)

Unexplained removals

On occasion Caltine has also removed substantial content without explanation, for example Hussein Assaf (Special:Diff/1385201589): significant career history removed (2,798 bytes) with no edit summary.

I believe these edits are made in good faith, but the pattern has continued despite explanations and is creating ongoing cleanup work for other editors. I would appreciate administrator review. Psychomike (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

There is a guideline that bans the use of LLM: WP:NOLLM. There is a policy which permits imperfect wording: WP:IMPERFECT. So what gives? ChrysGalley (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ChrysGalley, it seems that Caltine makes so many rapid changes (check contribs) that not enough due care and attention is being taken to ensure correctness. Grammatical errors are introduced, new unsourced information added, and sections removed without a reason. This does not seem to me to be the right way to go about editing, especially when, once corrected or pointed out, these errors are subsequently reintroduced. Psychomike (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

I've reviewed the Ali al-Haidari article and your exchange on Caltine's talk page. There was a misunderstanding between the two of you regarding the unsourced material. Caltine was adding to the top that he was governor since at least September of 2004 because in the article the previous assassination attempt against him at that time is detailed and sourced (with him as governor already at that time).

Regarding the grammar or spelling errors, personally if I notice mistakes like that, I just correct them. I know I make them myself sometimes as a native anglophone.

You and this editor both also edited Larry (cat); I noticed that, unless I'm mistaken, you reverted almost every edit made by Caltine, even those that were more a question of article formatting/ layout/style. When Caltine added that the cat was British and the addition was reverted, you added as an edit summary "added to note NOT to add British here!". When reverting one of Caltine's changes which personally I think was a useful one (minus the capitalisation), your edit summary was "pointless addition".

I doubt these constant reversions and bordering on uncivil comments helped your subsequent interractions with Caltine.

The unexplained deletion of the content on the Hussein Assaf article is more concerning, but if this is the first instance of it happening, it warrants a warning, not a ban/block or similar. GreyZoneLife (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Repeated hoax addition for over a year

• ~2026-58805-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scatman's World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since June 2025 (), an anonymous user has repeatedly been trying to get some kind of bizarre, poorly written hoax involving a living Filipino politician added to the Scatman's World page (please see the history for that page). The page got protected twice this year for a total of six months because of this, but they resumed this behavior today after the second protection for the page expired: Special:Diff/1385595523. The "source" they provided this time is a Genius entry that they also seem to have vandalized. (Since Genius consists of user-generated content, it is not a usable source.)

The user already been warned multiple times under prior user talk pages, including the final warning that I gave them over three months ago. However, this user seems to edit infrequently enough to avoid actually being blocked. I think that needs to change. Enough is enough with this individual.

I hope this is the appropriate venue for this report; I was unsure if this was a straightforward enough case for WP:AIV. Bissarlda (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

If you haven't already I'd definitely suggest requesting page protection. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Page protection alone does not seem to have worked to deter this user, and I'm not sure that protection would be approved with just one disruptive edit after the last protection expired, hence why I'm here. (Also, I should disclose that I have corrected the userlinks template above to go to the latest offending temporary account rather than one of the expired ones of the same user.) Bissarlda (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

If there's a clear pattern of disruption it should still be approved. Makes it that much harder for them to just ditch and move to a new Temporary Account. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

 Done, I protected the page for a year and blocked the latest TA. Speaking as a RFPP regular, typically if the page was protected due to a certain disruption pattern, and the pattern resumes soon after the protection has expired, the protection request is likely to be accepted. Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2026 (UTC)