Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Tim riley reverted my edit to P. G. Wodehouse – see [1]. In the edit summary, Tim riley described my edit as ‘fatuous’. I took the matter to the Talk:P. G. Wodehouse#Fatuous? to explain my edit. Tim riley described this explanation as nonsense, and asked whether I was a native English speaker. He later described me as a drive-by editor who offered a half-baked lecture – all of which I found to be uncivil and harshly-phrased. I explained as much in the talk page, which remains there to be reviewed. In the course of my explanation, User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi posted a link to a prior experience I had with Tim riley five months ago at Talk:The Importance of Being Earnest. In that instance, I had become overpassionate in the face of incivility. However, I let the matter lie and apologised for my wrongdoings. Fortuna imperatrix mundi later posted to my talk page to remind me to assume good faith. I objected to this on the basis that at no point did I imply the assumption of anything other than good faith, and explained this. I noticed that they had not left a similar comment on Tim riley’s talk page, and this led me to notice that Tim riley has often left edit summaries and remarks that border on personal attacks or incivility. I therefore posted on Tim riley’s talk page to reiterate that I felt his comments were uncivil, and requested that he either strike them or rephrase them more neutrally. In response to this, he removed the comment with the following edit summary:

Deleting misplaced addition: belongs on article page, if anywhere, and not here [2]

I then posted the comment to Talk:P. G. Wodehouse#Fatuous?, explaining that

I thought it would be best, in the interest of ensuring that conversation on this page was restricted to the article and not editor conduct, to move to Tim riley's talk page. I'm happy to have this conversation here, however. [3]

Schrocat deleted this addition eleven minutes later with the summary

This really isn’t the right place. This is the place to discuss how to improve the article, not moan about other editors [4]

I posted to Schrocat asking where would be appropriate to raise the issue, and stressed that I wasn’t moaning as I have a legitimate reason to raise this behavioural issue. I then updated Tim riley on the situation, citing WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which states that user talk pages are the correct place to discuss issues relating to civility and that user conduct should not be discussed on article talk pages. In light of SchroCat removing my comment from the article talk page, I asked whether I could reinstate it to User talk: Tim riley so we could continue the conversation. Tim riley removed this comment with this edit summary:

Deleting persistent vexatious intrusion [5]

I appreciate that editors can remove content from their talk page, but this is very excessive given that I am following site policy per WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL. Tim riley’s persistent harsh tone and his removal of requests for apologies, strikethroughs or rewording uncivil comments contravenes much of WP:CIVIL, and this is an issue I have noticed occurring quite frequently on his talk page. I am particularly concerned that Tim riley removes comments like this rather than archiving them because it prevents users from building a repository of his repeated behaviours. This is behaviour that disinclines junior editors from contributing to the project by way of personal attacks, rudeness, and incivility. In response to my asking where the proper home for my request for apology/strikethrough from Tim riley, User:SchroCat said that

The correct place was on Tim riley’s talk page. He has deleted it from there (which is entirely acceptable). Keeping pushing the point after an editor has removed it from their own talk page can be seen as disruptive. Best to drop it and move on. [6]

I do not consider this a fair way to conclude this issue. If an editor is able to simply remove any and all accusations of incivility from their talk page, and then have another editor back them up and tell someone who feels they have been wronged that they had better drop the matter entirely, there is no chance that the uncivil party/ies will learn from their behaviour. What’s worse, my comments regarding how these users have made me feel will not be found in the relevant talk page archives. This means there is no evidence of potential wrongdoing; if this behaviour persists there is no way for another editor to build a case against a serially uncivil editor. I’d like to reoffer the olive branch to Tim riley and SchroCat so that we can continue to discuss the original point (pragmatics in the lead of P. G. Wodehouse), and to re-request that these uncivil comments are rewritten or struck through (or that apologies are provided) per WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL. I’d also like to stress that a permanent record of this should be preserved, and my explanation of my feelings should not be continually removed from talk pages. I’m happy to preserve a composite record of this on my talk page, to ensure that all evidence is gathered in one place. Thank you, Becsh (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With very limited exceptions, contributors are permitted to delete anything they chose from their own talk pages, and it isn't something you can negotiate around. And there is always (subject only to revdel) a 'permanent record' of edits in the talk page history, regardless of whether it is archived or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but this is why I'm happy to preserve this elsewhere. My greater concern is that this means users simply don't have to own up to their actions and language, and can remove it without comment. What can I do to challenge this incivility if I can't take it to a talk page of either a user or an article? Becsh (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are for discussing content, not behaviour issues. You have taken it to the user's talk page, and they have responded to it in a permitted manner. Nobody is obliged to respond further in such circumstances. If you have a serious complaint about behaviour, you can raise it here: but it is unlikely to be resolved by you making demands for 'permanent records' counter to existing policy. And frankly, as talk-page incivility goes, this seems pretty minor. I'd put it down to experience. We can all be rude to each other on occasion, and while there are limits (I should know, having overstepped them, with consequences), I very much doubt that anything more will come of this than a suggestion to all try to stick to the content issue, and avoid giving each other abstract lectures on who has the better grasp of the English language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if an editor is being uncivil and refuses to strike through a comment, ANI is the place to go per WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL. I'm completely happy for this report to be the permanent record of how this particular instance went down, given that this will be appropriately archived. My original request that these comments are rewritten or struck through, or else that apologies for incivility are provided, still stands. Becsh (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is an urgent incident (it is not) or a chronic, intractable behavioral problem (might be, but you need diffs; but, let's face it, it is probably not), what you can do to challenge the incivility is post here. But you have posted here primarily about the removal of comments. The removal of comments should have directed you here to post about the incivility, not the removal of comments themselves. In the absence of diffs and with your report concentrated on a side thing, it doesn't look like anything is going to be done. I think you should give up on continuing seeking some kind of action based on this report and try again in the future if you notice significant and repeated incivility from Tim riley. —Alalch E. 21:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense. Is English your first language?" is, in and of itself, sanctionable incivility. It is not appropriate to respond to a content dispute by insulting the editor who disagrees with you. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that anyone has been sanctioned for use of the word 'nonsense'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would support sanctions just for the above phrase, but the part I'd object to is not "nonsense". Asking if English is someone's first language in this context casts a fluent but non-native speaker as inherently less trustworthy on the matter. This is, at best, a case of discussing the editor rather than the edits, and the "nonsense" only emphasizes the dismissive tone rather than itself being a problem. Rusalkii (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[7] Maybe you shouldn't be giving advice on civility? ~2025-43225-71 (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, but asking someone who'd just written As you can see, the sentence structure means that the subordinate clause is modifying the prepositional phrase if English was their first language, followed by "I do not need a half-baked lecture on English usage from drive-by editors" was spectacularly rude and really does need to not be repeated. There are plenty of ways of disagreeing with someone - even if they're wrong - without insulting them. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation, and quite possibly off-topic, but it does seem somewhat ironic to be arguing about the grammar of an article on P.G. Woodhouse, given his delightful distain for such prescriptivism. One might argue that Wikipedia shouldn't show a similar distain, but neither, I would suggest, should it insist that a perfectly-understandable sentence written in English as it is commonly used should be subjected to in-depth scrutiny according arbitrary rules that are rarely enforced. Yes, we should all try to be civil in such circumstances, but there are better ways to start a discussion regarding content than an edit summary reading Guildford is not the third son of a British magistrate based in Hong Kong. That, in my opinion, is where this started to go wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not the first time the "native language" line has been used: "S/he certainly doesn't understand WP:ENGVAR, and though I don't suggest anonymous editors from Malaysia are incompetent, I do suggest named editors whose native language is the King's English (or AmE) may have some idea what they are doing." Tim is a productive content editor, but he should stop pulling out the "native language insult" in content disputes. I'm right because I'm a native English speaker and you're not is a weak and insulting counterargument, especially when directed at people who are obviously fluent in English. At the very least, find fresh insults.^{[just kidding]} Levivich (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking another editor whether English is their first language is an inappropriate personal attack. I am disappointed (but not surprised) that we have several experienced editors backing Tim on this. Toadspike [Talk] 10:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not surprised that several experienced editors are not backing Tim on this. His whole tone he took with Becsh was condescending and unnecessarily personal.— Isaidnoway (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Lev here. Asking if somebody is ESL is a bit insulting to the skills of the person's recieving end. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all - to bring us up to speed, three administrators (Toadspike, Black Kite and Rusalkii) have agreed that this is at least an instance of commenting on the editor rather than on content. Consensus seems to be that Tim was in violation of WP:PA, but I've made my argument and will refrain from restating the above or trying to make further claims. I've been reading the consequences of personal attacks subsection along with the ANI advice page, but I'm not sure what exactly my place is in the conversation from this point on. As I explained, I would support a strikethrough/rephrase of uncivil/ad hom comments (or an apology, of course), and think a warning against repeated behaviour (in particular the 'Native English speaker' argument) would be the simplest solution with the minimum drama. As I say, though, not sure whether that's something for me to argue for or something for admins to discuss away from the noticeboard - this is my first time posting here, so I'm sorry I'm if overstepping my mark.

In view of what's been said in this report and following some reading up on WP policy, I can see I was misguided in pushing for my thoughts/feelings to be kept on other editors' talk pages. What frustrated me about this was that I followed WP policy by posting to an editor's talk page explaining my viewpoint, only to have them remove it and refuse to engage. I didn't want to escalate to ANI, but felt that I was being pushed to drop the matter, and it is unconstructive for such experienced editors to work on the assumption that they can make personal/uncivil comments and then wait for other editors to either drop the matter or submit to ANI, which inevitably and unnecessarily draws out the episode. Becsh (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We as a community should not let slide from experienced contributors incivility that would get any new editor warned or blocked. I support a formal warning to Tim Riley about incivility. It's not 2005 anymore and we need to hold even our most experienced editors accountable to the same rules as everyone else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support such a warning. Toadspike [Talk] 04:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would support one too. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And possibly a warning against SchroCat as well for disparaging people for no good reason - which would be incivility. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SchroCat should receive a formal warning as well. He's become bit of a regular topic here at ANI. ~2026-49491 (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-SchroCat-20260101161600-Trainsandotherthings-20260101161300 ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support a formal warning and also give notice that additional incivility will be subject to escalating blocks.— Isaidnoway (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Good grief. Storm, meet teacup. There are seven million articles, most of which need work done on them. It would be a better use of everyone's time if they spent less time trying to feel important here, and more time doing busy work on the content, which is supposed to be the point of this site. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How would we focus on content when if we try to contribute we get insulted on our English skills? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Straw man arguments cut no sway with me. Find an article in a parlous state and work on it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What strawman? I directly adressed your complaint. Are you just trying to discredit all the complaints about conduct? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't just deflect all concerns about editor conduct with appeals to "but the content!" I for one would rather be doing content right now, but the sort of behavior on display here, as accurately described by Mackensen below, is an obstacle to that goal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't tell me what I can and can't do just because you disagree with it. This really is a minor kerfuffle, nothing more. I've been more abused by admins who should know better and not even thought it worth coming to this venue, so let's not somehow think this is really worth getting all het up about. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Likewise, please don't imply that editors are commenting here because they want to "feel important". Thanks.— Isaidnoway (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You are very much part of the problem, SchroCat. You want to protect your Wikifriend, who like you is part of the "content creators" club. And don't you dare try to come back with some comment about how I don't do content, because my record speaks for itself. The community is not letting habitual incivility and other violations of our policies and guidelines from established editors slide like happened in years past, so you can either adopt to that and adjust to treating fellow editors with civility and respect or continue to be part of the problem. That is why you were blocked earlier this month. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Have fun chatting ... sorry, but I'm really not interested, particularly given I wasn't blocked "earlier this month" (given it's the first day of the year), and when I was blocked last month, it was for breaching a 3RR technicality - still, let's not let details get in the way of you having a pop. TTFN - I won't bother coming back, so feel free to have the all-important last word. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems like dismissing and disparaging valid complaints. Also, 'earlier this month' is probably a mistake since it's the first day of the month. It probably meant December. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I meant last month. I apologize; I made a mistake and forgot it was now 2026. That doesn't actually invalidate anything I said, though. You were blocked on December 17, which is two weeks and one day ago, also known as less than a month ago. Your attitude here is achieving exactly the opposite of what you want, in that it's drawing further attention to the rampant dismissive and bad faith attitude of you and your circle of "content creators". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, while the block itself was for 3RR, you also engaged in quite a bit of incivility. We don't call other editors "second-rate" or make absurd statements like the overwhelming impression that some member of the community have severe issues comprehending what quality content is, and the requirements needed to protect if from the ‘non first-rate’ editors who are a long way from being capable of stewarding it. All of this is just from User talk:SchroCat/Archive 38#December 2025. Asilvering aptly noted in regards to your behavior leading up to the block Did you consider being less aggressive and rude, or did you think that condescension was the only course of action available to you? This is not the way we treat other editors on Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a formal warning to Tim Riley. I also want to address SchroCat's advice, which is excellent in a vacuum but misguided here. The whole point of Wikipedia, and why Wikipedia works, is that editors can randomly edit articles that strike their fancy. This model works less well if some articles are actually land mines, where you'll be berated and insulted if someone doesn't like your edit. It's hardly a strawman to raise this concern. If I were a new editor reading Talk:P. G. Wodehouse#Fatuous?, my impression would be that Wikipedia is a stuffy club where new editors can kindly show themselves out. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also support formal warning per above. As to the rest, WP:WIKICLICHE #19 comes to mind. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose fatuous warning, per AndyTheGrump. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point I would support a formal warning as well. Mostly because of SchroCat's latest comments doubling down and clearly not getting it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose warnings or any other ever-so 'umble self-indulgence. @Becsh: I'd be more sympthetic to your hurt feelings (even if by your definition, others are "uncivil" but you merely get "over-passionate") if you considered those of others. Specifically, why wasn't I informed of this discussion per your obligations? (If, as you'll probably say, this thread isn't "about" me, then you shouldn't mention me—and indeed, try and ping me as you did—in your complaint. Don't ever do that again.) I have no idea whether the discussion at Wodehouse is fatuous or not; I can say with damn-near certainty that this one is fast becoming so. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello – I mentioned you only to communicate the events that led me to post here. I don’t think my original report suggests I am accusing you of anything or trying to have you sanctioned, but you are right that I should have given you notice – to be completely honest, my thinking was that by not giving notice on your talk page, I was making it clear that you weren’t the subject of the report. My apologies for not giving notice and for the uncertainty it has caused.

  I will say, though, that I mentioned you in my report to communicate the events that led me to post at ANI. You were involved in the original discussion and accused me of not acting in good faith on my talk page.[8] I replied to you on my talk page, but would prefer not to take your accusation any further. Becsh (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would be an interesting exercise to defend Tim Riley's conduct without attacking the good faith of the other editors in the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an exercise of almost equal interest to refrain from defending those who treat this page's instructions so cavalierly. —Fortuna, imperatrix 07:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

why wasn't I informed ... try and ping me as you did ... Don't ever do that again. Are you complaining that, having been mentioned in a thread that wasn't about your conduct, you were pinged rather than being notified on your user talk page? And you call this "cavalier"? 😂 Levivich (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When the guy who takes umbrage at a suggestion to "spend more time building an encyclopedia" is also also the guy with *checks notes* 35 edits to articles over an entire year ... they are unlikely to be taken as seriously as perhaps they would like. 😂, indeed. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi and @Levivich please stop arguing and nitpicking over Besch not notifying FIM. IMO you were just tangentially related to this incident so I don't think you needed a notification. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Becsh for your apology; others here would do well to follow suit. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like SchroCat, or who do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The content dispute at P. G. Wodehouse ended about a week ago. I thought this 'report' expired. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it best to distance myself from the content dispute since my comments received no reply (and the holidays delayed things!). However, this is a conduct, not content, dispute, and there is no rush. Becsh (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And we are concerned with conduct at this board, not content. Please don't make any more peanut gallery comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"..peanut gallery comments"? Not very WP:CIVIL of you. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spotted this thread. There is no incivility in enquiring if another editor customarily uses the King's English. If debating syntax it is important to know how fluent one's interlocutor is in the language, and then discuss accordingly. Tim riley talk 16:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor's background or credentials are not important. Their argument is all that matters. I wish you would simply acknowledge this so we can drop the issue. Toadspike [Talk] 17:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Toadspike. And also, that question if customarily uses the King's English is not good because a significant portion of English speakers use American English and spelling. Do you imply that people using color are less good at syntax and grammar compared to people using color? Furthermore, is perfect English required to contribute to this encyclopedia? Of course not. So why do you require such skill to be able to even talk with you???~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you imply that people using color are less good at syntax and grammar compared to people using color?" Both misleading and a complete straw man. Many discussions I've had on grammar have been with AmEng writers who don't understand BrEng spelling and grammar and need it explained to them. There's nothing wrong with that: I've had similar discussions with AmEng writers explaining AmEnglish rules to me. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing Tim Riley, not you. And is anything not a strawman to you? Is absolutely nothing going to convince you about Tim Riley being incivil and focusing on the contributor and their skill? Is it totally acceptable to shut down discussion because "oh well, User:Foo is not good enough at English. They mispelled 'definitely'" ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I've addressed other people that you've decided to reply to. So what? That's common practice at ANI. Yes, lots of things are not straw men arguments, but so far you've thrown a couple of them into the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand how exactly they are strawman? I concede it may be a bit off track but I don't understand enough of the nuances of the English language to understand your accusation. Though you could do with not just dismissing an argument as flawed and actually laying out how its flawed... ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand, then maybe this isn't the best place to participate? Maybe there are other parts of the encyclopaedia that could benefit? - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm begging you SchroCat, for your own good, stop making a fool of yourself here. The only reason this thread continues is because you keep attacking other people. Knock it off now while nobody is proposing any sanctions against you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beg away and pop your passive aggressive incivility elsewhere. I get you don’t like me, but I’m really not concerned with your constant needling. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And you still can't fathom that your statements come off uncivil to other people? What, is everybody else completely WP:INCIVIL while Tim and you are shining examples of WP:CIVILITY? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a diff of where I have said anything of the sort? Please don’t just make things up - that’s already happened enough in this thread without more examples being added. - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-SchroCat-20260102215400-Trainsandotherthings-20260102214400

Aggressive accusation of incivility, yet not saying what exactly is bad about it. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted this thread? Levivich (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the distinction between "color" and "color", above, but I have been grateful for the advice of Francophones who recognised that my French was not brilliant, and, like SchroCat, I have worked with native American speakers who corrected my BrE into AmE where appropriate and I have returned the compliment when they were working on BrE articles. You do really need to know what level of linguistic expertise one is dealing with. Tim riley talk 19:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The British spelling has a u, the American does not. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every literate person knows that, but why the two identical spellings are put forward, above, as somehow contrasting is not clear, and rather illustrates my point that to engage in discussions about syntax one needs to know whom one is discussing it with. Tim riley talk 20:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax and orthography aren't the same, though, and I am unsure as to why you would feel the need to call my explanation 'nonsense' when my fluency with English is pretty clear. You don't need to know where someone is from when discussing syntax because it doesn't vary between American and British English; you also didn't ask me whether I am from Britain or America, but whether English was my first language. If you truly believed the issue had arisen because I was using American English, I cannot see why you asked the question you did. When I replied to confirm I am, in fact, a native British English speaker, you then began quoting Kipling and listing the books on your shelves rather than addressing the point I had originally made. Do you see why this might form a roadblock to discussion? Becsh (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template +1 is being considered for deletion.› +1.— Isaidnoway (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley I'm sorry that you side-stepped Levivich's very valid point. You were clearly informed about this thread because you removed the notification as an "intrusive nuisance". You're a senior editor and you know better. You should also know better than to present "Nonsense. Is English your first language" as a good-faith inquiry into someone's linguistic capabilities, especially in the context of a revert calling a change "fatuous". Now, you're under no obligation to apologize or acknowledge that you could have handled this better. That's entirely your decision. Personally, I'd take it as a kindness if you did. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tim and SchroCat are very clearly under the impression they have done nothing wrong. The only difference is that Tim is being esoteric about language while SchroCat is just being straight up rude to anyone and everyone like he owns the website. I'm sure we will be back at this board multiple times before something is done to address their behavior. If they'd just, you know, stop being condescending and rude to people or take even the tiniest bit of accountability we wouldn't have to have threads like this. We're clearly getting nowhere, and SchroCat is just getting more aggressive, so I'm done here. See you all next time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not the first time I have seen WP:OWN behavior; (before someone cites WP:FAOWN, no, I don't think arguments about English wording is covered by that) My last encounter two years ago at Talk:W. Somerset Maugham/Archive 1#Copy edit redux taught me to keep away from doing any minor edits on these sorts of articles. (besides also correct my understanding to that 3RR is only violated at 4 reverts and not 3, if you'll excuse my mistake on that thread) dbeef [talk] 21:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Staggering piece of incivility in such a statement. This is so much more sanctionable than anything else in this ridiculous thread. - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Which part of that was uncivil? Genuine question. dbeef [talk] 21:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You don’t understand that making false accusations is uncivil? Just because someone disagrees with your edits doesn’t make it ownership behaviour. Accusing people of ownership without basis and without diffs is classed as incivility. - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  But you did seem to be dismissive of arguments and basically doing a WP:1AM refusing to accept any kind of change. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hardly 1AM when several people are in agreement with me. I’m sorry to have a different opinion than you, but c'est la vie. - SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's more like 2AM. I mean, even if you take the 3-3 as valid, you and Tim are the only ones engaging in it the most, while the other agreers seem to just be drive-by comments. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: WP:PROJSOCK applies^ 12:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not sign your message @Fortuna imperatrix mundi? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - any actions against Tim riley or SchroCat. Concentrate on the content dispute at article-in-question's talkpage. I'm sure more editors are aware of it, by now. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Also support a formal warning to Tim riley. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. First, it is necesary to observe that neither side is coming off smelling like roses in this dispute, which (in terms of the import in the difference in the competing versions of that sentence) concerns a change that is about as absolutely trivial as they come. That any editor found it necesary to revert the change, and that both sides were willing to go to the mat and not just expend the level of effort necessary to debate this point (and indeed, to the extent of now pulling in a massive amount of community attention just to regulate the dispute) should be of profound embarrassment to all the involved parties.
  Compounding those issues, the involved editors also quickly found themselves engaged in non-sequitur arguments from authority; friends, if you ever find yourself quoting the style guides you are familiar with as the basis for the weight of your position on a wikipedia editorial dispute, you have completely lost the plot, and view of the actual methods and metrics we use to make such determinations on this project. I've read all of those same style guides and then some more. I also have a formal background/degree in linguistics, and have been a professional writer and editor for periods of my life that add up to collective decades, including being a managing editor of an academic journal and contributor to major texts. Does that mean I win the (purely metaphorical) language maven dick-measuring contest and get to settle this by coming to the article talk and making a determination by fiat? Clearly not, so I'm not sure why anyone thought that was a productive line of discussion.
  For the record, Becsh is wrong: the status quo version is not grammatically incorrect: there is no prepositional phrase and no subordinate clause, in the typical sense, in that sentence. Rather there is an embedded noun phrase that is inserted using a parenthetical construction that is going out of fashion in English, but which I suspect is still easily parsed by the typical reader. I do find Becsh's version to read in an ever-so-slightly more straightforward fashion, and there may be edge cases of readers who will parse the statement more clearly with that change, but again, no party to this dispute can claim their preferred version is so superior that even 1/1000th of the amount of dispute that has taken place here in defensible.
  All of that contextualizing done, there is no question here whose behaviour escalated the dispute and should be of most concern to the community, now that the issue has landed here. Becsh's argument may have been technically flawed, and was more effort than the change was worth, but it was made in good faith and in an entirely civil fashion. Tim's reaction from their very first response on the other hand, was absurdly aggressive, and needlessly disruptive--and bluntly, seems highly suggestive of a WP:OWN attitude, and is at a minimum WP:TEND. If there is any one factor that most cemented this situation devolving into such a timesink, it was surely that reaction. Does it require a community response with teeth? Probably not, but then neither is a formal warning a particularly severe sanction, and I think it's justified in this instance. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Snow Rise - I do want to point out that Tim and Schro tend to work together to bring articles to FA status, which is then used as the editorial standard moving forwards; arguing for changes on the talk page is the process they suggest in revert summaries of this kind and this is why I put in the effort to post to the talk page. I've detached myself from this content dispute, although I did post to WikiProject Grammar[9] to try to work out what exactly this sentence seems to be doing wrong. On reflection I think it is more of a 'theme and rheme' issue wherein the appositive can jolt a reader into interpreting the wrong subject. I maintain that two sentences would be better than one, especially for the second paragraph of the lead, because each part of the sentence is focusing on a different topic. A lot of effort for a minor change, yes, but a revert with an invitation to discuss often gets the bit between my teeth. That's as much as I'll say in terms of content.

In terms of conduct, I ended up posting here after having my efforts to speak with the involved editors on their talk pages removed. I appreciate that nobody has to engage with editors on their talk pages and reserve the right to remove comments, but my points regarding incivility were described as "moaning" about other editors. My comments were routinely removed from appropriate places for discussion by both editors, which ended up making me feel as though I was being tag-teamed, until I determined to come here (as advised at WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL to ensure that my points were archived somewhere other than in page histories. As you've said below, if parties want to make a case for action on the larger pattern over time, they are free to do so. This report can be used in future to demonstrate repeated behaviour if such behaviour is repeated. I gave both editors multiple opportunities to listen to why I felt they'd been uncivil, and multiple options to de-escalate the situation. I also kept my distance from this report as it unwound, and the discussion here is the result of a range of editors that reflects, as you say, community patience wearing thin. Becsh (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done a decent job, hopefully this behaviour will not be repeated. Halbared (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This section has some supports and opposes, but no clear proposal, unlike the subsection below. I don't know what Snow Rise is supporting, for example. David10244 (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone who has responded with a bolded !vote header was responding to Mackensen's support for a formal warning for Tim riley, above. If there is any confusion as to that, it may be worth refactoring the discussion to move and indent the responses of GoodDay, XtraJovial, and myself so that they directly reply to that comment in a manner consistent with WP:THREAD/WP:INDENT. Certainly anyone who thinks that will be helpful has my permission to move my comment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support. Asking a User if English is their first language then calling them a drive by editor is very rude absolutely not in line with WP:Civility. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose warning or other sanction against Tim riley. "Drive-by edit" is not an insult. It simply describes an edit to an established and mature high-quality article (probably FA or GA) that is made by a new editor to that article which makes a substantial change without considering WP:DUE or other balance issues or removes well-sourced information or adds inferior sources. An edit summary is limited in length, and we should not penalize the dwindling number of highly productive editors who work to maintain the quality of high-quality content for making a short-hand edit summary. It is good practice, before making a substantial change to an actively-edited article that one has not edited before, to make a proposal on the talk page to see if anyone disagrees that it would improve the article. Likewise, sometimes one sees a puzzling edit, and asking whether the editor is a native English speaker can lead to a productive discussion about the reasons for, say, a grammatical choice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Calling someone a drive by editor is not what I would consider civil that might be what the exit means but calling an editor that goes beyond civil in my view(and is especially questionable when it follows them questioning if the person is a native English speaker.) Also, while it is fine to make a comment on the talk page first Wikipedia encourages editors to WP:BEBOLD so making a bold edit that an editor thinks improves the page is also an option and good practice. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think splitting one sentence with three dependent clauses into two sentences constitutes a substantial change, and I don't see how this relates to WP:DUE or other balance issues. Either way, Tim's questioning whether I am a native English speaker did not lead to productive discussion. Becsh (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Your description of a "drive-by-edit" (makes a substantial change without considering WP:DUE or other balance issues or removes well-sourced information or adds inferior sources), does not match the actual edit that was made by Becsh, so that rationale can be summarily dismissed. And the discussion opened on the talk page by Becsh in relation to the actual edit was in plain English, so there was no reason to ask if English was their first language, so that rationale can be summarily dismissed as well.— Isaidnoway (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For disparaging and dismissive statements such as in [[10]] and [[11]] constituting low-level incivility. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. Edit at 3:29 UTC: I could also support a block if it seems to be warranted.~2025-31733-18 (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose (see below) This seems to be too soft a sanction, given that SchroCat has been repeatedly blocked for general incivility and edit warring (see Blocklog for "SchroCat" ). Their blocks also appear to have proven futile. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing my !vote to weak support because a sanction is more appropriate than nothing. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - such a proposal by an IP that's made no contribuations to mainspace. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with XtraJovial that's it's weak; SchroCat barely avoided an outright ban in 2022 and given their comments above simply understands civility differently from most editors, and in a way that creates conflict. @GoodDay: pretend the proposal is from me and oppose it on the merits. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if WP:PROJSOCK applies, though. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if we think it's somebody's bad-hand account. Plenty of established users are prepared to put their names on this discussion, so I somewhat doubt it? PROJSOCK isn't a license to discount new/unidentified contributors, though naturally we give their opinions less weight. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a connection with this legacy IP account (not by geolocation), a legacy IP account which boasts See you in a few weeks (or sooner from another account/IP), and its block log is a blocked proxy: operating as a call-back proxy; rv TPA: trolling (Ponyo's and Drmies's evidence). —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is not me, I moved houses on December to my current one and I don't know about that guy. My former IP was 37. something or 212.70 something before TAs were introduced. Then I moved houses. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I have never changed TAs since the introduction of TAs in November. I know that residential IPs in this country get (mis?)identified as proxies.~2025-31733-18 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to achieve something on Wikipedia is to advocate for the opposite outcome without using an account. Not so subtly associating the advocation with prior bad behavior amplifies the effect. ~2026-49491 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: The links seem to suggest ~2026-49491 as a PROJSOCK, while this section is opened by ~2025-31733-18. dbeef [talk] 17:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as unfounded in policy; support a chunky block for the T/A nom per PROJSOCK^ —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• So someone calls me a fool and no-one bats an eye at their incivility, but when I dismiss their insult without saying anything uncivil to them I'm to be sanctioned? Bravo ANI - always showing you brightest and best side! - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Propose a warning for Trainsandotherthings if you think it's justified. I've remonstrated with them before about their tone. Someone being uncivil to you doesn't justify your incivility to third parties, especially not after the fact. Mackensen (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have too little faith in this page to even bother with such a laughable step. I mentioned it just to show the nonsensical nature of this proposal and the general nature of the thread, when absolutely no-one picked up on the incivility aimed at me, but various people are happy to take potshots, needle away and try and bait me. ANI at its brilliant best. Unwatching this ridiculous charade now and any 'warning' will be dealt with appropriately. - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How exactly have people been incivil to you? Say which statements offend you or else we will not be able to come to an understanding. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll freely admit I have not always been a paragon of civility, especially in my earlier years. I'd like to think I've improved measurably since then though. Regardless, my comment was that the behavior was foolish, not that SchroCat was inherently a fool. I do find it odd how SchroCat is up in arms at the slightest provocation while freely attacking others across this discussion. It comes across as "rules for thee, but not for me," and I'm not the only one to comment on SchroCat's poor behavior throughout this discussion. And of course, when challenged to raise an actual concern about my behavior, SchroCat can't be bothered. Meanwhile, I get attacked for forgetting on January 1st that it was now 2026 as if that was a "gotcha" moment.

  If SchroCat would stop constantly doubling down and acting like their behavior is perfect, this thread could be closed. But that simply won't happen, so it drags on. I know I said I would disengage, but I felt compelled to reply since my name was invoked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a minimum per Mackensen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Mostly for their conduct in this discussion, but also looking at the talk page in question does not paint them in a good light either. It is giving WP:NOTTHEM and not comprehending their actions and the effect it has on others and the community as a whole. I would also support an escalating block, but would be okay with just a warning. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose anything being proposed by such an obvious WP:PROJSOCK. I would have supported a warning for tim riley that was proposed by a user in good standing, but I'd waver on one against SchroCat, and I'd definitely oppose one proposed by this obvious waste of time. Black Kite (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: I was the one who proposed a warning for Tim Riley further up the thread, not the temporary account. It doesn't have a subheader though. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as weak and ineffective.— Isaidnoway (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You know, you could propose a block instead? I am not opposed to that and will support such a proposal. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Given Schro's significant profile in this forum over time, I am not surprised that some community members are inclining towards action (including more severe action than a warning), just on the basis of frustration with seeing them here again. That said, I am not seeing the case for current action on the basis of the diffs included in the proposal, nor anything else shared above. The diffs reflect comments with acid tone, but nothing crossing the line into outright disruption, nor indeed anything that is anymore battleground that the comments they were immediate responses to.
  If parties want to make a case for action on the larger pattern over time, they are free to do so. But when all that has been put forward here as support for community action are those comments, it is immediately obvious that they are insufficient basis for even a formal warning. Informally, however, I really do think Schro should consider themselves on the bubble of having exhausted community patience--which I think some of the somewhat knee-jerk responses above are evidence of. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SchroCat has been rude and dismissive. David10244 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• NO. If someone is to be charged with incivility it will need much stronger diffs than those two. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a warning based on their conduct in this ANI discussion. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose warning or other sanction against SchroCat. If we sanction people too harshly for expressing their opinion on ANI discussions, then few will dare to so so. I support looking into whether this is a WP:PROJSOCK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  giving a warning for incivility will not mean few will respond here as the sanction is against the incivility not the opinon. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with TAs making (or even voting on) sanctions proposals, but treating this as a proposal made by Mackensen, Support. Ssilver's argument has persuaded me: if we allow editors to be attacked or otherwise met with incivility for expressing their opinion on ANI discussions, then few will dare to do so. Levivich (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Black Kite. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose with exactly the same sentiment as SnowRise. I state this in full understanding that I will likely be subject to: the summary dismissal of the importance hereof via reference to fine china or a heavenly boogie involving a sewing untensil; this followed by an attempted mathematical dismissal of my opinion; and, then, a well known error in logic restating of the fallacy of relative privation involving a number somewhat greater than seven million.

I shoulder this burden willingly. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 20:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hiobazard, discussions about warning or blocking or whatever are less funny than you might take them for. User:Levivich, you might concur. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's not clear to me what this would accomplish. SchroCat is one of the project's more productive contributors, particularly when it comes to featured articles. He has also been brought to ANI repeatedly for behavioral issues, but the community has consistently lacked the consensus to take action. We should close this and free up time to focus on real problems. Nemov (talk)

  I have 4 FAs. How many insults does that allow me to get away with? Is there like a measurement, you get to be rude X number of times for every FA star on your userpage? Since Schro has 111 FAs, does he get to be 27.75 times as rude as I can without being blocked? I just want to understand the rules here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the response to my report suggests all editors are WP:EQUAL but some are more WP:EQUAL than others. Becsh (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and trout OP - Walter Ego 20:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Why trout them? GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support at minimum. User:Nemov basically just admitted they’re wp:unblockable due to being a vested contributor. SchroCat should have been blocked approximately 50 times over on incivility grounds alone, not counting their general unwillingness to cooperate with anyone outside of their inner circle and frequent ownership behavior. Just the other day I encountered them aggressively stonewalling a good faith proposal to add an infobox to an article they contributed heavily to, and this is hardly the first time. Dronebogus (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a wild close after less than two days of discussion from the usual suspects on those matters. Nemov (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• That amounts to low-level incivility, and we should respond with the frowny face and waggy finger of mild administorial disapproval. But nothing more. And more urgently, we need to make Dronebogus shut up about SchroCat. We've tried doing that the nice way and it didn't work. Do it the hard way. DB will play the victim and scream blue murder, but to tolerate DB's conduct in this is to show callous disregard for his victims.—S Marshall T/C 09:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  By "do it the hard way" I mean "impose a one-way iban".—S Marshall T/C 09:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not convinced that will be enough to prevent such incivility in the future a formal warning seems much more likely to hopefully prevent this going forward. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 09:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Due to reading the above, my own observations over the years and Levivich argument which nailed it. Halbared (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had written a comment up about this, but closed the tab out and redirected my attention elsewhere (off-wiki). On returning here hours later, I see that S Marshall has expressed very similar concerns to those I had. I have thus recovered my deleted comment from my 'recently closed' tabs to present in full:

Considering the evidence and comments above by Black Kite, HJ Mitchell, and FIM and further having read the threads cited as evidence for 'incivility, ownership, and stonewalling' – and the lack thereof of evidence for those allegations therein – by Dronebogus, I am left to wonder what benefit exists in tolerating the targeting demonstrated in the concocting of the above ill-founded, ill-conceived proposal (withdrawn or otherwise). In fewer words: Why exactly is Dronebogus not restricted from interacting with SchroCat? That may be a more effective prompt to ensure that the pattern that almost always end up indefinitely blocked is avoided than friendly advice alone offers. Dronebogus, addressing you directly for a moment: Wikihounds should indeed find the prospect of engaging in that conduct intimidating. If only there were not so much as a microscopic chance of it being effective.

I post this now because to paraphrase Marshall: To tolerate this conduct is to show callous disregard for its victims. This report is so slim of actionable content that it appears as a vexatious attempt to evict an editor on any available, flimsy pretense. 'The community' is capable of policing its members without such participation. Therefore, I formally propose that:

Dronebogus be indefinitely restricted, via one-way IBAN, from interacting with SchroCat on the encyclopedia, broadly construed.

Support as proposer. 1) Per their own statement that: It’s true, I should probably not interact with them if possible and would like a formal interaction ban. 2) In accordance with [t]he purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) [being] to stop a conflict between individuals. 3) This is the softest path forward that still summarily ends this evidently intractable conflict. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although obviously "involved", per Mr rnddude who sums up my thoughts (as above) far more succinctly than I. A one-way IB will allow DB to continue the useful work they perform around the encyclopedia while (hopefully) preventing them from receiving any future sanctions created by their blindspot wrt SC; unfortunately the latter seems to be somewhat of a red flag to DB, and this will enable everyone to continue their article work, will prevent future dramafests such as this (which has done little except waste other editors' time), and alleviate the possibility/necessity of more severe sanction. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Not clear why a one-way iban would need to be "broadly construed", but obviously, support.—S Marshall T/C 15:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I'm not surprised that yet another ANI about a long-term problem user has been redirected to someone else. At this point, it's bordering on parody. Dronebogus didn’t start this discussion; his claims aren't exactly new, and if someone needs specific citations to understand them, that's understandable, but they wouldn't be difficult to find with a simple search of ANI archive. The idea that removing DB would somehow end the conflict requires a special kind of amnesia. Nemov (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I personally don't feel a sanction is due for either Schro or DB on the basis of anything that has occurred in this discussion, but I especially have concerns about the likelihood of an IBAN solving, rather than exacerbating, the existing conflict. The elephant in the room here is the roving infobox battleground that rubberbands these two back into eachother's faces, over and over--an area both users probably should have been TBANned from years ago.
  Now, lacking particularly strong opinions on that massive cluster of disputes myself, and finding the 'infobox wars' to be one of the most embarrassing longterm dramas on the project, have not seen the whole picture over the years, which has become a kind of simmering coldwar between two cadres since the last ArbCom case about a decade back. But historically, I respond to a lot of RfCs: once upon a time, it was my main form of contribution here, and I'd estimate I've responded to somewhere between 1,200-1,300 over the years. So considering that number, its perhaps unsurprising that the FRS bot has summoned me to a good couple of dozen pitched battles over infoboxes since the ArbCom ruling, to which Schro was party but which was before DB's time. And when I tell you that it's the same faces every time, I mean every. single. time. No matter how disparate the subject matter of the articles, if there's a dispute about the inclusion or scope of an infobox, there are certain editors (who are obviously coordinating either directly or passively just by viewing eachother's contributions) who will be there. And of those two groups of reliable disputants, there are no two names that you can count on seeing more reliably than Schro and DB--at least in my random experience.
  When you combine that inevitable shared space with the fact that IBANs are very poor fits for situations where editors cannot avoid eachother because of overlap of interests where they have competing views, and this is just a recipe for further disruption. I'm particularly concerned that a 1-way ban would stir the pot, since Schro would be free to use their own--often shall-we-say acerbic?--commentary about DB's positions, which would surely not lead to strict compliance with the terms of the ban on DB's part. If the point is to reduce disruption and loss of community time, this is about as counter-intuitive a 'solution' as you could get, imo, given the overarching context of their clash of personalities. If we really want a longterm solution, we should get serious about blocks and TBANs for either or both, moving forward, if the civility issues continue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nemov, who sums up my view as well.— Isaidnoway (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Nemov, SchroCat’s conduct issues predate and extend beyond me. Dronebogus (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

^^ This. This framing of the matter as "Schrocat's conduct issues". This is what I'm talking about.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall has a point. Best you strike your post, after "per Nemov". GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But striking it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Look, when you're criticised by this many people, the winning move is to adult up and say, "Yes, sorry, that wasn't ideal. I'll watch that in future" and then actually watch that in future. You, Dronebogus, don't adult up and say that. You deflect and minimise and try to play the victim card, and then you repeat the behaviour you got away with. Stop it.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply doing whatever I’m told at this point. I feel like whatever I say or do I’m going to be criticized for, or worse blocked. Dronebogus (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Does irony have an event horizon?—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what that means. I don’t care. I know it’s something snarky and derogatory. You’ve made your stance here more than clear. You already lost all of my respect with we should respond with the frowny face and waggy finger of mild administorial disapproval. […] we need to make Dronebogus shut up about SchroCat. […] DB will play the victim and scream blue murder, but to tolerate DB's conduct in this is to show callous disregard for his victims. This is just reinforcing my view. Dronebogus (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus, two admins—Black Kite and HJ Mitchell—have between them either stated or implied that you could be blocked for your behavior. If that were to happen, whose fault would it be? Who would you blame for that block? —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve probably said this before multiple times but I don’t really enjoy interacting with you and try to ignore you as much as possible. Please leave me alone. Dronebogus (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Dronebogus has had time yet to digest the advice I left. I hope they take the time to do that, but badgering them is unlikely to help and it's possibly premature to be considering sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus had four (4) active logged sanctions running, last time I checked. I mean, I suppose your friendly note might be the thing that normalizes DB's behaviours and helps him find his content work tribe. It's not totally impossible. But can I interest you in a wager?—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're offering to gamble whether one editor's behavior improves 'with a note' while ignoring whether the actual subject of this thread has an equally offensive record of ill behavor? Please stop with the casual dismissing of editors who have angered your friend. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 23:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not equally offensive, it's not "editors" it's Dronebogus specifically, and SchroCat is not my friend. Not that I have anything against SchroCat, but we simply don't intersect. SchroCat can tolerate the featured article process and appears to like it, so we wouldn't be on the same pages.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: At this point, your best play is probably to say what's on your mind, take the inevitable block, optionally cause a scene about it should you care to, and then start socking make a clean start. Just be sure to learn from Schrocat's previously failed attempts before trying to do so. Most importantly: 1) change your IP address or wait at least 90 days, 2) delete your cookies and 3) avoid editing patterns that might give you a way, e.g. don't immediately return to old subjects until having developed a good reputation, don't bring up old arguments in a way that makes it obvious who you are and be careful to avoid using phrases, mannerisms or quirks that may lead to failing the duck test. ~2026-14683-2 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sockpuppet troll is obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Careful or you might get called out for casting aspersions by those who don't like you. One requires an account to have a sock puppet, even to be a logged out sock puppet. I don't have an account. In all seriousness, a clean start is a good option in your situation. ~2026-15111-6 (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock puppet troll is now blocked. Dronebogus (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKOPHOBIA? ~2026-16270-2 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the lad just aborted his proposed indef-ban. Best to cool down, wait & see. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nemov. sapphaline (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I do not at this time seen anything here that shows a IBAN is necessary. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After roughly two weeks. I don't see any consensus for much of anything forming, in this ANI report. Would recommend closing. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean doesn't hurt that you opposed all action and were part of the original content discussion that lead to this being open. Personally, I would discount everyone vote that was part of that content dispute from the warning section in general. ~2025-38536-45 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROJSOCK again. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing I said was wrong then huh? ~2025-38536-45 (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Not every temporary user is a vandal is worth reading, GoodDay. Dronebogus (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 20:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A variety of things have waylaid discussion, including the festive season, but I will say that it seemed as though consensus for a formal warning against incivility was at least on the cards/being considered for Tim riley and SchroCat. It isn't as though this report has gone without comments for a week; it is still active, and just because it has been waylaid doesn't mean it should be summarily closed. Becsh (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, I admire your desire to end conflict but just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Dronebogus (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are at least attempts to get consensus. It's still active, ANI reports don't really have an expiry date. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A IBAN proposal was just put forward personally I think we should give that proposal a bit more time before closure. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I’m not sure if this is the appropriate noticeboard to open up this thread, but I’m concerned about how many unsourced edits EarthCountryMan is putting on Wikipedia despite people telling him to add sources. This is his latest example but here is another one. On other articles are [12][13]. I’m concerned about his persistence in not citing source and was wondering what should be done. ~2025-43806-65 (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ik I makes mistakes but I think I need help. EarthCountryMan (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I fixed it is it good in Weather of 2025? EarthCountryMan (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what a sourced edit should look like (notably the end.) ~2025-43806-65 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After this discussion, you made another unsourced edit, this one with three repeat links (see MOS:LINKONCE). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The few additional edits you've made since you participated here are also missing sources. If you still are having trouble adding sources, you ought to request assistance rather than simply continuing without sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthCountryMan A basic way to cite sources is just to copy the URL and put tags around like this: <ref>https://example.com</ref> which produces ^[1]. You generally want to use more detailed templates, but a bare reference like this is better than something that's completely unsourced and easier for beginners.

Another thing is that some of your edits, like [14], are very hard to understand. Some level of English fluency is needed to edit here, and if you aren't fluent yet that's okay! There's plenty of other Wikipedias, and you can edit one that's in your native language if that's applicable to you. Also, you can ask me or at WT:WEATHER if you need help finding sources for weather articles :) HurricaneZeta^C 17:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, from their latest edits to drafts and their talk page, I'm not confident that the editor either read or comprehends any of the links provided about sources and cites. I hate having to bring up WP:CIR on someone with clearly good intentions, but literally everything is incredibly difficult to parse.

• A winter storm in the United States hit Kansas, but in Chapman, Kansas it was 20.5 in (52 cm) of snow and 0.66 inches of ice (1.7 cm) during Kansas winter history.
• December 30-January 2 - a storm hit the Western United States on New Years Day. during New Year Eve it mix up sheet in Cailfornia and Nevada during the New Year Day of 2026.
• December 30-January 1 - a winter storm hit Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania on New Years Days making it snowed on New Year Day since 2024.
• December 30, 2025-January 1, 2026 a winter storm hit Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Wheeling, West Virginia with 3 inches of snow in the area by 2-3 inches.
• December 13–15, 2025 North American winter storm An Category 1 blizzard hit Pennsylvania was 26*F on Interstate 95, and Interstate 76 during in Philadelphia. Bucks County, Pennsylvania was cold it was 4-5 inches of snow in the Philadelphia metropolitan area by 4-6 inches there.

I'm not cherrypicking, either. Any content this editor adds appears to need to be either reverted or completely rewritten. That's a real problem. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send the link to help me with sourcing EarthCountryMan (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE and WP:RS ought to get you started. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-38247-63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly and persistently reverts good-faith and sourced edits on Mains electricity by country. These repeated reverts included: [25], [26], [27] and [28] – all reverts of the same one or two good-faiths edits. I have warned them and tried to get an explanation of their edits on their talk page, but they don't reply.

Considering that the repeated reverts are unexplained and the user refuses to engage in discussion, I propose to block them at least from further editing of Mains electricity by country until they are willing to explain themselves. Considering their talk page, their behaviour on other pages seems problematic too, but I haven't looked into that further. Gawaon (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And they just did it again: [29]. Gawaon (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now editing as ~2026-12631.

They've never used a talk page or edit summary, suggest that the IP be pblocked from articlespace to encourage communication. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And also as ~2026-36879: [30]. Are there any admins around here? Gawaon (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And now [31]. Gawaon (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And [32]. Gawaon (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also [33]. Gawaon (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[34]. Gawaon (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see there were efforts to communicate with them, with no reply. I have blocked them from the page and noted that they need to communicate. Also provided yet another link to this conversation. Communication is required. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gawaon (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the same editor who imposes repeated WP:NOTBROKEN violations on NTSC, PAL, HBO Max, List of streaming media services, High-definition television, and a variety of other TV-related pages, going back to at least the summer of 2024. Refusal to communicate is part of the pattern (I confess, I've given up trying). When blocked ([35],[36],[37]) he'll simply return with a different account. When pages are protected, he'll wait out the protection period then return with the same behaviour - here one minute after the protection expired. Dealing with this kind of editor is very time-consuming. Is there anything that can be done beyond reporting and blocking every incarnation and protecting every page they visit? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can help do something: ask the foundation to disable editting without an account linked to a confirmed email address or phone number. ~2026-15603-8 (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock is above. ~2026-16260-2 (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Locke Cole has repeatedly accused me of canvassing, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and WP:NOTHERE behavior without any evidence backing up those claims. The grievances seem to arise because I started an RFC and the consensus is going against what this user wants. Even though I repeatedly denied the allegations, Locke Cole continued to make them, showing a failure to assume good faith.

• Special:Diff/1330900126 - Accusation of canvassing and biased editing.
• Special:Diff/1330879393 - Accusation of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and canvassing.
• Special:Diff/1330899915 - After I tell Locke Cole to not cast aspersions, they say "It's not an aspersion if it's true."
• Special:Diff/1330899542 - Another accusation of canvassing in an edit summary.
• Special:Diff/1330894720 - Another unfounded accusation of canvassing and sockpuppetry.
• Special:Diff/1330893151 - A direct insult.
• Special:Diff/1330892008 - A baseless claim that I'm "exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behavior" because I replied in a discussion.

I think it's clear this user has a bone to pick and I think something should really be done. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Locke Cole's behavior is sub-par, at best. Would this be solved by a topic ban from Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!, voluntary or otherwise? Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly, I'd just delete that page anyway. It's an fairly pointless essay which is generating people arguing with each other. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole's mother died in Nov 2024 after a painful battle with cancer. It has been a struggle for him, before and after she died. This is not a Get Out Of Jail Free card, but it's a relevant bit of context in my opinion. Maybe Wikipedia has room for a little humanity? ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editors suffer calamities all the time, whether it be the loss of family and loved ones, losing a home, financial reversals, health woes, and the like; they none of them receive exemptions from civility policies for it. I lost my home and most of my possessions in a disaster in 2017, had my health break in 2018, and managed to comply with those policies all the same. For any editor who over a year after such a loss cannot likewise be civil to their fellow editors, I strongly recommend a Wikibreak. Ravenswing 23:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Loss isn't an excuse to be asshole. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIKESHED If you are going to have ill-tempered and repetitive arguments, try to make it about something that actually affects Wikipedia content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

definitely inducting this into wikipedia:lamest edit wars. ltbdl (scan) 17:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• It's worth noting that Locke Cole's edit-warring on this essay was (a) to restore an AI generated image which had already been replaced by an actual real image, and (b) an AI generated image that they had 'created'. Perhaps they need a reminder of WP:OWN in addition to whatever comes out of the above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Where "an actual real image" means a real can of (something) for which an editor made a completely fake label, printed it out on paper, stuck it on the can (thus covering up the actually-real label on the can), and took a picture of it. This is a humorous image. It's not "real". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It existed in the physical world, which is, in fact, "real", especially as opposed to AI slop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I keep wondering if someone used AI to generate the fake label, printed it out on paper, and stuck it on a can, and took a picture, if that would also be "real". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be a real image of an AI-generated image and I suspect unacceptable to most people who object to AI imagery. It's also an unlikely image, as it defeats the entire purpose of using generative AI in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone has already posted an AI-generated label to that discussion, in case anyone has a color printer and wants to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I fail to see what relevance the image being AI has on any issue here. The community's concerns around AI arise almost entirely around preventing its inclusion in our public-facing content, over concerns about misinformation and factual inaccuracy. Even then, our current positions are far too broad and unwieldy, tossing the good out with the bad (and I say this as one of the most absolute skeptics of the net value of LLM's and related 'AI' technologies on the face of planet Earth). However, arguing that an image constructed exclusively for rhetorical purposes on an essay is somehow behaviorally problematic is taking our collectively histrionic reaction to these technologies to a whole new level.

  Mind you, the implicit joke of the image is pretty lame, and any broader thematic point intended is vague and underwhelming. It surely was not worth the carbon footprint it took to make the image, imo. But in terms of being a problem for the project? Come on, do we not already have enough real challenges of substance to be worried about just now? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We have editors who are concerned with the use of the technology even if everything it did was 100% accurate. In prior/unrelated discussions, I've seen some editors saying that the creation of AI images (at all) is unethical because it uses so much electricity/computing resources that environmental damage is done. (Of course, once the image already exists, then using it wouldn't increase the damage done by its creation, but I believe their hope is that by banning and deleting them all, then people would be deterred from creating other AI images in the future.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If this community were to consider a blanket ban of AI content out of concern for it's ecological impacts, I would be very tempted to endorse such a policy. Obviously it would implicate competing concerns for the community that would have to be weighed against such a principled stand, but at least that's a position with some actual substance. By comparison, I see no rational basis in arguing that a user shouldn't be permitted to use LLM content even for rhetorical purposes outside of mainspace. Indeed, I think even our mainspace policies, such as they are so far, have a strong element of tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

  And again, I cannot stress enough just how jaundiced a view I have of AI, it's immediate social impacts, the incredible dire longterm implications it has for our systems and social order, and its net value to the world. But there is something frighteningly one-note, reactionary, and dogmatic about the reasoning behind some of the consensus results in many of the discussions that have formed our policies in this area so far. I believe these technologies are much more profoundly dangerous than most people realize at this point, but we actually set ourselves backwards in confronting that danger when we don't bring appropriate nuance to efforts to limit the danger. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe these technologies are much more profoundly dangerous than most people realize at this point I've seen The Terminator, for what it's worth. In all seriousness, I agree there are some scary possibilities going forward, and it's not clear to me that society is ready. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 00:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that something should really be done with Lockec, but for the record I don't think you should've nominated the AI photo uploaded by Lockec for speedy deletion. (That was after Lockec's aspersions, though.) Aaron Liu (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My name is Locke. They are no longer aspersions and are fully justified below in my boomerang proposal. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 20:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I usually add a letter after the main part of a username to have concise disambiguation; sorry about that. I'll call you Locke from now on. Feel free to remind me (and my apologies in advance) if I forget. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw this dispute yesterday because of a note at WT:RFC, in which one of the disputants complained about the rapid rush to an RFC, and where any interested admins will discover a couple of editors saying that they participated in an off-wiki discussion about this image. Although this was done with innocent intention, it's not unreasonable for editors to suspect Wikipedia:Canvassing violations under such circumstances, and one can't fault editors for mentioning the probably existence of a behavioral guideline violation.
  Based on what I had seen before, which is a fairly ordinary dispute with only a little unnecessary heat, I was a bit surprised to see the OP here complain about "A direct insult". I clicked the diff and found these words: "It's stunning that you can quote something and not understand it". A "direct insult" usually means something like "You are a stupid poopy-head"; by this standard, saying that someone has not understood something is not a direct insult, if it is an insult at all. This was in reply to the OP saying that "per Wikipedia's AI image guidelines, which state that Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace" (note my emphasis), as if a rule about "most" images says anything about this image, and as if a rule that is explicitly restricted to uses "in" the mainspace has any particular relevance to images outside of the mainspace. The OP here might consider this an invitation, for application to future discussions, to preëmptively prove their understanding by providing explanations whenever quoting facially irrelevant policies and guidelines. A sentence along the lines of "I know this rule technically only applies to images in articles, but I think the underlying principles are sound and should be applied in this particular non-mainspace instance, too" should let people know that you really do understand what "in the mainspace" means.
  Those are the only two diffs I clicked in the above list. On the basis of those two, I suggest that it would be reasonable to completely ignore the descriptions of these diffs and consider the linked conversations only. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just close this without any action against Locke Cole or boomerang against anyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with Phil Bridger. Per Stockhausenfan, these are all molehills, not mountains. Please just close it without penalising anybody. Bishonen | tålk 22:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Locke Cole's lengthy posting below is not the output of a user prepared to walk away from a situation. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd bet that he can do it anyway, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if the consensus here is that I wasn't being bullied and there was no canvassing I guess I'll have to live with that. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make a single response here to both the original report and the boomerang proposal, then I really have to go to my actual day job.

I appreciate that Locke Cole came up with the idea of a humorous illustration of alphabet soup and generated an image for the page where there wasn't one previously, and is disappointed to see that the majority of commenters prefer dot.py's alternatives. I think that the wording of ArtemisiaGentileschiFan's RfC looks brief and neutral enough but the contrast between "real" and "AI" images could be interpreted as a dismissal of AI images as less valid.

As I explained at the RfC and in response to Locke's complaint at WT:RFC (which looks a lot like forum-shopping to me (thanks to Whatamidoing for the clarification)), when I mentioned an off-wiki discussion, I was alluding to the casual feedback on the work-in-progress images that dot.py shared on Discord. My wording was careless and left open the interpretation that there was off-wiki canvassing. dot.py has confirmed my interpretation of their intentions both at WT:RFC and in this thread here. Locke Cole has brought up the boomerang proposal well after dot.py's and my explanations, which looks like a refusal to take us at our word. I believe that Locke Cole's behaviour at the RfC, at WT:RFC, on his own and ArtemisiaGentileschiFan's user talk pages, and in this discussion, are tendentious, bludgeoning, failure to assume good faith, and interpreting ambiguous comments in the worst possible light.

I think ArtemisiaGentileschiFan has invited a mini trouting for edit warring and arguing with Locke Cole well past a reasonable limit. Both editors seem to have descended into arguing for the sake of arguing. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a note at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment is the officially recommended response to a concerning RFC question, so it's not forum shopping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I was originally going to say that everyone involved should move on & leave this whole kerfuffle behind us, but due to their continued refusal to drop the stick, Locke Cole should at least receive a formal warning for WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ASPERSIONS. They have continued to escalate what should have been a minor dispute into an absolute mess. Locke, you've been here for over 20 years, you should know by now when it's best to just take a step back & move on. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Butterscotch Beluga, please go read WP:ASPERSIONS. The accusation did not necessarily involve serious misconduct, and evidence was provided, in the form of two editors posting, in the relevant discussions, that they actually did discuss this image off-wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Evidence was not provided for the allegations of canvassing, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or biased editing. Editors saying they discussed taking a photograph is not the same as admitting to engaging in abuse of the wiki. Those are serious allegations of misconduct and there is no evidence to back them up. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Evidence was provided for the allegation of an off-wiki discussion, which is evidence that Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth canvassing might be applicable. Mind the gap between "evidence" and "unassailable proof".

  WP:ASPERSIONS comes partly out of an ArbCom case in which an editor made some evidence-free allegations that one of their opponents was being secretly paid by a covert governmental disinformation campaign to disrupt Wikipedia. You seem to be using the words "serious misconduct" to mean something much less serious than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, I meant WP:PA as I forgot that "No personal attacks" is a separate page from "Aspersions". However, I agree with ArtemisiaGentileschiFan that off-site discussions don't inherently qualify as canvassing, so the current evidence is considerably inadequate justification for their repeated accusations of such.

  That aside however, their original comments like "You know nobody is forcing you to be here, and you're exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behavior." & "It's not an aspersion if it's true." were already bad, but they've continued with this combative tone with comments like -

  "Because so far a lot of the people here are assholes? Let me know when some people show up who aren't assholes and I'll be more likely to respond."

  "I wasn't the one who brought an anti-AI WP:BATTLEGROUND here or wasted their time creating an inferior photograph, but here we are..."

  "Here's a gold star for you. Now you can feel special." Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  While I agree with Locke on the content dispute and the canvassing, these comments were decidedly not cool. Locke -- you should turn down the temperature if you can, step away if you can't. You're right on the substance but it's not that big of a deal, and throwing broadsides like "a lot of the people here are assholes" does not help anything, it turns up the heat for everybody. Levivich (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I will step back from this, the damage is done apparently and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. It still bugs me that bullies are basically getting a warning here and their bad behavior is paying off. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "everyone who disagrees with me is a bully, everyone who agrees with me is a saint." ltbdl (demonstrate) 01:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, hopefully my last one here. Anyone is welcome to email me for a copy of the relevant Discord chats. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A reminder to editors that Locke Cole recently filled the ill-conceived report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1210#Talk:2025_Bondi_Beach_shooting in which they engaged in casting aspersions by stating that the actions of other editors were disruptive. This report indicates a continuing pattern of behaviour, concerning incivility and casting of aspersion. Horse Eye's Back recently copped a CBAN for incivility on a lower scale than this. I think at the very least Locke Cole needs to be given a formal warning about incivility, with further acts leading to increasing blocks. TarnishedPath^talk 09:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @TarnishedPath, stating your belief that it's disruptive to have five separate discussions about renaming the article on the talk page at the same time is not Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, even though the fifth of the complained-about move requests was started by you.

  Please actually go read WP:ASPERSIONS. I think you will discover that it doesn't say what you think it says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Dot.py (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (first edit to WP:WTF talk page: 2026-01-02 09:50)
• ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (first edit to WP:WTF talk page: 2026-01-02 14:50)
• Sugar Tax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (first edit to WP:WTF talk page: 2026-01-02 14:52)
• 3df (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (first edit to WP:WTF talk page: 2026-01-02 18:27)
• ClaudineChionh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (first edit to WP:WTF talk page: 2026-01-02 23:20) (only user to have previously edited the main project page (2025-04-03 12:09, a vandal reversion and nothing more))

I created a funny image for WP:WTF to illustrate a metaphorical idea that has been espoused on the project by multiple editors over many years. I used AI to generate the initial image and then used Photoshop to adjust the image and fix errors in the original rendering. This is explicitly allowed by WP:AIIMAGES which restricts AI image use only in main-space (Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace, ...), not in other areas of the project (such as Wikipedia or Template namespaces). Anyone who has viewed my image uploads knows I tend to upload high quality vector images/logos as well as, more recently, photography of subjects near to my location.

It was my imagination that conceived of this idea, put together the prompt for the setting and look of the output AI image, and I was the one who processed the initial image further prior to uploading the finished version here and releasing it for others to use.

Apparently there are an organized and vocal group of editors who feel strongly about AI images. There was some initial discussion on the talk page, but it seemed to die down rather quickly with no consensus to remove the image and no further discussion was held on-wiki. Dot.py (talk · contribs) made a poorly produced "real" copy of my image. Dot.py described their reasons as Ever since I first saw this page, I've absolutely despised the AI image (apparently not an opinion they felt strongly enough about to share on-wiki previously), The AI image has the AI "piss filter" (I had previously explained this was the deliberate use of a warm color temperature, but this editor still chose the pejorative term piss filter), and "This isn't Grokipedia." (quoting ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk · contribs), your typical slippery slope logical fallacy).

ArtemisiaGentileschiFan's first comment referred to my image as AI slop. It's important to understand that AI slop has specific definitions which are all considered derogatory. Our AI slop article states it is ... digital content made with generative artificial intelligence, specifically when perceived to show a lack of effort, quality or deeper meaning, and an overwhelming volume of production for content reasons. It further states ... the term has a pejorative connotation similar to spam. I asked 3df (talk · contribs) why they supported switching to the "real" photo immediately, and instead got a reply from ArtemisiaGentileschiFan stating Because this is Wikipedia, not Grokipedia (another obvious logical fallacy, and again, a derogatory/disparaging remark that didn't answer my question to the other user).

ArtemisiaGentileschiFan then then started an RFC with only the comments from the editors linked at the top of this section having given opinions in support of the "real" photo. The RFC question was biased in nature, framing the matter as "AI-generated content" vs. "real photographs", and providing two options, both of which appear to be less about choosing between the two images and more about two beliefs (Support using AI-generated content instead of real photos vs. Support using real photos over AI-generated content). Contributors skimming the question and looking only at the bolded choices may believe they are !voting to stop all AI content, not simply one image over another.

Some additional diffs and quotes by ArtemisiaGentileschiFan:

• You didn't create any image, it was AI-generated. (responding to my comment of There's nothing objectively wrong with the image I created)
• It's way better than the low-quality AI image. (responding to FaviFake (talk · contribs), who supported my image)
• Replaced the slop with a real photograph (again using the pejorative/derogatory slop term while edit warring to replace the image at WP:WTF)
• There is no valid reason to use an AI image, and this kind of stuff should be avoided if at all possible. Unless it cannot be replaced, we have no reason to use this nonsense. (referring to my image as nonsense)

Beyond the fact that multiple previously uninvolved editors rapidly appeared once the image was shared on WP:WTF's talk page, this comment was the first concrete proof of canvassing having occurred.

Because of the canvassing I'm proposing an indefinite WP:TBAN (to be enforced by a WP:PBLOCK) from WP:WTF (and associated talk page) for the above named users. Given the incivility and harassment by ArtemisiaGentileschiFan I propose a WP:TBAN from AI related topics (to be broadly construed) or an outright block. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 20:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note, as this comment that I made states: I was sharing my WIP of the label on the WP:Discord, and that there was absolutely zero intent of canvassing. I have not even posted about the discussion there yet, only the image and the intent to replace the AI one. If there is any doubt of this from anyone, then they are free to search the messages from my Discord account (username is dot.py) on that server. The comment that you have linked is not concrete proof of canvassing, only proof of an off-wiki discussion, which, as previously stated, was only about the content of the image. dot.py 21:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for my reasons which you have stated in #AI images vs. "real" photographs:

1. You stated my opinion was apparently not an opinion they felt strongly enough about to share on-wiki previously. While I haven't previously shared it on-wiki, that was due to me not feeling the need to, as I didn't think my comment itself would improve the page.
2. When I used the term "piss filter", that was because, in my experience of seeing yellowed AI images, the yellowing usually wasn't deliberate. This was especially due to the fact that, as 3df stated: [...] the image appears to have been generated while there was a bug that caused outputs to be tinted yellow.
3. For me quoting ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, I see that it may be confusing, and I will take fault for making it possibly confusing, as I was trying to make the quotation brief. The full quote from Artemisia is Because this is Wikipedia and using an AI image (even, or especially, frivolously for a joke) contradicts this website's entire purpose and values. We don't allow AI-generated articles for a reason. This isn't Grokipedia.

dot.py 21:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. @Locke Cole: if there's anyone in this thread that needs a topic ban, it's you. Drop the stick. Sugar Tax (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not even active in the WP:DISCORD server in any case. Sugar Tax (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well that doesn't pass the WP:DUCKTEST. How did you end up on that page you've never edited previously? —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Sugar Tax needs to answer this, since not answering does not make them any more likely to be a sockpuppet, and whatever answer they give could simply be dismissed by someone who believes that they are. In other words, it is not a helpful question. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense, it is an RfC anyone looking through WP:DASHBOARD can see? I'm active on the Discord yet was completely unaware of this incident that apparently took place there, I could've genuinely stumbled upon it through the Dashboard, not through Discord. jolielover♥talk 14:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These editors all came rapidly to an idle discussion when Dot.py posted the image to it in support of switching out the image. The RFC was started by one of these editors as well. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 16:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By checking the Discord server's authentication bot, I can see that your Wikimedia account has not yet authenticated to the server. dot.py 21:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any boomerang: Wikipedia:Don't make a mountain out of a molehill sums it up quite nicely. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, any experienced editor might have recommended that essay to Artemisia, if they'd sought advice on whether to start this ANI discussion, as I don't think that two editors disagreeing about which image is better is actually that big of a deal.

I'm not sure that the Discord chat rises to the level of a serious problem, even though it happened to be the mechanism for some editors to find the discussion. It's not as transparent as posting on someone's talk page, but I do think it was innocently intended.

In terms of the general problem, Artemisia specifically does not seem to have succeeded in winning friends and influencing people in this dispute, but I don't think that a WP:PBAN from the one page will make much difference overall. I think that, to justify a WP:TBAN, I would want to see information about how they behaved in multiple AI-related discussions. Anybody can have an occasional bad discussion or overreaction. And, well, realistically, if this is a pattern of behavior, then we'll be back at ANI again, only with them complaining that someone else made them feel rejected or disagreed with.

Looking at this prior ANI comment from Artemisia, as well as some of the comments elsewhere on this page, I wonder whether our younger editors could benefit from a history lesson in WP:ASPERSIONS. ASPERSIONS came out of some ArbCom cases in which there were people hinting about very serious real-world accusations, such as that another editor "might" be paid by the secret police, or that they "seem to be" a convicted sex offender. ASPERSIONS is not about whether an editor says that some editors seem to have heard about a discussion via a WP:DISCORD chat.

WP:TL;DR: I'm inclined to give Artemisia some WP:ROPE, and I don't think the rest is important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one additional comment: my recollection of the timeline is that dot.py's sharing of the images on Discord (and other editors providing feedback on the images, e.g. saturation levels and prop placement) took place between 12 and 24 hours before dot.py proposed a version of their image on the WTF talk page. They said on Discord that the image was intended as a possible replacement for the existing WTF image but I did not interpret their Discord messages as canvassing or inviting collaboration. If dot.py consents, I am willing to share my copy of the Discord logs (with other editors' names redacted) via email with anyone who is concerned about the canvassing accusations. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I completely consent for you to share a copy of the Discord message logs. dot.py 22:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the relevant discussions again, Misiag did incite this, and then she and Locke overreacted at each other. There is a wall of text up there, but it's distillable to their following, initial exchange:

There's nothing objectively wrong with the image I created.
— User:Locke_Cole 16:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You didn't create any image, it was AI-generated.
— User:ArtemisiaGentileschiFan 02:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

as well as what follows (accusations exchanged between e/o). The only difference is that Locke also called all the RfC's participants assholes, including those who were uninvolved in the discussions before, judging many as part of a tag team for Misiag, but I think that reasonably stems from the pressure he's felt from Misiag (not to excuse the action).

However, I don't think any undisclosed canvassing occurred; I don't think the tag team exists. In the Discord chat logs, only Claudinec was active around dotpy's post of the iamge, which also didn't link any discussions or ask to change the existing image, though it did say "just made this for WP:OMG" while the AI image was still on that page. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted the "just made this for WP:OMG" image, I did plan to immediately change the image, but there was an invisible comment on this revision that stated <!-- DO NOT remove this AI image without consensus. See [[Wikipedia talk:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!#AI Image]] -->, which is why I had not changed it, but rather sent a reply on the talk page stating that I made a new image. dot.py 22:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misiag??? JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a nickname for ArtemisiaGentileschiFan. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realize that, but...why?? JoelleJay (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They explained it further above regarding their nickname for me. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but it doesn't make sense here since "Artemisia" is the main part of the user name; the equivalent would be "ArtemisiaG". JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’d have to ask them, perhaps it’s a system of last 5 letters of first word + first letter of second word? Besides, Misiag is shorter that Artemisia. dot.py 19:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Aaron Liu is using “Misiag” to refer ArtemisiaGentileschiFan dot.py 19:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. It's more concise. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...then why not abbreviate it to AGF? Why shorten it to a random, unintuitive, meaningless substring? JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mind or care about the nickname "Misiag" and I don't think it's worth worrying about. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I don't care about it either, I just find it utterly confusing. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"unintuitive" is in the eye of the beholder. It shouldn't be a surprise that someone speaking English as a second language might have a different sense of how to intuitively shorten usernames, and if that way is understandable there isn't really a problem. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu, doesn't the burden on other editors to figure out who you mean outweigh the time you save by not typing out the full name? Just suggesting it might not be helpful in noticeboard discussions to use unintuitive abbreviations. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said above, I think the main takeaway from this is that Locke Cole needs a stern reminder about WP:OWN (once you put a picture up, anyone can edit the page to remove it and replace it, and you don't get to edit-war to re-replace it with yours). Also, though, I still have concerns about the influence Discord chats have on Wikipedia editing, as even if they are "official" or "semi-official" channels, those of us who do not use Discord in conjunction with Wikipedia have at least the appearance of a disadvantage compared to those who do, and it could very easily be construed as offsite canvassing, as it is, by definition, offsite. (Also, speaking as my own personal opinion: anything that is "created" using generative 'AI' is, in fact, AI slop, and given how generative 'AIs' are trained, also very likely a copyright violation - but even if it isn't copyvio, it's still AI slop.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not going to weigh in here since I'm not a neutral party (although I'm not on whatever Discord this is) but AI images are currently not considered copyvios per WP:NONCREATIVE, linked from the AI image policy page: Works created by non-human animals (such as a photograph produced by a chimpanzee) or machines are not copyrightable, although in the case of drawings produced by a computer program, the program itself of course may be copyrighted. Obviously this might change in the future if the legal precedent changes. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument is that the LLM was probably trained on copyright violations, rather than just public domain works, and that therefore any output from the LLM is passing those copyvios along. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the argument, it is based on a profound misunderstanding of what constitutes a copyright violation. While, as a purely rhetorical and emotional matter, some artists have suggested that the use of their work to train LLMs would constitute a form of "theft" of their work as an abstract ethical matter, actual copyright violations and associated legal causes of action are defined through enumeration in statutes or arise through case precedents. While there have been a number of suits in the last few years attempting to advance novel legal theories to leverage copyright law against the proprietors of various LLMs, so far plaintiffs have had a rough going, with courts being unwilling to carve out such a massive expansion of the application of existing law without legislative authorization--to say nothing of the fair use and constitutional issues when we are talking about U.S. cases. In any event, as it stands, no jurisdiction anywhere in the world currently regards the use of bulk image data to train an LLM--nor any image produced by such an LLM--to be a "copyright violation".

  So, while decrying these practices as 'theft' may make for good grist for the mill for those who feel these technologies constitute exploitation, or fear the longterm consequences for both art and its associated industries, that is not in itself good cause to haphazardly misappropriate a legal term of art that does not apply to this situation, and may ultimately never be deemed to apply. Absolute best case scenario for the advocates of the position that this should one day be consider legal theft of intellectual property: we are still years out from any such result, if indeed any ever does arise. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we stop with the charade that things that happen on the public Discord server are secret? In this case I think it's managing to harm both the accused and the accuser, because vague characterizations back-and-forth leave everyone guessing. WP:DISCORDLOGS has helpfully never actually been written into any policy, and the wording of its close (by a user I can sadly not contact to request clarification) is ambiguous about whether it applies to linking directly to comments. But I can say, without running afoul of even that stricter interpretation of a confusing close of a head-scratching consensus, that if you go to the server linked publicly at WP:DISCORD and search "WP:OMG" you will see the two times this image was discussed in the past few days. There. Mystery gone. Anyone with a Discord account (so by extension, anyone with an email address) can look and judge for themself whether WP:CANVASS was violated. (Accounts' identities can be verified [through a tool that requires them to have affirmed this while logged-in on Meta] by right-clicking on a username, selecting "Apps", and selecting "Get whois".) Personally I'm unconvinced this was canvassing, but I also didn't look that hard because this doesn't seem very important. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Haven't read this entire discussion yet, but I agree with your first point on a wider scale. It is a public Discord server anybody can join, all you need is an email. It's not secret. I remember posting messages from it to a board here to clear me of a vile accusation thrown at me (transphobia) when I was in fact unaware of the dual meaning of a sentence a user told me, and it led to the exchange being redacted and many revisions deleted. I didn't get a warning or anything and I'm not mad about it - I am sorry for not knowing I wasn't supposed to post such chats - though I personally think it's not exactly a 'secret' since these are messages we choose to send on a public server. jolielover♥talk 13:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't exactly be blamed for not knowing given that, as noted, four years later this rule has still never been written down in any policy. Which incidentally means that no one's able to see it, think "Well that sounds stupid", and start a discussion to change it, which I'd say at least somewhat calls into question whether it's meaningfully policy at all. But whatever. As we see here, one can comply with it and still cut through the needless opacity of "Well something happened on Discord but I can't say what", which has never been required by DISCORDLOGS (or the also-uncodified IRC logs rule before it). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "It is a public Discord server anybody can join, all you need is an email" - no, just having an email address isn't enough because Discord is a user-hostile walled garden, e.g. it won't let you register through their web interface. sapphaline (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  is it time? is it finally time for the annual meta-rumbling about discord? ltbdl (cringe) 14:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  All chat features and registration for Discord are available online at https://discord.com/app. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically they are, but in fact Discord's "anti-spam" system will automatically disable any account registered through the web client and require you to verify your phone number (which is a massive privacy violation). sapphaline (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't true. I joined the Wikipedia server through the web interface. I'm pretty sure you can even view it as a guest in some sort of temporary account. CMD (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not so much that they're secret, but that they aren't being transparent by being off-community. Just like discussing on-wiki matters on IRC, or any other community outside of this one automatically puts those who prioritize the community involvement here at a disadvantage. I'm also not seeing what was said on the Discord that couldn't have been discussed at the talk page, or at the image talk page for the file I uploaded. If Dot.py wanted additional input, there's the on-wiki graphics lab. In other words: that discussion did not need to happen on Discord. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 17:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Showing off something you made for Wikipedia seems like the platonic ideal of a Wikimedia discord post, it is absurd to imply Dot.py did anything wrong here. Do you genuinely think discord users should avoid mentioning or alluding to anything on-wiki on the off-chance it draws attention in a way that could possibly be construed as canvassing? Do you think this would make for a good discussion platform about Wikipedia? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I will direct you back to my original proposal where I address almost everything you've asked. I'll add though that there is nothing "platonic ideal" about an editor who is incensed with an AI image doing what was done here. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 23:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The message "just made this for WP:OMG" is "incensed"??? If you want transparency from discord you could make a good start yourself and quit distorting the truth. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The message "just made this for WP:OMG" is "incensed"??? Dot.py on-wiki Ever since I first saw this page, I've absolutely despised the AI image I think "incensed" is a fair characterization considering they first saw [it] prior to creating their image. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 00:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  When people on Discord mention an on-wiki dispute, other people on Discord should absolutely 100% refrain from joining that dispute, because otherwise it will be construed as canvassing. And we don't need a discussion platform about Wikipedia anyway, Wikipedia is the discussion platform about Wikipedia. Still, oppose sanctions TBAN because it's a one-off, minor dispute, and easy to AGF that it wasn't intentional. It would need to be regular pattern to merit sanctions IMO. Levivich (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing my vote after reading the Discord logs. Now support warning. I still think a TBAN is too harsh, but the canvassing was so blatant that a warning is merited. For those of you that want a TLDR, here's a summary: somebody mentions they hate the page WP:OMG because of the AI image; somebody works on a replacement image, posting a couple drafts for comment; then there's a post that announces that people on Wikipedia are trying to keep the AI image rather than the one that was workshopped on Discord; then a different person posts a link to WP:OMG in the very next comment... this is obvious canvassing, and you can see the sequence by the Discord and wiki timestamps. The worst part is that, on the same day in the same thread, in another discussion about another topic, editors remind each other not to comment about active disputes because that's considered canvassing. A good rule, not followed in this instance. That one of these participants is loudly and repeatedly acting like they're being falsely accused is egregious. Levivich (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @REAL MOUSE IRL, can you imagine the experience from the other side?

  That page is on relatively few watchlists. Only 25 watching editors have checked the page during the last 30 days. You added an image. Several months go by, during which multiple experienced editors and admins express support for your image, including explicitly saying that it's okay for you to have used AI tools on it.

  One day, you wake up to find that an editor has replaced the image with another (and needlessly insulting your work as "slop" at the same time), and there are already four editors – mostly newer accounts, and none having previously edited the page – on the talk page voting the same way. Some of the comments are posted within minutes of each other. In half a day, five opponents of your image have seemingly materialized out of nowhere, and less than 24 hours after the first on-wiki mention of the new alternative, one of them has started an RFC, and several more never-seen-here-before editors have shown up to support the newer image. Soon one of them casually mentions that there was a prior discussion off-wiki...

  Under those circumstances, can you imagine someone believing that something nefarious was happening? Not that the belief is true or that it's been proven that anything wrong was done by anyone, but simply that an off-wiki CANVASSING violation might be one of several rational interpretations of the facts you have available to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Believing that canvassing may have occurred does not justify continuing to claim definitively that it has even after it has been denied by everyone that has been accused of it, and continuing to double down rather than apologize for the false accusations. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  ... it has been denied by everyone that has been accused of it ... Well they would, wouldn't they? This is why WP:DUCKTEST exists. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 00:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep invoking the duck test because you can't actually prove that canvassing took place (because it hasn't) and you think a witty catchphrase is good enough to be proof. You continuing to make false accusations of this kind are exactly why you were brought to ANI in the first place, and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you keep doubling down. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it really important to you to declare that Locke was "wrong" to have said things like "There appears to be WP:CANVASSing involved in these discussions" (my emphasis)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Locke didn't just say they "appeared" to be canvassing. They also said that it Would be awesome if you weren't also canvassing people and writing RFC's as biased as possible and that it's not an aspersion if it's true. In this very thread they say Because of the canvassing I'm proposing an indefinite WP:TBAN. These are continuous direct false accusations and seemingly no desire to admit fault. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Levivich says that he thinks the accusation of a canvassing violation is true. Is he wrong, too? Are you going to accuse him of making false accusations now?

  Or do you think that this is the kind of thing that reasonable people could maybe look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions about – with, e.g., you reasonably concluding that the off-wiki discussion isn't a violation of the WP:Stealth canvassing prohibition, and others equally reasonably concluding that there was? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I am going to say, as I have before, that no canvassing took place and that any insinuation of such is false. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of truth. The truth is that at no point did I ever engage in canvassing. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And do you know "the truth" about what all the other participants in that mess did and didn't do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is getting silly. The entire point of this ANI discussion was that someone made up allegations of canvassing and sockpuppetry and said that everyone is a bully and an asshole because people didn't agree with them on using AI slop. Let's not pretend this is anything else. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  From where I sit, "the entire point of this ANI discussion" is that you want the community to punish an editor for disagreeing with you. For example, three days ago, at 00:22 UTC, you started an RFC to determine which image to use, and at 5:52 UTC on the same day, you're sticking your preferred image on the page, because – in your words – "Per talk page, there is an overwhelming consensus" that supposedly formed in a mere 5.5 hours. RFCs by default are advertised for 30 days, which is 720 hours. But you determined that "your side" won in less than 1% of that time? Maybe you would like to read WP:QUO, which is about not edit warring during discussions.

  You might also be interested in the FAQ at the top of WT:RFC, which recommends that editors who think they're winning early not declare success prematurely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's silly and you know it. I'm not the one declaring that everyone is an asshole and a sockpuppet for disagreeing. Don't try to make this something it's not. One user has very clearly crossed the line of name calling, false allegations, and overall tendentious actions and it's not me. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that you're not the one using potty-mouth language. Instead, you're the one who went off like a hot rocket, rushing from your first edit, to an RFC, to complaining about Locke on multiple pages, to trying to get him punished here, all in 24 hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per OP WasowkiMike (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems that there was a a serious issue hiding here all the time. My take is that Discord (or its predecessor as a semi-official discussion site, IRC) shouldn't be taken any more seriously by Wikipedia than Wikipediocracy or any other site. Anything that concerns Wikipedia, or in particular leads to any action on Wikipedia, should be discussed on Wikipedia rather than on a site whose members appear to exclude anyone who is not "in the know". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Back in the day, discussions (and even RFAs) were supposed to happen on the mailing list. This was partly due to technical limitations, e.g., the fact that there weren't any Talk: pages. Wikipedia invented the concept of a namespace. Before that, you either put your comments straight at the bottom of the article, or you could make a subpage (e.g., nostalgia:Text editor/Talk). And when the discussion was done, the official rules (see nostalgia:Talk page) were to summarize or refactor the agreement to show the result without the discussion or signatures.

  @Phil Bridger, around the time you and I started editing, there was a big push to make only on-wiki discussions be 'official', with the result that people would have the discussion elsewhere and then show up on wiki to vote.

  @Tamzin, the problem with "there's no rule" is WP:OUTING. There are divergent opinions about whether linking to an off-wiki discussion among editors on Discord would be similar to linking to an off-wiki discussion among editors on Facebook, and therefore prohibited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. If ever there was a context in which to exercise a slippery slope concern, this is it. This is more a grey area than most similar discussions we have had in the past, given we seem to be talking about a quasi-official channel. But it's still not "on-project" as I see it, and therefor we should exercise a maximum of restraint as if this was a completely unrelated site. The privacy implications are considerable, especially considering the hosting service we are talking about in this instance. Meaning no offense to Tamzin, but their argument in this instance, if I understand it correctly, is a non-sequitor; the issue is not how public a given forum is, but whether publicly identifying users and content from those fora on this site is consistent with existing policy, where our policies were intentionally designed to be highly reverent of user privacy to facilitate broad participation and inhibit doxxing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  With all respet to Tamzin, things that happen on the public Discord server might as well be secret to those of us who (a) are not on it and (b) have no interest in joining it (or ability to join it, in some cases, no doubt). Wikipedia has talk pages for a reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have never used Discord for anything at all. But it seems like some of the previous comments were suggesting that certain discussions should not take place on Discord at all. I want to point out that Wikipedians can't prevent any kind of discussion there; we can only control how we react to actions here that seem to have originated there. David10244 (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all sanctions proposed by Locke Cole: proposing a block or a TBAN on AI-related articles over this is ridiculous. This whole discussion has devolved into a pointless pro vs anti-AI proxy war and several involved editors on both sides need to drop the stick and assume good faith, but nothing here rises to the level of sanctions. Some warnings are certainly warranted, but anything more would be a gross overreaction. It's very unfortunate that Dot.py taking the time and effort to make a fun image for the essay led other editors to blow things so terribly out of proportion. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose sanctions or punishments on anybody. The RfC seems to be shaping up as a major discussion about Wikipedia's acceptance or non-acceptance of AI images, and hopefully it will be allowed to run its full duration. That some editors became a bit heated might be a normal reaction to seeing the progression of the RfC towards a blanket condemnation of AI image use on Wikipedia. The jumpstart of what may become a growing awareness of the existence of the RfC has come from this ANI discussion, not from canvassing, so jumping to either conclusions or sanctions seems unwarranted. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Excessive proposal, but something should be done about the repeated incivility. I really hope the RfC on how best to illustrate a relatively obscure essay, started with a blatantly overblown question, will not be cited as any sort of precedent. Even if it had been impeccably formulated, a binding consensus on the acceptability of AI should not come out of an RfC on how to illustrate a relatively obscure essay. But just as important, the invective concerning an AI-generated image that is objectively perfectly adequate ("slop", "piss filter") is uncivil. A group of editors hate AI so much (or just hate AI-generated images so much), they regard it as obvious that the image must be replaced, and throw accusations of WP:OWN at the creator who doesn't agree with their denigration of his work. Civility matters here. I find myself unexpectedly in agreement with WhatAmIDoing. Contempt for others' work corrodes the community, and that's what this is. I think a formal topic ban is excessive, but one reason is that no editor should be so vehemently hostile to a class of work that is not objectively wrong. Using AI rather than a printer to mock up a soup can is not objectively wrong. There are uses of AI that I will foam at the mouth against, but the case for realistic AI photos illustrating essays being pitchforks-and-flaming-torches bad has simply not been made. This wild overreaction to Locke cole's choice of tool is already covered by our behavioral policies. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Who exactly is it 'uncivil' against to call AI images slop or point out the piss filter that they were well-documented as having? Is it uncivil against ChatGPT? Athanelar (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Calling someone is consciously adding to Wikipedia "slop" at the very least demeans their intellectual capacity, as nobody wants to be adding "slop" to anything. It's a term with strong negative valence, no way around that Katzrockso (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yngvadottir, I like and respect you, but there's something really rich about you coming into this proposal, which is largely about accusations of offsite canvassing, given your own offsite postings on the subject.

  It's also really important to note that, as much as Locke Cole's... I'm loathe to call it "art", maybe that's my own bias but it feels like focus-group-tailored and souless coorporate marketing more befitting of a overly chirpy "hey, fellow kids" style "let's all sing Kumbaya to each other" WMF training module about the importance of listening to each other's feelings in the editing community than something I'd actually like to look at. (And, as is classic in all coorporate art - completely misses the mark on funcitonarility, given that I can't read it due to insufficient contrast). At the end of the day, and I think that this is part of the divide we're seeing here, there's a huge cultural pressure to snark against anything looking remotely home made. It means you're poor, you couldn't pay a professional to do it for you, and that you're overall just lesser. And I'm like, so what? You point out that we can, shock and horror, see the "scissored line" on the irl can. Are we truely so divorced from the process of actually making things that we forget that yes, when you look closely, you'll see the cut marks, the seam lines, the solder marks, the decrease points - and outside of the elite masters, that's not a bad thing? 5000 years on, we sit and wonder at the fingerprints of a 13 year old child, left in a bit of pottery. [65]. We appreciate the time and effort that the Hunteburg bog body (or their loved ones) put into repairing their cloak, we sit and feel sympathetic with the older married Danish woman who didn't even pull out the dye lot tags on their sweaters, freshly returned to them, while the young, unmarried women painstakingly removed those tags from their handiwork and breathlessly, but maybe imperfectly, stitched on the ribbons their boyfriends had bought them to serve as the neck facing. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue criticizing things - but never for being handmade. Or for having a visible "scissored line".

  It is very unsurprising to me that, as a group of people who volunteer to write an amateur encyclopedia in our free time, that we all tend to gravitate towards the "go away, false promise of corporate dystopia perfection" - and AI generated art is very symbolic of that. But some people do really like that slickness, that feeling of being superior but also putting in less time.

  TL; DR: Both editors have been fairly incivil to each other; from "slop" to "asshole", it's juvenile at best. That does not, and has never given, Locke Cole the excuse to deride other editors, as he has done so. When another editor clarified how they'd shown up, he gave them a gold star to make them feel "special".[66]. Saying somebody is WP:NOTHERE is... okay, I don't expect to find consensus at AN/I that this is a personal attack, but it's rude (even if it's using less four letter words).[67]. Implying/describing dot.py's work as a "waste of time"[68] for "something so irrelevant" is also doing nothing but showing contempt for their work - and then, in case anybody says that impliction wasn't clear enough, he then goes on to straight up say that Dot.py "wasted their time creating an inferior photograph".[69] Maybe that's justifiable, in an "eye for an eye makes the world go blind" type system, and maybe I'm biased (I'd rather somebody call me a slur than sit through another speech telling me I'm wasting my time by knitting toy bears when I could just buy better ones), but I don't see how that's defensible. If I weren't vegan, I would suggest we mildy abuse some fish now and move on from from trainwreck before any party says something even meaner.

  Or somebody else makes another insightful comment about how, in handmade item, one can see "scissored lines".[70] GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 09:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's all very well and good, but clearly there's actually no material difference whatsoever between something which is the product of actual human intent and labour and something excreted by an image generation algorithm because they both abstractly represent the same concept. AI is the future! ^[FBDB] Athanelar (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just going to point out that "AI slop" and "piss filter" are terms that have established themselves in the vernacular. They're not referring to the contributor, they're referring to the 'AI' output, and suggesting that they are somehow uncivil is, were I wearing my admin hat in a dispute where they were used, a claim I would immediately toss out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My thoughts exactly - it's an admittedly blunt but very common criticism of the technology, not of the user, and arguably more civil than Locke Cole's comments about Dot.py's "inferior" images as mentioned in GreenLipstickLesbian's comment above. I think labelling common terms like "AI slop" as pejorative or derogatory towards a person rather than the controversial method is, in this case, a huge logical jump that fails to assume good faith or account for the context of the situation. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying that I disagree, but we seem to have editors not understanding that a person might be upset by having their contributions compared to human excrement. Maybe that suggests a concern in the Wikipedia:Competence is required line? If using a predictably upsetting term is unavoidable, emotionally competent communicators might provide an explanation or even apologize (e.g., "Sorry about the slang, but that's what this bug is usually called"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with Yngvadottir. There are real worries about AI, and I wouldn't want to see (for example) AI-generated images of named people anywhere on Wikipedia. But this is an AI-generated image of a can of soup for a humorous essay. Get a grip!—S Marshall T/C 09:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sanctions as being way, way disproportionate. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose sanctions. This is a WP:LAME edit war and has been blown way out of proportion, though I personally dislike the AI picture.

Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are good points being made on both sides above that are getting lost a bit in the drone of this being framed as a one-or-the-other thing, and also by the lumping-together of everyone who is alleged to be on the Discord said. I find it's quite a stretch to accuse anyone of canvassing for things they did before there was an actual content dispute, or for commenting in the RfC while appropriately disclosing that off-wiki context. To my eye that leaves two colorable complaints here, to which end I propose the following:

• ArtemisiaGentileschiFan is warned for starting an RfC regarding an edit of Locke Cole's that they had minutes before harshly criticized in an off-wiki discussion, without disclosing that discussion's existence, which violated the spirit if not the letter of WP:STEALTH; and for then referring to Locke Cole's claims of canvassing as aspersions, implying that they lacked any factual basis, when they were in fact at least partly correct.
• Locke Cole is warned for incivility in his responses to ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, particularly [71], and for making blanket accusations of canvassing/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry against all RfC opponents without adequate evidence.
• All parties are advised that this is not an important dispute and that every editor-minute spent on it could have been better spent elsewhere.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good proposal to me, especially the last point. (That is to say, Support.) CoconutOctopus talk 09:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although I'd like to see wording which explicitly states that further occurrences of such behaviour will lead to blocks of increasing lengths. TarnishedPath^talk 09:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Reminding editors of Locke's extensive block log which includes multiple blocks for incivility and personal attacks. TarnishedPath^talk 10:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "Extensive", but mostly from the early Jurassic.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Which should be ample time to improve one's behaviour. Athanelar (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, look, that's not a fair approach to a block from fifteen years ago. You're accustomed to Wikipedia as it is now, with our very full set of rules and all our rigour about who gets to be an admin. Fifteen years ago, this place was the Wild West. People with a few thousand edits got adminship pretty much for the asking and used the tools pretty much on a whim. Those old blocks are poorly-documented and many of the people who applied them are long gone. Block logs can't be edited to correct admin mistakes. Longstanding users often have blocks in their logs that would never, ever have been applied by today's standards. The only fair way to deal with them is to assume that blocks from before about 2012 have expired by the passage of time.—S Marshall T/C 10:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but then what about the 72-hour block for PA/harassment from 2023, or 31 hours for the same in 2021, or 36 hours for edit warring in 2019?

  Your argument would be make sense if their only blocks were from that time, but when they have much more relatively recent blocks for literally the same behaviour that they're currently displaying in regards to this dispute (edit warring and incivility) the 'statute of limitations' argument doesn't hold much water. Athanelar (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that's why I said "mostly". That's not a clean block log. It's just that "extensive" is an overdramatic way to describe it.—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I still think it's hard to argue that the old blocks don't count because standards/judgement were worse then considering that those old blocks are arguably supported by the recent blocks; i.e., I think it's a lot more likely that Locke has had a problem with edit warring and incivility since 2008 (or, more charitably, at least had a problem back then, improved, and is now slipping back into old behaviours) than it is that he was unduly blocked for those things in 2008 and then just so happens to have developed those behaviours in the intervening 15 years which led to him being blocked for them again in 2019, 21 and 23. Athanelar (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you know many other editors with 25 blocks? A few of those blocks are obviously from an error some admins were having, but still 20ish blocks? I've not seen many editors with that many blocks. TarnishedPath^talk 12:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The most recent block for personal attacks is 2 years ago. The block log shows an enduring pattern of behaviour, which is further apparent in the behaviour in this filing. TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @TarnishedPath If its a pattern of behaviour you're looking to establish, then I would say this 2024 exchange on Commons (wherein Locke misunderstands the CC licensing and attribution and, when corrected on it, responds by saying Please learn how to read and

  It is not my responsibility to explain the English language to someone when they are clearly not understanding it. I'm assuming good faith that they genuinely do not understand the words and recommending they seek professional help to become better at it.

  [72] Is much more relevant. Not perfectly, of course, given that we treat other projects as separate, but food for thought. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And in case anybody wants to say "oh, but 2024 was so long ago I'm sure he's changed", nope, he's still sticking his fingers in his ears and saying he was right all along in that exchange & insulted Commons editors as recently as last month on his ending talkpage. [73] GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 22:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @GreenLipstickLesbian, you're entirely correct. Noting that they were also blocked 13 minutes ago for incivility by @NinjaRobotPirate. See Special:Diff/1331557726. TarnishedPath^talk 23:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How many 31-hour blocks is it going to take over the next few years for this to change, I wonder? Athanelar (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I stated above that I'd prefer if it was explicitly stated in the warning, that repeats of the behaviour would lead to increasing blocks. TarnishedPath^talk 01:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  31 hours is way too short, frankly, especially given the length of Locke Cole's block log as it is. I'd certainly support an indefinite block (or at least a longer block) here. Sugar Tax (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support, seems reasonable enough. Sugar Tax (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a proportionate response to what appears to be an isolated incident of a few users getting overly heated. striking per TarnishedPath's note that Locke Cole has been previously blocked for incivility on several occasions, most recently in 2023 - I still think a warning is appropriate at this stage, given the timescale and the minor nature of the incivility we're directly discussing here, but this is certainly not an isolated incident. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just put that last bullet in an archive box and close up the thread.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template +1 is being considered for deletion.› +1 ltbdl (pop) 11:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template +1 is being considered for deletion.› +1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I see Locke Cole has received a block for using the word "bullies" on this page. I do wonder sometimes if people are incapable of understanding what it's like to be dragged here and have dozens of apparent strangers (and often some not-so-strange-grudge-bearers) turn up and be mean about you for day after day after day. To not feel "bullied" after that would frankly be weird. Their expression of that feeling "It still bugs me that bullies are basically getting a warning here and their bad behavior is paying off." is imo within the bounds of acceptable commentary about the situation one finds oneself in. One can disagree with it for sure, and point out the flaws in that thinking if one thinks that is helpful in any way. But if you can't sympathise with it you need to find a different hobby than posting at AN/I or handing out blocks. Locke Cole is communicating how he feels: bullied. It is up to the rest, and admins we hold to a higher level, to demonstrate they aren't "picking on someone perceived as vulnerable" in this situation.

There are other uncivil comments on this page made by Locke Cole, though I would caution admins thinking of handing out incivility warnings for using the word "assholes" to check their own contributions before posting.

I second S Marshall's comment: "this is an AI-generated image of a can of soup for a humorous essay. Get a grip!" Making a fuss about that, frankly, look as prejudiced and ignorant to me as someone making a fuss if said image was created by a woman. And then taking an RFC vote to replace it with crappy image created by a man. We all know women have smaller brains and can't control their hormones, so clearly shouldn't be trusted to create an illustration for an essay. I can't wait for Wikipedia to grow past this infantilism about AI. -- Colin°^Talk 17:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...disliking AI art is the equivalent of several thousand of sexism and discrimination against women?

JFC, this is possibly the most offensive and trivializing thing you could have possibly said here, Colin. Did you read this before you posted it? Is this trolling?

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is AI comparable to women??? This isn't Ex Machina. jolielover♥talk 17:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that disliking an algorithm that produces imagery sourcing from stolen artwork is comparable to sexism. Why is this comparison being drawn? Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 18:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin I have debated between blocking you for a short time for this comment and leaving a message. I have landed on leaving this message but I want you to know at the start how knife's edge this was for me. What I think you're trying to do is draw a comparison to how people are reacting to AI and how offended we'd be if someone made similar comparisons to women. Where you go off the rails in this comparison is with We all know women have smaller brains and can't control their hormones, so clearly shouldn't be trusted to create an illustration for an essay. where it's no longer clear how much you're talking "in character." Even as an "in character" comment I think this goes beyond what is necessary to make your point and is instead offensive, as some editors above have pointed out. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Funniest piece of AI apologetics I've ever seen. Athanelar (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. When people appear to misunderstand a comment, it is possible the comment was inadequately expressed, or those misunderstanding it have inadequately read it, or that misunderstandings have been read into it by those lacking good faith. I have to take the former as a serious possibility but I do feel surprised at this reaction. Clearly to me, the "We all know" comment is "in character", that is to say, not my opinion at all, but the opinion of someone holding such a prejudice.

I'm not talking about people being offended. Quite the opposite. That it's like watching a different culture or historical period which finds such arguments entirely normal and reasonable but are in fact are quite ridiculous. Just as everyone here I'm sure would find arguments made in the previous centuries, that women shouldn't vote or go to university or practice medicine are ridiculous. But in their day these arguments were made by people (men) who were otherwise intelligent and thought they were being reasonable and found themselves in the company of others who agreed with them.

I see that insults like "slop" and "piss" about an editor's good faith contributions are justified here on the grounds that they are the vernacular of the topic. I won't give an example, because someone will only choose to misunderstand it, but I'm sure you can all imagine "vernacular" that goes with prejudice and feel that being "vernacular" is no justification whatsoever.

I'm not at all saying that people railing against AI here are being offensive or are as morally contemptable as sexists. But I feel this is a fair analogy that, for example, it is ridiculous that a student's dissertation would be a fine work if created by a man, but exactly the same essay trashed if created by a woman. I accept that it is clear using that particular analogy has opened the door for people to take offense when they wish to do so, but I also want to make it very clear we have AGF for that reason.

All analogies are imperfect, but I tend to find that editors who fail to find a way to take the spirit of an analogy as intended, but instead find flaws that are tangential to the point and never intended are, well, not really here to have a good faith discussion.

-- Colin°^Talk 19:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it is ridiculous that a student's dissertation would be a fine work if created by a man, but exactly the same essay trashed if created by a woman.

Yes, that would be ridiculous, but women are not image generation algorithms, and it's absurd to act like it's even remotely a similar comparison. Athanelar (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be very blunt here: you cannot offend, be prejudiced against, or discriminate against a computer program as a person, because it is not a person. It is a machine. Most LLMs are not even especially clever machines. If someone ever manages to create an actual AI, that is demonstratably sapient, then that would change. But they haven't. And even if I was a supporter of 'AI' the mere suggestion that comments about 'AI' are somehow comparable to sexism is shockingly disgusting, and the "but ackshully" in response to the according (and appropriate!) backlash to such a horrifically insensitive statement is tone-deaf and dissapointing. A block would have absolutely been a valid response, and I'm disturbed that I actually have to share Wikipeida with people who would think such a thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dresson354 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IMHO, this is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:SPA user who fails to assume good faith and comment on content, and who is promoting Finnish nationalism on Wikipedia (see this comment, User talk:Dresson354#re: Mannerheim, Talk:Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim#Place of birth in infobox, Talk:Jean Sibelius#Place of birth in infobox, Talk:Finland-Russia border#Russian - Finnish border since 1809, Talk:Finland#The image of Käsivarsi wilderness area must be included, etc). They have disruptively edited an awful lot of Finland-related articles (see [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], etc). Thedarkknightli (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at about 70% of those diffs and I'm not seeing anything that isn't par for the course course in terms of ethno-national designations. Certainly these are cases where making changes probably should wait on a formal consensus, but I'm not seeing disruption set out in what you have presented. You have alleged issues with AGF and FOC: could you please share the diffs for those situations? It is likely to get a faster community response than just linking to a dozen different discussions and articles. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they seem to get upset whenever someone else says the Grand Duchy of Finland was part of the Russian Empire (see [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], etc) and have repeatedly accused me and/or several other editors of "shadowing Finnish history" (see this comment, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, etc). Thedarkknightli (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the diffs and it seems to me that based on those, "promoting Finnish nationalism on Wikipedia" is, at best, an exaggeration. They seem to me to have a very specific and (perhaps) pedantic bee-in-their-bonnet that the GD of Finland shouldn't be described as part of the Russian Empire. Well, it wasn't - that's correct. Wikipedians are drawn to pedantry: this just seems a typical example. In one of your diffs - this one - they are quite happy to say that Finland was "lost to Russia" and the Grand Duchy was a creation of the Russian Tsar. I'm just not seeing the nationalism. Besides this specific obsession of the constitutional relationship between Finland and the Russian Empire do you have any other examples of their editing with a nationalist POV? DeCausa (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thedarkknightli: I don't think "they seem to get upset" is actionable. There could conceivably be something behind that, eg. in the way they behave when upset, but then you'd need do point that out specifically.

And when I read "Finnish nationalism", I was half-expecting to see some "let's take back Karelian Isthmus and also White Karelia while we're at it" etc. sentiment, but I've not seen any of that. Discussing whether, factually and/or contextually, pre-independence Finland should be referred to as 'Finland' or 'Grand Duchy of Finland', and whether the Russian Empire should get a mention or not, seems entirely reasonable to me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I've checked a number of the diffs provided, and tend to agree with Snow Rise and DeCausa. They seem to be seeking higher precision as to how it is worded, which is likely a good thing, assuming the facts support and consensus support it. You didn't link anything that shows them going against an RFC consensus or edit warring, so it just looks like editing to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, sorry for the ambiguity! I said Dresson "seem to get upset whenever someone else says the Grand Duchy of Finland was part of the Russian Empire" cuz they had insisted on accusing me of trying "to shadow Finnish history" on Mannerheim's talk page; I wasn't, although I admit I was initially ignorant about the citizenship part (saying people from GDoF were the empire's citizens), which doesn't justify their failure to assume good faith and comment on content or personal attack, right? Also, the talk pages of Mannerheim and Sibelius show a consensus that GDoF was part of Russia, and that it's fine to write "..., Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire" in an infobox, no? BTW, I forgot to note there's evidence that Dresson edited while logged out several times (identical edits and edit summaries), which they, however, have denied (see User talk:Dresson354#August 2025, [111], [112], and [113]). Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, when these situations come up with regard to describing historical states or state-like entities subordinated by a larger imperial state (and we do see a lot of such disputes, particularly with regard to infobox shorthand), I tend to favor including the designation for the hegemonic state. The reader can always parse for themselves the nuanced and at-best quasi-empirical question of which polities were integrated parts of the larger power vs. components of a political, administrative or dynastic union vs. vassal states vs. what-have-you. To my mind, in these situations our role is to provide the background context to allow readers a sense of the varying perspectives, and to not unduly promote a single sociopolitical-cultural view--and an extra link to one of the relevant articles is probably helpful in a majority of those cases. Obviously, this rule of thumb is subject testing based on how uniform, voluminous and consistent the views of the reliable sources are, but generally speaking, I don't see huge harm in including mention of the fact that some sources would hold that the smaller power was (for a time) subsumed into the larger, in some sense. That kind of broad detail is what lead sections and infoboxes are for, afterall.

  But all of that is, of course, a content issue, which I mention only as context for how these disputes come up. In terms of this particular dispute, and this particular editor, I have to be honest that I do not see a whole lot of disruption in what has been presented here. Yes, there is the slightest whiff of some impulse to protect Finnish national pride in a very small and sparse handful of their comments on the subject, but nothing which rises to the level of disruption. In fact, in the main, I would say that Dresson is going out of their way to present their objections as politely as possible and to make it clear that they are willing to follow the consensus building and dispute resolution processes. There's a bit of (again, very subtle, almost negligible) thorniness in some of their comments on the Mannerheim and Sibelius articles, but compared against what we often see in this "debating the nationalities of 'great persons'" type of topic matter, it's all very tame. For example, "I think that it's not respectful towards Finnish history to wipe out it's separate identity during Russian rule." at Talk:Jean_Sibelius is indicative of an ever-so-slightly WP:NOTHERE POV, but even then, when you consider the full text and context of the larger comment, it's clear that Dresson is not flippantly dismissive of alternative interpretations of the facts and sources.

  In short, I just don't think there is anything actionable here, even as far as a formal warning goes. At least not as yet. The positions of both sides in this cluster of disputes are getting entrenched and polite disagreement may yet give way to first sealioning and then stonewalling. Meanwhile, I'd agree that the "shadow Finish history comment" is edging towards invective, but I don't think it crosses the line into PA, and I honestly believe, based on what I have read in these discussions, that Dresson would have worded that comment differently had they known it would be perceived as accusatory. But at present we just have two middling sized groups of editors nominally seeking for consensus, but finding themselves too far apart to agree. I would suggest the next step should be RfCs, or trying to recruit enough fresh voices from interested WikiProjects to break the deadlock. Behaviorally, we have some comments which may indicate a bias, but no conduct which violates policy or community norms to the extent of requiring intercession here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't have said it better myself. Having a bias by itself isn't sanctionable (we all have biases), only actions are, and none of the actions shown are over the line. This isn't a conduct issue, it is a content issue, thus doesn't belong here. It belongs in an RFC or talk page discussion.Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello.

  It seems that you created a noticeboard incident about me because of our discussions on Mannerheim's talk page and Dispute resolution noticeboard. I understand that you might be frustrated because I kept disagreeing with your arguments during our discussions. Please note that my commentary such as saying that you are "shadowing Finnish history" with your proposals was merely my own opinion and not intended to disrespect and accuse you.

  Speaking about personal attacks. I have never written on your talk page anything nor I have directly accused you on anything, my replies to your comments were also polite. However, you on the other hand have been commenting on my User talk page in an unfriendly way with accusing me of "Finnish nationalism". Now, it seems that you've opened a noticeboard about me with more negativity and further accusations. And when several editors reported that they don't see that I am "promoting Finnish nationalism", you're trying to accuse me of "logged out edits" stating that you have "evidence" that's basically a notice comment on my talk page.

  Thus, I personally think that your current actions towards me are quite disrespectful and could indeed be identified as "personal attack".

  Please understand that I have right to not agree with your arguments and present my own counter arguments and views. I'd like to kindly ask you to stop your current behaviour towards me. You can continue to present your points and arguments on appropriate talk pages without targeting me personally.

  Thank you! Dresson354 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-38592-90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This temp account has been making contentious edits, including large-scale deletions, with either no explanation or with very questionable explanations based on what seems to be mainly WP:OR or personal views rather than WP:RS. They've received multiple warnings since December and up to today: [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119].

Two days ago I asked them directly to stop deleting material (among other things) and start using the talk page first ([120]), as their deletions are clearly contentious and not constructive. Since then, they've continued to do this anyways, including repeating a previously reverted deletion: [121] (or this and this) and [122] (a repeat of this), in addition to some more unsourced/OR edits like these.

They've clearly seen the talk page warnings (e.g. [123]) and have had plenty of time to adjust. These latest edits suggest they are not taking feedback seriously. R Prazeres (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was only removing unreliable revisionist sources such as Tom Holland and Volker Popp, but you kept reverting everything like an emotionless robot without acknowledging the unreliable nature of these sources. ~2025-38592-90 (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably my last edit/comment in Wikipedia anyway, so I don't really care. ~2025-38592-90 (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss. If someone disagrees with your bold editorial decision by reverting you, the correct course of action is to discuss it with them on the article talk page and seek outside opinion to reach consensus if necessary. Athanelar (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since this report was filed, this editor has continued to inject their own unsourced OR/POV in at least one article ([124]) and is now openly edit-warring at another: [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130] (the last two three since this report). Their response above just further demonstrates hostility, indifference, or inability to understand editor feedback. R Prazeres (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

R Prazeres is correct in his assessment of this anonymous editor and the unconstructive nature of his contributions. This individual has been encountered before, and several of his previous IP addresses were blocked after being linked to sockpuppetry [131]. The editor is known to cycle through multiple IP addresses in an attempt to evade detection; however, a review of the edit history reveals a consistent and identifiable pattern indicating a single individual attempting to advance a specific point of view.

Notably, IP addresses such as User:37.231.222.129 and User:37.231.111.119 were previously blocked, and a new IP in the same range User:37.39.187.55 has since engaged in strikingly similar behaviour. For example, this IP removed Abu Hanifa as an influence on Ahmad ibn Hanbal [132], mirroring an almost identical edit made the previous month by the temporarily blocked User:37.231.111.119 [133].

The same pattern is evident on the al-Baghawi article. The IP User37.39.187.55 removed a reliable source documenting al-Baghawi's association with the Ash'ari school and removed Ash'ari influences, replacing them with unsourced personal analysis, stating: “This is very disputed, as he is known to have been a close friend and ally of the hardline Hanbali Abu Ismail al-Harawi.” [134] Approximately one month later, a new IP editor, User:~2025-38592-90, who only began editing in December, repeated the same behaviour by removing verifiable sources affirming al-Baghawi’s Ashʿari affiliation and deleting the same listed influences. This time, the edits were justified with personal research, stating: “Just finished reading his Tafsir and Sharh al-Sunna…”[135]

Taken together, these repeated, highly specific edits, the reliance on original research, and the consistent ideological framing across multiple IP addresses make it unequivocally clear that this is the same sockpuppet editor, deliberately rotating IPs to evade scrutiny while persistently advancing a particular theological viewpoint. Ayaltimo (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2026

I don't remember if I was the only editor who made these edits since I'm not the only Salafi writer who tries to defend his Creed here, it could be me or someone else since the IP usually automatically changes for unregistered users in Wikipedia with time. But when it comes to Creeds, it's a totally different story, as for example, Abu Hanifa being cited as an influence on Imam Ahmad is itself unsourced so I didn't bother to cite a source to my claim because of this and due to Imam Ahmad's very popularity as an enemy to Abu Hanifa and the Hanafi School as a whole. It's basically the equivalent of removing Jahm ibn Safwan or any Mu'tazili scholar as an influence on him for example. The Same applies to the edits in the Allegedly Ashari Scholars pages to some extent, as most of the cited sources for their Creeds such as in al-Daraqutni for example, were Jahmi polemical works instead of Neutral/Acadamic/Secular sources, so I simply restored the latter sources and removed the former.~2025-38592-90 (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are we expected to disregard the obvious? The evidence strongly indicates that this is the same individual, as the earlier IP addresses consistently focused on the same subject matter, namely the history of the Companions of Muhammad (Sahabah) and recurrent creedal disputes. [136] [137] [138] This pattern can be readily corroborated by comparing those edits with both the recent and earlier contributions made from the current IP address. [139]

The user's admission of identifying as a Salafi further supports the conclusion that these edits are driven by a specific ideological agenda, which manifests across multiple articles through repeated instances of vandalism and edit warring with several editors. As recently as last week, this editor vandalized the al-Daraqutni article by removing reliable, academically published sources and substituting them with sources that do not support the claim that al-Daraqutni was Athari. These dismissed sources were published by reputable academic publishers, including Edinburgh University Press and Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah.

Notably, rather than engaging with the scholarly classification of these sources by simply accusing them of being Ash'ari, the editor instead characterized them as “Jahmi,” a pejorative term commonly employed in polemical Salafi discourse. This approach is unprofessional, ideologically driven, and wholly inconsistent with Wikipedia’s standards of neutral, evidence-based editing. Taken together, this conduct closely mirrors the behaviour documented in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammad Jalal al-Din/Archive. In light of this substantial evidence, administrative review is warranted. Ayaltimo (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2026

The overall behaviour made me suspect a block evade as well, but even if that's not the case, the ongoing behaviour of this temp account is disruptive and they're still at it. They've now been reverted 6 times at Muhammad in Mecca; if this continues and there's no action here, I might just report them to WP:ANI/EW. R Prazeres (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Their response above — e.g. I'm not the only Salafi writer who tries to defend his Creed here — is also pretty WP:NOTHERE, or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS at the least. R Prazeres (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, we can now practically confirm that this editor has been indeed editing under previous IPs, including 37.231.222.129 and 37.39.209.4, and has thus been disrupting for a long time already: compare [140] vs [141] as well as [142] and [143]. 37.231.222.129 was previously reported at ANI here and blocked then for two weeks by Bishonen. This doesn't technically count as block evade as far as I see, so I'm assuming this isn't a case for WP:SPI(?), but let me know if I should bring it there. R Prazeres (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And now confirmed by him: [144]. R Prazeres (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jubair1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had many articles speedy deleted over the years for copyright violation, lack of indication of significance, and for promotion of subjects. Even after I nominated Mustafiz Mamun for deletion today, Jubair1985 made this edit, adding unsourced and highly promotional content to the article. Could I suggest that it's time for a WP:NOTHERE/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT block? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking through the logs (admin only access), the last three deleted articles were copyvios, an AFD, a botched user page move, but these are very old, with the newest being 2022. There is likely too much on that page for a speedy delete, it should have been sent to AFD. I haven't declined the speedy, but I expect someone else will. The editor isn't prolific, the last 100 edits stretch back to 2023, and while I can agree that most of their efforts have been poor, the volume is so low, it's hard to make a call on. You can always revert the promotional edit and send to AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if we're looking at the same log, but Prianka Zaman was speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion in August 2024. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I missed that somehow. Still a bit old for the purpose of sanctions. It's easier to block someone unilaterally for these kinds of edits if they are more prolific and the edits are less than a year old. If the community wants to sanction, that's a different story. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're mainly adding things like "notable alumni", "notable photojournalists" etc. so I'm wondering if we've got some UPE going on? The photojournalist section is brand new and only has three entries, there are no other types of journalists or personnel in the article so it's a bit weird.

If you check out the diffs above, you can see they add one or two people they've created articles for previously, then add whoever else they can find regardless of whether they're notable or not (they've been doing this for a while).

References are only added to their favoured entries & everything else seems to be an afterthought, added to make the section appear more legitimate and less obviously created for the subject of their article.

None of the additions to the newly created "Notable alumni" section appear notable in their own right, including a hospital director and an associate professor of Computer Science at a different university. The top three get six references, whilst these two look like they were just plonked on the bottom in order to fill up space. It just doesn't feel right to me.

Even if this isn't UPE, there's definitely a COI if this photo is their own work as stated on Commons. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's also some very questionable sourcing going on. Take the FAO source cited here, which includes a photo credited to the person claimed to be an alumnus of the school but does nothing to establish his link to the school. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a batch of notable alumni with themself in the middle? Oh dear. NebY (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How did I miss that, they put their own name right at the top? In my defence I was walking in the snow trying not to faceplant but still...

They're also a photographer so that would explain trying to add their fellow photographers to articles.

They also added their father to the notable alumni in June last year.

I withdraw my UPE concerns and replace them with significant COI ones. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's what I've found - whilst I can't see the deleted articles, the majority many of these have photos from Jubair on Commons:

2011

• Creates article for own website (speedy deleted)[145]
• Creates same article but with a capital letter two months later (speedy deleted)[146]

2013

• Warning for spamming articles with own work images when there are already enough images[147]
• Self-promo article (speedy deleted)[148]

2014

• Creates article on Sarker Protick, COI as they've later added own work images of the subject[149]
• Warning for continuing self-promo (recreated own article)[150]
• Socking concerns[151]
• Speedy delete for copyright & notability, articles are usually about photographers or people associated with Bangla News24/BDEntertainers.com. Editor has uploaded photos of some of these subjects as their own work[152][153][154][155]

2015

• Creates article about non-notable IT business, removes speedy delete tag inappropriately[156]

2016

• Another article about a fellow photographer that was speedy deleted "for a variety of reasons"[157]
• Multiple spam warnings for repeatedly trying to add a link to a website article they had written[158]
• Speedy delete of untranslated article about a fellow photographer[159]

2018

• Promo/COI warnings[160]
• Another photographer speedied for to lack of notability[161]
• COI warning for editing an article where they took a photo of the chairman[162]

(note I'm adding 2020 onwards in an edit as visual editor is playing up on mobile, please give me a few mins) Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we generally don't sanction someone for anything over a year ago. You can use it to show a pattern of behavior (applies here), but any sanction should reflect only the recent behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

100% understood, I'm only wanting to add background context with this investigation - here's the remainder:

2020

• Non-notable photographer article deleted[163]
• Copyvio deletion of photographer[164]

2021

• Non-notable actor article deleted [165]

2022

• COI article about non-notable photographer deleted (includes own work photos of subject)[166]

2023

• Non-notable photographer moved to draft[167]

2025

• Non-notable photographer moved to draft, COI as own work photos submitted [168]
• See above posts for further recent evidence.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recent COI behaviour after warnings (last 12 months)

• Created new sections for "Notable alumni" & "Retired professor" in 2023, then added father to those sections. Their father's entry was edited a few days ago[169][170][171].
• Created a new section for "Notable alumni" at their university, then added themselves to this new section[172].
• Created a new section for "Notable alumni" at their high school, then added themselves to this new section[173].
• COI editing of Munir Uz Zaman [174][175].
• Created a new section for "Notable photojournalists" at Bdnews24.com to link above COI article[176].
• Linked own news article as a source[177] (I'm not 100% sure is this is against the rules/a reliable source, adding since they were previously warned not to do this here. Please disregard if this is not a concern.)

Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, this user should be topic banned from photographers and any topic with which they have a COI? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like a BLP topic ban or a straight-up indef, since all the cited edits after 2020 concern living people, including those who Jubair1985 has photographed or written about. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had a hard time finding anything that wasn't BLP. They're either obviously COI, in the same field of work (photographer) or someone they've likely worked with/photographed (actors/singers). There are barely any other edits.

The fact that they've had so many warnings for COI & notability over many years, yet continued to promote themselves and their colleagues/friends/clients/family specifically as "notable" in such a blatant manner is what I find most concerning. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Before they come back, I've chosen to formalize the above proposal. That is: should Jubair1985 be banned from editing about living people? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would adding photos of living people violate the ban?

>90% of their edits are either writing about people or adding photos they've taken, so this'd cover pretty much everything they've done recently. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding photos one has taken is not a COI afaik. Indeed, we encourage people to take photos of article subjects and add them to Wikipedia. There's no reason to ban them from adding pictures of living people who already have articles. Jahaza (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, so we should allow this user to add photos. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly 'Topic ban from biographies of living persons, including adding images to them, broadly construed.'

As an aside, is this a WP:SPA? If so, then tbanning them from all BLPs effectively is an indefinite block unless Jubair switches to editing other things. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem was adding people's names - including their own - to non-BLP pages like universities, so it looks like the proposed ban is on living people (full stop). Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to report a long-term disruptive editor who has returned under multiple IPs. The editing pattern spans years and includes misuse of category pages, mass draft creation with problematic translations, documented copyright issues, and nationalist POV editing in Serbian history and biography topics.

Based on editing patterns, the user appears to have been active since at least 2013. Initially, their editing included misuse of Category pages where they would insert long blocks of biographical prose on Serbian historical figures, inconsistent with Category usage, often also poorly sourced and copied from the Serbian-language Wikipedia. This pattern is visible in edits made by IP user 24.57.110.189 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS). See [178] [179] [180] and the block log for this IP user.

The same pattern of category misuse is visible across the 216.8.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) range from 2013 to 2018, from where it also first became visible in July 2013 (see [181]). The user seems to have also attempted the same editing pattern in the Template space, see [182] and [183]. Many of the articles this user has inserted into the Category and Template spaces have since been moved to individual pages in the Article space by Zoupan.

Around 2019, the user started submitting drafts en masse. These drafts were, again, often poorly sourced and promotional in tone. This behavior can be seen in the ranges 216.8.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) and 216.174.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS). The overall resulting disruption was addressed via successive rangeblocks by Joy, based on prior ANI threads. See the 2022 and 2024 entries in the block log for the former range. During the entire period the user has never engaged on Talk pages, responded to prior administrative actions or shown any attempt to communicate.

The user has now reappeared and seems to be using both a new IPv6 address and temporary user accounts. See contribs for 2001:1970:49DE:8C00:4000:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) and User_talk:~2025-42551-31.

I argue that the user's edits violate WP:NPOV in many instances, including anti-Macedonian sentiment (such as in the articles Dejan Popović Jekić and Mihailo Petrović (Chetnik), both of which uncritically employ the irredentist term "Old Serbia"), uncritical or rehabilitative treatment of interwar Serbian far-right figures (such as in the article on Svetislav Stefanovic) and anti-Croatian sentiment as noted by Joy in the aforementioned temp account's Talk page.

This is a continuation/escalation of prior ANI threads about the same general pattern:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#persistently_tendentious_new_articles_and_edits_by_anonymous_216.x
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#216.x editor 'translating' from Serbian wiki now also making copyright violations

Given the continuity and longevity of this conduct, which closely matches prior disruption already addressed by rangeblocks, I believe this is best treated as long-term abuse. I respectfully ask whether reverting and blocking the editor on sight, with an appropriately scoped rangeblock, would be an effective preventative measure.

Pinging @Joy, DanCherek, Diannaa, S0091, Greenman, Zoupan, and Asilvering:

Thank you for your time, Aleksamil (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, that's even older than what I had assumed. *facepalm*

I guess the question is should we document this at WP:LTA somehow? I don't know of any actual identifier for this editor.

Likewise, these days it's no longer about anonymous IP usage but temporary accounts. If they come back with a new temporary account, do we escalate this into a range block, or do we keep swatting down the temporary accounts until we establish some sort of a strong pattern? --Joy (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should document it on WP:LTA, there's already several of these IP editors such as the entry under "Michigan IP".

Also, it seems to me that this last IPv6 address the editor was using, combined with a /64 mask, does just give you this editor's edits, and doesn't interfere with other anonymous users for the entire duration of 2025. Since that's the case, I believe a rangeblock shouldn't be that controversial. Aleksamil (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping @Aleksamil and for the work you have put into researching this editor. Unfortunately this was so long ago, back in 2022 it seems, I only have vague memories but do recall they were very disruptive by submitting numerous very poor drafts. I think I had either left a note on Joy's tp or pinged him somewhere because I noticed he had blocked a range they were on. @Joy does that ring a bell? I don't remember if I looked at their other edits and at some point they stopped submitting drafts or at least the volume they had been. I agree this needs to be documented and if we have a current range that's clearly them, it should be blocked. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Windsor Guy, blast from my pre-admin past. Always with those bare URLs of their google books searches. I used to spend a lot of time cleaning up after them at AFC. They made an account finally a little ways back, I was very excited, looks like that fell by the wayside. As for what to do about them, well. If they're actually being disruptive more broadly than annoying whatever poor AFC reviewer took up my slack, we can do IP blocks, but my impression was always that they edited from too many different IPs for that to work. -- asilvering (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the previous two rangeblocks mostly worked, they came back with a whole new internet connection from a different provider. And this newest range is even more tightly just this one editor. I'm still in favor of it. Aleksamil (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pick an identifier first. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bad translator from Serbian perhaps? --Joy (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If they did have an account (as Asilvering mentioned), wouldn't that be the appropriate title? (Also aren't new LTA pages discouraged?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think they only registered a named account once, and I don't think we were able to connect it to the IPs.

Likewise, this is a good case for LTA because this guy has habitually fallen through the cracks and had their drafts accepted, innocent editors not noticing their fabrications. As it happens, I ran into one of those articles from 2021 a few minutes ago, and was fixing it just now as I got this notification :) --Joy (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I still remember the name of that account, but I hesitate to mention it because of a possible issue with WP:Clean start.

If the consensus here is that we are allowed to make a behavioral determination that this is indeed the same editor, and thereby publicly connect them to this history of IPs and TAs, I'd be happy to do so. --Joy (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy, there's no valid clean start here. We could all tell it was the same editor, and we did it without the IP information. So connect away. -- asilvering (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the account that I think is the same editor is Kyrgosia (talk · contribs). Their patterns match this same editor, and their user talk lists two copyright violations, too. However, this account was only used earlier last year, and its use apparently ceased after about 2k edits, and we are back to IPs. --Joy (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in response, I got a weird, sort of racist screed at User talk:Kyrgosia#ANI notice from a new TA ~2026-12865-4 (talk · contribs).

That TA also edited another draft about another Serbian American, previously edited by ~2025-40073-79 (talk · contribs). That one was used to edit the list of Serbian Americans, which was most recently edited by ~2025-40226-61 (talk · contribs). There we see more of the same pattern, like Draft:Tom Casanega where it's again Kyrgovan (talk · contribs) who made Draft:Kyrgosia, and ~2025-43721-39 (talk · contribs).

The latter TA also edited John R. Palandech, that was accepted from a draft, and immediately tagged with unreliable sources, and so it goes. That article also has the same vibe of invoking all the Serbian people, right in the lead there's a comparison with three others. The early life section expounds of meaningless details. The same draft had previously been made by ~2025-38415-92 (talk · contribs), likewise the same SPA/LTA, with the bold Cyrillic in the lead etc. --Joy (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Draft:Kyrgosia seems to be a new take on Petar Palaviccini which they previously made in 2020. Again we see some sort of a Croatian and Serbian confusion, and the editor who accepted the draft tagged it as a translation of a sr: wiki article (copyright issue). The new draft has a huge see also list. --Joy (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So anyway, does anyone wish to engage them further, or do we just keep blocking? I mean the WP:SCRUTINY issue is very apparent, but so is WP:CIR, so this all just seems dispiriting. --Joy (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They posted another screed full of aspersions and conspiracies over there. --Joy (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, screeds is an upgrade. I never heard from them at all before. I've anon-blocked some IPs in here, and made a really brief comment about logged-out editing, we'll see where we get. -- asilvering (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They've had years of an assumption of good faith. If their main modes of communication are ignoring everyone and crazy talk, that is still far, far from acceptable. --Joy (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's right to point out the copyvios, POV language, the factory of bad drafts, but it's beyond that. It's the walls of unsourced text that's likely their own personal essay. It's the bare urls. Bare urls which often times don't verify the text they're cited to. So they've edited for more than a decade and don't know how to cite properly. They don't use templates when citing a source more than once and figure just manually writing ref=name is how it's done. And don't get me started on the see also. They love spamming that section.

I guess an LTA case would be nice, but they use so many different IP ranges and are consistently active. Much of their focus is on obscure Serbian biographies, which makes them easy to fly under the radar and the Balkans topic area is a bit niche. It would require an admin to monitor. So I wonder about its usefulness. --Griboski (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the POV language basically fits into the essay style. It's sometimes like they're writing fan fiction about 150 year old Serbian(-adjacent) people, and the editorializing just gets out of hand.

With regard to broken references, I think they have to be using some sort of weird form of automation, because I actually remember seeing at least a couple of occasions where they not only failed to simply copy&paste the <ref... tags, they broke all existing references in a subsequent edit to an article.

Agreed about See also. I would generally tolerate a lot of it, but I remember the flurry of articles about the individual figures of the Serb-Catholic movement in Dubrovnik was so consistently spammed with see also entries to one another, and to Serbian people from Bosnia and Serbia from vaguely the same time periods, it was like they were trying to implement categorization outside the Category namespace.

I also can't count the number of times that I've had to fix WP:BADITALICS - they habitually don't format the Serbian Cyrillic name in the standard way, rather they bold it.

A lot of it is seems like a mundane WP:CIR issue, but when someone ignores the sprit and letter of WP:EPTALK for years, this is more trouble than it's worth.

Documenting this at LTA would be helpful to be able to link it to folks reviewing drafts, instead of having to explain over and over again. --Joy (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's still fairly easy to find instances of that see also spam, like this one from 2016. It's probably going to take us years to review and clean all this up. --Joy (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Jack Hidary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jack Hidary has been the focus of edit-warring since September, and there was an older ANI in October that evidently didn't resolve things.[184] One of the involved editors, Moxfyre, got into another content dispute with Bleebirp, who appears to be a sockpuppet with a conflict of interest.

• COI: Moxfyre disclosed a conflict of interest[185], but would like to continue editing pages related to Jack Hidary and his company. Bleebirp denied any COI of their own[186], which is obviously untrue given Bleebirp's single-purpose editing. I'd wager that Bleebirp would also continue editing if told to stop.

• Possible sockpuppeting: Moxfyre also raised concerns about sockpuppeting on Talk:Jack Hidary. He pointed out the editing similarities between Bleebirp, the blocked account jaybee1296 and the inactive account Enigma orange which I think has some merit. If not socking, it's at least probably meatpuppeting.

At this point, it seems like some kind of third-party refereeing is needed to resolve this. Blocking Bleebirp would be a good start, but it may be necessary to prevent further conflict of interest editing from involved parties. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jaybee here, I dont know who bleebirp is or Enigma Orange. Never heard of them and not connected to any of them. I am my own person and I was making my own edits on my own merits. ~2026-99664 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've blocked this TA for admitted block evasion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On September 10, 2025, jaybee1296 was created, edit-warred on the article Jack Hidary, claimed not to have any WP:COI or WP:PAID issues (arguing with @Drdr150, @Pro-anti-air, and @Skywatcher68), and then was blocked.

That all happened within about an hour, and I was not involved in it. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add, the user did not respond to the WP:PAID template and continued defacing the page after being sufficiently warned. drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 21:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Pinging hepful admin @ToBeFree so he's aware of this BLP issue.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I placed a page protection, two blocks and a formal logged warning ([187]); with the additional COI explanations below and their acknowledgement, I guess this is resolved for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this helpful summary.

Regarding Enigma orange, this user straightforwardly admitted to switching accounts when editing on new topics, which I think is a straightforward WP:SOCK violation. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that using different accounts to edit different areas of the project is allowed, as long as those accounts are not used to pretend to be different people on the same topics: WP:LEGITSOCK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it seems pretty clear that Enigma orange (like jaybee1296 before it and Bleebirp after it) was created as a single-purpose account to suppress information from the article in question, while evading WP:PAID/WP:COI.

That does not seem to me to be in-line with WP:LEGITSOCK, or with WP:U more generally ("in most cases one person should use only one account"). —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 05:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're suspecting them of edting the same article serially, then that would be a LEGITSOCK violation, and you should take your concerns to WP:SPI. I will note that all three of those accounts use very different edit summaries, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's fishy enough for me to have blocked for now because one of the three accounts is blocked and the others are new and just joined the same behavior. Regarding the use of different accounts to edit different areas of the project, well, when at least one of them is edit warring we quickly end up in a situation where having multiple accounts evades scrutiny even if that wasn't the original intention when creating the accounts. It's something I'd strongly recommend avoiding at least when the first warnings appear on one of the accounts' user talk pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxfyre, you also have a COI here. You shouldn't be editing the page. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. As I wrote on my User talk page, I am a former employee of SandboxAQ and have no current financial interest in the company. That was true long before any of my related edits.

If there is in fact a clear consensus that a past relationship like this is a COI, then WP:COI should be updated to reflect that, because it is not at all clear from the page.

As @TheObsidianGriffon noted, I have now disclosed my connection to the topic including on its talk page.

—Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxfyre: COI says "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." Editing a page about your recently former boss and his associates falls under common sense. It isn't possible to describe every possible external relationship that an editor might have, but this is certainly one of them. It also isn't necessary for you to edit these pages, there are plenty of other topics for you to contribute to. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin here can check @PowrotKrola's edits over the last few weeks, you’ll find the same disruptive edit over and over again at Merab Dvalishvili with no explanation given and no response by said user when asked for a reason on his talk page. Purposefully ignored as he went and made the same edit again after I left a message on his talk page. Not sure why he is doing this or being silent, but it needs to stop. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem any admin looking to do something here is going to face is that I can't find where you explained what is wrong with the edit.©Geni (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You know what you’re right. The user is very productive, I don’t know why I even reported him. I should be giving him a barnstar for his hard work. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This page and the notice at the top ask you to provide specific diffs to support your claims, without them you won't get much attention - other editors someone's spend time digging through their edit history to try to figure out exactly what you mean, and you risk misunderstandings. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know you mean well, but there are no misunderstandings. It’s literally the only edit he’s been making for the last few weeks. Whether you admins wanna choose to ignore it or not is up to you. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin and was trying to be helpful by explaining how ANI usually works, so there's no need to go on the offensive.

I did notice that you've been making personal attacks in this diff (calling the other editor a clown) as well as slow-mo edit warring.

I will leave the rest to the admins as you prefer. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you are objecting to appears to be "Tied the record for the most consecutive UFC Bantamweight title defenses". At no point have you explained what the actual problem with this edit is. Is it wrong? Is that not the record for UFC Bantamweight title defenses? Has he not tied it? Or is the comment simply in the wrong place. At no point have you explained this. Instead you have resorted to personal attacks. "Do you enjoy being annoying? I don’t get it." is not asking for a reason. So as an admin there is nothing policy really allows me to do at the moment beyond reminding you of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and suggesting that should such a situation occur in future you ask for a reason in a clear and polite manner.©Geni (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I have handled this wrong. To answer your question tho, he did tie the record for UFC Bantamweight title defenses, but this user is insistent on repeatedly deleting it. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hammersoft, User:Woodroar - This is a naming dispute. They filed a request at DRN as per advice here, and I am advising them to start a Move Request instead. I am also suggesting that administrators and experienced editors who see that a dispute is a content dispute can be helpful by quickly assessing what is the most likely forum to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Overall display of battleground attitude + WP:OWNERSHIP behavior of Kolkata–Sairang Express per [188] and this talk page discussion where I tried to talk to them about the change we disagreed on. I also have concerns about their ability to communicate/understand what I am saying (due to their use of broken English) and their understanding of the WP:LOUTSOCKING guideline due to this edit which I'm pretty sure is just them logged out. (cc @DAR.45m) Sohom (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I am an admin on here but I'm erring on the side of caution and posting this here as I could be seen as WP:INVOLVED having reverted a number of this user's edits.)

For a period of several months, Omnice,lamine (talk · contribs) has insistently been cramming the leads of football player articles with unsourced additions (or additions where the source plainly doesn't back up the claim) about being the best in the world. Based on similar additions to the pages I reference below by Lamine304, I am led to believe this is the same user (and since many of these were to Max Dowman it shows an even worse ongoing track record), but I'll focus on the new account's additions for the purpose of this report.

This started in July with an addition to Max Dowman where the source did not back up what was said. After being reverted they then added similar content back with the same source and a deprecated WP:THESUN source (fair enough, not everyone knows it's deprecated). I left a message explaining the issues with these edits (verifiability, construction of a "wide regard", WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY etc), only for them to add similar content back still not backed by the sources.

In August, the user added back similar content without a source again. Later that month, they did it again with a source that still didn't back it up, doing it again shortly after with more sources that didn't back the claims made. I left one more message asking the editor to stop, but to no avail. They received a 31h block shortly afterwards for making continued unsourced additions to the page.

Now, the user has moved onto Nico Paz; in December they added more of this "he is regarded as one of the best young players in the world" with one source where the player was ranked 19th and one source where... the player was not mentioned at all. After being reverted, today they added it back with the exact same sources as above.

I have tried my absolute best to communicate with this editor to absolutely zero avail, and they have continued with these disruptive additions even after a block. I don't doubt that this editor is contributing in good faith, but competence is required and enough is enough. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely until they can demonstrate that they understand how to properly source their claims. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pinging @Andrew Davidson, @Sjones23 as they are the main other people involved in the talk page discussions here. Apologies if this is overly long.

tl;dr: @BassiStone has been more uncooperative and frustrating to deal with than every other AI user I have interacted with put together, which is saying a lot, and this has been an ongoing issue for months.

In August, I left a comment on Talk:Swan Lake suspecting AI use by BassiStone and gave one example of potentially problematic text -- I did not list every single example because they have made an enormous amount of edits to the page. (This is also why I did not add the tag to any particular section.) They confirmed that they used AI to assist with sourcing and grammar -- even though the instance I pointed out on the talk page, as well as their other edits, go well beyond simple grammar tweaks -- and so I added the AI-generated template at that point. At this point, they freak out about there being a template on the article disclosing that it contains text from a large language model -- which, again, is something that they literally said is the case. In the process they appear to forget that they disclosed they use AI: Please provide clear evidence that I relied on AI to generate my text, as I emphatically deny doing so., that I am continuously complaining about suspected AI, without evidence (again, the "evidence" being that they said they did), and that pointing out that they literally said they used AI was "playing with words." The whole discussion is just a nightmare in general, complete with Gemini fact-checking (by someone else) and assumptions that I'm an admin (lol no). Apparently they "conceded" with this comment (which, itself, very much seems like the output of an AI asked to assess an article).

The latest situation is more of the same. They leave this comment on Talk:Britney Spears. More so than the last comment, it seems clearly AI-generated, from the Markdown usage to the vague flailing at policy acronyms to the not actually saying anything substantive (what about a section for 2019-2021 inherently raises some concerns from a **WP:BLP** standpoint)? After some discussion, they replace the section with this circular-referencing summary that, in context, is also probably AI (not that it's a good edit either way). Again, though, they refuse to just say whether it is or isn't without sealioning: You are under a misapprehension, please provide the slightest evidence or reasoning you may have and Additionally, your comments regarding AI appear speculative and seem to question my edits without supporting evidence. (Reminder: They have disclosed using AI.)

This is when I get pinged to this discussion, and respond despite dreading dealing with this user again because I am trying to actually work my way through my pile of pings. Then I wake up this morning to find 4 email notifications from Wikipedia about them leaving me messages on my talk page (since reverted) First, this message warning me to stop canvassing, despite my not even being the one who contacted anyone. (It does seem like Sjones pinged a couple of other editors to the discussion here, here, and here. I don't know what if anything they have in common. I don't really know that pinging me specifically counts as neutral notices for uninvolved users, but I'm also not aware of them knowing BassiStone and I have interacted previously) Then, this message complaining that This editor should be removed or temporarily blocked to teach a lesson. (If you must leave me several consecutive messages, you can at least be courteous enough to refer to me by name on my own talk page.) The Talk:Britney Spears discussion is currently a morass of likely AI-generated responses and vague threats.

Anyway, I don't have any investment in either of these articles. Why I am here is the pattern of sealioning, evasiveness, combativeness, and dodging any questions about their AI use with some variation on "prove it." Once again: they already said they used AI. There is nothing more that needs to be proven. But even if they hadn't, let's just walk through the possibilities here. If an edit isn't AI... then what's the point? Why would you ask someone to convince you of something you already know is false? What even is the goal? "Oh wow, that's compelling evidence, I guess I was wrong about my own memory"? And if an edit is AI, then this is disruptive, obtuse behavior. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and editors are not prosecution attorneys. It is disruptive to badger someone to "prove" something when you, yourself can prove it with 100% accuracy because it is your edit. The only reason not to do that is to make things difficult. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomingstuff None of your pings will have worked since you didn't sign this post. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I hope this works. @Andrew Davidson, @Sjones23, @BassiStone

Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(For transparency I have manual-pinged Andrew and Sjones as well. I have not contacted anyone else.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The basic case is pretty simple: User:BassiStone uses AI, consensus on Talk:Britney Spears is that AI is not to be used, BassiStone gets irritated over getting called on it, lashes out unacceptably. That entire discussion is just...well it's the kind of stuff real editors hate to see. As for Swan Lake--the talk page makes clear that BassiStone takes the simple AI tag as an insult and harangues Gnomingstuff over it. I mean, we could ask Gnomingstuff to substantiate the claim that large chunks are from an LLM which, as far as I'm concerned, should be a prose concern (the text) rather than a process concern (the sourcing, for instance), but BassiStone's comments there also are very uncollegial. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I don't know whether "large chunks" are AI-generated. It's been a few months since I looked at the text, but there are several dozen edits by BassiStone; having transparency about the process, prompts, etc. would go a long way toward helping sort through those, but that seems unlikely at this point. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an extension of an earlier ANI discussion about Gnomingstuff doing this to a bunch of articles where they were advised to use the reason parameter and substantiate their claims of AI use.[191] ~2025-38536-45 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I have indeed been doing that ever since. You are free to confirm this. Unfortunately I do not own a time machine and cannot go back in time to do something differently in October. However, in this case, the order of operations is that I left a comment on the talk page, they said they used AI, and then I added the template, the substantiation being that they literally said that they did. Like, I feel like I'm losing my mind here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not respond with that I use AI to create text, I wrote that I only used AI for searching for sources, to help me to analyse large pieces of text quicker, and to help me with grammar suggestions. That is definitely not breaking the rules or getting close to AI producing my text. I have complained about this clearly. there is no need to mark an entire article as written by AI because an editor is honest about using it for research and analysis.

Not only is it to assume bad faith, it also deems an entire article as unreliable without good cause. (Swan Lake) BassiStone (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are splitting hairs here, ones that the Wikipedia community does not split. You should not be using AI to search for sources, or for 'grammar suggestions' either. Just stop using AI entirely and you should have no further problems. MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have made literally dozens of edits to the article. There is no single place that a template can be added. A few of those dozens of edits:

• Special:Diff/1310096078: A whole paragraph is added, with AI-typical text like This appearance highlighted Nureyev's willingness to engage with non-traditional formats while maintaining his professional artistry, contributing to increased public awareness of ballet during the late 20th centurry
• Special:Diff/1308300172: Another whole paragraph, and again, we have AI-typical text like highlighting the film’s unique blend of drama and high-level ballet performance within the Hollywood studio system of the time. These details are confirmed by multiple sources, including the film’s Wikipedia entry...
• Special:Diff/1307988134: Yet another whole paragraph that does not even attempt to rewrite the pre-existing text
• Special:Diff/1310094289: Another whole paragraph, more of the same AI stuff

The time stamps are also very close together for the amount of content that is being added. Special:Diff/1307926397 apparently took only 1 minute to write. That's... improbable.

There are many other similar examples. Taken together, this is a substantial amount of content added to the article that did not exist in it before, that goes beyond simple "grammar suggestions." Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. @BassiStone, are you asserting that you typed the words These details are confirmed by multiple sources, including the film’s Wikipedia entry[...] into the article? tony 18:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you taught Russian ballet at an academic lever for many years it allows you to do far more than expected when editing the Swan lake article. It is child's play to me. BassiStone (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CBAN proposal incoming. This dishonesty is too severe for an admin indef NicheSports (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the behavior, not every word needs to be "flowered" into something fancy. See here, here, and here, all edits by BassiStone.

Back to the behavior, he did admit to the use of AI, and he does need to stop using it for full sentences. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These so called combative messages that is refer to, I do not agree, I wrote clearly today that I am reporting you for repeatably assuming bad intentions, being consistently unpleasant to communicate with, and worst of all canvassing. You beat me to writing something here as I was still figuring out how to do a complaint as an editor on Wikipedia as it is my first time having to use this noticeboard.

No I am not using AI to create sentences or to write for me. I been very clear with that. While being transparant with that I do use AI to search for sources, to help me analyse large pieces of text, or to suggest grammar improvement as English is not my first language. This is completely within Wikipedia rules and guidelines. It is a far from using AI to create text for you, I think the AI accusation comes to this noticeboard because it is the same day I accused you of canvassing. BassiStone (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the same day you falsely accused me of canvassing. "Canvassing" means personally contacting other editors. I didn't contact anybody. If anyone is canvassing here it would be Sjones23 -- and I do think there's a case for that, honestly, I was not thrilled to find several other people pinged. But it isn't me.

Using AI for grammar, etc., is currently within Wikipedia rules and guidelines, although the edits seem to go beyond grammar and there have consistently been issues with the output that others have noted. What isn't is being combative and evasive about it. If someone asks whether you used AI, and the answer is yes, then the non-disruptive response is to say yes, ideally with details about what specifically you used and how (WP:LLMDISCLOSE). Badgering people relentlessly about it is disruptive.

Using AI to generate talk page comments is against guidelines, per WP:AITALK. Several of your comments elsewhere (not the one I am responding to) seem to be fully AI-generated, and display the kinds of poor interpretations of policy that usually come from AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were personally contacted by a fellow editor to engage in that debate then and there and you acted on it, then and there. That's my accusation, not that you called on people. BassiStone (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You left me a message on my talk page with the edit summary Canvassing! This editor is violating our basic values. with the template that reads It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. (bolding mine) Please stop being obtuse. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I left that message on both of your talk pages as you were two individuals involved. One called the other. BassiStone (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which resulted in falsely accusing me of doing the canvassing. Please go back and reread the words that you posted.

I also note that you did not feel the need to leave messages for Waxworker, Nikkimaria, or Sergecross73, despite them also getting the ping and thus being equally "involved" as me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We do not agree here, but I hope we can agree on that going forward there should be an effort from both of us to treat each other better and focus on the important work of editing Wikipedial BassiStone (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BassiStone regularly assumes others are assuming bad faith (often in response to being given guidance or a proper warning) [192][193][194][195][196][197][198], and BassiStone has lied about not using an LLM to generate text:

I am not using AI to create text, I use it in searching for sources, to analyse large pieces of text and to give me advice in grammar [199]

• ... This complexity underscores the challenge you face in maintaining fairness while upholding Wikipedia’s standards ... [200]
• Hi all, The section *“2019–2021: Conservatorship dispute, #FreeBritney, and abuse allegations”* raises some concerns from a **WP:BLP** standpoint. In addition, since this topic is already covered in detail in a dedicated article, the current level of detail here seems **WP:UNDUE** and could likely be summarized more concisely to avoid unnecessary duplication [201]
• Thanks for the note — it definitely takes some dedication to volunteer with Wikipedia editing! 🙂 ... *Britney Spears conservatorship case* [202]
• Together, these bridges not only enhance connectivity within the region, but also stand as enduring monuments to both colonial heritage and contemporary infrastructure development. [203]

etc... Enough, this editing pattern is incompatible with a collaborative encyclopedia. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The examples of working well together with other editors outnumbers my mentions of editors I consider assume bad faith by far. Look through my history, 90% plus of all feedback I got I thanked them and learned from it. It is fair to say that assuming bad faith is a common problem on Wikipedia, having run into it 10 times over a year is not strange. It represents less than a seventh of one procent of my edits where I have complained about an editor assuming bad faith. BassiStone (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i should add that a large part of my complains have been about the individual in question. BassiStone (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, just prior to becoming aware of this discussion, I issued BassiStone a warning about talk page etiquette, and advice to slow down and not come in so hot. I'm not saying that's necessarily all that's needed here, just thought I'd mention that I'd done it, and done it separate from this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I got upset by being ganged up on in the Brittney Spears talk page, it was infuriating to see how who I debate with called in a friend to win the argument. That's not how you reach consensus or offer arguments or evidence.

I am willing to put it behind me, I want to focus on the great work we do. Many editors have treated me kindly here, de1aling with these two editors may have been discouraging but it does not define my experience here. BassiStone (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It appears that BassiStone shed some light on their edits (albeit not here): [the] appearance comes from that while I write in Word I get a flow of grammar and word suggestions. That may be Microsoft's Copilot AI as Microsoft started rolling that into its Word "grammar suggestions" since 2025. I don't know how extensive the Word/Copilot integration is or what "a flow" means here, and I also don't know why they just didn't say that from the get-go. (Of course, the comment also claims that those edits improved it immensely, which they didn't; almost everything has introduced wordiness, WP:OR, promotional/non-neutral tone, statements not verified in the sources they are cited to, or all of the above at once.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asking an LLM to defend against accusations of using an LLM produces phrases such as “The words I produced were my own, the appearance of AI involvement is due to using it to correct grammar and phrasing” and similar guff. I have come to believe — entirely without evidence on Wikipedia, but with tons of it IRL — that many defences of LLM use that say “just to improve the grammar and word choice” are effectively admitting to it. • a frantic turtle 🐢 00:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That post doesn't appear to be AI-generated at all nor do their comments here; it seems like they've stopped. (I feel like this discussion actually is starting to shade into assuming bad faith.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reply doesn’t sound directly LLM generated; my point was rather that excuses for why LLM-generated material sounds like LLM-generated material are also commonly LLM generated (which does not mean copy-and-pasted), at least in real life situations. • a frantic turtle 🐢 01:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the specific LLM tool used, as previously shown their claims that they only received word suggestions [204] or grammar advice [205] are observably false. It's also not possible that they wouldn't realize that the tool they were using was so egregiously permuting and generating text, especially when multiple editors brought it to their attention, only to then be rebuffed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrators and editors,

Forgive me for taking some time to write again. Became a bit overwhelmed with all the input yesterday and had to find time after work to gather my strengths and thoughts. I haven’t been an editor for a year yet and this is my first encounter with this noticeboard and am getting familiar with its routines.

Before us we have the questions of if I violated best practises in civility and if I violated rules on AI usage. I admit to getting angry and pushed the limits of civility which I regret. I am sorry for that. However, I am not in violation of any of Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines as it pertains to AI usage.

I completely understand why AI use might seem off-limits to some, but I'd like to kindly put forward that Wikipedia guidelines explicitly allow responsible AI as a supportive tool for editors, if it's not used to directly generate or insert article content. From the start I have been transparent when asked if I use any AI tools and found it frustrating that I am assumed to use it for more than I say I do. I've used it innocently here just for behind-the-scenes help, researching sources (which I then verified manually), analysing policies and large pieces of text for clarity, and polishing my grammar as I am terrible with spelling and grammar in my native language which is not English. English I can do well orally and in reading, but not very elegantly in writing. I got continues complaints on my grammar while editing Wikipedia until I started to ask AI about grammar advice, it makes what I want to write look better without taking away from it being my creation.

Guidelines in a Nutshell

Our community's stance, per the AI guidelines page and Wikimedia's strategy, welcomes AI augmentation when humans stay in control:

Research and analysis: Spotting reliable sources or outlining ideas, followed by your own checks (WP:VER compliant).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_in_Wikimedia_projects

Grammar and clarity: Refining drafts, talk posts, or edit summaries.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/

No direct article edits from AI text, which avoids the risks of hallucinations or bias everyone rightly worries about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Artificial_intelligence#What_is_Wikipedia's_AI_policy?

This aligns perfectly with putting "humans first," as the Foundation emphasizes. I'm happy to walk through my process or share sources, transparency is key to our collaboration. Please forgive me in advance if I take half a day or a day to respond sometimes.

Best regards,

BassiStone BassiStone (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider "highlighting the film’s unique blend of drama and high-level ballet performance within the Hollywood studio system of the time. These details are confirmed by multiple sources, including the film’s Wikipedia entry, the George Balanchine Foundation catalogue, and IMDb, as well as archival footage and commentator analyses on platforms such as YouTube." inline with good AI-usage on WP? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

However I agree with that it's not a good text for an encyclopedia. Way too flowery and complicated. I edited this text again after that to make the tone and word choices more suitable for Wikipedia, ultimately I removed most because the article became too long and too hard to read. It was relatively early as an editor here. I'm sorry I don't know how to add links to text segments but please look at my history and you will see it.

With this in mind, the portion of the text you highlight makes more sense in its full context:

The 1940 film I Was an Adventuress features a notably long and elaborate ballet sequence from Swan Lake, choreographed by George Balanchine, a prominent figure in ballet. This twelve-minute sequence is the longest ballet scene to appear in any film to date. It includes music by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and was performed by lead actress and ballerina Vera Zorina, along with Lew Christensen, Charles Laskey, and others. Balanchine himself appears as the conductor for this scene.To accommodate this ballet segment, an innovative all-glass set was constructed at a cost of $15,000 (equivalent to around $300,000 in 2024). The set encompassed 40,000 square feet of 1⁄4-inch plate glass, making it the first of its kind used in film production.This sequence stands out not only for its length but also for the production scale and the involvement of acclaimed ballet artists, highlighting the film’s unique blend of drama and high-level ballet performance within the Hollywood studio system of the time. These details are confirmed by multiple sources, including the film’s Wikipedia entry, the George Balanchine Foundation catalogue, and IMDb, as well as archival footage and commentator analyses on platforms such as YouTube. BassiStone (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So it's good AI-usage on WP, but not a good text for an encyclopedia. That doesn't make sense to me, but it is what it is. Fwiw, I find the "These details are confirmed by multiple sources, including the film’s Wikipedia entry, the George Balanchine Foundation catalogue, and IMDb, as well as archival footage and commentator analyses on platforms such as YouTube." particularly bad for a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I will be clearer. The process I used was good according to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Unfortunately the text I created was bad, which is why I edited it again. BassiStone (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BassiStone do you understand now that Wikipedia can’t be used as a reliable source? Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely, it is one of the reasons I edited that segment again. It was a bad and sloppy edit where I was too quick. On top of that the stile and tone was too flowery and not neutral enough. It took me time to find a way here and I still have much to learn. BassiStone (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_Lake#:~:text=The%20film%20I%20Was%20an%20Adventuress%20(1940)%20includes%20a%20long%20sequence%20from%20the%20ballet.

This is how I finally wrote it. Third version I believe, I was relatively new. BassiStone (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...no, that is not how you wrote it. It just factually isn't:

• On August 28, 2025, you expanded that paragraph: The 1940 film I Was an Adventuress features a notably long and elaborate[...] Later that day, you removed the Wikipedia bit but left the rest unchanged. As of October 5, 2025, the longer paragraph was still in place.
• The next major edit to the article was on October 26, 2025 by @Absolutiva, who removed that paragraph entirely.
• Through November and December you made several more edits to the article. None of them re-added that paragraph; I checked them all. As of your last edit on December 8, 2025, that paragraph was still gone.
• Yesterday (January 7), @Hemiauchenia reverted the article to its August 15 version, before you made any edits. This was the revision that contained the sentence (The film I Was an Adventuress includes a long sequence from the ballet..

So, I don't know why you're claiming that you wrote this. Maybe you're just misremembering or something, but the edits are all there for you to go back and check. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping pinpoint where, it was a while ago I focused on Swan Lake. I had re‑edited those sections several times after your initial feedback, so I lost track of the sequence a bit. Looking at it now, I can see how it developed and how I addressed your earlier critique in the edits referenced below. Since then, I’ve adjusted my approach to focus more on examining sources and repairing links—areas where I’m stronger than in language work.

showHatting copy+pasted page history

BassiStone (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've hatted that paste for brevity. @BassiStone, even this reply was clearly written by an LLM. tony 20:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No not written by LLM, it was a copy of my edit history pertaining to this matter.

Many people here have no problem calling anything a lie, BassiStone (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about this part: Thank you for helping pinpoint where, it was a while ago I focused on Swan Lake. I had re‑edited those sections several times after your initial feedback, so I lost track of the sequence a bit. Looking at it now, I can see how it developed and how I addressed your earlier critique in the edits referenced below. Since then, I’ve adjusted my approach to focus more on examining sources and repairing links—areas where I’m stronger than in language work. tony 20:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even setting brevity aside, the section you chose to hat documents part of my efforts from August to improve the edits in question.

As for the claim that it was written by an LLM — that’s incorrect. If you make such a claim, please provide evidence. The text was written by me and only refined using AI for grammar and style, just as I’ve done with this message. This approach fully complies with the rules. BassiStone (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I many more later edits to Swan lake in an effort to clean and improve my previous edits. Most of them were reverted. Either way, your problem with Swan lake seems resolved since some time.3 BassiStone (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the initial filing I had already concluded that BassiStone was lying about LLM use, but after reviewing the diffs Gnomingstuff provided here [206], especially [207], and seeing BassiStone's response [208], there is no doubt about what is needed. This level of dishonesty is incompatible with a collaborative project and they should have to appeal to the community for reinstatement. NicheSports (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer NicheSports (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Having looked at the user's contributions not too long ago, I have to agree with the reasonings by NicheSports and Drmies about how this degree of AI/LLM usage and incivility is incompatible to a collaborative encyclopedia. If the user does want to appeal the ban after six months, they should at least consider the standard offer. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my above comment showing unconstructive generative LLM use well beyond claimed "grammar" or "word" suggestions, lying about said use, and repeated failures to assume good faith. This editing pattern is incompatible with a collaborative encyclopedia, and as dialogue has failed to change the behavior, a block is necessary to prevent future disruption. (expanded 19:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Semantics over whether the AI "suggested grammar corrections" doesn't make sense to me - AI generated/output text and the editor used that same text in Wikipedia against our guidelines. The fact that they still don't understand that after having it explained so many times is concerning. This is a collaborative project, you need to listen to other editors and accept their advice. If lots of people say you're wrong and no-one agrees with you, then you should seriously consider the possibility that you might have made a mistake. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - No where near the level of a CBAN, especially with the diffs provided. ~2025-38536-45 (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

showAside. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The dishonestly is palpable. The sealioning is unconstructive. The filer's patience is commendable. The above TA bears no signs of being BassiStone. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Obviously used AI-generated text, brazenly lied about it. Cut and dry. Athanelar (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. BassiStone first admitted to using AI, before then lying about it, then followed that up with sealioning. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yet another lying AI slopper. DoubleCross (‡) 00:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I more than understand the general antipathy to use of AI on Wikipedia, but before we CBAN an editor, can someone please point to the Wikipedia policy saying that AI can't be used? I suspect it is a norm, but not actual policy. There is a reference above to consensus on Talk:Britney Spears is that AI is not to be used, but I do not see any notice to that effect on Talk:Britney_Spears, and the word "artificial" appears not once in the talk page's archives, and "AI" appears but once and totally innocuously there. If we are to WP:AGF, as we are required to, the AI use admission appears to be for specific purposes, one of which is grammar. I tend to think that AI is one of the last places people should go to in order to correct their grammar, but if we're to be serious about WP:Systemic bias, then we should be granting some leeway to non-native speakers of English. A warning seems sufficient, and if there is evidence that improper AI reliance persists after such a warning, that's a different matter. Coining (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't get markdown like **WP:BLP** standpoint. In addition ... the current level of detail here seems **WP:UNDUE** [209] or prose like this from actioning grammar suggestions, you get them from blind generative LLM use. Our social policies are not a suicide pact, AGF ends where deception begins.

  The issue isn't LLM use alone. It's using an LLM to add unencyclopedic prose, then stonewalling, lying, and assuming bad faith in subsequent discussions about it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Using AI while pretending not to (or pretending to only use it to correct grammar when in fact you are using it to substitute your own writing) is egregious enough, but lying and sealioning about it is infinitely worse. I think a community ban is reasonable. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A warning would have been suitable if this editor had been truthful. But since they've lied repeatedly about their AI use, it's very hard to trust them now. The reference to systemic bias a few lines up is not applicable here; being a non-native speaker of English doesn't make one dishonest. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. A formal warning is sufficient. Let him learn. As far as I know, he has not had any issues in the past. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that they're not learning, we can see that actively above. BITE isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for newbies, there has to be potential for change.

  In this post above they've said twice that it's ok for a Wikipedia article to refer to itself by saying "These details are confirmed by multiple sources, including the film’s Wikipedia entry..." within the article text.

  Their reply only makes sense if they've copied Greta's question into an LLM, then cut & pasted its response - after being repeatedly asked to stop. I don't know how else you'd get that sort of output.

  They've also been warned to not use AI back in September when their extended confirmed status was revoked - they were directed to WP:LLM at the time and promised to review it. Their Talk page has other warnings & concerns that may well be caused by indiscriminate AI-use.

  If we don't see any indication of improvement after all this discussion, then what good will another warning do?

  If they agreed to stop using AI and actually stopped using AI then I'd agree that a warning would be sufficient. I hate to say it but I don't think that will work here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If we don't see any indication of improvement after all this discussion, then what good will another warning do?: I think it will do nothing.

  They have caused disruptions in several topics (some of which I frequently edit), judging by the evidence provided. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the response to this question. Not only do they think the edit asked in the question (that they wrote) is compatible with Wikipedia, but when they revised it, they kept the circular refrence to Wikipedia, which I find to be the central issue with the edit. Putting the LLM usage aside, I don't believe that they really understand what's fundamentally acceptable on Wikipedia based on the discussion here, and combined with the incivility, that suggests that a CBAN (or perhaps a lesser sanction) is necessary so they understand what is allowed or not on here before resuming editing. Stopping their LLM usage is only part of that, as using LLMs to write their edits in this way makes them unable to judge what about the LLM's writing is an issue. I think an unblock (from the community) should be foundationally based on ensuring that they understand the policies of Wikipedia, esspecially on reliability, and on top of that have them understand why their LLM usage hinders their ability to determine if their edits follow policy. Gramix13 (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Keeping the Youtube/imdb bits isn't that great either. George Balanchine Foundation catalogue, per Swan Lake (Balanchine), possibly not independent in context, but I haven't actually looked at what it said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Plus the relevant guidelines can be found at WP:IMDB and WP:YOUTUBE. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, not condoning the use of Youtube/IMDB as sourcing either, but just saying that the circular referencing of Wikipedia was what stood out to me the most there. If anything that further my point that the inability to understand what are reliable sources is a deeper issue than their LLM usage, and said usage only compounds the problem. Gramix13 (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In my personal opinion, the following arguments suggest that issuing a CBAN on BassiStone is an unreasonable and exaggerated move.

1) From his account, it is clear that he has been a relatively new editor on Wikipedia and, therefore, it should not be expected of him to be fully familiar with all the rules (that are listed under policies and guidelines), usage of the Administrators noticeboard, high standards that have to be adhered to when editing articles, etc. Moreover, he stated that English is not his first language; therefore, it is reasonable that he would utilize at least one program for grammar checking (such as Grammarly, Scribbr, Reverso, or ZeroGPT) in order to assist him in writing correctly.

2) While there are some exceptions and a few conditions on how AI/LLM must be handled, Wikipedia has no rule that would outright prohibit editors from using any one of the currently available AI tools for whatever reason when making edits to the articles. Therefore, while he may have used AI/LLMs, there exists no rule that would sanction editors who use them.

3) His conduct and actions are clearly not something that would justify a CBAN. Although I am also a relatively new editor, I have already come across many different editors. In my opinion, while BassiStone may have made some mistakes, his conduct and behavior are still far from "extreme" or "totally unacceptable", especially when compared with several others, more high-profile violators of Wikipedia's rules, policies, and guidelines.

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Even now, BassiStone is giving misleading responses regarding AI use. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• XekZih-hexku5-jotjig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is an SPA focusing on articles related to Starburns Industries, which they recently stated they have received payments from (although they did not previously disclose this on their userpage). I opened a thread about this at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#UPE by XekZih-hexku5-jotjig, where one editor suggested a block may be in order. At minimum, I am requesting a partial block from creating articles in mainspace, since creating deletion discussions for this user's spammy, non-notable articles has been an annoying time sink for me over several months. A full block may be appropriate, as I have seen some behavioral issues (see messages like this and this), and recent edits like this are problematic (The company's editorial mission is centered on creator-driven works that reflect the "Sad, Funny, Strange, and Beautiful" ethos of its parent studio. is not acceptable encyclopedic language). Some kind of admin action is needed here to avoid wasting more of the community's time. Thank you. Zeibgeist (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their hits to 174 (hist · log), a block from creating articles won't be sufficient, and they should be pblocked from mainspace at minimum before they hit extended confirmed. My other thoughts can be found at the COIN discussion. lp0 on fire () 17:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, articles that exist entirely as unambiguous promotion can be tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-promo}} Athanelar (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously familiar with G11 as a new pages patroller. I did not judge the tone of the articles to be so unambiguously promotional as to warrant speedy deletion; however, a pattern has been established of this user trying to create articles for non-notable subjects where they have a COI. That is something that warrants admin action. Zeibgeist (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think they're closer to A7 than G11, but alas I concur that they qualify for neither. lp0 on fire () 07:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

غوّاص العلم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• extreme WP:BLUDGEONing

• as of this revision on talk page of Al Jazeera English, Ghawas has contributed about 2343 of the 4643 words (50%) of word count on the entire discussion page
• as of this revision on talk page of Al Jazeera Media Network, Ghawas has contributed about 12917 of the 16889 words (~77%) of word count
• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Al_Jazeera_Media_Network 3327 of the 4811 words (~80% of word count)

• this totals about 0.7 WP:TOMATS generated in ~ 1 month by a single editor

• constant Wikipedia:CASTINGASPERSIONS and escalation against @Cinaroot

• [210] despite previous (and current) disagreements, then a certain someone came back from their suspension and went on a WP:JDL rampage. It's frustrating, but I think that eventually the article is going to keep improving.
• [211] More ridiculous gaslighting. You refuse to engage any of my points in the talk pages, instead going to some external forum I don't know shit about and editorializing around my supposed misdeeds. I'm tired of this. I can only hope that noticeboard has people who will see this situation for what it is
• [212] You cite WP policy left and right but you just behave in a way which clearly contradicts it in spirit and in practice at every turn. This addition in particular, especially after this entire discussion, is just so unbelievably lacking in WP:COMPETENCE vis a vis the basics of WP:NPOV, WP:VOICE and simply reading the sources you're citing, that I just don't understand how it's possible coming out of someone with so much experience here and who cites wiki policy this frequently. Again, you need to do some reflection.

• more escalation

• [213] This is just so depressing and silly. This was a really fun hobby until now with mostly reasonable people, even when topics were pretty controversial. This one person just seems hell-bent on avoiding any factual and logical discussion with me and then goes over here and tries lynching me. Whatever.
• [214] lmao I just looked through your edit history and saw you begging for your life to a bunch of mods or admins or whatever about some arbitration case against you. I wonder what they'd think of this entire stupid situation.
• [215] drive be disruptive editting warning on cinaroot with this Beyond POV issues, your edits are regularly objectively disruptive and making the article worse.

• edit warring and significant reversions per day to WP:OWN and keep preferred recent version:

• at least 12 reversions on Jan 6 6 Jan 2026, 6 Jan 2026, 6 Jan 2026, 6 Jan 2026

• Edit summaries are more aspersions:

• This is absurd POV Pushing,. You were the one who removed the "further link" which contain the sources which show significant authority, which I removed from here to avoid repetition. Fact is, all these news orgs described it that way, showing how the official transition to "private foundation" was received.[216]

• history over past month of reverting to maintain his bold changes 18 Dec
• 3 Jan 3 Jan
• I will note Cinaroot also seemed to have editwarred a bit.

got an edit warring warning:
[217], generally has been showing signs of WP:OWNING as well, and reverting any edit that ghawas does not agree wtih.

I stole some diffs from @Cinaroot that they posted on NPOVN as well. there were diffs here about what Cinaroot had seen [218] [219] User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion has turned toxic enough that its a wonder it hasn't been brought to ANI yet. i saw this on NPOVN continuing into new years, think admin attention is very warranted now. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What i'm most concerned about غوّاص العلم - is extreme WP:BLUDGEON on Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network and Talk:Al Jazeera English - and highly biased, critical and non-neutral writing. I need some more time to prepare diffs about neutrality issues or other editors involved can weigh in.

I can move past the heated discussions, but I cannot overlook the way these articles are being taken over and rewritten as they please. That needs to stop. No one else can contribute effectively or form consensus because of their extreme WP:BLUDGEON. They were waned about this by an admin at npov noticeboard Cinaroot  💬 19:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The unfortunate thing is that this editor seems fairly productive otherwise, but the fact they were warned at NPOV nearly a month ago and kept up the edit-warring/personal attacks anyways makes it clear they probably shouldn't be editing on this.

Maybe a WP:PBLOCK from the two Al Jazeera pages might be the best solution? Those seem to be the only flare-up in their editing history. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With that in mind, I'm also not finding Cinaroot's behavior overly exemplary, but not sure if they truly crossed any lines to the point of anything beyond a warning. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yeah agreed. it seemed far easier to just sample from ghawas than from cinaroot, which felt like a result of scale of conflict being much more lopsided, imho.
this early diff [220] seems to indicate that at least early on Cinaroot attempted to give benefit of doubt I apologize if I caused you distress. But please stay calm. I’m not trying to lynch you at the NPOV noticeboard. Let’s wait until more editors can give you feedback about your writing. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd find it just the opposite. Cinaroot doesn't seem to be participating in discussing issues. It's hard to deal with when it's a contentious issue and walls of text is used. Personally I think DR 3RDparty should step in. It's clear that people want to show this article in their own way. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cinaroot is discussing it seems. But again, Ghawas is writing 20k words of text in discussion, compared to about 2.5k words from cinaroot. nobody can really discuss when the wall of text is coming almost entirely from a single editor, with personal attacks sprinkled all over. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was engaged until about 2-3 weeks ago. Due to ongoing conflict with that editor, I disengaged and took the issues to the NPOV noticeboard. Since then, they have continued to bludgeon. Two days ago, I opened a new discussion to address the NPOV issues and seek feedback from other editors. They began bludgeoning again. I find it difficult to engage with this editor.

They have received pushback from several other editors. They appear to be cooperative with others. But that does not excuse these extreme editing behaviour on these articles. Edits in question are not on contentious topic i think.

They started the edit warring with me here i was careful not to violate 3RR - but i got carried away bit with my last revert. Cinaroot  💬 20:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outside observer comment:

Ghawas does not appear to be active right now. I don't think you'll get a response from them until about 08:00 UTC tomorrow. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because the talk pages for both of these articles are messy, I want to draw attention to this exchange on 18 December 2025 where I cautioned Ghawwas to avoid the appearance of WP:BLUDGEON and he replied that he had not been familiar with that essay before.

I am in agreement with Ghawwas that Cinaroot is too angry at their differences in editing style to collaborate productively and reach a consensus on the article's structure and content. There are two discussions that need to happen: one about acceptable methods of collaboration, the other about how to remove original research and SYNTH through productive discussion and return the two articles to a reasonable summary of WP:RS. NotBartEhrman (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat angry because, even after apologizing to them two to three weeks ago, the number of attacks and personal jabs they have directed at me is not acceptable. I am a human too. Cinaroot  💬 23:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was trying to be polite, but it came out mealy-mouthed. Ghawwas's editing is very aggressive and has been hard to deal with, even though he is accepting feedback. NotBartEhrman (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who made one or two edits on the page, and talk page I think the way things are currently going will just end up going nowhere, and go to bad places. My suggestion is to lock the page from all editing and force all to go to Dispute Resolution or Third Party Opinion. We can work through the issues, similarly to how a GA assessment is done. I think that should be the first step before anything more punitive happens, and will happen if we don't intervene now. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

mediation is for content. i brought user conduct issues. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. You also only brought one person here. My proposal is that we put a cork in it and deal with the underlying problem which is a content dispute. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I find the case made above by Bluethricecreamman compelling. We definitely have some behavioral issues present. I've come across some of this in passing recently and chose not to act. Mostly I don't think we should discuss outcomes without hearing from the usersubject of this thread. So let's wait for غوّاص العلم to reply, with neither torches nor pitchforks in hand. BusterD (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but if the pitchforks do come out it should be a two-sided one. Cinaroot is clearly trying to push his opinion into the article (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), and others in the topic area. I do find some of his edits troubling. This edit, for example, Special:Diff/1331374216, with a summary beginning with "these are not official or legal positions of The Guardian, the BBC, or other cited outlets; they reflect descriptive language used in reporting." seems to not get RS, although I could be mistaking his claim. He also claimed that "That editor is obsessively editing the article - made 100s of comments and edits in short period of time. " That is 1,commenting on the editor and not the edits, and 2, commenting on his own edits. If you take a look at his contributions to the Al Jazeera page in question, he rushed through all his edits yet didn't use the talk page.

My bottom line is that it's clear that discussions only among the two or three editors on the page isn't going to resolve itself. There is no real need for restrictions if we can get a neutral third party and help mediate. We all have biases but we should be able to deal with them and with others'. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. no excuses for either. editwarring should not be responded to by editwarring. but scale of behavioral issues is obviously lopsided. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here should agree to put down all but rhetorical weapons. We argue, but for a better understanding. We're all friends here. Bluethricecreamman brought the case to the proper board. Let's not go down rabbit holes before غوّاص العلم has a chance to answer. BusterD (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph i'm happy to defend any of my edits you find it troubling. I dont want to take too much space here. You can come to my talk. I ask that you review their edits first. Im trying to restore neutrality. you don't have to agree. i did open up a new talk here and another editor @Hemiauchenia informed of it here in npov. غوّاص العلم started to bludgeon that thread. No one new participated because of the walls of text. So i decided to start the cleanup. Cinaroot  💬 23:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been fully protected. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The core problem is behavioural, not content. When dealing with غوّاص العلم the best thing to do is to try to avoid dealing with him/her as much as possible. He/she is not receptive to other points of view. See, for example, User_talk:غوّاص العلم#Nobody is attacking you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing a distinct lack of response to this thread. If غوّاص العلم is unwilling to engage in basic communication, I'd consider that grounds for blocking; it's highly disruptive to deliberately refuse to answer questions about conduct. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this comment on their talk page. They were advised by @BusterD to wait a bit before responding here. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that does show some responsiveness; hoping there's followup in due time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The user appears to be taking this situation seriously (as they should), and has asked for a couple of days to ponder it. I believe this demonstrates a willingness to listen to disagreement. I request others hold fire until they choose to reply here. Thanks, wikipedians! BusterD (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

they are fairly WP:NOOB, and WP:IGNORANCE is always a valid defense. but contrition and a promise to do better would be best. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, smart people often disagree. And we're a strangely not-social-media place to write. New editors struggle. The victory here is if we can channel the editor's enormous energy into pagespace, with a healthy respect for vigorous disagreement. Non-wikipedians just see the work product; those of us who make the sausage know how much emotion and energy is wasted. We rue the waste, and arm our fellows with good faith especially in disagreement. Thanks for the report; we may get a true keeper out of it. BusterD (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with what I'm reading on the user's talk page. The ability of غوّاص العلم to halt and listen impresses me. I believe the candor expressed on talk says something significant. I hope other readers give غوّاص العلم a chance to say something which admits their part in this disagreement. As I just said to a new contributor: we assess the reliability of our sources by their willingness to self-correct. This is how wikipedians should assess each other. It's never about the win, it's always about moving the pedia forward. BusterD (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphabeticThing9 has been engaging in a one against many slow edit war at Julie d'Aubigny since November 2024.

November 2024 [221] removes 3,000 characters from the page in a series of edits alleging the content is sourced to 'fictional blogs'. I revert and open a talk page topic [222]

March 2025 [223] They remove 4,000 characters after responding to the topic demanding primary sources [224]. They are reverted by HandThatFeeds.

November 2025 [225] They again remove 4,000 characters after making a topic response [226] and are reverted by me. I then prompt them on their talk page with a GENSEX CTOP notice since all of their removals to date have removed all hints of a queer identity from the page [227].

December 2025 [228] Removes it all again and posts a talk page topic calling the sources 'DnD Character Fantasy Nonsense' [229].

To date this user has never provided any sources supporting their view. The user does not appear to understand WP:Secondary. Relm (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, per WP:VANDALISM. The Geffen Playhouse source is an advertisement though and probably shouldn't be retained. The book and blog sources should be discussed on the talk page.

Sadly, no Dungeons or Dragons were found, if anyone else starts clicking looking for someone casting magic missile. ~2026-12200-9 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a content dispute if AlphabeticThings engaged in that process as opposed to persistently blanking a significant chunk of the page every few months while just decrying the page and insulting the editors involved. The Geffen Playhouse source is cited to one tiny mention of a portrayal of d'Aubigny in a 2020 play. The only RSN on Playbill is this [230] which notes that it is used on 11,000 articles and 'probably fine'. I don't see why it is inappropriate to cite for the existence of an event, but if it were it would amount for maybe 1/30th of the removed content. Relm (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EditorShane3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user EditorShane3456 appears to be continuously creating hoax articles in his userspace. I have most recently nominated User:EditorShane3456/test3, User:EditorShane3456/test2, and User:EditorShane3456/test for G3. All three are creating hoaxes for a fictional nation called Berlandia. He has previously had hoax pages nominated for speedy deletion here and here, and with a speedy deletion for the flag of Berlandia here I presume these creations were of the same topic. There was also an MFD for one of the sandboxes. He has previously been warned by ~Delta here and by Tamzin here, but these warnings don't appear to have worked. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorShane3456 Please be aware that while you have somewhat more freedom over what you produce in your own userspace, you are still expected to be here to build an encyclopedia, and unfortunately that means you are not permitted to use your userspace to engage in any kind of worldbuilding project about fictional nations as you seem to be doing currently.

I might suggest you try NationStates dot net if that's something you're interested in. Athanelar (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an administator, I have no patience for this type of abuse of userspace. Only a couple of weeks ago, this editor wrote I make these alternate history scenarios for r/AlternateHistory, and I have seen MANY users make the same things that I have made, and the only real way to make these events look like they happened for the r/althistory subreddit is using wikipedia in response to the warning by ~Delta. This is powerful evidence that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia but instead views Wikipedia as a tool to help play their games. I support an indefinite block unless this editor agrees to completely abandon this counterproductive behavior on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ooof, no kidding. Wikipedia absolutely does not exist for the purposes of scamming subreddits. What the pluperfect hell. Ravenswing 09:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're scamming anyone; r/AlternateHistory readers do not expect content to be non-fictional. It is, however, misuse of userspace, yes. That said, I do worry that some of the feedback this user got in the last round of deletions was maybe, out of a place of sympathy, a bit too kid-glove, and may have given them the impression that userspace hoaxing is okay in moderation "because it's userspace", when really the informal userspace-leeway rule works the opposite way: All of our policies still apply, it's just that sometimes we exercise discretion to IAR keep things that clearly aren't harming anyone (e.g. if an established user has a little blog-like post about some life updates). I think if Shane can say he understands that userspace is for Wikipedia-related activities, not for playing around with MediaWiki and definitely not for creating content that looks real but isn't, then this can be resolved with a warning. Of course part of that is up to him. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that this [232] is currently a stickied post at the top of subreddit giving specific instructions about how to use Wikipedia to create these fictional articles.

In fairness the poster does say at the end not to save (presumably he means using the preview functikn, though his instructions do not have a lot of detail on this) so its not surprising that people come here to do this and some of them maybe miss the bit about not saving their drafts.

Not sure if there is anything we can do about this mind you. Giuliotf (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice if some of our resident redditors ask them not to use Wikipedia for webhosting, or perhaps tell them about the Wikipedia:How to vandalize correctly script. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message asking if the OP could clarify the post. (I beg AN/I's pardon for calling myself a Wikipedia admin there while I'm currently on break from adminship, but it is technically true, and I figured would get the point across better.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did specify that you were an admin at the time of leaving the talk page message. I personally still identify you as an admin, as you stated you would return at BN. I don't think this is an issue at all! 11WB (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm not an admin, and the point of not being an admin is to not be an admin, so please don't think of me as one. "Admin on a different Wikipedia and former admin on the English Wikipedia who will probably at some point return to being that" is just a lot for introducing oneself to a stranger, so I told a little white lie. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I'll be more careful with how I refer to other editors in the future. I hope I haven't caused any offence. 11WB (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've also got an account & added the link under Tamzin's post, let's see what happens... Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

interestingly, it seems that a lot of people on that subreddit use their personal sandbox to create hoax articles. nothing comes up in search, unfortunately. ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't know which policy or guideline covers this exactly, but the user space information page says the following: 'You can use your user space for anything you like, provided it is related in some way to the Wikipedia project; Wikipedia is not a free web host, and user pages used for something else may be deleted. Many users use it to hold new articles that they are working on.' Considering that Berlandia is a genus of East African huntsman spider, and is in no way a real place, this to me looks like a WP:HOAX, a content guideline violation. This is a form of WP:VANDALISM, which is itself a policy. Based on the fact the linked user pages have been deleted by @MPGuy2824 per WP:G3, this is a pretty safe guarantee that doing this is not okay. My recommendation would be to cease this activity, use another site (such as the one @Athanelar suggested) and return to creating content on verifiable subject matters. 11WB (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There are clearly 'chronic, intractable behavioral problems' based on this talk page comment from admin @Tamzin six months ago. The issues highlighted by her are identical to what @45dogs has reported above. If this editor wants to be able to continue contributing to the project, they need to stop this behaviour immediately! 11WB (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't even know that the spider genus existed before I made the micronation shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Shane here, let me just explain the reason why,

Back in 2023, I joined the website, MicroWiki (which is where most of my micronation's had pages on them), and in 2024, I created the micronation of Berlandia, I won't get into the details of what happened during that micronation as this section isnt for that. In February of 2025, I got blocked, and since then I have been trying to get unblocked from Microwiki.

The reason I was making those test (1,2,3) was so that when I return to MicroWiki, I can use my editing skills that I learned here, to edit better on MicroWiki.

I understand that my micronation pages may be taken as hoaxes, but if you guy's could have asked me first then I could have explained, and removed the offending content, I am willing to do that, but everyone alerted me while I was asleep, (Eastern Time Zone). shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 if you can look at the majority of my edits, they are to pages, talk pages, and speedy deletion, I am here to build a encyclopedia, saying that just because of a few userspace edits just makes no sense.

I only said that because that's just what I noticed while scrolling and making my own alt history scenarios on Reddit. I am not using Wikipedia as a tool for my "games" because that is not what I am here for. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of open wikis in the world using the mediawiki software where you can practice your wiki editing skills. Wikipedia is not such a place. You are welcome to edit here, but using it...even your userspace...for purposes other than the furtherance of this project's goals is inappropriate use. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am on a delivered/issued school computer, so they wouldn't allow me to edit on wiki's they wouldn't trust. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to mess around with MediaWiki for purely your own ends, that's something you can do in your sandbox with the preview feature. You can take screenshots of things you've previewed and share them elsewhere if youw ant. The moment you press "publish changes", though, your edits are expected to comply with our policies, including WP:User pages and WP:Do not create hoaxes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki is also blocked so i cant do that shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia runs on MediaWiki. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no the website shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorShane3456: I'm not talking about MediaWiki.org. I'm talking about the MediaWiki software, which Wikipedia runs on. You can go to your sandbox and use that to play with the MediaWiki software, but only click "show preview". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Best for you is probably to do a text document or use something like Canva and then download it as pdf then upload it to the subreddit. This may be cumbersome, but that's really the only way with your Orwellian school. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shane, I wonder if Wiki-on-a-stick might be a good solution for you? It's no longer being supported, last I checked, but the existing versions are stable and user-friendly, with essentially no set-up required. Basically, it is your own personal wiki, contained in a single html file. The mark-up syntax varies slightly from mediawiki's, but the adjustments are small. You could use this to sandbox and maintain all of your projects until you resolve your account issues with MicroWiki. The file can be loaded on to a usb stick for additional functionality or just stored on your hard drive--in which case it takes nothing more than a single click to open in a webrowser. It wouldn't be an inherently online wiki, of course (unless you learned some additional skills and hosted it yourself), but you could share the html file online or directly with others. Check it out: I think it might be a useful tool for your needs. Just be sure to make back-ups! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shane, I've looked at your edit history and it seems that when you are not editing about micronations then you are a net positive, but, make no bones about it, plenty of admins would block you as a net negative if you carry on about micronations. I'm sure there are plenty of places on the Internet where you can post, but Wikipedia is not one of them. You could even boost the positivity by telling others with similar interests that Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia, not a place for alternative history. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am interested to learn about the subreddit, because that answers a question that I and some other editors have had for five years. I wrote the essay Wikipedia is not for alternate history in April 2021 after seeing a lot of fictional history at Miscellany for Deletion. We have often wondered whether there is a project in some corner of the Internet for this sort of fiction whose members have been using Wikipedia for web hosting. That answers the question, that there is a corner of the Internet. I may expand the essay, and I welcome expansions to the essay by other editors (since it isn't in my user space). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It usually makes like ww2 alt histories, political alt histories, like r/imaginaryelections or r/possiblehistory2 shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. We have been seeing too many imaginary elections at MFD recently. If they use the names and images of real people, they are BLP violations. If they are set in the past, they are hoaxes. If they are set in the future, they are crystal balling. We thought that there was a dark corner of the Internet that was doing this. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I presume a fair number of these used to be dealt with by U5. Would elections set in the future not fall under G3? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 17:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My own view is that if the elections are said to have been in the past, they are hoaxes, and if they are said to have been in the future, they are crystal balling. If they use images or names of living persons, they are also BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DoctorFreemasonfromYeah/sandbox to indicate that we are continuing to see these at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Should these be placed under general sanctions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Seeing as the community just made it harder to delete these sorts of pages, I don't think there will be an appetite for that. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, User:DoctorFreemasonfromYeah/sandbox is a rare page that actually does fall under the new CSD U7 (see also WP:U5FAQ), and is the exact kind of page I had in mind when I drafted that criterion, the sort that gets slowly added to and therefore escapes U6. That said, it's also just a regular G3. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon: Since we're here - there's also Alternatehistory.com (although given its owner/main (only?) moderator is...a bit...yeaaaaaaah...I'm not sure I'd recommend it) and the newer althistory.com (run by the folks who run Spacebattles). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question is a footnote to the text "Rowling has opposed proposed gender self-recognition law reforms [FOOTNOTE] in the UK that would make it easier for trans people to change their legal gender."

That she opposed them is not in dispute. However, for some reason, the foot note attempts to list every law to it, whether there's any evidence that Rowling objected to it, and uses sources that in no way connect Rowling to that law. Here's the footnote:

The laws and proposed changes are the UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Scotland Gender Recognition Reform Bill; ^[1][2] related are the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018,^[3] and the UK Equality Act 2010, which makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic.^[4]

So, let's review:

• Duggan only covers the UK Gender Recognition Act. This is the only valid source in the footnote.
• Pedersen is cited to the abstract, which does not mention Rowling in any way. The article in full does mention her, but briefly and not in connection to any law. It does mention the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, albeit not by name (usually referring it to something on the lines of "proposed Scottish reforms to the Gender Recognition Act"). It's a pretty bad source in general, and especially for J. K. Rowling.Here's the only quotes involving Rowling in the article: "Threats to their well-being and job security have been made against many of the higher-profile women involved in the debate in Scotland, from Joanna Cherry MP tothe author J.K. Rowling, and – as will be discussed – to several of the interviewees." and "However, the role of creative writers as public voices on contemporary issues may also be a particularly Scottish element, and the influence of J. K. Rowling in this particular debate must also be acknowledged." I'm not sure how one could cite anything about Rowling to this article.
• The Times Source is related to Rowling, covering her funding a lawsuit by For Women Scotland but, unless I'm missing something, only connects a previous case by For Women Scotland than the one Rowling was connected to to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.
• Suissa and Sullivan has two brief mentions of Rowling, neither are connected to the Equality Act 2010, which is mentioned in a different section.

There are two Reliable Sources Noticeboard threads on Suissa and Sullivan, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#Suissa_and_Sullivan and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Suissa_and_Sullivan_(redux). It is a questionable source at best.

Sirfurboy is repeatedly adding this information back into the WP:BLP. Per WP:BLP "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". It also says that "the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals", though I'm loath to try that. Here is Sirfurboy readding material: [233] [234] [235] [236]

WP:Competence is required. I'm sure he thinks he's acting in good faith to protect what he thinks is sourced material. But it's not. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't the editors involved discussing this on the talk page? Katzrockso (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am, it's just being ignored. Nothing here isn't either on the talk page or, for some of the Suissa and Sullivan stuff, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. To give some idea, to my knowledge, th last time a problematic source was removed - Suissa and Sullivan, actually, but used for something else - it took two months. The first Reliable Sources Noticeboard thread is a small part of the discussion around that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute. There is nothing here for ANI. Talk Section Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:J. K. Rowling#The footnote in general is, perhaps, a more relevant talk section. Which had been up for over a day when Sirfurboy reverted the changes, and he still has not commented on it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 22:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Suissa and Sullivan is a fairly horrible source, but Adam Cuerden's ongoing campaign against it is starting to look a little obsessive to me. Adam could you make your points in one place please and not keep opening threads in different places? Editors might start to accuse you of going on a crusade.—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I've discovered that several other sources were a problem. I mention Suissa and Sullivan because it's being misused, and is still being misused, alongside a lot of other sources. It's not just the one source, every time I check, I find new issues. I suspect a careful source check of the article would result in it being decimated; there's clear evidence that a failure to understand basic principles of sourcing.

This article is exhausting, and editwarring to keep sources that failed verification is a basic violation of Wikipedia standards. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 06:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence "and the UK Equality Act 2010, which makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic" is not about a living person, and so isn't covered by BLPRESTORE. It's a sentence in a BLP article with a poor citation, but it's not about a living person. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed not a BLP issue, but references to the Equality Act 2010 should be treated as a red flag/hand grenade/nuclear bomb warning (other hyperbolic metaphors are available) ever since the UK Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Women Scotland Ltd -v- The Scottish Ministers. We have no article, but probably should. Reaction to that ruling has been widespread and mixed, not to say polarised. Narky Blert (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WikipeContributor, a self-described former student and parent of a current student, has a conflict of interest with respect to St. Joseph Higher Secondary School.[237]

Since September 2025, despite escalating warnings and lengthy discussion, they have repeatedly added names to the school's alumni section without citing sources supporting a connection to the school.[238] [239][240] These problematic edits are comparable to those in July and August by Rana1610.[241][242][243] WikipeContributor started editing the day Rana1610 stopped. WikipeContributor did not respond when asked to disclose any connection to Rana1610.

Tacyarg and Zackmann08 have also warned WikipeContributor about unsourced additions to biographies of living people who WikipeContributor believes attended St. Joseph.

WikipeContributor has demonstrated that they will not follow basic content policies, including verifiability and biographies of living persons. They appear to have violated behavioural policies regarding edit-warring and sockpuppetry. Their disruptive editing is narrowly focused on the topic with which they have a conflict of interest. Being blocked from editing St. Joseph Higher Secondary School might be enough to stop their disruption. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will, I've just reverted unsourced edits that were identical to Rana1610's on Jeetu Ahsan - compare [244] & [245], then [246] & [247].

They also added edits back after being reverted[248].

I'm not sure whether to log an SPI since the earliest account isn't blocked, but their last edit under Rana1610 was reverted then a new account does exactly the same thing? Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely pageblocked WikipeContributor from St. Joseph Higher Secondary School. Cullen328 (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RichardBi0129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was temporarily blocked from moving pages in November after a spate of disruptive moves. They recently did another pair of disruptive moves.

This user has never attempted to discuss or explain anything (zero user talk or project talk edits, and the only article talk page edits are moves), and has never used an edit summary that wasn't a default one. Between the disruptive moves and refusal to communicate, they should be blocked indefinitely from moving pages. --Sable232 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all their edits are mobile edits, so they may be unaware of this, but I think an indefinite page move block would still be appropriate to stop the disruption either way. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user recently asked a few users they disagree with in discussions on EE topics (they were previously alerted that this is a contentious topic), how much they were paid by Kremlin [260] [261], got warned, continued the same behavior calling also someone a "useful idiot"[262] [263]. I blocked them for 48h, to which they of course replied that they got "banned by Kremlin people". I do not think I want to be associated with some Kremlin people who allegedly run Wikipedia, and I propose to extend the block to indefinite so that the user has a chance to reflect on their behavior and, if they want to continue editing, to submit an unblock request. Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Mellk (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. This editor jumped into the very contentious Baltic infobox issue simply to inflame things further. If they want to play WP:BATTLEGROUND, they should go play Call of Duty instead. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They jumped in, and they've now been tossed out. Clearly here to WP:RGW, and this sort of accusation-slinging won't go away after 48 hours. I've blocked indef as arbitration enforcement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past few days I have seen multiple accounts conducting the same specific edit. This involves changing the place of birth for multiple officials from "Estonian SSR, Soviet Union" to "Estonia" despite a MOS agreement. The accounts involved are Velirand, ~2026-13507-9, and Squad0273. Squad0273 has the most edits out of these three with 7,638 edits while ~2026-13507-9 has 29 edits and Velirand has 244 edits. Jon698 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Velirand has restored the edits of a blocked account (~2025-39158-86). These edits can be found at Ernst Jaakson. This IP was one of the sockpuppets of User:3 Löwi. Jon698 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kremlin's information war against Estonia is going on. Velirand (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"and Velirand has 244 edits" Please, don't exaggerate. I have made 15 edits. Velirand (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to your contrib history. It reads well over 200 edits. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Velirand. I'd need some more evidence before looking closer at Squad0273. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation doesn't make me particularly hopeful, since they explicitly say that we cannot have birthplaces this way. At least a gentle reminder from an admin might be useful. [268]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]