Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1209

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

I request administrator evaluation for a possible topic ban or block.

On Scientology-topic articles, mostly Scientology and Church of Scientology, User:Cambial Yellowing is engaging in disruptive editing and incivility to the point that consensus on content cannot be reached. I will highlight Cambial's incivility from just the last week which has derailed every discussion about content. These are just a few of the many insults and dismissive comments.

Those directed at me:

1. Do try to get your ducks in a row, especially if you want to misuse the talk page, yet again, to bore everyone (diff)
2. your silly list above and That's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on this talk page, against some stiff competition. (diff)
3. To save you some time, Grorp, note that I muted notifications from you quite a long time ago [...] Save your typing finger (/s), if you like. (diff)
4. You are welcome to make ridiculous arguments like that, but no (diff)
5. Please refrain from groundless and absurd claims of incivility (diff)

To participating editor Gitz6666:

6. The rank hypocrisy you display in your second pretend example is embarrassing for you (diff)
7. That level of awkward unselfconsciousness is pretty astounding (diff)
8. you are pretending [...] to make yourself feel important (diff)
9. is not only your own groundless opinion, but frankly laughable. (diff)

To another participating editor, Kvinnen:

10. You’ve evidently failed to grasp the purpose of article talk pages. [...] Do try to stick to what people actually write, rather than imagining a reasoning that fits with a narrative you want to believe about your desire to change the article. (diff)
11. [which] you found difficult to understand (diff)
12. possibly that comprehension issue (diff)
13. if you’re having difficulty with reading citations please see the help pages. I’m afraid I don’t consider the rest of your comment to merit a response. (diff)

Cambial accounts for around half of this week's ~9,000 words on Talk:Scientology, far exceeding each other contributor in 7 discussions of ~150 edits, and 6 editors including Kvinnen, Guy Macon, Feoffer, Gitz6666, and myself. Despite all this talk, the threads never seem to resolve, while Cambial dominates the discussions (WP:BLUDGEONING).

In the middle of these article content discussions, Cambial took to picking on other editors on their user talk pages under the guise of pointing out minor behavior, including here on Kvinnen's and here on my own. These threads contain more insults, incivility, and relitigation from the article talk page. When confronted by Gitz on Cambial's user talk page (here and here), Cambial again deflected, reinsulted, and continued to litigate their views on points from the Talk:Scientology threads. These satellite discussions added another 6,000 words to the week's count.

This week's discussions are representative of a multi-year pattern of habitual incivility, dominating discussions, edit warring, gaming, WP:IDHT, and refusing to provide sources when asked (WP:BURDEN).

Long-term behavior: There are numerous discussions on scientology-topic talk pages which display this same tendentious editing (e.g., Notability thread, Proposal: Rename this article, and most of Talk:Scientology/Archive 33). Cambial has a long history of edit warring, with at least twenty (20) 3RR reports filed (6 in the last year). Of these, 9 were filed against Cambial, resulting in 3 blocks and 1 warning. (search results), 11 were filed by Cambial, 2 of which boomeranged and resulted in sanctions. (search results). Here, here and here are a few of the many ANI filings against Cambial showing similar behavior (edit warring, ownership, etc.) and their recurring pattern of incivility, deflection, and diversion. These two "vile" edits by Cambial in 2022 (diff, diff) added a lying cunt and a lying piece of dogshit to Doug Weller's signature; discovered weeks later and removed by Mz7. And lastly, this 2023 arbitration request by Cambial ended with admin HJ Mitchell's remark "As for Cambial Yellowing, I'd love to hear an argument for why their combative approach to editing doesn't necessitate an indefinite block."

These behaviors have created a hostile environment which has driven away several editors from the topic. Just off the top of my head, this includes Kvinnen who hasn't posted in the scientology-topic in a week after hinting to me they might quit; Gitz6666 who today posted (diff, diff) that he was quitting the topic; another editor North8000 who quit a while ago; and I had earlier quit, though returned with drastically reduced participation and have avoided the main article Scientology.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Are there issues with their editing outside of scientology? If not, I'd suggest a topic ban from scientology, broadly construed. Either way, the incivility and bludgenoining are entirely inappropriate and I may block over those. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Based on my rifling through their user talk page and ANI history, yes. However I don't participate in those and this ANI was lengthy enough to focus solely on this topic area in which we intersect, the nearest time frame, and a little historical background.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere they had gotten some other topic ban, and I see three page blocks on their block log.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This isn't Cambial Yellowing's first rodeo:[1]

Most of the disruption involves Scientology, but this editor has also been a lesser problem on other pages. Comments like this[2] are not helpful whether or not the editor is correct on the facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Are there issues with their editing outside of scientology? Yes, Cambial figured in exchanges for which I was recently TBANned on another topic, but I'm unsure whether I can share the details without violating said TBAN. Any guidance would be appreciated here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I think I might have already linked to it in my vote. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Oof! Yes, you linked to another Cambial incivility on Talk:Gaza genocide, and I see there several other insults directed at Tioaeu8943 on that thread, reminiscent of Cambial's remarks on scientology-topic talk pages. I wonder how many other editors have received sanctions because of "reacting" to Cambial's insults directed at them, or because Cambial repeatedly derailed discussions into multiple spinoff debates instead of staying on topic. The result is that editors get pulled in all directions, creating the appearance of disorder and noise. (That's based on my own observations and experiences of Cambial's disruptive effect in discussions.)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Tioaeu8943 was TBANed for conduct beyond their interactions with Cambial. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This is true, and I take full responsibility. There's nevertheless some truth to what @Grorp is saying in the prior comment. I was "reading the room" in a way that I shouldn't have. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Cambial has been misrepresenting sources on Breakbeat hardcore also, namely to repeatedly add an artist/song to a list that doesnt have notability. ~2025-39064-65 (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad Grorg started this thread. I don't know much about Cambial's editing outside this topic, and I also know very little about past discussions on Scientology, since I've only started editing the article less than two weeks ago, but I've already had my fair share of uncivility, failure to AGF and also tendentious editing, including restoring WP:SYNTH and misrepresented sources. I plan to post more diffs tomorrow or by Saturday at the latest, as soon as I get them pulled together. In the meantime, I think this thread is relevant. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to be as brief as possible, and to select diffs not already covered by Grorp. My concerns relate to 1) WP:CIVIL, 2) WP:DISRUPTIVE, 3) WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:ADVOCACY.

1. As the diffs and quotes provided by Grorg and PARAKANYAA clearly show, WP:CIVIL is a real issue. I was particularly struck by the following episode. I discovered that between 2019 and 2020 Cambial had made a few edits containing WP:SYNTH and misrepresenting sources [3][4][5], and on 1 December 2025, with eight consecutive edits, I removed six sources from Scientology with detailed edit summaries. Cambial reverted only one of my edits, restoring one source, with the rather annoying edit summary Source removed on fabricated grounds [6]. Having managed to verify all but one of the sources used in Cambial's edits, I went to their talk page to highlight the issues and ask them to help me verify the missing one (Edge 2006). A lengthy discussion ensued, during which I repeatedly asked Cambial to provide a quote from Edge (1, 2, 3 and, on the article t/p, 4). They never responded. They could easily have said, "I'm sorry, I don't remember Edge, it's been a long time", or even, "Thank you for correcting my mistakes". Instead they hid behind accusations and long, resentful comments (not only your own groundless opinion, but frankly laughable ... I have no interest in discussing your highly partial personal views ... your failure to grasp fundamental elements of content policy ... your illogical double talk, facetious claims, and pointless sophistry in attempts to defend your misrepresentation of sources) without ever mentioning Edge.
2. Apart from incivility, in the short time I spent on Scientology and Church of Scientology, I noticed two occasions where Cambial deliberately restored misrepresented sources and unsupported text (SYNTH and OR). I say "deliberately" because I had already explained the issue affecting sources and content in detail, either with edit summaries or on the talk page. Note that what follows are not content disputes: this kind of editing clearly falls under WP:DISRUPTIVE.
   • Firstly, this revert [7] restores, along with several outdated primary sources, the source Hunt-de Puig-Espersen 1992, which is incorrectly described as European Council, Recommendation 1178: Sects and New Religious Movements, whereas it's actually a Danish politician (Espersen) giving his views in a 1992 debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I had already highlighted this misrepresentation in my edit summaries [8][9] and then, after Cambial's revert, I opened this thread - to no avail.
   • Secondly, these four consecutive edits [10] restore two misrepresented sources (Flinn 2009 and Urban 2021) and unsupported text/OR (advocates [of Scientology] engaging in lying), while also adding a further misrepresented source (Hammer-Rothstein 2012). Details are provided in this thread, plus verbatim quotations from sources in my sandbox here and here.
3. There is also a pattern of tendentious editing. Some of what follows is borderline, as it touches on genuine content disputes where reasonable disagreement is possible, but overall it reveals, in my view, a case of WP:POVPUSH. The last week is only indicative of long-lasting problems: note how much Scientology has changed and lost balance from the 2019 version prior to Cambial's first edit, to the current version. With 22.6% of the characters and 626 edits, Cambial is the first author of that article.[11]
   • 27 November 2025 restores a business, a cult, a religion, or a scam (instead of "a religion, a cult, a business, or a scam") from the opening paragraph of Scientology. In the edit summary and on the talk page, Cambial explains that the sentence should follow alphabetical order.
   • 27 November 2025 restores ridiculed.
   • 28 November 2025: given that the overwhelming majority of NRM scholars classify Scientology as a new religious movement (which is frankly obvious and almost non-controversial), Cambial argues that NRM studies are a relatively insignificant sub-discipline of sociology.
   • 2 December 2025, I had removed a UK minister's anti-Scientology statement from a 1992 House of Lords debate, which was misrepresented as supporting a list of high-level findings. Cambial restores this irrelevant/UNDUE primary source and adds in parliamentary debate to the article.
   • 2 December 2025 restores ridiculed.
   • 2 December 2025 restores nonsense.
   • 2 December 2025 restores invented.
   • Cambial describes Scientology's Dianetics in ways that express animosity and contempt, contributing to a battleground atmosphere and discouraging participation from good-faith editors with differing points of view: pseudoscientific bullshit (31 October 2025); bunk science, hogwash, and systems invented by the mentally ill (22 November 2025); pseudoscience worthy of ridicule (28 November 2025).

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I was pinged into the discussion -- I don't see a huge problem with the actual editing or speaking poorly of the book Dianetics. "Ridicule-worthy", "nonsense", "bullshit", and "pseudoscientific" are all fairly mainstream opinions for a "science" book that suggested talk therapy might cure leukemia. Hubbard was widely-alleged to be mentally-ill. But persistent incivility to other editors is always a problem. It doesn't matter how "silly" or even "dangerous" we find a person's beliefs: EVERYONE deserves respect. Feoffer (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I can attest to the fact that Cambial Yellowing's general behavior has put me, at least, off from editing in the topic area. In a topic area such as this, it is natural that there will be disagreements, but most of the other editors I have noticed in the topic area, e.g. North8000, Grorp, Feoffer, even if I have disagreed with them at times, conduct themselves appropriately and all resolve the matter like reasonable adults.

Cambial Yellowing does not. They treat the whole topic as a battleground. It has made the editing experience in the topic area so unpleasant I have chosen to give it a wide berth with only limited exceptions, even if there are articles I would like to improve in it (e.g. about the many interesting books about Scientology). But when I asked myself: is it worth it? Is it worth dragging myself into this nightmare of a topic area? I found the answer was no. I saw the dispute on the Scientology article this week, wrote up a response, and decided it was not worth it. I assume the other editors who have quit the topic area have asked themselves similarly. Putting forward a point of view is one thing but the bludgeoning, the insults, it is not appropriate.

Also that insult towards Doug Weller is just disgusting, even if it was some years ago. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Where have I been uncivil to you? Cambial — foliar❧ 01:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You have not, at least to my recollection, because I have elected to limit my involvement to prevent myself from getting dragged into this mess beyond what I consider necessary. My opinion comes from seeing how you have treated other editors in this topic area. I watch a lot more discussions in this topic area than I participate in for that reason. Walking on eggshells is an unpleasant experience. It can't even be said to be born of past resentments, because the things you said to Gitz, an editor new to this topic area who you had never interacted with before, are incredibly uncivil.

This entire exchange is ridiculous [12].

"that level of awkward unselfconsciousness is pretty astounding. Either you are pretending you find that comment uncivil, because you wanted to tell someone off to make yourself feel important"

"It's amazing that you recognised that repeating the same misrepresentations that you made in earlier responses is a waste of time, and then proceeded to waste time doing so anyway."

"I didn't claim you did so intentionally, I said it is difficult to understand how you misrepresented it so egregiously after, one naturally assumes, having read it. Did you read it?"

This is not an acceptable tone when speaking to other editors, and this was all in the past week. That there may not be individual "insult words" that you can single out and point at as some bright line does not mean that it is not a problem, the general tone is incredibly hostile. You can use polite or formal words to be uncivil, it is the meaning that matters, and it is obvious what you mean. You have continued this behavior for years, e.g. your comment to Doug Weller. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Let me start off by saying that this is going to be a toxic topic area whether or not Cambial Yellowing is around... But I've commented before that they seem to lean into/feed off of that toxicity rather than resist it. I've stepped away from the topic area for the most part for a while now but I am disappointed to see it continuing to spiral out of control (nobody drove me away, its just not a topic area with a good effort-result ratio). I would hope that a formal warning could bring them around, but barring that being successful I don't think that I could in good faith oppose at least a temporary topic ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Driving off multiple editors from a topic for months or years just isn't acceptable. Wikipedia runs and thrives on collaboration, if that process can't happen then everybody loses - editors, readers and the project as a whole.

Time-limited sanctions don't seem appropriate for long-term behavioural issues, and there is evidence of similar behaviour in other areas. If a TBAN were put in place, I suspect it's highly likely that the behaviour would escalate elsewhere.

I'm not voting for this yet as there's a lot of history to read through and this is a major sanction, but right now I'm having a hard time seeing any alternative to a CBAN. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Grorp has an extremely long history of attacking me on article and project talk pages. I've lost count of the number of times I've asked them to keep discussion on article talk about content, in response to yet another accusation of bad faith from Grorp. That's the context for the seriously truncated - to the extent it mispresents the content - first quote. I will delineate that lengthy history, alongside some pretty serious and flagrant misrepresentation of sources, when I have some time in the next couple of days. I will also respond to the two diffs, presented as four, on my talk page in response to Gitz6666's posts there. Grorp also truncates these and strips them of context to misrepresent them.

My response to Kvinnen was intemperate. Kvinnen accused me of "continuously misunderstanding the intention" of a proposal. I have never commented on anyone's intention behind that proposal, nor ever mentioned intention - as I pointed out to Kvinnen - so will admit I found this quite annoying, putting not merely words but a whole topic in my mouth, that I've never written a word about. My response was not appropriate. That said, Grorp's claim that an edit summary template - with reference to a misleading summary - was "picking" on Kvinnen, is not correct, and there's no grounds for that characterisation. I was clear to Kvinnen that the issue was that the edit summary, not the edit content, was misleading, when they asked what was misleading about improving the wording of the article.

For now I will briefly note the first such exchange from Grorp: on Karin Pouw, Grorp notes that the sources are trivial mentions and the subject may lack notability. Noting Grorp's comment, I propose the article for deletion. Grorp deprods and indicates his reasoning on Wikiproject talk for this and a couple of other articles (minor books). I respond stating I don't think the redirects are that useful but I'll not dispute them, but I'll seek deletion of Karin Pouw based on the the lack of notability Grorp raised, and a related list article. I ask for his input the latter, and indicate the results of a search for indications of notability. Regular discussion so far.

Grorp posts this odd response, writing Jesus Fucking Christ! and expressing "exhaustion". I write that I'm happy to dig further in the literature and that I find the (non-content) part of the response bizarre.

Grorp responds by accusing me of gaslighting "your little gaslighting attempt looks bad on you." Then accuses me of "heavy POV-pushing" and "destructive edits." He claims that I "tried to push your POV by categorizing Hubbard's Scientology books as fiction and added pseudoscience" (this despite the well-known understanding they are pseudoscience). Grorp accuses me of this bad faith POV-pushing despite the fact that in response to his comments on the wikiproject on that issue, I acted in acccordance with his concerns and moved them to a different category. He writes "So if you really are clueless, then it's time to get a clue. And if you're not clueless, then you're doing all this deliberately. Either way, it's untenable, disruptive..." He cites not a single diff for these naked accusations of bad faith.

Later attacks on article talk follow a similar pattern, with increasingly aggressive accusations of disruption and bad faith e.g. accusing me of "sneaking in" content (by making well-sourced public edits to an open wiki (?)). I'll lay out that history shortly - Far more project-damaging than the naked accusations of bad faith are the claims about sources that are directly contrary to the facts.

I maintain that describing an argument that someone makes on article talk as "ridiculous" is not a personal attack. It is a comment on the quality of the argument, and plenty of similar comments have been directed at arguments I have made here. I never considered them uncivil, nor do I think editors saying "that's a silly/ridiculous argument" is considered uncivil generally. (As an example, Kvinnen writes that claiming that this word-change is not adherent to reliable sources is simply preposterous). Strongly worded, sure. But to argue that saying you think the point someone makes is "preposterous" or "ridiculous", is an attack or is uncivil, is reaching and has the appearance of WP:SANCTIONGAMING.

"Please refrain from groundless and absurd claims of incivility" is an appropriate response to an accusation of incivility by Grorp for the words "There is evidently a disconnect here" which are part of a discussion about seeking neutrality, are not an attack, and are not uncivil.

The talk pages that Grorp links to, ostensibly to show tendentious editing, do not indicate tendentious editing (Notability/Rename proposal/Archive page 33). I laid out my concerns with the article and aims for editing it here. At the time Grorp wrote that he agreed, but his subsequent edits, such as deleting whole article sections without leaving a summary, suggest he no longer agrees with those aims. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, instead of making counter-accusations against other editors, can you explain the evidence compiled about how you respond to other editors? That would be helpful to read. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - @Cambial Yellowing I'm looking at your behaviour right now, Grorp isn't the only person who raised concerns over the way you interact with other editors.

Wikipedia is all about collaboration and working together, except multiple people have been unable to work with you to the point that they feel driven away from an entire topic area.

This has been happening over a long time and, being frank, it can't be allowed to continue.

Taking a comment from the thread that I'm currently reviewing, this is not how I would expect to be treated by another editor.

You were condescending and confrontational during the entire exchange, strongly inferring that the other editor lacked the ability to understand what was going on and you constantly talked down to them.

This is a continued pattern throughout your edit history.

On a collaborative project like Wikipedia, we should invite and welcome input from other editors. Even if we don't agree the merits of their argument, we should still respect the person making said argument.

I really want to advocate a topic ban rather than anything more severe, but I'm not sure I can do this unless you directly address the concerns raised above

Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello all, Thank you @User:Grorp for starting this discussion and mentioning me here. After my (few) exchanges with User:Cambial Yellowing, I stopped enjoying editing Wikipedia, and suddenly felt burdened logging in to find talk page bells with notifications. I mean no offense when I say this, but I would dread opening notifications if they were from Cambial and contemplate about ignoring them to retain my peace. Thankfully, I quit editing Scientology and this sad spell did not last long.

Scientology is a topic that I recently became interested in after listening to former Scientologists and their quitting journeys on Youtube. Naturally, as anyone using the internet would, I came to Wikipedia to find out more about this cult-like-religion.

I admit, I am not an experienced editor compared to some of the editors commenting here, but words like "nonsense" and "ridicule" right in the lead of an article that is supposed to briefly describe a subject seemed to fly in the face of WP:NPOV. This is a non-negotiable requirement for an article, even if the subject of the article has the reputation of being a destructive cult/religion. From the beginning, if someone wants to verify, this is all I had tried to correct.

Cambial Yellowing has also warned me in my talk page for using "misleading edit summaries"

Let me present the changes here:

“his ideas were rejected and ridiculed by the scientific community”

I had replaced "rejected and ridiculed" with "broadly rejected". In my mind, this seemed to accurately and neutrally represent scientific consensus on rejecting Dianetics as anything approaching science, rather than a word like "hahahah" ridicule. And my edit summary was "Readability improved from sloppy sentences”. Please feel free to compare how that sentence read before and after I changed it. This is an edit, I assumed, Cambial would appreciate, as I believed I was helping the lead have some fluidity when readers attempted to read it.

As for Cambial Yellowing complaining that their comments being misrepresented, they have proceeded to the same to me. I do not understand how I put "a whole topic" in their mouth.

Cambial, in this discussion spoke as though the other editors and I were unwilling to call Dianetics what it is, pseudoscientific. The disagreement there was not about Dianetics being pseudoscientific. But rather, whether or not, the claim 'dianetics is pseudocscience' should be attributed to "experts in the field" or say so plainly with no descriptor to add strength to the non-neutral-sounding claim. I had opined that adding "expert opinion" or something in those lines would conspicuously draw attention to the fact that "Dianetics is pseudoscientific".

Cambial Yellowing: My response to Kvinnen was intemperate. Kvinnen accused me of "continuously misunderstanding the intention" of a proposal. I was merely pointing out the discrepancy between what User:Grorp tried to convey (they can confirm if I had understood their intention correctly) and what Cambial Yellowing had continued on to comment over there. I assumed good faith on Cambial's part, but considering the evidence above and how they communicate in general, it seems as though derailment of conversations and intentionally misconstruing others' words seem to be their MO.

I am shocked to see the horrible disfiguring of Doug's signature. I had recently come across their health-wise struggle somewhere and was moved to tears out of sympathy for them as I have lost my grandma to similar circumstances. Aren't they supposed to be experienced enough to know better than to desecrate someone's signature? This is the type of vandalism I revert on a daily basis. Disappointed to see this done to an editor I deeply respect by an editor who is supposedly civil and accusing others of incivility. Kvinnen (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

OK they're from 2022, but these two edits by CY, already linked above 1 and 2, need a lot of explaining away. Narky Blert (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment. As someone utterly uninvolved who has been lurking in this thread since the topic started, it is actually remarkable, in a definitional sense of the word, that Cambial has contributed so many comments in this thread and kept the discussion going for this long, but has not actually answered for any of the points above except to point accusations at other WP:Scientology contributors such as Grorp, continuing to revert other user's edits in bad faith while under scrutiny for doing so, and derail the discussion further. Almost as if that's the exact problematic behavior that prompted this thread in the first place... ✝ barbieapologist (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

After reading Gitz's post above, I wanted to add some about Cambial's edits indicating POVPUSH and ADVOCACY in the scientology topic—which elaborates on Gitz's remarks, and shows the deeper scope of this aspect of Cambial's editing in this topic. (I apologize in advance to readers for the length.)

• In discussions, Cambial has repeatedly expressed vitriolic hostility and deep‑seated loathing for Scientology-founder L. Ron Hubbard, such as a mentally ill huckster and pathological liar (diff), and the incoherent ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic [...] we pay no attention to a dead crackpot's desires (diff).
• The WP:Who Wrote That? tool provides insight into Cambial's contributions to the current version of the Scientology article, including all of the lead. Their content contributions are primarily derogatory examples. The article is excessively weighted toward negative content.
• Over the last few years, I have watched Cambial edit the Scientology article by incrementally "bubbling up" derogatory material from lower in the article and into the lead until it has become so bloated with disparaging material that it no longer provides readers a simple explanation of Scientology (as it did in the pre-Cambial 2019 version, as pointed out by Gitz above). There have been numerous discussions about this, and in February 2025, an editor tried to move out some of the bloat from the lead. In my observations, a general pattern is that when another editor makes an edit, Cambial's response has been to either revert it or move derogatory material above the new content, pushing the new content further down the page. Numerous discussions about bloat or NPOV in the lead and article body have not resulted in any [lasting] change.
• In this 2020 edit, Cambial added 8 "[sic]" after "the church" in various quotations in the content, inferring their objection to calling it a "church". Then in this 2024 edit, Cambial edited Scientology by changing dozens of text occurrences from "the church" to "the organization", from "Church of Scientology" to "the Scientology organization", from "church members" to "members" or "scientologists", and from "converts" to "recruits". Today, the article sports 46 occurrences of "Scientology organization". Prior to this mega-edit there were 19 occurrences, most added by Cambial in prior edits (per WP:Who Wrote That? tool).
• Cambial unilaterally turned several scientology-topic standalone articles into redirects that pointed to general top-level scientology-topic articles which at the time didn't contain any content about the topic, and Cambial didn't merge or create any. Examples: Scientology Justice, Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine, Rundown (Scientology), Bridge Publications. I have since added content to several, adjusted redirects to sections, and even resurrected and expanded whole articles about the topic, such as with Scientology ethics and justice.
• Cambial often adds citation-overkill such as this 2020 edit to Scientology which exists to this day despite several editors attempting to trim it (always reverted) and several discussions. The Auditing (Scientology) article received a similar treatment when edits & discussions to correct some content language and non-verifying sources was met with Cambial dogmatically increasing citations to a 6-source refbomb; discussions went nowhere, and it still stands today. Church of Scientology has the same refbomb issue. Numerous archived discussions on Talk:Scientology show that discussions challenging non-verifying or weak-verifying sources which were added by Cambial never resolve.

While not comprehensive, I have provided the above summary to support other editors' remarks indicating POVPUSH/ADVOCACY-type actions, and to ensure these editing patterns are documented for posterity.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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

I decided to bring this to ANI because of the multiple simultaneous issues going on:

AI generated content

As pointed out by Pi.1415926535 and pointed out by LuniZunie and pointed out by OrdinaryScarlett, the editor has been adding large batches of text with hallucinated citations. They have also been using AI-generated edit summaries that appear to be copy-pasted from ChatGPT or a similar LLM. Examples include: up-to-date info being replaced with older info or being removed entirely, a citation linking to a 404 page, incorrectly formatted capital letters in headers, false dates given in the "access-date" of references, removing citations entirely, as well as the clear use of AI in edit summaries.

User has also clearly generated multiple articles from scratch using LLMs, as shown here:

• New York–New Jersey Metropolitan Rapid Transit Commission
• Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
• Metropolitan Regional Council
• New York-New Jersey Transportation Agency
• United States Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey

All of these articles (and two additional drafts) are over 9,000 bytes upon initial creation, a feat unlikely for an account with less than 100 edits before today.

Conflict of Interest and attempted socking

User appears to have a conflict of interest with the City Club of New York (disclosure given by the user here). On the article's talk page, Kew Gardens 613 pointed out that the alt account Youalmosthadit had added an op-ed authored by this user from the City Club's website. The main account referenced the City Club on the article for George Dow. This user's response to the allegations of COI, as well as the request for more information to be added to the article also appears to be AI-generated. The account Youalmosthadit is also in violation of WP:PUBLICSOCK, as there is no disclosure on the alt and the name is not recognizable as an alt of the main user.

Now that their LLM edits have been removed by multiple users, this user is also repeatedly attempting to hide their connection to the City Club of New York as well as hide their alt account after both had already been disclosed publicly by the user. I am requesting that this user and the (stale) alt be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Cards84664 07:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Procedural Objection — Off-Wiki Outing and Harassment

I cannot participate in a good-faith discussion with this editor because they are currently engaging in severe off-wiki harassment against me.

User Cards84664 has contacted my real-world employer via email to "out" my identity and attempt to disparage my professional reputation.. This is a direct violation of WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT.

Because the evidence of this violation contains my personal information, I cannot post it here. I have forwarded the email and proof to the Arbitration Committee and the Oversight Team via email. I request that this thread be paused or closed until ArbCom has reviewed the evidence of the Original Poster's off-wiki conduct. Thetransitguru (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this LLM? Also that is some serious allegations you’re throwing here… ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Without weighing in on any possible off-wiki activity, and whether or not it would be/was inappropriate, the issue raised remains valid. This diff is strong evidence not only of LLM use, but of an effort to avoid the detection of that use ("Key changes to avoid LLM detection:**"). Do you have an explanation for this? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You've tagged multiple articles for speedy deletion as unreviewed LLM, on the basis that they have nonsensical cites, but you haven't said which of the cites are nonsensical. I'm not saying that they aren't LLM-created, but some more info is necessary to support a speedy delete, since the articles aren't, on a quick read, obviously LLM cruft. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit is particularly damning: Not only is it direct proof that Thetransitguru is using LLMs to write articles, it indicates they were deliberately attempting to hide that usage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very clear. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Support indef based on this diff and the other blatantly obvious LLM use. Indefinite is not infinite, of course, but this editor cannot be allowed to continue editing when they're engaging in blatant deception and misconduct. Their extreme, evidence-free allegation against Cards84664 is not a shield to protect them against their own misconduct. Not to mention you cannot cry "outing" when you've self-disclosed your real life name and job on your userpage and it was publicly viewable until yesterday. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Partially striking my comment in the light of Arbcom taking action against Cards. I was mistaken in what I said previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I've actually already p-blocked Thetransitguru from article space indefinitely, so an indef full block might not be needed. And it looks like Arbcom wanted to have a word or two with Cards, so I don't think referring to the accusation as "evidence-free" is accurate. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

In my defense, there was no indication within this thread that Thetransitguru had been blocked until your reply just now. I'd prevously read this discussion on mobile, which I don't edit from, so the tool that shows if editors are blocked wasn't active for me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

And I should have mentioned it earlier here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I've pblocked Youalmosthadit to match Thetransitguru's pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Support this block, Special:Diff/1319184372 is egregious, highly disruptive editing pattern. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

A couple of updates, not on behalf of the Committee (but rather as an individual admin), but just to update this thread:

• Cards84664 has been blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
• Following a request to the oversight queue, Thetransitguru's userpage has been deleted per WP:CSD#U1. As I made very clear in my message here, this deletion does not absolve the editor of meeting their disclosure obligations under PAID moving forward, which they should do as soon as possible.

I'd encourage the community to give Thetransitguru a day or two to sort out these disclosures before taking any further action — but to be clear, nothing relating to the Cards84664 issue should be seen as precluding the community from taking whatever on-wiki action it deems necessary to resolve potential breaches of our editing policies (LLM, PAID, COI etc.) by Thetransitguru. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged this thread with a Do Not Archive Until tag for 7 days to let this get sorted out. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I updated my User Page with the {{User COI}} template to fully disclose my affiliation with City Club of New York.

Clarification on WP:PAID status: I'm not paid for this position. Therefore, I strictly fall under WP:COI rather than WP:PAID. To be clear, and to ensure full transparency per the administrators' requests, my User Page now prominently displays my affiliation using the Conflict of Interest template. I will also include disclosure of my other account, Youalmosthadit. Thetransitguru (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

JASON174646 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Perhaps I should have waited a bit longer for a proper response from the user in question before filing this report; however their methods of communication leads me to believe I won't get anywhere. So, unless I am mistaken, this user had their user page deleted by an admin and then subsequently warned to not put the offending content on it, before seemingly beginning to restore that content again a few days after that original deletion (it seems the present version was the version that was deleted, based solely on the tags). Then there's the apparent edit warring in a content dispute, which I do at least recognize has ceased, but their threats during it seemed uncivil. (The above already closed content dispute is how I found this user in the first place,) then there's the possible undisclosed COI based on a created article (presently deleted) and the existence of a non-water marked picture they uploaded, and finally the reason I am writing this report, what looks like an admission of buying an account from someone, giving them carte blanche for matters in regards to it (as they see it). Unless I am mistaken, an action against the Terms of Service of Wikipedia. While I realize that only one of these things can really be actioned (the user page recreation), I'm mainly filing this in case there's any investigation that can be done otherwise. With the tools available to me, I wasn't able to figure out anything else substantive. The only thing I could think of that would give any insight to this case is a CU, as it would allow one to see, in my uneducated opinion, if the creator of the account differed in location to the present user of the account. — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 03:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

User notified. — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 03:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

(shakes his head at the premise of anyone buying a Wikipedia account) With that, though, differing IP addresses mean nothing. Since I joined Wikipedia, I've lived in six different cities, and I just recently changed ISPs ... never mind editing from work or from hotels. Ravenswing 14:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

After a cursory look I'm seeing a huge lack of basic competence, so blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: You might want to change your block template. It says they're indefinitely blocked, but then it says "once your block expires..." Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Ack, forgot to fix that. I'll get on that now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. It still uses the wrong icon, but that doesn't matter as much. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello editors,

This is a follow-up request focused specifically on WP:BLP and WP:V compliance in the “Subsequent events” and “Investigation” sections of the article. A number of citations currently used to support serious allegations are now non-functional, lead to defunct news sites, or no longer provide the material they are said to verify.

--TonyAnthonyWiki TonyAnthonyWiki (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

TonyAnthonyWiki, this board is not the appropriate location to request for editors to look at a specific article (and you have not even identified which article you have in mind). I would suggest taking this up either at the relevant article's talk page, or perhaps at WP:BLPN, while noting that generally editors do not respond to such broad requests for inquiry (even when highlighting a specific article). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Having now done some sleuthing and found Tony Anthony (evangelist), please follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests and WP:EDITXY, and post your request at Talk:Tony Anthony (evangelist).

v _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Can something be done about TonyAnthonyWiki please? Over the last 40 miniutes they have started sections at Talk:Tony Anthony (evangelist)#Subject: Tony Anthony (evangelist) - Multiple BLP Violations Requiring Administrative_Review, Talk:Tony Anthony (evangelist)#Request removal of unsupported statements due to dead or non-verifying sources (BLP) and Talk:Tony Anthony (evangelist)#Request removal of private family details and unsupported claims (BLP / BLPNAME) essentially covering the exact same part of the article, two of them ignoring that at least one of the points they keep making was already fixed by me. This constant spamming of the talk page is making it more difficult for everyone. FDW777 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I have HATted the side scrolling edit request, but leaving the report here per @FDW777's note if it's more than a content issue Star Mississippi 17:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Was this request generated by AI? Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 19:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

A new editor (@Koduka55:) joins Wikipedia & attempts to revert Boland's closure? Something isn't right. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks like an obvioous sock. Perhaps a checkuser would sort this out. Toddst1 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Now at SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems they have decided to counter that with an SPI of their own. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, if Beland had actually been able to juggle seven distinct identities for two decades and more than three million edits, while maintaining multiple independent admin sockpuppets, I'd be extremely impressed and in awe of that level of ability and stamina. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Auj Zafar Abdi (created 5 October) has been repeatedly adding unsourced, AI-generated hagiography at Zaidpur and Mir Mukhlis Hussain. No response to multiple warnings at their user talk, so it's unclear whether the problem is WP:CIR or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Lately they've been tag-teaming with the SPA special:Contributions/Auj Abbas 11111111 (created 26 October), whose username suggests sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Wikishovel (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a CIR issue to me. I suggest the user be blocked and I'm willing to do it. Deb (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Deb If you can, take action to the sock account too, or at least drop a notice. It has started disruptive editing and recreated that same article again. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 09:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The sock has just created Husainiya Mir Mukhlis Hussain. General Ization ^Talk 09:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The lack of precise biographical data on Meer Mukhlis Husain highlights the need for further research into Awadh’s lesser-documented figures, whose contributions shaped the region’s cultural landscape

When ChatGeminiGrokPilot slop like that gets dumped onto Wikipedia, indicating that the bot has no clue what to write, it can be helpful to read it in the voice of Scooby Doo: "Righlights reed ror ruther research, Raggy." Wikishovel (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I've opened WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Auj Zafar Abdi, as User:Auj Abbas 11111111 is now overwriting R2'd redirects with the same content at Mir Mukhlis Hussain and Husainiya Mir Mukhlis Hussain. Wikishovel (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Auj Abbas 11111111 indeffed as an obvious sock. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I feel like I'm going crazy, but for the life of me I can not find a way to modify an existing edit notice for a page. Specifically, the page Matt Petgrave has the generic BLP edit notice, but I want to add {{BLPCRIME editnotice}} instead, and I can find no link on either the main page or the edit pane to actually modify the editnotice. The page WP:Editnotice doesn't seem to help at all, it insists that I should have an edit link in the top right of the editing pane, but I only have a bluelink to Template:BLP editnotice, with no way to replace the existing edit notice. Is this something weird with my personal settings or is there a technical problem here? RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

This probably would have been better off at AN or VPT, but since we're here - I tried removing the BLP tick on the talk page, but that didn't make the editnotice link change. Note that using Matt as an example, the disambig editnotice does the same thing, so it appears this is a bug when a "default editnotice" is applied to pages via templates. This should give you the link you need to form the editnotice you want to, though. Note I'm not sure if that will add or replace the BLP editnotice (meaning you may or may not need to include it). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

That article is in Category:Living people, and Template:BLP editnotice/doc tells us This editnotice is shown automatically (via Module:Mainspace editnotice) when editing a page categorized as either Category:Living people or Category:Possibly living people. {{Disambig editnotice}} is another of the automatically placed notices listed at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main. NebY (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that that apparently locks out editors from adding "custom" editnotices on those pages, without having to work around it from another page by entering the URL for the editnotice manually. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

FWIW I was going to post to WP:AN but the edit notice there seems to indicate that "help requests" should go here. I can post on WP:VPT if that's a better venue; I thought for sure it was just something dumb I was overlooking or something weird in my settings so I'm somewhat relieved it does seem to be an actual edge case technical issue. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 19:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I have started the Village Pump discussion here if you are interested to follow. Thanks for your help. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 19:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Perryminkle has persistently added unreferenced content to Steven Page, despite being reverted by two different editors and receiving several warnings on their talk page. In addition, their edit summaries have been borderline abusive, as has a message they left on my talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 31 hours, to get their attention and give them time to read through the policies they have been ignoring. Mfield (Oi!) 02:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Hello everyone, apparently I have come across an editor (u;Gotitbro) who has been promoting or advocating for pro-Indian nationalism on Portuguese citizens of Goan origin.

One article in question is Bhau Daji, this person is a Goan and a portuguese citizen as far as Portuguese nationality law is concerned. This editor has used a source (i.e Britannica) which seems great but was written by an incompetent person. It notes that the place Bhau Daji was born was in British India during the time, which makes him a British subject.

The case of Goa and Portuguese India has always been special and is special. If anyone is not aware unlike Non-Goans who were ruled by the British or French, the Portuguese gave citizenship to Goans who were born on their soil. Note this is not merely WP:OR, it is a fact as the same can be claimed to American nationality law denoting someone who is born on their soil an “American”.

The source used in question is factually incorrect (see this [20]), we know that Pernem taluka where Mandrem is located was already under Portuguese around 1783 [21], the subject being born in early 1800s is impossible to denote him as a British subject. Which makes the editor in question completely incompetent about such nationality issues.

Goa has had enough of forceful nationalism imposition and this needs a wake up call on Wikipedia from editors such as this one involved. A couple of years ago, many of the early Goan articles had their birthplace as born in India and not Portuguese India, which is factually incorrect.

I want someone with a good knowledge of nationality policies on Wikipedia to help me with OUR PROBLEM, preferably not an Indian editor due to obvious COI. I don’t know where else to take this to, but hoping I can get some answers. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 11:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

this original request was posted at Helpdesk, see here WP:HD#Pro-Indian nationalism imposition. Apparently nothing could be solved there, hence I had to move this discussion here. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

From the top of this page, [t]his page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Do you have any diffs showing any of that? TarnishedPath^talk 06:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath I was asked to move my issues regarding Goan articles here which was originally posted at WP:HD. You can see the above attached discussion. Yes, there appears to have been behavioral problems with this particular editor, I have attached few above, you can see [22], where they claim I have WP:OR but was merely stating the fact of Portuguese nationality law, the same which applies to people born on American soil as denoting them as Americans by birth as per American nationality law. You can further see this user continuously changing nationality to Indian, see [23] where they have applied cats denoting him as Indian when intact he has been Portuguese all his life. Here another case [24], the subject of this article is Portuguese citizen by birth but has been shown as “Indian” which is factually incorrect and completely goes against WP:NPOV Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

All of these articles where you rehauled the articles to add "Portuguese" are cases of blatant OR (based on your own synthesis/interpretation of nationality law) supported by no sources and which go directly against sources present in those articles. All of the articles before you disrupted them with OR by removing cats and descriptives (in your nationality) were supported by sources. It is telling that you have refused to reply or acknowledge any of my comments at various fora regarding the P&G concerns raised, including as basic an understanding of OR. Laying it quite well that you are not interested in dispute resolution and why you should not be editing in this space. Gotitbro (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I want someone with a good knowledge of nationality policies on Wikipedia to help me with OUR PROBLEM, preferably not an Indian editor due to obvious COI.

Simply unbelievable that the user would repost this here despite being warned at the Help Desk by different editors against boomerang, aspersions, and personal attacks (based on ethnicity/nationality), calling me an invader no less there:

How would you feel if someone from your soil is being forced upon a nationality from invaders?

When Gråbergs Gråa Sång tried to inform/warn "And have you WP:COMMUNICATEd with the editor you're disagreeing with? Edit summaries don't count. ... Then you know about WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:AGF etc. You'll do as you'll do.", the response of this user was:

trust me on this one, this isn’t my first rodeo in dealing with such nationalists. Even if I did communicate with him it would be a complete waste of time and I am sure it would get sour.

Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) told the user no less than two times in uncertain terms "That's not how this works. Anyone behaving neutrally and in good faith may comment or act, we do not need to know, nor do we care, about their nationality, ethnicity, or place of origin. ... Again: we do not, ever, prohibit people from editing articles or engaging in discussions solely because of their nationality, ethnicity, or country of origin", but here we are.

The user of course in light of the unresponsiveness and PAs has not heeded any of my warnings, including:

First you assume the "nationality, ethnicity, or place of origin" of an editor and then continue your personal attacks on that basis. You have nothing to say about your P&G violations of course and are still unresponsive to any of those concerns raised.

To detail my response (from the help desk discussion [bolding the major parts]):

I have started no less than three discussions across Talk pages for the user above to respond as to why they have added blatant OR and SYNTH across a number of bios against what sources say including the article linked here. No response whatsoever has come so forth beyond a revert of my message on their User Talk page. See further User talk:Gotitbro#CT_SA_and_Goa-related_pages, by a much more responsible editor inquiring about this. There is a serious lack of understanding of how OR/SYNTH works on the part of this user as can be seen from the above comment. They have disruptively added "Portuguese" from their own interpretation of how nationality law applied in colonial times in India to numerous bios against how sources actually describe the subjects in question, take again the case of Dharmananda Damodar Kosambi where not a single RS refers to the subject as Portuguese but the article had been disrupted as such. I have notified the editor that the articles and topics they edit fall under WP:CT/SA and WP:AE sanctions and OR should especially be nowhere near them. "Which makes the editor in question completely incompetent about such nationality issues.... I want someone with a good knowledge of nationality policies on Wikipedia to help me with OUR PROBLEM, preferably not an Indian editor." This blatant personal attack should be struck outright. The comment above also betrays a stunning lack of understanding of the dispute resolution processes which is shown by the fact that this was brought here in the first place, claiming ethno-national exclusivity for editing against basic Wikipedia pillars. I am frankly surprised that an editor who has raked up 40,000 edits cannot distinguish OR and SYNTH or engage in any discussion whatsoever. If anything CT/SA sanctions need to be imposed here if this conduct of OR and SYNTH and non-responsiveness continues. For someone with a large cache of edits, one would expect them to be familiar with basic enwiki policies and guidelines and processes but of course that is nowhere here to be seen.

To summarize we have here PA, failure to understand basic policies such as OR/SYNTH, communication problems and a failure to acknowledge contentious topics. It is time we apply sanctions in the form of a block or a topic ban here (WP:CT/SA, especially see the social groups part) space for this user (the user being quite aware of this already, [25]). Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

As noted above, I advised OP (whose first sig here is copied from there, with the original date) on the Help Desk that requests like "preferably not an Indian editor" are unacceptable.

I also left a contentious topics notice on their talk page.

That they have now repeated that request here is worthy of a boomerang admin response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Quite aside from that Rejoy2003 shot themselves in the foot in claiming that the Britannica was "written by an incompetent person," if their stance is that Indians are incapable of writing neutrally about Goa because of pro-India bias, it stands to reason that Goans can't write neutrally about Goa because of pro-Goan bias. Right? Never mind that this isn't the first time Rejoy2003 has sought to ban editors who disagree with him: this [26] is a particularly egregious thread, where Rejoy2003 claims that another editor's (perfectly reasonable) edits are driving him to self-harm, flings aspersions right and left, and demanded that his foe be p-blocked from any article Rejoy created. They do seem to be building a track record of being unable to collaborate with other editors, and their several forays at ANI this year have also come with forum shopping. Ravenswing 13:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Andy, I don’t understand one thing, why label these Goan’ articles as contentious? Like I said before they come well under WP:POR, Goa had nothing to do with India other than their geographical location being in the Indian subcontinent. And this discussion is just deviating from the actual issue of nationality. I don’t want to comment much of where this discussion is heading to, but I can say for sure that my statements have been taken out of context, exaggerated to make me the bad person. I am genuinely seeking out a help/protection on our fellow early Goans articles which have been simply misinterpreted with dubious information by nationalists editors/Indian media or what not. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 14:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Goa, as a part of India, falls clearly within WP:CT/SA. Since CT/SA is broadly construed, an article about a person born in Goa would fall within CT/SA. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 15:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The restriction, as the message I left on your talk page says (emboldening in original) relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.

If you think this does not include Goa, or Goan nationality, you can take the matter up with WP:ARBCOM.

Any admin is able to censure me if there is consensus that I took your "preferably not an Indian editor" comment out of context. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

It's interesting that you keep referring to a "nationalist Indian" point of view. You are aware, yes, that Goa is an integral part of India, has been for over sixty years, and has been a state of India for nearly forty? Should we be concerned about your apparent Goan separatist point of view? You may not like that India forcibly annexed Goa -- as it did, after all, to a number of polities -- but it remains both the de facto and de jure fact on the ground. Ravenswing 16:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)