Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • Clear-cut cases of simple vandalism and spamming should be reported to AIV
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
  • Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Concern regarding Iruka13

Iruka13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Iruka13 had been nominating still in use fair use images and unused freely licensed files (to the point that they are eligible to be educationally useful on Commons) for deletion. Some people, especially @Gommeh (who uploaded a fair use image indicating the Melusines of Fontaine (Genshin Impact)) might find the tagger not understanding WP:BOLD. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I also find that Iruka guy blocked on three other wikis for wikilawyering, contributing in bad faith, and other tangential nonsense and sockpuppetry on RUWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, I have concerns regarding their understanding of WP:BOLD here let alone copyright and fair use. Additionally I doubt that they look at the files in-depth 100% of the time, as evidenced by the fact that they did not seem to realize that File:Dnepropetrovsk 0276s.JPG had been on Wikipedia since 2007 when they put a {{di-no source}} on it with no explanatory message. In regard to the file that I uploaded which they tagged (File:Genshin Impact Melusines.png), they tagged it as PROD instead of fixing the NFUR they saw as problematic, and didn't explain their reasoning as to why they thought it was. Gommeh 📖   🎮 02:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Toddy1 and @83d40m for clarification of nominations against their uploads. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding that last file, the PROD did have an explanation (Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding), and this isn't a problem that could be fixed by editing the NFUR, as it is inherent to the file itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed - the problem I have with their Criterion 8 argument is, they clearly did not actually read the article the file was used in (or if they did, they misunderstood it), as (quoting myself from the file's talk page discussion): Melusines are depicted in the image, and the image is used in the article alongside a passage describing them and their significance in the game's lore from an out-of-game perspective. If they aren't satisfied with what was said about the Melusines in the article, they could have easily raised a discussion on Talk:Fontaine (Genshin Impact) about it or edited the article themselves. I don't blame them for not responding to the discussion on File talk:Genshin Impact Melusines.png, as I just took another look at it and realized I forgot to ping them. But however, the same can't be said for my comment on their talk page. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I have the same concerns. They seem to be indiscriminately tagging/nomming for deletion for things that either could be easily fixed, or are not relevant. They are banned from commons for harassment and wikilawyering, and I wonder if their coming here is a form of ban evasion. They seem unwilling to communicate using anything other than Twinkle templates. I don't know at what point that become disruptive, but It looks to me that they are not here to build an encyclopedia.–DMartin (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd consider filing a Global Ban RFC on Meta since Iruka was blocked on three wikis. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I suppose a good reason why they might not be communicating is because they say on their userpage that their English is only at an intermediate level, but that doesn't excuse their behavior. They can always use Google. Gommeh 📖   🎮 14:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if their coming here is a form of ban evasion.

Just one comment on this as I haven't looked into their recent tagging. Blocks apply only to the specific project unless there's a larger ban in place. While I don't know whether Commons uses the Standard Offer, that's something we frequently encourage on en wiki. @Iruka13 is in no way ban evading. Star Mississippi 23:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Disclosing that I have blocked @Iruka13 in the past, User_talk:Iruka13/Archives/2024#December_2024_2 for context. Communication was an issue then too. Don't think I'm Involved, but don't plan on digging into this regardless. Star Mississippi 00:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy, can you link a few specific examples of obviously disruptive nominations? tony 14:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Here you go. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

A CC-BY 2.5 photo that was self-uploaded by a firefighter is being tagged for PROD. I strongly objected, and since the uploader is inactive, this is eligible for move to Commons. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• Iruka13 templated File:Dnepropetrovsk 0276s.JPG {{di-no source|date=2 January 2026|help=off}}.^{2 January 2026} They also posted a template message on my talk page telling me that the problem may apply to other files I had uploaded.^{2 January 2026} I had uploaded that photograph in March 2007. At the time of uploading I complied with the rules and standards in force at that time. The big problem I had with Iruka13's behaviour was that the message did not explain what I had to do to comply with whatever the new demand was. I spent about 20 minutes trying different links to see if they explained how to go about complying, and then gave up in frustration, and instead reverted Iruka13's template leaving an edit summary please do not place messages on files that have been on Wikipedia since 2007, without providing any clue as to how to comply with your demand.^[1] I also left a message on Iruka13's talk page.^[2] Iruka13 responded by reverting me on the file page^[3] and templating my talk page.^[4] Since the guidance all appeared to be useless at helping me understand what Iruka13 wanted, I looked at other file pages, and noticed that they had a file information table. So I copied one of those, and pasted it into 14 file pages, with appropriate details for each photograph. It would have been so much easier and less stressful if Iruka13 had posted a message on my talk page telling me that these files now needed to have a file information table, and showing me an example of a file information table.

Since then Iruka13 has happily changed some standard templates on some of these 14 files, for example replacing {{Do not move to Commons|reason=There is no [[freedom of panorama]] for copyrighted architectural and artistic artworks in Ukraine.}} with |permission={{FOP-USonly|Ukraine}}. Presumably he/she thinks this is useful.

The basic problem with Iruka13 is that he/she wants to be a traffic warden for Wikipedia files. If he/she modified their behaviour by telling people how to fix problems (e.g. please add a file information table), he/she might even be useful. I do not know whether he/she has the English-language skills needed to do this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Given their limited English skills, I'm not quite sure how we'd best communicate this to them though. Gommeh 📖   🎮 14:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I had an almost identical interaction with them.–DMartin (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I too have the same concerns as editors above, and have had problematic encounters in the past with Iruka13 [5]; I now try to completely avoid them if possible. If the editor's goal is to be helpful, it's difficult to see that since they seem to be trying to delete as many images as possible rather than helping build an encyclopedia. They have been banned from Commons for their behavior (and I share DMartin's observation that they might be here to avoid scrutiny). They are indefinitely blocked on Russian WP for circumventing blocks, and indeffed on Ukrainian WP for harassment and unconstructive behaviors. And previously blocked on en-WP for disruptive behavior. Netherzone (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Iruka13 has templated my File:Chinese speaking clock.ogg (obviously, with Twinkle) with {{di-dw no license|date=9 January 2026|help=off}} here. They are trying to be helpful to some extent, but the repetitive manner of them constantly using Twinkle templates will surely not be so good with newer editors who are unsure of what to do exactly, especially under the pressure that 'your file will be deleted shortly after x date'. Of course, this was my fault for placing it in the wrong licence (corrected to PD:INELIGIBLE under threshold of originality later). I'm concerned that doing such actions (repeatedly putting deletion templates up automatically with Twinkle, avoiding too much 'jargon') might break WP:ETN for some people. Trains2021 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I just added sources to several logos they had tagged. They posted on my page asking me to add the sources to the articles, not the images. I'll grant, they're taking copyright/licensing seriously, but this is going a bit far and into Actually Incorrect territory. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Struck the above because they were asking me to link on the file page to the page where the file was taken from, not just the file itself. And this is specifically covered in the {{Information}} documentation as correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, that is an interesting question. Iruka just tagged two cover images of "All I Want for Christmas Is You" as non-free, because they were being used in an article to identify notable covers of the original song. Has this been definitively discussed somewhere? WP:NFCI seems to imply they're correct, but I'm not sure. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Iruka would not just listen to the demands. He hasn't replied to this section yet. I am losing my cool. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

He is not required to if he doesn't want to. Gommeh 📖   🎮 19:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Iruka13: You expressed an interest in discussing this at ANI. Please use this thread.–DMartin (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Falsely warned me three times. I would have proposed a TBAN on using Twinkle. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  I am not sure if using Twinkle as a whole would be overkill or not. If we as a community decide to issue sanctions, they should be limited to images. No reason to stop them from using Twinkle for other things (e.g. to revert vandalism) if they so choose. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Noting here that a global ban for Iruka13 has been filed at m:Requests for comment/Global Ban for Iruka13. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  They did the same to me. Twinkle ban seem appropriate.–DMartin (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• A twinkle ban will not solve anything. The issue (appears to be) Communication and a lack thereof, not the vehicle for it. Are their taggings correct? Being right does not excuse the lack of communication by any means but allows us to see which issues are in play. Star Mississippi 21:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  My thoughts exactly. Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  If anything I think a Twinkle ban would force them to communicate more. If, instead of pressing a button, they had to stop and consider their actions they might be more inclined to explain them better. I was considering a Twinkle ban as a less extreme sanction than banning them from the File: namespace(not that I would disagree with that either).–DMartin (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

  I would support a temporary ban on the File namespace until they learn to explain their actions better. In my opinion (and I doubt I'm the only one who thinks this) using a translator to communicate here if one is needed because of poor English is acceptable in circumstances like these, and I'd want that to be communicated to Iruka, as I feel like their language skills may be part of what's holding them back. Gommeh 📖   🎮 17:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

  Just saw they are at least attempting to communicate better (good for them!); see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 January 11#File:Genshin Impact Melusines.png. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• I'm getting involved here, mainly because Iruka13 indirectly disrespected my self-implemented talk page guidelines, which is to WP:DTTR, but yet they went ahead. They also nominated a fair-use file for deletion for a seemingly invalid reason. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 16:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm getting really tired of this now. In my file Iruka13 stated that that they 'haven't worked with audio files enough to say how exactly this fragment isn't free' (here). Why put up a file for deletion if you don't understand why you want to get rid of it in the first place? They also seemed to have skipped passed the long section talking about threshold of originality in which they seem to have conveniently ignored. This is getting into the territory of WP:SQS. It's nice to see Iruka getting more active though but they need to learn to address the core issue, not to find ways around it! Example here where instead of addressing my point of threshold of originality (backed up by Commons policy), they split the copyright definition into 'text' and 'performance' aspects to try and prolong the argument. GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 02:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  This may also be a form of wikilawyering, which I and other editors encountered. For example Iruka13 argued that a free image could be created however it would involve traveling over 1000 miles, renting a car and hotel room in another town to track down an obscure artisan on a Native American reservation (it's unknown if the artisan is even still alive) and shoot a photo myself, instead of using an fair-use image of an object with no known copyright. File talk:Zuni wolf fetish with medicine bundle and heartline, carved by Stuart Lasiyoo.jpg. They also suggested that another editor, Left guide recreate the shattering of a glass-backed basketball hoop/backboard so they could smash the glass themself while photographing the event. File talk:Backboard shattering.jpeg. Among other unreasonable suggestions. I'd like to assume good faith however I'm not sure the communication problem is simply lack of English skills. It's unclear what their goal is. Netherzone (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  I AGFed until seeing your above example of the backboard shattering. You are right in saying the comms problem is not precisely 'lack of English skills' - it appears as though the user knows exactly what they're doing, and continuing to do so when they have been notified to stop many, many times. I, now, do not Wikipedia:Assume good faith with Iruka. GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 23:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. We are past the point of AGF with Iruka; he needs to be blocked from anything involving file maintenance or deletion. His behavior is actively disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  Agree with @Bgsu98 and others in this discussion. As a community member I also think Iruka13 should be blocked from dealing with image and media file maintenance and deletions. AFG and patience has been exhausted, and their actions have been a huge waste of community time. Netherzone (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  Same here. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  Even if their English isn’t great, that’s no excuse for their behaviour. There’s a Wikipedia in their native language, that they got themselves banned from. That’s unfortunate, but ultimately not enwiki’s problem. We don’t have to excuse disruptive behaviour here just because they got banned from a wiki they can communicate easily on. That’s why I supported a global ban. –DMartin (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. As much as I hate to say this, I think it's time for some sort of sanction on them. Clearly they need to learn they aren't doing things the way we expect here. A global ban, or a block here (I would be ok with either at this stage) is our only option. Especially based on others' responses, I would say our patience has worn very thin at this point. Gommeh 📖   🎮 02:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  I thinks this perfectly illustrates that they're NOTHERE, they're here to play copyright police.–DMartin (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  I am glad to see I am not the only person who is having issues with Iruka13. Their conduct is beyond disruptive. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  Copyright police who selectively chooses from the copyright policy arbitrarily! GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 10:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  I had the same thought that their behavior is disruptive and arbitrary. Frankly, I don't think Iruka13 should be editing in the area of image files, sound files, deletion proposals or participation at all. These are the exact same areas that led to his block/bans on two other wiki-projects and on Commons. I give them credit for tempering their previous uncivil tone, yet they are still engaging in the same disruptive behaviors (just not communicating as much and relying on Twinkle). Netherzone (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  Adding a diff here: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_13#File:Dan_Vacek,_Dennis_Schuller,_Anthony_Walsh,_Christopher_Seymore,_2024.jpg of an arbitrary deletion nom of a file that the uploader The Hammer of Thor had provided ticket numbers re: permissions. This could have easily been resolved by a short conversation rather than seeking deletion of the file. Truly a perplexing deletion nom.Netherzone (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  Uh... As I just found out, Iruka went to Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard to discuss that image (old id). George Ho (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  There is nothing wrong this nomination. Iruka13 went to VRT to ask about the permissions, someone confirmed to him that it has been lacking permission since March 2024, the nomination is absolutely reasonable and the file should be deleted if permission has not been provided in over a year. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Copyright is an important part of the encyclopaedia and dealing with copyright is not 'NOTHERE' behaviour. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  This comment appears to lack some context. Yes, Wikipedia/Commons needs to have active people to combat copyright issues, and this is true. However, the way in which they decide to conduct their activities relating to copyright issues is what truly decides whether they are NOTHERE. For example, one of my own personal experiences is when Iruka started to dodge my answers entirely on the aforementioned file here. At this point I had repeatedly left many messages both on the original file's talk and Iruka's own user talk detailing what I said. Alongside this, policies regarding copyright are very clear, and it seems like Iruka is selectively and arbitrarily choosing which ones to apply to what file. Editors like Netherzone mentioned that Iruka requested a person to travel thousands of miles to a foreign country to take their own photo, which is just ridiculous and inappropriate. I'm sure you can agree with me here. GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 20:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Being incorrect about copyright does not equate to being nothere nor is it necessarily a behavioural issue that needs administrator intervention. I have incorrectly nominated files believing they are copyrighted when they were not, and I learnt from it and now have a better understanding of copyright. As long as Iruka does not nominate similar files and has learnt from the experience there is no issue.

  >Editors like Netherzone mentioned that Iruka requested a person to travel thousands of miles to a foreign country to take their own photo, which is just ridiculous and inappropriate.

  Thats how NFCC#1 is regularly applied, it doesn't matter if it is difficult it just needs to be possible. Also Iruka did not request that, Iruka said: 'is it possible to create a completely free image within the next month that satisfies the requests you have made?', Netherzone then responded with 'To answer the "experimental question" - yes, it is possible, if you can pay for round-trip airfare, taxi fare to and from the airport, car rental and gas to drive the 320 miles round trip from the airport to the Zuni Indian reservation, hotel costs for a night or two, plus meals while I try to track down and get a tribal member to introduce me to a member of one of the legacy fetish carver families of the Zuni people to provide attribution to the object creator in the image credits. So sure, if there is a couple thousand bucks you can spare to throw in my direction (paid in advance of course) I'm happy to do that. That's a joke, I'm not seriously proposing that, but it is precisely what it would take, which does not, in any stretch of the imagination, seem feasible for a volunteer editor. So the short answer (not the "experimental" one), is no'. Iruka did not respond to this message and did not request Netherzone to do so.

  She does have some issues with her English literacy but I don't see them as being so bad that she needs to be blocked as most of her FFD nominations are fine. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is that Iruka has not learnt from it. They did not even bother responding to this ANI discussion until after they were blocked; and during the ANI thread they continued on their rampage of spurious claims and things on FfD. A behavioural issue has been identified and an administrator has in fact intervened to stop this repetitive behaviour. Iruka continued to discuss at FfD long after this ANI thread was created GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 23:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  I've looked through the recent FFDs and I see no problematic recent nominations, some will be closed against her but that is part and parcel for any XfD process. The administrative block was due to not responding to the ANI. The most concerning issue is the tagging of own work submissions as 'di-no permission' but from what I can see she has stopped doing it so the issue is resolved. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• The file File:Chinese speaking clock.ogg, which was mentioned above as no-licence tagged, was nominated for FFD by Iruka13 a couple of days after the licence dispute. The FFD was early closed by Gommeh and this closure was DRVed by Iruka13. Though noting the concerns raised here, I have considered that two wrongs don't make a right so vacated the closure under WP:REOPEN, with the FFD open again until the correct closure deadline. If however this discussion (here) resolves in a ban, another admin may consider that the outstanding discussion should be re-closed, and I don't object to that. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  So… Iruka has continued his vexatious behavior, but has not responded here to anything? Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that the behaviour has continued and there has not been a response here. I am not yet convinced the behvaiour is vexatious, but some of Iruka's edits are looking disruptive. They are also making many constructive edits. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  That file would not be copyrightable under applicable law as pointed out by others, so I thought (and considered it very obvious so I did not specify) that discussion should be closed per SNOW. Additionally I doubt that would be INVOLVED, as I believe I would have needed to have !voted in the discussion beforehand. Gommeh 📖   🎮 11:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  It's been a week since the opening of this thread. General consensus is that they are doing disruptive activities along with a multitude of policy-breaking. Although Iruka does not need to respond to the thread, I believe it says a lot about the person themselves, and their true intentions on this platform. GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 18:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  (Just to save the next person some time, pointing out that the file was moved on Commons to File:Chinese speaking clock female.oga.) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• I have blocked Iruka13 from File space due to their lack of response to this thread and requested that they address the concerns here. This seemed to be a sufficient measure, as all of the disruption identified here is either in File-space or directly relating to disputes involving it. No prejudice against further action, reversal or community consensus on this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Rosguill, does this block include participation in deletion discussions regarding Files? The reason for my question is they are continuing to argue (post block) about Files at DIFF:[6] -- Netherzone (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

  The block is a block, not a ban. If there is continued disruption and failure to respond here, perhaps further sanctions will be necessary, but they’re not a priori prohibited from commenting there even though it is obviously bad form to do so while ignoring this ANI thread. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Placeholder so that the topic was not archived; "addressing the concerns" will be in a few days. — Ирука¹³ 10:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Iruka13 has some issues with an editor tagging his/her posts at FFD with tags that give a different reason for their block than the reason given when he/she was blocked. This will delay their response here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Iruka13 blocked

I have INDEFfed Iruka13. I did not want it to come to this, and was even opposing above but their engaging underscores the issues raised in this thread by innumerable editors. Enough is enough. If folks disagree, this sub thread can be treated as a block review as well. Star Mississippi 20:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Understood. With regards to their outstanding FFD nominations, should the process continue as normal now that Iruka is blocked? I'm not really familiar with the process. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Gommeh, in general they can be speedy procedurally closed, with the exception that nominations that have drawn support (i.e. other editors !voting delete or at least not keep), which should be allowed to run to a regular conclusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you do that even if you're WP:INVOLVED? Like say if I !voted keep and so has everyone else? Gommeh 📖   🎮 21:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn’t be an issue given the clear procedural basis for ending discussion and unanimity of participants in good standing. That having been said, if you’re not comfortable it also won’t be the end of the world if the discussion runs its full length before normal closure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Got it. I think I've closed most of the bad-faith nominations that have had all "keep" !votes.

Regarding Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 January 20#File:Genshin Impact Melusines.png, if the article (Fontaine (Genshin Impact)) has 4 non-free images including that one, would that be in violation of NFCC 3a? Gommeh 📖   🎮 17:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill: If you want to close the FFD's yourself, then that should be OK. I'm not sure, though, it was wise for you to advise Gommeh to do so because they're involved. I won't revert them anymore, but I think it was a bad idea. FFD typically run seven days and there are several admins like Explicit and Whpq who regularly close them; so, the FFDs won't drag on forever. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it's pretty typical to see procedurally troubled nominations closed by involved individuals when the opposition is unanimous, as long as editors are courteous and accountable if anyone has questions or concerns afterward. Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_20#File:Genshin_Impact_Melusines.png, however, does have a delete !vote in good standing so it should definitely run to conclusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You do realize that Rosguill is also technically WP:INVOLVED in this as Iruka mentioned him under "particulars" right? If I can't close them I don't see why Rosguill should. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

That actually does not cause WP:INVOLVED, otherwise it would be very easy to bureaucratically avoid any and all disciplinary proceedings by just attacking everyone that responds to the situation. One only becomes involved if they are a participant in the content questions at hand, which I'm not. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, gotcha. In any case, I doubt the FFD-closing admins would have reacted any differently than I did, so I'll go ahead and re-close. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Gommeh, I wouldn't do that. I hadn't realized that Marchjuly had already reverted the closes, which I would read as a direct objection, which as I noted before, means it's time to be courteous and accountable if anyone has questions or concerns. I would let the discussions run to normal completion at this point if I were you. The only editor at this point with any business reinstating your close would be Marchjuly themselves. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really sure about that, as they did say they would not revert further (which I interpreted as them being OK with it), but my point still stands. Anyhow unclosed. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

For reference, my I won't revert them anymore comment meant I'm not going to edit war with you over this; it didn't mean I agree with your closing of the discussions, which to me seems contrary to WP:NACD. I've asked the admin (Voorts) who last relisted the discussions to take another look at them; the discussions will at most last another two days. Voorts or another admin, however, may decide to close them before then. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, that makes sense too. (And I completely forgot some parts of WP:NACD existed... I'll definitely give it a re-read.) Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with the procedural closes. The discussions are opened and should continue on their own merits. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I think this came from a misunderstanding on my part of what counts as WP:INVOLVED and what does not. That's on me. Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't with INVOVLED so much as I've never heard of there being a rule that we close XfD discussions just because an editor has been blocked for some of their conduct in deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Iruka13's "engaging with concerns"

glossary

Since it is uncivil to say "lie" in relation to another participant's words, I will say "not true."
If I wrote somewhere "he"/"she" it means "they".
FFD is "Files for discussion" ..wait, it is not "glossary", it's reality — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

3 problems

I see three main reasons why this topic has been raised and has gained some popularity:

• participants don't want to read
• participants are poorly informed about the topic they're participating in
• participants want other participants to do what they want

And, of course, I'm [forced to] prove all of this. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

tails

пришли без диффов админы ищите WP:REPEAT бот тоже плохой?

editors should strive to find free alternatives first. WP:5P3

It is the uploader's responsibility to follow the project rules when uploading information — whether text or media. And when I act as a uploader, I have to follow it too. Other participants are under no obligation to explain anything to anyone. No one really explained to me why exactly I was banned from Commons. Because all my unban-options were met with the answer that I "wasn't banned for that". And here in 2024, I got banned for "disruptive edition" although they pointed me in the direction to look, I spent three full days on it (plus dozens of hours reading the rules while working on related projects before). There's no need to shift your responsibility onto other participants. I'm a volunteer here, just like you.

"concerns"

• In essence ("Iruka nominates files that are okay")

ANI is a place for administrative sanctions. It's not for discussing content (Should conflicts arise, discuss them on the appropriate talk pages, WP:5P4). You must provide diffs here proving my violations. The violation must either be severe (urgent), in which case a few diffs will suffice, or mild (chronic), in which case multiple diffs will be required. Furthermore, they must be intractable. This means you must have brought the diffs of situations that arose after the FFD/CSD.
I see slightly more diffs here than participants. Diffs leading to "live" files make up half. Diffs after FFD/CSD: 0.
Oh yeah, the diffs should contain the real problem.

How to determine that the editor is nominating the "right" files: something is changing. File description page, the article where the file is located, file is deleted.
These are the exact diffs that should have been given here. Where nothing has changed. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• On interaction with other editors

I no [longer] reply to messages that violate WP:CIVIL – I have the right to do so.
I do not reply to messages whose main meaning is "I'm right, you're wrong": there's no point in this - the administrator will come and remove my tag. (два раза)
I won't reply to messages I previously responded to by posting on the user's talk page when submitting a file for deletion. Because I don't want to.
I do not reply to "arguments" that are irrelevant to the issue. Because that's just a waste of time; well, and often this is point 2. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

additionally

NPOV: 0 uninvolved editors support the idea of ​​"Iruka is wrong"
profPOV: 0 editors working with files support the idea "Iruka is wrong"
concernPOV: No one [of them] supported Iruka. // Ируки ответ: True. They did this in the previous two nominations. They're tired.) — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

particulars

I think I've answered most of the "concerns". I'll answer the rest with WP:BOOMERANG.

Ahri Boy

Ahri Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor know firsthand about being blocked for working in areas they have little understanding of. But they still continue to do so.

Like most of the participants here, they weren't aware that diffs are required on ANI. The only diff they did submit is currently only visible to administrators. So, this participant has no complaints against me. )

In general, it feels like some kind of umbrella nomination: “I came here to say that some participants are unhappy with another participant. Ping ххх and ууу, say it [for me].”

Yes, I had been nominating still in use fair use images and unused freely licensed files for deletion. No, I don't need to be bold to work in a field I'm good at.

No, I wasn't blocked on three other wikis for wikilawyering, contributing in bad faith, and other tangential nonsense. Yes, I was blocked for sockpuppetry on ruWP.

What's your point? — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot: our interaction began with this file. The participant couldn't or didn't want to format it according to WP:NFCC. Just like other files. Instead, they wanted another participant to do it for them. Or even the administrator.

What else? When changing a file's license from non-free to free, they simply delete the NFUR and change the license (or don't even delete NFUR). No file source, no description. This is unpleasant in itself, but it also matches Dmartin969's behavior exactly in such cases. ..I'm not hinting at anything! xD — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Not to mention the mass unjustified removal of CSD tags, after which the files had to be dragged to FFD, and their out-of-touch votes on FFDs. I won't provide links; I'm as lazy as the nominator. ..and some of them I can't even provide anymore. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

P. S. Is anyone here bold enough to push this file to Commons! )) — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Dmartin969

Since I answered to the core of the "concerns", the participant got their own topic here and I don't want to delay the answer [any further], I will not answer here. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Gommeh

A classic case of someone being wrong about something; they try to attribute this behavior to someone else. In this case, it's "reading". The participant didn't read what I wrote. They didn't read the rules I linked to. The participant accuses me of not reading the article... and something about 2007. Subsequently they simply express support for the other participants' statements.

In essence: I nominated a user's file for speedy deletion due to noncompliance with one of the WP:NFCC clauses. The user disagreed with my opinion on the file's discussion page. Another user removed my tag. I nominated the file for FFD. This is standard procedure, and an experienced editor like Gommeh could easily have learned this by reading the rules, asking a question on one of the relevant forums, or by asking a question on the page of any active editor working with files, including me. // Furthermore, the user voted "against" on several of my FFD nominations. Seeing significant support for my nominations, they withdrawed some of them, for which I express my respect (not for the fact itself, but for the ability to reconsider their opinion under the influence of new information). They also attempted to close one of my FFD nominations. However, even after they edits were reverted, judging by their comment, they still didn't read WP:INVOLVED carefully. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

And yeah, uploading the second "same purpose" image while the first one is still on FFD... — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Judging by the responses at that FFD discussion, I doubt the community at large sees the file I uploaded as being noncompliant with NFCC. There is a decent chance that the file will be kept if the discussion there stays where it is. Gommeh 📖   🎮 13:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Toddy1

Since the participant skipped several steps in our interaction, and also presented it all in a certain way, I will have to describe it again.

• I found a file that didn't have a "clear source information".
• I tagged it accordingly.
• I posted a message informing the participant. It contains information on what needs to be done to fix the problem (didn't highlight the sentence(s), я и так участвую в этом цирке не по своей воле).

Thank you for uploading File:Dnepropetrovsk 0276s.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

If I were writing this informational message in my own words, I wouldn't have done it. I have the right to do so.

• They undid my edit with comment please do not place messages on files that have been on Wikipedia since 2007, without providing any clue as to how to comply with your demand, what is "bingo" from "concerns"-points above.
• I added a warning to the editor's talk page about the undesirability of their actions and returned my tag with a corresponding comment. At the same time, I received a warning-message on my talk page with the text above.

Well, in some ways I agree with the participant. It would have been easier for them.. And it wouldn't have been much of a problem for me either. Only they went to ban me on ANI, and I continued working. // {{Information}}+{{own}} certainly looks nice and practical, but there are at least four other simple ways to attribute an image [in this case]. And I probably would have even answered the editors's question about it - despite my position and the already voiced recommendation of what and how to do. If they had asked it. Civilly. Instead of reverting my edit and slapping me with a warning on my talk page.

To sum it up: "I don't read what Iruka writes; let editors spend 10 seconds uploading a file without a source/NFUR/etc., while Iruka spends a minute typing it out by hand." 毎日、毎日、毎日 — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

GSMflux91

The participant — indirectly — positions themselves as a "new". Moreover, they has a thorough understanding of how the project works. And they uses wp-slang that even I don't recognize. Again - I'm not hinting at anything! :D

In essence: the same as with Gommeh's case. The only difference is that the participant expressed the desire that I no longer contact them regarding this file.
Luckily, the file was moved to Commons, and now I don't have to go to WP:DRV. Again (nope, this time it's not INVOLVED; at least formally). — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Bgsu98

Just active support for my blocking (without diffs, off course). See "3 problems" and "concerns". — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Freedoxm

Prefers to have their file raped in two weeks instead of one headshot. Wants their messages to be respected/readed, but doesn't do this with others. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:ICA: The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

b.personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities

2. Other uncivil behaviours

c. sexual harassment

WidgetKid ^{chat me} 14:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:PA and non-appropriate sexual and vulgar harassment, I will be declaring all future texts from this user towards me as propagated threats. It seems like Iruka13 is trying to censor information related to the Assad regime in Syria so that he can appease and apply with Putin's objectives - authoritarianism and censorship. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 18:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Its an inappropriate comment but instead of comparing him to a child-sex trafficker perhaps go with the more logical explanation of a language barrier issue/translation issue... Traumnovelle (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

logical explanation of a language barrier issue/translation issue... I understand, but I am currently taking his comment seriously, so I will be defending my comparison to him with a sex trafficker; Besides, his comment was clearly intentional. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 18:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Traumnovelle here: the original comment is totally out of line (and I only missed commenting on it before because of the weird formatting of how Iruka posted their response here), but the response of preemptively declaring all future texts from this user towards me as propagated threats and extended aspersions of being a Putinist are not appropriate. If you believe an WP:IBAN is necessary, call for one. Given the direction that this thread overall is taking, however, I would recommend just disengaging. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I do believe a WP:IBAN is necessary; I would not like to interact or see this user personally attack me. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, it appears Star Mississippi has beaten you to the punch with a general block (and my prediction that an IBAN wouldn't be necessary was largely based on the expectation that we would in fact arrive at a sitewide block as the outcome here) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I see. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 20:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Please feel free to log support for an IBan should they eventually be unblocked @Freedoxm @Rosguill. I do not think it would be sufficient since their conduct was problematic toward multiple people, but that by no means excuses their comment to you. Star Mississippi 20:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for sending the reminder; I will log support for an IBan if Iruka13 is ever unblocked. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Same here. IBAN would be necessary if Iruka is unblocked, so that's a support from me too. Gommeh 📖   🎮 23:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't disengage just yet, but I'll take back my Putinist comments. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The comment was edited but he originally said 'equivalent to the harassment conducted by Jeffrey Epstein', which is even more inappropriate than the Putinist comments. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's a great example illustrating the correctness of my actions. I nominated a file for deletion using the standard text I use for old logos and alt. album covers:
The image/logo is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic.

Here's a nomination for the same file from a much more experienced and civilized editor:
Non-free former/historical logo being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Syrian Arab News Agency#Logo history which fails WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite_note-4, WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFG). Non-former/historical logos can be used when either they themselves or the change of branding they represent is the subject of source critical commentary, but they are pretty much never allowed to be in an image gallery type arrangment, which is bascially what the "Logo History" section of the SANA article is. If someone is able to find sourced critical commentary related to the logo itself and how it figured in with the SANA's change in branding, add that to the article and then move the logo near such content, this file can probably be kept; otherwise, there's really no justification for this type of use per relevant policy. Finally, just for referene, the two other foremr/historical logos used in the image gallery aren't licensed as non-free and therefore aren't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

Here's my template message on their talk page:

Thank you for uploading File:Logo of the Syrian Arab News Agency (2020).svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Here's a message from a much more experienced user, [which] taking into account the preferences of other users:

Just letting you know that I've tagged File:Logo of the Syrian Arab News Agency (2020).svg for deletion using {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} because it's my assessment that it's current use doesn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There's a more detailed explanation given on the file's page, and there's also information on what you can do if you disagree with my assessment and want to dispute the file's tagging. Normally, I would notify you of this by using {{di-disputed non-free use rationale-notice}} but am posting this instead per your request at the top of your user talk page.

Here's the reaction to my ("bad") nomination:
I've challenged your deletion request. See my summary.

Here's the reaction to good nomination:
(...) I will be challenging your deletion (...)

See the difference? If there isn't one, why pay more type by hand? — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I have no comment to say to a Putinist who is harassing me and whitewashing images related to the Assad regime in Syria. Thank you. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 18:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

In addition, you can see feedback on the validity of my actions on my talk page, as well as on the pages of other editors who agree with or don't object to my actions. I'm referring to experienced editors who don't work with files. Experienced editors who do work with files simply ignore my messages or mark the files as {{db-author}}. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Rosguill, Blue Sonnet, Stifle, etc

> disruption
"diffs please" — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Iruka13 I'm not sure why you've mentioned me, I've done nothing more than post on your Talk to ask that you please engage with the discussion at ANI because others had raised concerns.

I've not made any specific allegations against you beyond the fact that you continued to edit without engaging at ANI, a fact that is self-evident by your contribution history.

If you feel that I have, I would very much like to see the diffs myself because I can't see any evidence that I've posted in this thread before now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this is the response anyone was hoping for. This doesn't even begin to engage with the substantive concerns presented here, and is pretty much exactly what I told them not to do a few days ago. I'm also not sure why you're claiming that diffs have not been provided; there's tons of them in this discussion. In particular, I find the exchanges at File_talk:Backboard_shattering.jpeg#Tag, Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_11#File:Chinese_speaking_clock.ogg and File_talk:Zuni_wolf_fetish_with_medicine_bundle_and_heartline,_carved_by_Stuart_Lasiyoo.jpg#Fair_use_rationale to be indicative. Editors are frustrated that you seem to show minimal appreciation of the actual circumstances surrounding the taking of photos to upload to Wikipedia, interpret copyright rules idiosyncratically, assume that there have been violations of fair use in the absence of evidence of that being the case, and at times yourself seem to lack relevant knowledge of copyright rules before calling for something's deletion. The response that at least I was hoping for here would have been an acknowledgment of said concerns and a sincere commitment to engage with them more fruitfully in the future. The issue here isn't an individual edit that broke a red line rule, but rather a persistent pattern of not respecting others' time and effort. Instead of addressing that, you have chosen to respond with an exceedingly long ad hominem against essentially everyone participating in this thread and pretending you can't see links to discussions that demonstrate others' concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I think they mean well, their linking to WP:COMPETENCE is of particular concern to me too (per WP:DONTLINKCIR). Similar to how they accused me of not reading through WP:INVOLVED thoroughly, I think it's safe to say they didn't read all of WP:COMPETENCE thoroughly (would this be a minor WP:BOOMERANG?). Gommeh 📖   🎮 16:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd take more offense that they evidently didn't read this thread if they're claiming that editors haven't identified diffs of their grievances. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

That too, good catch. Gommeh 📖   🎮 16:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Especially considering I wasn't even involved, they apparently presumed I was because I posted on their Talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, in case anyone was wondering why they're blocked on three other projects, I think that's just been explained. The Commons block rationale seems incredibly apt: "wikilawyering, contributing in bad faith, and other tangential nonsense". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Given this obscene and totally out-of-line comment (per WP:CIVIL and WP:ICA) and Freedoxm's response to it, not to mention the fact that it seems that Iruka clearly hasn't taken the time to read through other editors' grievances with regards to their behavior (to the extent that they claim others haven't identified diffs of said grievances when that is not true), I sincerely doubt this person is here to build an encyclopedia (they are more likely here just to play police, and that's coming from someone who originally spent most of their time reverting vandals and nothing else) and would support a block or ban per WP:NOTHERE and/or WP:NNN. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Support a block: The gibberish above makes it extrememly obvious that Iruka13 does not get it.-- Mike 🗩 19:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

100% this makes it plainly obvious that they're here to argue, not edit.–DMartin (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment: As someone starting to participate in FFDs, I first thought Iruka13's conduct was the norm. Through different interactions, I've seen how disruptive they've been. I certainly took some cues from them, which I now realize I shouldn't have. Seeing this ANI play out has been a good learning experience for me, but probably not the smoothest path.WidgetKid ^{chat me} 20:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Confusion

I am confused. I see multiple sections above that appear to be signed Ирука13. I am inferring that that is Iruka13 in Cyrillic letters, but they don't appear to be by Iruka13. Who is saying what? At this point, now that Iruka13 is indefinitely blocked, the only issues would seem to be whether to unblock them (which would be a mistake) or whether to formalize a community ban. But I would like to know who is saying what. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Iruka made their comments in Special:Diff/1334245918. They appear to have also referred to themselves in 3rd person while attempting to summarize the discussion, and also quoted other comments at length. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this is poor formatting/English language ability rather than an aim to pretend they're someone else. Probably an AI tool of some variety @Robert McClenon @Rosguill Star Mississippi 14:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any signs of AI, but otherwise agree. It was extremely misguided, but I think they were trying to come off as clever/sarcastic, not intentionally misleading. It didn't help the text's comprehensibility that then other editors then went and replied to individual subsections--I didn't realize until my third pass or so that the comments from WidgetKid were indeed a response to Iruka13 and not Iruka13 quoting someone WidgetKid from a separate discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

No one should be made to feel fearful on Wikipedia

Iruka13 wrote above: [Freedoxm] Prefers to have their file raped in two weeks instead of one headshot. I agree that this is sexual harassment, however equally nefarious is the implication of being shot in the head and killed. So the implication here is slow torture by rape, or a “quick kill” by a bullet to the head. Files can't be raped or shot in the head, but people can.

This is a horrific thing to say in a community-driven collaborative project based on mutual trust and respect.

At first I thought they meant a photographic headshot, however given the context I don’t think that's the meaning of this extremely uncivil and violent comment. It's not possible for me to rationalize this a "poor English" or a bad metaphor. This is inexcusable behavior, and they were rightly blocked.

I am reminded a bit of my own experience of feeling unsafe around this editor, described in Iruka's ANI a year ago for stalking and making people feel unsafe. Diff: [7] Unfortunately, that discussion focused more on whether their deletion noms were technically correct/right; yet to my mind the behavioral issue of stalking/fear mongering was not fullly addressed. The way Iruka13 dealt with this after that ANI was to basically stop communicating with other editors. Now that they have spoken and expressed such a violent and frightening "preference" to a community member is revealing. This community should always be a place where participants can feel safe from harm, and not have their choices described as rape or a bullet to the head. I know they've been blocked which I guess means the "standard offer" appeal in 6 months, but honestly, I don't want to see them back in 6 months even if they make some "good nominations" or are "right" in their file arguments, or if they understand the nuances of image licensing. Netherzone (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I can assume slightly more good faith on the basis that this sort of offhanded but violent threat, regrettably, is normalized in some corners of the internet (and especially among certain circles of videogame fandom). It's disgusting and should not be tolerated here, but I can plausibly imagine someone thinking it was within acceptable norms based on a lack of cultural and language proficiency, because elsewhere on the internet it is tolerated. There's a lot of things that Iruka13 will need to answer for in a hypothetical unblock request, but if they are able to acknowledge their past errors and resolve to turning a new leaf (which includes collegial, responsible communication with other editors), I would not rule out an unblock at some point down the road. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It may be acceptable in some wretched corners of the internet, but it sure as hell ain't acceptable here. That comment alone should lead to a community ban, not just an indef block. oknazevad (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree that it's unacceptable here, and that any path back to editing is going to require a complete and unequivocal disavowal of any such rhetoric. As for a community ban, you're welcome to call for one at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Just for clarification, this was not an offhanded or off-the-cuff remark by Iruka13, they themself stated that they 'spent days orchestrating a response. They know full well what rape means and what a bullet to the head is. Videogamers and others who spend time in the dark corners of the internet don't get a free pass to make such comments. Rape and murder actually happens to real people. Netherzone (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed - do you think we should try and assess if there's enough consensus for a community ban? Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there really a point? I don't think any admin is unblocking Iruka anytime soon. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

If they do, I would like a detail reason why. That comment, hooboy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely, I believe Iruka13 perfectly and deliberately orchestrated this kind of behavior. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

My two cents. Yes, it is sexual harassment and is unacceptable. However, it seems to follow some of the common hallmarks of ESL speakers using and applying idioms incorrectly (it does sound a lot like the common one 'kill two birds with one stone') but taken horrifically out of context; and it could be just really badly AI-translated Russian - English. In either way though, unacceptable behaviour. GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 00:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it was a misunderstanding or using incorrect idioms, I recognize it as a vulgar threat, non-appropriate behavior, and sexual harassment. That PA alone might even be the biggest WP:PA that I've ever received; I'm citing Iruka13's harassment as a major factor in why I requested a username change. Iruka13 being an ESL speaker does not grant or justify him protection of his actions. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

rape has multiple meanings and the most logical one here is not sexual assault but instead the pillage/destruction of a location e.g. the Rape of Belgium. The context is about a file Iruka tagged for speedy deletion that Freedxm contested (see history [8]). Presumably this refers to that Freedxm's actions have drawn out the speedy deletion process (hence 2 weeks) opposed to being speedily deleted hence a quick 'headshot'. Either way it is a pretty poor idiom but it isn't a threat towards Freedxm nor is it sexual harassment and comparing it to something like Jeffrey Epstein is offensive to actual victims of sexual assault. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

isn't a threat towards Freedxm nor is it sexual harassment your claim of denying the intentional, deliberate harassment and sexual harassment (very obviously sexual harassment; language barriers aren't an excuse) has already been disproven by multiple users, see above. Even I recognize it as a threat. The only time that you should be denying it is if I hadn't acknowledged it as harassment. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 08:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Folks this is not an interesting or important tangent: the comment was inappropriate, and since everyone agrees about that there is no sense at all arguing about the precise details of exactly what way it was inappropriate. --JBL (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Folks this is not an interesting or important tangent: the comment was inappropriate, which comment was inappropriate? There are a lot of comments and I'm confused. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Jsmentkol edit-warring to retain promotional content on SBI Card

• Jsmentkol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SBI Card (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jsmentkol has been edit-warring to keep their preferred, promotional version of SBI Card despite multiple users expressing concern. Their only response has been insisting that their edits are not promotional, using obvious AI-generated replies to attempt to back up their claims (and to attack User:Yuvaank, who was the first to revert their edits). I have directly asked repeatedly if they have a COI, and they have refused to answer. Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Balanced Reporting: It accurately mentions the 20% decline in net profit (FY25) alongside the 7% revenue increase. This "warts-and-all" reporting is exactly what Wikipedia editors look for to prove a page isn't just a corporate advertisement. The page is fully compliant with Wikipedia norms. It has moved from being a "risky" promotional draft a few years ago to a high-quality, stable encyclopedic entry today. Information given are non promotional. Advertisement tones were not used. Properly cited. Citations are also non promotional in nature. Jsmentkol (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This response is at least 2/3rds AI-generated, and has been used multiple times, specifically at [9], [10], [11], and [12]. It combines the edit summaries from [13] and [14]. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Who the hell is the offending user [15] referring to themselves as We? Borgenland (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Jsmentkol is risking a block for edit warring if they remove the 'advert' template again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

They're now bludgeoning the AfD discussion, responding to everything with the same LLM-generated statement with heavy bolding, and copying from the SBI article to 'prove' that it's a different company (which is not the argument; it's a subsidiary company and simply doesn't need its own article). Nathannah • 📮 19:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

All the Non-banking subsidiaries of "State Bank of India" has their individual Wikipedia Pages. Then why SBI Card can't have a separate Wikipedia Page ? Then go and delete all the subsidiaries Wikipedia Pages below.

Notable non-banking subsidiaries of SBI include:

• SBI Capital Markets Ltd.
• SBI Cards & Payments Services Ltd.
• SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.
• SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.
• SBI Funds Management Ltd.

Jsmentkol (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

FFS...I just told you to stop on the AfD. That doesn't mean dragging it here. STOP commenting, now. Nathannah • 📮 20:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@ ~2026-51282-2 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

i’m sorry but this looks so AI ~2026-51672-0 (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

User:ThatTrainGuy1945, valid comment at the AfD. Please keep me posted if need be--you too, Nathannah: thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Luka Maglc and personal attacks, AI, and source misrepresentation

@Luka Maglc has accused me of being a Nazi, because I disagreed with them: "Look I'm I'm questioning if you're a Nazi or not, and whether you even belong on Wikipedia" [16]. This is a blatant personal attack. Few things are more heinous than being a Nazi.

Further, in response to me noting that none of the sources they mentioned actually said what they claimed (I have these sources), they responded with an AI generated list of what the AI thinks these sources say [17] (which is not what they say). They have dodged the question of using AI even though multiple references they supplied were obviously hallucinated and do not exist [18], having fake DoIs. Ref 9 is a blatant AI hallucination. When I questioned them on this they refused to admit it. Inserting fake sources into a talk page discussion and refusing to own up to it is a huge problem.

Most of this is a content dispute, so I will leave that there as that question is a matter we can resolve in normal editing, but the AI source misrepresentation and accusing other editors of being Nazis is unacceptable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The PA is very borderline at worst. However, the misrepresentation of sources does raise wp:cir concerns (I was going to tell them to read that when I say your notice about this ani). As does the issue of some of the sources they are using, which are not RS. But I am unsure this reaches ani issue quite yet. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Is accusing someone of being a Nazi based on nothing really a "borderline" personal attack? If I said that I would expect to be blocked. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, if they said "you are a nazi" that would be. Denying they said anything about it is not saying you are one. Now given the poor wording, that may have been what they were doing, we need them to clarify what they meant. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

If someone said "Look I'm starting to think you're a pedophile" they're accusing the person they're talking to of being a pedophile. In any case, I am largely immune to offense, but this is something that is unacceptable to say to any editor without evidence. The AI and source misrepresentation are bigger problems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

If Parakanyaa had previously been called or claimed to be a Nazi, I could see "I'm questioning whether you are a Nazi" would be like saying, "I think you are NOT a Nazi." In the absence of anything that would indicate Parakanyaa is a Nazi, "I'm questioning whether you are a Nazi" is clearly saying "I have reason to believe you are a Nazi". I'm having major trouble seeing a context in which Luka Magic was NOT comparing Parakanyaa to a Nazi, which is a violation of WP:NPA point 5. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

+1. M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Steven, and just to add some context from the original discussion - it is about whether Talk:Agartha is a Nazi/right-wing conspiracy or not, and whether it should be described as such. Although PK felt that the content dispute is irrelevant, it is important to understand where both editors are coming from.

Agree also with others that the reported statement fails AGF; this aspersion by PK fails too [19] Drew Stanley (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

That was not in any way directed at Luka, that was in response to their statement that we should cover it in a different way because "especially recently with what's been going on on TikTok"; TikTok posts on this subject are often made by "slop media conspiracists". TikTok posts are not reliable sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

To clarify exactly what I meant. I was not meaning that I thought he was one. I just found it extremely strange from my POV on how he consistently seems to be defending that article and others related to these topics form any criticism or opposing views at all. To me it seemed he reverts any criticism related to these topics. Someone else on this same noticeboard thread below me who already reported him for doing this. My intention was never to insult or attack anyone, I wrote it too quickly and out of genuine confusion, but I still should not have said it. I apologize, and I will never repeat it.

. Luka Maglc (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The criticism must be reliably sourced. You cannot just make up criticism if it does not appear in the sources on a topic. You had a perspective you wanted to put into the article and fabricated sources to support that point, you did not supply a single source that actually supported the material you wanted to put into the article. WP:Verifiability, the sources are all that matters.

The thread below was spurious, as everyone there agreed, and was based on me reverting an edit sourced to a source that was not reliable. The person who baselessly accused me eventually agreed on their talk page and we have all elected to wait until this shows up in RS, which it probably will in the next few months. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

So then you meant it as you worded it? It was an attempt to dismis thier edits as biased? Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

You should not be linking editors whose competence you question to CIR, it is not written to be read by them. The lead makes a big point of saying "Rather than labeling them as "incompetent" in the pejorative sense, we should ease them out of the Wikipedia community as graciously as possible, with their dignity intact." Do you think linking someone to a page with "Competence is required" in big letters is keeping their dignity intact? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 22:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

IMO, both sides are wrong here.

"I'm starting to think your a Nazi" isn't generally a personal attack but its still kind aspersiony though, IMHO. This is a content dispute with a hint of aspersions and a kick of accusatory messages. shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

"I'm starting to think your a Nazi" isn't generally a personal attack. I think it's great that you wouldn't take this as a personal attack, but I certainly would. I stopped reading after verifying the first diff by the filer. Unless the reported user responds with an apology - an effusive one at that - I think immediate sanction is called for.

Not commenting on how long that sanction would be because I'm not going to look into the AI and other accusations, and I don't know the reported user's history, but I'm staggered that people think that putting such a thin - to the point of transparent - veil on calling people Nazis is a sufficient shield from WP:NPA. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

There might also be an issue with not listening and bludgeoning. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

they responded with an AI generated list of what the AI thinks these sources say
I haven't seen anyone expand on this, but I do find this problematic. An editor with new page patrol using an AI and not catching hallucinations is a pretty big flag to me.

I would also like to point out that, while their userpage looks nice, it is a really common style for AIs to use. Of course, for an AI to use it, that means it has to have gotten it from somewhere, so it isn't a major tell, but I do think all of this together is worrying. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

First, regarding my comment on the Agartha talk page, I apologize. Referring to another editor in the context of Nazism was unacceptable. I retract it completely and it will never be repeated. Second, concerning the sources and AI use: I made a serious error. I used an AI tool to find citations in a fast moment without adequate verification. This led to misrepresented information. This was my fault, and I will not use AI for finding citations again. All of my future edits will rely on manually reliable sources. I understand these actions have not been productive. I will completely disengage with PARAKANYAA, focus on constructive editing, and adhere strictly to Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and civility, and ensure my contributions are verifiable and productive. Luka Maglc (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

GPTZero says this is 100% AI generated. Luka Magic, per WP:AITALK, do NOT use AI to respond on talk pages; editors want to hear from YOU, not a chatbot. Can you comment on your use of AI on talk pages in your own words? EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I generally disagree with using an AI checker because they are very often wrong, but this comment is very AI sounding. – LuniZunie_(talk) 12:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

No comment on the issue at hand, but User:Luka Maglc/RedirectLastLetterTypo and its doc page look very AI-generated. Despite stating that it is policy-supported, it links to no policies, and also has two non-existent anchors (Wikipedia:Redirect#Search_engines_and_searching and Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects_from_common_misspellings).

The doc page says to use "RedirectTypo", but that template doesn't exist (the template's name is User:Luka Maglc/RedirectLastLetterTypo). This is also used in the examples section, resulting in a red link after Renders as:. There are also more broken anchors: WP:NOT#REDIRECT,Wikipedia:Redirect#Useful_redirects, and Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects_from_common_misspellings. In the "Related templates" section, there are two non-existent templates: {{Keep}} and {{Rfd keep}}. Finally, at the top there's was (and also had an incorrect template protected lock) {{high-use}} despite the template only having 4 transclusions. This all leads me to think that the template could have only been generated by a large language model, and without sufficient human review.

Luka Maglc, you should really not be using LLMs to contribute to Wikipedia. Use your own words, even if you're not completely fluent. An imperfect but coherent human message is way, way better than a fluent LLM-generated message. To me, LLM-generated messages in Wikipedia contexts all sound nearly the same and feel soulless, since they repeat the same words in the same format. We want to know that there's depth and meaning behind the messages you send, not something that you just put into an LLM and relayed back to us. HurricaneZeta^C 00:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding questions about my sourcing, here is some context. Some of the sources I collected were directly located by me (for example: https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/3b591q91h?locale=en and https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/opinion/21iht-edeco.2260751.html, along with a few others). However, I also copied the pre-AI-generated summary that came along with a Google Scholar search (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_labs/search/session/16930153791013386712). I did not verify it carefully enough when coping them for general reference. That was a mistake. I never intend for every link I shared to be treated as “ready-to-cite” article sourcing. Some of it was gathered as background reading while researching the topic. From now on I will only add material to the article when it is supported by reliable sources that I have personally checked, and I will avoid the AI summaries as a basis for content. Separately, on the substance, my understanding is that “Agartha” is commonly discussed within Hollow Earth lore, and Hollow Earth is widely treated in reliable sources as a conspiracy theory/fringe belief. Luka Maglc (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

If you had used an AI tool for your own use to do background research, and not put that content into pages, that would have been one thing, but these were the sources you presented during an argument, unchecked, trying to support your point of view. You presented sources to other people, arguing they said one thing, but having no idea if they did or didn't, and when you were confronted with that you merely reiterated they did despite the fact you never checked, and when confronted accused me, baselessly, of first, having a WP:COI for having ever edited the topic, which is not what a COI is, and then being a Nazi.

I will address the content here only insofar as it relates to policy generally: when we are writing articles, we focus on what reliable sources say and how they frame it in what we say and how we frame the topic. We ignore popular ideas, social media, the like, if they do not appear in reliable sources.

Despite being the popular media version of Agartha, the Hollow Earth version is actually the minority version in most writings on it, and really only appeared in the versions post-1960, due mostly to the works of one author. Resultingly, most of the scholarship on Agartha does not focus on the Hollow Earth version, but the versions that most appear in occultist writings. It is mentioned, but not the primary topic, and the recent version, which is very different and mostly a bastardization of a specific, previously obscure strain (Landig's...who I should make an article on probably), is not mentioned really at all. So, we focus on the versions that reliable sources do.

Secondly, as AndyTheGrump said rather clearly the talk page, just because many conspiracy theories involve it, doesn't mean that it itself is a conspiracy theory. Atlantis frequently appears in conspiracies, but the legend of Atlantis is not a conspiracy theory, it is a legend/fiction. Similarly, the idea that Agartha is real and the US government is hiding it would be a conspiracy. The idea of Agartha is not itself a conspiracy, it is a legend. Just because conspiracy theories involve something doesn't mean every topic related to that is a conspiracy theory. There is not the transitive property of conspiracy theory.

Any topic, you treat the same. Focus on what the sources say first, rather than dragging what you think should be in the article and trying to get sources for that. You cannot extrapolate beyond what the sources say, as you were trying to do, this is WP:Original research. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Without going into semantics of what might or might not be a personal attack or an aspersion,, I'm questioning if you're a Nazi or not is a flagrant violation of WP:AGF. Narky Blert (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

+1. Seriously, right? Ravenswing 16:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

+1. Also ad hitlerum is for forums not for wikipedia. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable, and the accusation seems to be have been a really effective diversion from the source-text integrity issues that Parakanyaa has identified. Even without the PA, those are unacceptable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Luka Maglc is seemingly ignoring this thread despite continuing to edit. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with this. – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Completely agreed that it's also a naked assumption of bad faith. But also it's not semantics, it's a blatantly obvious personal attack, and I really don't understand how that's not universally acknowledged. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The alleged PA aside, they continue to bludgeon, and are now even "mis-invoking" COI and continue to misrepresent sources. They are a time sink and need a topic ban. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I reviewed the claims they made at Talk:Agartha#There_are_so_many_problems_with_this_article, and PARANKANYAA correctly noted that the sources in use are all secondary, and claims about Agartha are attributed and not presented in wikivoice. I also support a topic ban from Agartha. I don't see any conduct history that supports a more general ban from conspiracy theories, but I have issued a CT alert for pseudoscience.

In other words, they blanked the RM in withdrawal, and I've closed the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, in the future, please issue an ANI notice. Besides getting their attention more effectively, it marks the point in the user's history where other users can review important notices on the talk page, assuming that they are not a user who blanks old talk page comments. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 I did. [20] PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Whilst badly formatted (so as to not be an Alert) it was posted. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

He did. Luka Maglc (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

In the past, I've encountered users accusing others of (potential) homophobia for questioning their edits about characters' sexuality, or assuming they have bad faith based on their ethnicity as a passing argument in a debate about article content, but this didn't result in any personal sanctions, although in my personal view these were even more direct personal attacks. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Can we not derail the discussion with a complete tangent please. If you have an issue with other comments made by other editors in other discussions, please start a thread of your own. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos See higher in this thread: Shane3456 and Slatersteven both opined that "Look I'm I'm questioning if you're a Nazi or not, and whether you even belong on Wikipedia" did not qualify as a personal attack, and others disagreed. Solaire's opinion seems germane to that discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

To me it reads like a complaint that sanctions were not issued as a result of other comments in other situations, which is a tangent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not trying to complain, and I'm intentionally not naming articles or names. I'm simply saying that this type of communication has been a problem in the project for a long time, and it's not always punished. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Then wouldn't the solution be the try and enforce it more consistently? Because if we don't enforce it when it comes to the forefront, then WP:PA and WP:ASPERSIONS aren't actually things any more, since it basically allows one to launder any insult or accusation by dropping in a few weasel words to put on a phony sheen of good faith. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

In British English, it's called Parliamentary language. Anyone familiar with the idiom would effortlessly read a sentence like "I'm beginning to think that you may not understand the deeper implications" as meaning "You are an incompetent clueless idiot" (with optional expletives). Narky Blert (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The biggest problem with their conduct, and what I have not seen satisfactorily addressed here, is that in order to win a dispute, they claimed sources said something, when they had not even read the sources, and when confronted with the evidence these sources were misrepresented, they refused to accept this, despite never having consulted any of the sources. In response, they then continued providing sources that did not say this. They presented quotes from Amazon book descriptions that very simply did not say what they claimed. Some of this was AI, which they lied about and said they got the sources from Google scholar (impossible because the sources do not exist) which is its own problem (and their response above is not reassuring), but some does not seem to be, and their continued insistence that these sources say things they don't is very worrying. I find this pattern of behavior far more concerning than a personal attack in terms of actual impact on article content. I am not sure what should be done here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

If you can’t be honest about using AI when it’s blatant, I don’t think you can be trusted to be honest about your usage when it’s not. Not sure what should be done either, but a first step would be a human-written admission about what has already been done. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard

Despite repeatedly asking @Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard: to stop adding uncited information, and after reverting their uncited additions, they return to add further uncited information. I have had to bring them here based on WP:NOTTHERE, having repeatedly posting warnings and attempts to inform them on their talk page of what they are doing wrong.

Here is where they added a ton of uncited information on MS Norröna. I reverted their additions here and they have now readded everything without citations. Llammakey (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the issues above, I can't find evidence that User:Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard has edited a talk page or even written an edit summary. An article-space block would seem appropriate, until such time as they acknowledge the requirement to communicate with other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I see that most (if not all) of their edits are mobile. Do we still have a problem communicating? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Eh, sort of ... sometimes ... per WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, though I'm unsure if that's completely up to date. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, as they are still re-adding uncited information that has been reverted per here or adding incorrect, uncited information like here (note: the usage of Gross Register Tonnage was discontinued in 1982...so for a ship constructed in 2006...that is way wrong) They have also not defended themselves here despite being informed that they have been brought here. Llammakey (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This editor should be given a partial block from article space to get them to communicate. Communication is not optional, as others have already stated. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Still going. Lack of communication + problematic edits should be a clear case of provisional block. ~2026-50711-0 (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that about two weeks ago, I left a message on this user's talk page. The editor had created a handful of pages all of which were undeveloped and quickly moved back to draftspace or nominated for deletion. Assuming a CIR issue, I left a note on their page, linking to WP:42 and suggesting that they consider using the AfC process. As @Llammakey notes, few if any of their 529 edits are accompanied by edit summaries. But more strikingly, they don't seem to communicate with anyone who raises issues (refer their talk page). MmeMaigret (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk Page use while blocked

Poopdecktheoverlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked a few days ago and now has been using the talk page for edits they want to make when they come back, [21], [22], [23]. Has been warned to self revert, [24] did comply but is adding new edits then reverting. Improper use of talk page.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I notified them for you. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the user had already prepared rather extensive edits to certain pages, wanted to store them somewhere until the block is lifted, and now effectively stored them in the history of the talk page. I don't see a problem with that, and I don't see anything in WP:BLOCK that prohibits it. I'd agree it should be prohibited if it was excessive, e.g. if the user uploaded several megabytes in that way, but that's not the case. At the moment, I don't think we have to do anything here. But maybe I'm missing something. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

(Of course, if the edits stored in the talk page history are of a similarly disruptive nature as the ones that got the user blocked, the user should be warned not to apply them if and when the block is lifted. But I don't know if that's the case, and that's a slightly different issue.) — Chrisahn (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that, while blocked, talk page access is only to be used for appealing the block. I haven't been able to locate a policy that says this, but I have seen quite a few WP:TPAs get pulled for discussing edits they plan to make that aren't part of an unblock appeal. If they want to save draft edits, that's what a word processor on their local machine is for. Could an admin please clarify this point for me? If I'm mistaken, I don't want to keep repeating bad advice. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I found that the guidelines at Wikipedia:User talk pages say that:

Users who are site-blocked or site-banned should rarely use their talk pages for anything other than unblock requests or conversation leading toward such a request. Though blocked or banned users retain much of the wide latitude afforded to all users in their own user space, they may lose access to their user talk page if they violate policies (e.g., WP:PROXYING) or otherwise continue acting disruptively.

This doesn't explicitly say it shouldn't happen but cautions against it. Maybe this could be added to the block guidelines as well, or made more explicit? Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

They have made three pairs of edits over six days. This is not an urgent incident, IMO there is no "behavioral problem" here, but if there is it is certainly not chronic or intractable. I suggest ignoring it. --JBL (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I would follow that advice. Poopdecktheoverlord seems to be very keen, but disruptive and doesn't listen to anyone. I'm sure they will find another hobby soon when they realise that they will stay blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

edit-warring over cosmetic changes and refusing all input

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

---

Gam216471 (talk · contribs) is edit warring over cosmetic changes.

• On 19 January 2026 at 14:00 UTC, they were templated by NatGertler (talk · contribs) about making unnecessary cosmetic edits. Gam216471 removed the warning without comment two mintes later.
• On 23 January 2026 at 13:43 UTC, Gam216471 made cosmetic edits to Sing a Song of Sixpence, inexplicably saying, Quotation marks. They were reverted by Bazza 7 (talk · contribs) 131 minutes later, who said, unexplained edit; the second parameter of a link is what's to be displayed (including styling). Gam216471 reverted that edit 37 minutes later without comment.
• On 23 January 2026 at 16:04 UTC, Gam216471 made unnecessary cosmetic edits to Beep Beep (song), again inexplicably saying, Quotation marks. I reverted them 19 minutes later saying, IAW MOS:PUNCTSPACE, MOS:NAT, & MOS:VAR. Again with the same inapplicable edit summary (Quotation marks), they undid my edit 19 minutes later. When I replaced the original formatting two minutes later, I said the same as before, adding please discuss at talk if necessary IAW WP:BRD; I also templated their talk page with {{uw-brd}}, but they removed it w/o comment one minute later. They reverted the article changes yet again two minutes after mine, without comment.

This editor is making unnecessary cosmetic changes, edit warring, ignoring and dismissing all invitations to correct themselves or join a discussion; I'm not sure what the next step is? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I had specifically warned them about edits that consisted solely of replacing two spaces after a sentence with one, and they have continued doing this, as this edit to Bob Marley shows. He is doing a large number of unnecessary edits, not marked as "minor" and with untelling edit comments like "slightly changed". They have done a few larger edits, but the ones I check are hard to see as net-constructive, like this removal of all categories, including redirect categories, from a redirect, At first I assumed that this was someone just generating an edit count to get better permissions; seeing him edit-war at the Beep Beep article makes me less certain, but whatever is going on here is not of benefit to the encyclopedia. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Is the issue that he's adding in two spaces and then changing it to one? I know the edit warring and the "I didn't hear you" is an issue, but fixing spacing should seem beneficial. Obviously good does not outweigh bad. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

No, he's just finding an existing double space and changing it to one. As noted at MOS:DOUBLESPACE, the two spaces in the file display as a single space. Making this change makes no cosmetic change to the page. If you replace a double-space with a single while doing another edit that needs doing, it's no big deal, but an edit solely for that causes other editors to waste time checking the edit. It's a clear net-negative to the project. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I often edit double spaces (usually with other edits). Yeah, net-negative. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

We all have things to learn. The problem with the editor at hand is that they've been told about this, didn't stop. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think they're EC gaming. And they removed the ANI notice. Toast1454_TC 18:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure they're gaming. The behavior, such as reverting the reversion of their edits, suggests they believe they're fixing Wikipedia. No edits since being notified of this discussion. Let's see what they do next before considering any action. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Even if editors like this believe they're fixing Wikipedia they're not being helpful if they continue to edit war over what seems to be inane things, and refusing communication (see how the user's talk page keeps being blanked with no further comment). ~2026-50711-0 (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It is gaming that I don’t think is happening. The ball is now in their court. If they ignore this, then some action should be taken. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Intent is important when it comes to dealing with disruptive users. There’s a greater chance of reforming the person if their intent appears to be positive. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but this edit suggests to me that Gam216471 has eschewed their named account and is now identically edit-warring as ~2026-50873-0 (talk · contribs). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

With one edit, and at the extreme end of the times they’re normally active, it’s suggestive but not definitive. Since the user failed to make any edits using their named account during the times they’re normally active, I have blocked them from article space and asked them to respond. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess removing your block notice is a type of response.... DonIago (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The rapidity of the revert suggests they’ve been around doing stuff, either as a TA or another username. Be on the lookout. In the meantime, the autoblock associated with the block should impede some of their efforts temporarily. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

There’s some evidence that this may be a sock of some LTA. {{checkuser needed}}. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Refusal to communicate is a non-starter. Nothin' more annyoing than an editor with their nose up in the air. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

That would be Dipper Dalmatian. Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Anon account making legal threats

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

---

• ~2026-50865-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-51079-9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User making legal threat in edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easter_bread&diff=prev&oldid=1334486342) and generally not being cooperative with other editors. User is also using two different anon accounts and engaging in edit warring instead of discussion on talk pages. MossOnALog^Talk 21:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I suppose that the editor should be blocked for making ridiculous legal threats but I note that nobody, including you, has posted at Talk:Easter bread. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess this is a legal threat, though it sounds like the user is joking. It should be simple for them to retract that and then get unblocked. I'll also note that in their threat to take someone to court for not capitalizing parmesan they neglected to capitalize Parmesan. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

yeah that kinda grated *ducks* Mfield (Oi!) 21:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger You are correct that my original reverts did not require discussion (simple cases of reverting failures to retain existing valid styles per MOS) and then after my second revert, while in the minute and a half it was taking me to formulate a reasonable response to post on either the user's or article's talk page, a legal threat was made against me so I decided to disengage and come here instead. I don't see how your comment is relevant considering the user made a clear legal threat and I followed the guidance of disengaging to seek admin help. MossOnALog^Talk 21:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

MossOnALog, I agree that you acted perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger I appreciate your response, as I am rather new to this part of Wikipedia (i.e., being a more involved editor) and still figuring out the proper course of action for dealing with situations like this, so receiving validation or well-intended constructive criticism has been very helpful. MossOnALog^Talk 22:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The threat is obvious and obviously silly...but is the user wrong on their point about capitalizing Parmesan? --Onorem (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Onorem lowercase is an acceptable stylistic variety, and the MOS says to retain the existing variety or seek consensus in changing it. That isn't relevant here though since this is a discussion of the user's behavior. MossOnALog^Talk 22:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Onorem, MossOnALog is right. It doesn't matter whether it should be capitalized or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand what the concern was. I was simply making a comment. Please don't ping me again when I already acknowledged the 'silly' legal threat. --Onorem (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The comment was unnecessary. MossOnALog^Talk 23:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

As was your reply. And this one. No you. If you're satisfied with being told that you were technically correct, which is the best kind of correct, can we drop it? --Onorem (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It actually is necessary to inform other editors when their contributions to a discussion are off-topic and/or not constructive.

Your original comment was off-topic and your most recent comment is unconstructive. I would appreciate if you would leave the discussion if you aren't going to contribute constructively. MossOnALog^Talk 00:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, I would appreciate it if you reviewed the Wikipedia policies on civility. MossOnALog^Talk 00:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

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

• @Valereee:, this appears to be Jack. I can go into it, but the link here is quite explicit. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 09:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, RIHG, not following -- not enough coffee yet maybe. Valereee (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Original research and personal attack by 2nightmania (also WP:NOTHERE)

User:2nightmania has demonstrated that he is WP:NOTHERE and is consistently adding original research to articles, which I warned on the user's talk page twice on original research alone (overall four times). Yesterday, the user responded: "Man screw you. “Original reasearch” shut up." [25]

The clear lack of accepting guidance on editing, warnings from me and other editors, and lack of compliance to Wikipedia policy leads me to believe this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.

Additionally, on House of Black I was told by this user: "Lemonademan22 stop saying they are still active. They’re not. They disbanded months ago. Nothing on AEW shows that the stable is still active. Black is gone, Matthews is injured, King is in a tag team with Bandido and Hart has her own stable so stop already." I reverted this edit, and warned the user whom then responded with the personal attack. [26]

The original research I warned the user for: [27] [28]

Warnings: [29] [30] [31] Lemonademan22 (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh good, professional wrestling. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I've just gone through a bunch of this guy's edits. Have they EVER added a source for anything, reliable or not? It looks like they're just dashing right to the keyboard for post-TV show updates, each and every time. Ravenswing 14:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I checked 50 edits. No, they do not use sourcing for anything. This appears to be a case of I-saw-it-myself-so-its-true; see this as evidence of that. They've been warned about using reliable sources but have ignored the warnings. @2nightmania: You can either choose to use citations to reliable sources for material you add to an article that is contested or you can find yourself blocked from editing this project. There is no middle ground on this, and no amount of "screw you"'s or "cmon man"'s are going to get around this. Here, we rely on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not what you saw. Are we clear? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I might have blocked I’d I’d seen their behaviour. IMHO I will be surprised if they can justify their actions. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Doug Weller The user in question has continued taking jabs at me in the edit summary. [32] Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hammersoft Please see [33] an uncivil jab in an edit summary. Thanks. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I am a rather staunch advocate of adherence to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. But, this edit summary is not enough to block someone for. However, @2nightmania: if you can't be bothered to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, then it's clear you shouldn't be contributing. I strongly suggest you stop with your uncivil comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course, but given everything else here, not looking for a ban but perhaps a temporary topic ban? Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

IP persistently adding unsourced content and removing sourced content

The unregistered user ~2026-93973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been partially blocked from a talk page, following an unrelated discussion here at ANI. However they’ve reached multiple level 4 warnings about adding unsourced content and unexplained content removal, yet the behaviour is persisting. Just from today: [34][35][36][37][38]

Can someone have a look as they’re refusing to communicate? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Mfield (Oi!) 17:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully that’ll work… ta! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Added another 1 week block for continued disruptive editing after their recent block expired. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

What is happening at List of people from Manila?

• List of people from Manila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Regulus marzo 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Handsome 90888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Regulus Marzo handsome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Handsome gulus 88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Handsome boy 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Handsome happy 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Handsome happyman 989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They don't seem to be disrupting anything but six usernames containing "handsome" and two with "Regulus Marzo/marzo"? Is this all the same editor or a group of meatpuppets?

Not clear what the purpose of the accounts is but its a quack quack situation here so i have semi protected the page for a week and indef'd all the accounts until one of them can come up with a good explanation in an unblock request. Mfield (Oi!) 20:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems you forgot Regulus Marzo 8 (talk · contribs) and Regulus Marzo 11 (talk · contribs). Borgenland (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Got them, assume you meant Regulus marzo 11 (talk · contribs) Mfield (Oi!) 03:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding Regulus Marzo 10 (talk · contribs). Borgenland (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Holy cow! This "Regulus" editor has been around for 20 years? Regulus marzo4103@yahoo.com (talk · contribs)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

A quick glance at the sock drawer suggests it's the same person. Other unblocked accounts include Regulus marzo 5, Regulusmarzo@hotmai.l.com, and Regulusmarzo@hotmail..com. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Also Regulus marzo (talk · contribs).   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Add Handsome man gulus (talk · contribs) Borgenland (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

VBrave23C LLM use and disruptive editing

VBrave23C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used LLMs to create Robloxian Revolution (especially obviously unchecked given the syntax issues) and Draft:2025 December Bangladesh Protest.

They have been warned for this multiple times already but didn't react to this yet.

Their RPP request [39] also sounds like it was written by an LLM.

Apart from that they did a lot of disruptive editing:

• [40] changing Iran to a dictatorship
• [41] broke the name of Kyaw Htwe by changing it to Kyaw Kyaw Htwe
• [42] add the wrong party to Kyaw Htwe
• [43] changed it again to another defunct party
• [44] a comment that sounds like it was written by an LLM, not 100% sure though
• [45] broke the anthem of Libya by editing the file name to a non existing file
• [46] changed the flag of Catalonia to the Estelada flag
• [47] changed images of Catalonia again
• [48] added wrong flag to East Pakistan
• [49] again changing flags of Catalonia
• [50] changed the size of the padlock
• [51] also here (they actually reacted to this reversion on their talk page)
• [52] another unsourced addition
• [53] deleted the top of the talk page for some reason
• [54] broke the talk page a couple of times (see edits after) in a botched attempt to propose a move (I think)
• [55] uploaded non-free file without rationale
• [56] uploaded non-free file without rationale
• [57] uploaded non-free file without rationale

While I think they don't have bad intentions, I do believe that they don't have the competence to contribute to Wikipedia right now and are disruptive and don't react to warnings except for one case.

The LLM articles are also a big problem in my opinion. Laura240406 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Iran is a dictatorship. (despite this, their addition needed sourcing)

All other edits are concerning. Yesterday I would have said that I think they are not acting in bad faith etc. but seeing the sheer amount of "mistakes" listed out here makes that, honestly, hard to believe. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

yeah Iran is probably a dictatorship but it needs to be sourced and I think there is some consensus to not write it there Laura240406 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, VBrave23C here!I'm sorry for the disruptive editing and the LLM uses.Honestly, when I tried to make an edit, I believe that edit was good and will be good.But, I didnt research the edit I made, so I'm really sorry about it. Also for the LLM uses, because I didn't have time to write because I'm a school student and I also didn't know many infobox template ( I only know like 1 or 2).So yeah, Sorry for It! VBrave23C (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

VBrave23C, there is no deadline on Wikipedia. If you do not have the time to make a properly sourced edit not written by an LLM, then you shouldn't make that edit until you do have the time. There's a great deal of inappropriate LLM use, not just one or two things, so I think that an agreement to not use LLMs for anything on Wikipedia, whether edits to articles or talk page comments, is should be necessary for you to continue editing here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks VBrave23C (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

After the above apology VBrave23C has gone on to create the AI-written article 2026 Anti-ICE Protests in the United States. Note that the titles of the references are different from the headlines of the cited articles, among other AI tells. MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete it under G15 or as a page duplication aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Dude....I didn't use AI directly, You know how much time I put that on....From uploading images...Yall say that you appreciate wiki contributers...But guess what?Wiki moderator Is so strict that making a popular article is like finding a diamond on the street.Atp, I stop making articles if it ended up deleting with someone that didn't appreciating their work VBrave23C (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

So are you just going to pretend your pages are not clearly entirely AI-generated? Your denial means nothing because we have eyes. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes I do use AI, but not directly copy paste, youn guys didn't put the article into ai detector or smth VBrave23C (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You know what, I'm done.I will not contribute to wiki anymore, don't reply to this comment.I still use wiki but not using talk page and only view article VBrave23C (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ai shouldn’t be used at all, not even a little bit, also it’s usually easy to tell what’s AI and what’s not, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

As with too many apologies, it appears that the sorry in this case was "sorry I got caught" rather than "sorry for what I did." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude here, but if you don't have time to write, then writing articles is not something you should be doing. There are other ways to contribute that might fit your schedule better. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Note that after their declaration of intent to flounce above, VBrave23C posted this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

If this editor intended to continue editing, a WP:NOTHERE indef would be appropriate, but this should be closed given the previous comments. Katzrockso (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree Laura240406 (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, if the question is whether to close without action. We don't know if the editor really has flounced permanently. They should be blocked from article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hoaxster/POV editor

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

---

Sovereign House Of Los-Demchak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly claiming that certain dynasties that vanished hundreds of years ago are still around. They have disruptively changed infobox dates in order to support these claims, as well as creating a user page which I G3-nominated after finding no evidence that the subject exists. Most of the user's edits are to this user page, which is also promotional and has some blatant AI editing as well. As this user is continuing to edit the page rapidly even after the G3 nom, they appear to have shown that they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and should be blocked if they can't show they have moved past this. Somepinkdude (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

They're clearly here to promote something they made up one day. Blocked as NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

And they sent a strongly worded email threatening "the full legal weight of the crown" to fall on whoever edits the page who isn't them or some such. Email pulled. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

...and I see they did the same on their talk page. Well, that's that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

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

User-reported

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

---

• Baaased shqiiptar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Repeatedly moving draft LLM content to mainspace without fixing sourcing or content issues, despite prior warnings. Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montenegrin_invasion_of_northwestern_Albania&diff=prev&oldid=1334641753 Gujarat Samachar (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

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

EarthCountryMan2, WP:CIR

• EarthCountryMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EarthCountryMan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Uniteds of Wikis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite constant advice and reminders over several months, User:EarthCountryMan2, previously known as User:EarthCountryMan has made very little progress at improving their edits. He rarely, if ever, uses a source for edits, and when people ask him to source his edits, there's a repeated pattern in which he apologizes, asks for help, is given help, and then resumes not using sources. In addition, almost every sentence he writes indicates low English fluency; it's only the fact that his unsourced edits are constantly reverted that keeps the community from having to rewrite literally everything he contributes.

In previous ANI reports, one faded away without any action, another deal with when EarthCountryMan started adding unsourced edits as Uniteds of Wikis. The talk pages linked above are full of attempts to try and get ECM to slow down and start sourcing their edits.

Here is a small selection of their edits from late December. These are not selected as the worst ones; basically all of his edits are like this.

• 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.

In their most recent account, EarthCountryMan2, these problems have persisted. First, with two links added that did not indicate they read the content. A reference to the toll of a bridge for each car and driver got a link to Car and Driver magazine [58] and a defunct paper called the New Jersey Guardian was linked to the UK paper [59].

Then, he added a new winter storm with with numbers of cancelled flights that weren't just unsourced, but completely implausible (and multiple instances), suggesting that they were just made up [60] plus an implausible ice accumulation total of 12.5 inches, also unsourced [61].

I gave ECM advice as did User:Hurricanehink, but there has been no change in sourcing and not a single source has been added. ECM has given no sign of taking this advice seriously. When informed that he needs to source edits, over more than a month, he apologizes, is given advice (literally every single time, by different people), and there is no change.

• Ik I makes mistakes but I think I need help.
• Btw I fixed it is it good in Weather of 2025 (No source was added)
• But I will think about it ok
• Um it did hit Cuba Hurricane Imelda but I will fix it with some sources and a article (No source was added)
• I need help with sourcing some stuff just send me the link.
• I understand now i should make details but i won’t edit for 2-5 days because of practice.
• Um I will call Wikipedia because I need to source.
• Um guys I will be offline on Today, Friday, and Saturday because I don’t want to be blocked because i need to source.
• Yea, do you know how to add the source back in? No but I now go to source a little but show me a example of it

In the most recent instance of his unsourced edits being removed, ECM started a section with a rather incivil message [62]. Hello@~2026-52512-9 you just deleting stuff in January 2026 North American winter storm. If you don’t stop grefing you will be block from editing.

I'm not sure it needs to be addressed given the other problems, but there's also some weirdness going on with his old account, which he first reported as being hacked [63] and then said that his mom apparently locked him out of his account [64] Hello my name is EarthCountryMan2 ik it look like I am EarthCountryMan but I didn’t edited for up to 14 days because my mom accidentally changes my password and she made my account log out.

I greatly regret having to make this report, because I think ECM is editing in absolutely good faith (except for that last bit of rudeness), and greatly desires to improve the encyclopedia. But I think the lack of meaningful progress indicates that there is no other productive option than, at a minimum, a block from article space. While I can't claim knowledge of the underlying reason, whatever that reason is, ECM's history on Wikipedia is almost entirely made up of edits that someone in the community would have to both source and completely rewrite in order to be suitable for articles. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Notification [65] CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from article space until they can convince us that they understand and will provide sources for their edits. Their original account has also been blocked as potentially compromised. -- Whpq (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Afternote from an onlooker: I was hoping an ANI would be avoided and also tried to help this user (on their previous account). @EarthCountryMan2, this block is not to punish you but to prevent further additions until you can get a better grasp of sourcing and grammar. You can make edit requests on pages you'd like to edit after you've read and understood WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:42, and have a better understanding on how to phrase things. Someone will look at your edit request and either make your edit or decline it with reasons why.

You should also re-read the notes on your talk page and the ones on your old account from experienced users who are trying to help you. This is a collaborative environment and your help is appreciated, but you also have to comply with our core policies and guidelines. HurricaneZeta^C 03:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Um why I am blocked

EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I tried but I failed guys you need to show me a example of it. EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Guys I think I need to learn how to source for 7-8 days. EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Guys you missed lots of things i unsourced in October-January. ‘my I said ‘ Why you are deleting things are mines but I will know to sorcue In February just why?’ And then i said ‘Sorry I got Hacked’ but it was in my dreams not in real life. Then I said to @Hurricanehink is at my old account is ‘ Because I didn’t deleted the Storm we was showing up the i-676 flood thing do you see it in the (Hurricane Ida) side EarthCountryMan’ on October 3. then at my old account lots of lots got unsourced from October 3-January 4 at my old account,

• February 10-12 - A snow storm hit Washington, D.C., and it got 6.4 inches of snow during Maryland and Virginia history with Washington, D.C. .
  • January 4-7 - 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. Part of List of Pennsylvania hurricanes unsourced from October 2025.
    • September 30-October 2, 2022 - Hurricane Ian caused heavy rainfall in Southern Pennsylvania. Washington, D.C., a Major League Baseball game between the Philadelphia Phillies and Washington Nationals was rescheduled. Philadelphia set a daily precipitation record due to the storm on October 2, at 1.99 in (51 mm).
    • September 24-25, 2023 - Tropical Storm Ophelia Took Placed in Eastern Pennsylvania. Heavy rain also fell along the Mid-Atlantic, with state maximums occurred at Huntingtown, Maryland; Millsboro, Delaware; and Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and a regional maximum at 5.63 in (143 mm) in Toms River, New Jersey. was 4.64 Inches of Rain during The Weekend.
    • August 6-7, 2024 - Hurricane Debby Took from Rainfall in Pennsylvania, with 1.5 in (38 mm) in West Chester, Pennsylvania and 1.1 in (28 mm) of rain in Philadelphia. This was after heavy rains fell in the region from August 6–7. those same alerts extended into Westfield, Pennsylvania as well. In addition, multiple impassable roadways were reported in Binghamton, New York. A high-end EF1 tornado struck the eastern part of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
    • September 25-26, 2024- Hurricane Helene in part of Southern Pennsylvania. One Inches-Two inches of rain in Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
    • July 7-8 2025 - Tropical Storm Chantal. Rainfall in Eastern Pennsylvania. Up to 4.3 in (110 mm) of rain fell in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, and a ground stop was issued at Philadelphia International Airport on July 7. Part of Interstate 76 was flooded in Philadelphia. More than 35,000 people lost electricity in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Several trees were downed across New Jersey. On July 8, 2025 0F Tornado hit Part of Interstate 76, Philadelphia, Bucks County, and Easton.
      • August 22, 2025 —  Erin Hurricane Erin has led to flooding Philadelphia, without a drop of rain falling from the sky.  Philadelphia (WPVI) -- As Hurricane Erin moves out deeper into the Atlantic Ocean, away from the East Coast, the impacts of the storm are being felt in  Philadelphia, even without a drop of rain falling from the sky
      • September 29-30, 2025 — Tropical Cyclone Nine. On Monday September 29, 2025 in Tonight Tropical Cyclone Nine Will going to have 20 mph- 40 mph of the Hurricane. The City are Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Chester was going have the wind between 20 mph to 30 mph by a hour. On September 30, 2025 it will be by 45 mph a hour in  Philadelphia,  West Chester,  Reading, Upper Darby Township, and Chester. Because I think I should start sourcing and learning it.

EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @EarthCountryMan2, check your talk page, I left a tutorial on how to add sources here. There is also Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/2 if you want to take a look. HurricaneZeta^C 04:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I told the user back in December a very basic way how to cite sources. I have warned multiple times the need to add sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep he’s correct I added Multiple times to add sources but it was unsourced. EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Whpq i know how to source and grammar but check in my talk page. EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

There's no indication of anything properly sourced on your talk page.

This has been asked before without you giving an answer, but I'll try again: when someone asks you to source something, what is your understanding of what that person is asking you to do? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

To source and grammar? EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I wish you the absolute best, but unfortunately, I think this reply speaks volumes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

There are Wikipedias in many different languages; please edit the Wikipedia in a language that you speak fluently, rather than English. ~2025-31168-81 (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

On their old user page, they claim to be born in Los Angeles, US. They also claim to be 25, but on their new user page they claim their mom accidentally reset their password. I suspect we're just dealing with an editor who is younger than they claim and, perhaps, hasn't built up enough experience in academics yet.

As they're already blocked from article space, we don't have to worry about unsourced additions. I suggest they be allowed to edit article talk space so they can suggest edits with citations; this is unlikely to be any more disruptive than random anon accounts, and gives them a chance to learn how things work and what would be expected of them. If it becomes a nuisance, a full indef could be applied by any administrator. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Guys my account don’t unsourced as United of wikis it was unsourced by @EarthCountryMan. EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@EarthCountryMan2: can you please read your sentence again, and make sure it is grammatically correct? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

LLM hallucinations by Nikhilesh bhardwaj

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

---

Nikhilesh bhardwaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

1. [66] contains 15 fake sources
2. [67] has 5 fake sources
3. [68] has 3 fake sources

Northern Moonlight 09:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay this looks like a sock. Reported to SPI instead. Northern Moonlight 09:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Pessoa4545

Pessoa4545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Repreatedly creating LLM-generated drafts and articles with nonexistent categories and the deleted "Lang-x" templates. Most have been G15'd as well. They do not respond to talk-page notices and recently even recreated one of the articles that got G15'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This user finally responded at User_talk:Pessoa4545#Clarification_regarding_recent_edits. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I must strongly state my contributions were not at all related to artificial intelligence [69], in light of multiple G15 deleted creations, this does not appear to be true. Using an LLM to add nonsense then lying about it should be an indef. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Their responses are just a continual denial surrounding AI usage, but it is clear that they're not telling the truth. I would guess that their English is not great and this may explain why they wanted to use an LLM, but the fact that they've now dug themselves into a hole insisting that everybody else is wrong isn't great. If the behaviour continues, an indef may definitely be necessary, although they've stopped creating pages for now.

aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Their talk-page comments are either pure LLM or so indistinguishable that it still doesn't matter. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the talk page comments have been translated from the editor's native language. Doesn't read like pure LLM, there are odd word choices and flow issues that I don't think an AI would produce. Regardless, the pages are the main issue aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I obviously agree that this user was using LLM inappropriately in articles for substantive content, not just language polish, and I do not believe their claims to the contrary because I saw the now-deleted content. So this editor is WP:CIR fail and not fit to our collegial person-to-person work here regardless of discussion concerns. DMacks (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Reusing material from the ECtHR's official site

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

---

Long complaint

Here is the link: https://www.echr.coe.int/copyright-and-disclaimer

Copyright and Disclaimer
Website content
The portal and website of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) are intended to provide PUBLIC ACCESS to information about the Court and its activities. The Court hereby disclaims any liability or responsibility arising from the use of information or data contained on its website. The Court, its judges, members of the Registry and its contractors shall not be liable for any financial or other consequences whatsoever arising from the use of information or data contained on the website, including the inappropriate, improper or fraudulent use of such information or data. Consultation of the site shall automatically constitute full acceptance of the present disclaimer. While the Court cannot guarantee that there are no errors on its site, it endeavours, where appropriate, to correct those which are drawn to its attention. The Court accepts no liability for the content of other Internet sites to which its portal is or may be linked or to which reference is or may be made.
The electronic version of the Court’s judgments and decisions is provided in order to ensure compliance with Article 44 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that final judgments shall be published. However, it is not possible to guarantee that an electronic document faithfully reproduces a formally adopted text and the electronic version remains subject to editorial revision. The original signed text held in the Court’s archives is the authentic version. Moreover, until 2015, when a judgment or decision was published in the Court’s official series, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, the published version was to be regarded as the official version and governed any discrepancies between it and the electronic version.
Interpretation of hearings
The interpretation of the Court’s public hearings serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an official record of proceedings. The original language version alone is authentic. No liability shall be incurred by interpreters in the exercise of their duties.
Reproduction of website content
Reproduction of texts and videos
The information and texts available on the Court’s website MAY BE REPRODUCED PROVIDED THE SOURCE IS ACKNOWLEDGED (© ECHR-CEDH) and the reproduction is made for private use or for the purposes of information and education in connection with the Court’s activities. This authorisation is subject to the condition that the source is indicated and that any such reproduction is free of charge.
PERSONS wishing to use information and texts on the Court’s website for any use OTHER THAN those listed above, and in particular for commercial use, must request prior written permission using the form available on the website. Users should nevertheless be aware that certain information and texts may be protected under intellectual property law, in particular by copyright.
Reproduction of photos
Photos on the Court’s website remain the property of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights – they may be used on any medium provided the source is mentioned. All reproduction must necessarily provide the following credit: "Council of Europe".
Pictures taken by non-Council of Europe photographers may not be reproduced or transmitted without the photographer's written permission (contact details appear on the print version of the relevant pictures).
Such use must be free of charge and remain private in nature, or for the purposes of information and education in connection with the Court’s activities.
Reproduction of photos of the Human Rights Building
The name of the architects must be mentioned: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher Architectes.
Diannaa, I am a
(i) "PERSON wishing to use information and texts on the Court’s website for any use listed above" and
(ii) NOT for commercial use.
ECtHR DOES ALLOW SUCH USAGE!, see above.
Diannaa, I am NOT
(i) a "PERSON wishing to use information and texts on the Court’s website for any use OTHER THAN those listed above" and
(ii) for commercial use.
ECtHR does NOT allow such usage, see above.
There is GIANT difference between these two!

• The 3 deletions from Diannnaa:
  

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_550&action=history

• The 2 deletions from Diannnaa:
  

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_problem&action=history

Everywhere in Wikipedia, ECtHR's decisions are given just by sourcing

See, for example, among the others:

• List of ECHR cases concerning Article 10 in Turkey
• List of European Court of Human Rights judgments
• Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
• List of Romani rights cases before international courts and quasi-judicial bodies
• Case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy
• Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
• M.C. and Others v Italy

I want The Wiki Admin User:Diannaa to be warned to NOT to delete the sourced/referenced/cited ECtHR's decisions from the ECtHR's official webstie. She CLEARLY and BLATANTLY misuse her Wiki Admin rights. ~2026-14012-5 (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

“Persons wishing to use information and texts on the Court’s website for any use other than those listed above, and in particular for commercial use, must request prior written permission using the form available on the website.”

Wikipedia is “commercial use”, since we allow others to reprint our content and charge for it or run ads against it. The material in question is therefore not available to be added to our articles en masse. • a frantic turtle 🐢 11:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I just edit-conflicted adding the same comment as A Frantic Turtle. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia falls under "commercial use". Regardless of the fact that you're loud and wrong, this isn't the place for this dispute. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

( Courtesy ping: Aesurias) They appear to be objecting to User:Diannaa's reversion of their additions, and the warnings [70] and [71] on their talkpage - the reversions and warnings (however reasonable) are appropriate to raise here, even if the result is a WP:BOOMERANG against the OP.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think a dispute over the inclusion of content the editor did not write warranted them going to ANI, which is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems."

However, now that they're here, BOOMERANG is looking likely. Their contributions just show a history of yelling and abusing other editors. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the all replies. I am struggling to understand one thing: I am a

(i) "PERSON wishing to use information and texts on the Court’s website for any use listed above" and

(ii) NOT for commercial use.

ECtHR DOES ALLOW SUCH USAGE!, see above.

I am NOT

(i) a "PERSON wishing to use information and texts on the Court’s website for any use OTHER THAN those listed above" and

(ii) for commercial use.

ECtHR does NOT allow such usage, see above.

There is GIANT difference between these two! Hence, from the ECtHR's perspective, I do NOT have to fill the relevant Form (A Frantic Turtle mentioned) from the ECtHR's perspective. That is to say, the relevant ECtHR's material (a paragraph of the relevant Court decision) is a NON-copyright-protected-material for me from the ECtHR's OWN perspective. So, when I came to WP with that NON-copyright-protected material with the same NON-commercial intent, How it can turn to be a copyright-protected-material!

Also, for the argument "Wikipedia is “commercial use”, since we allow others to reprint our content and charge for it or run ads against it. The material in question is therefore not available to be added to our articles en masse", I would say, WP's ABILITY/POSSIBILITY to allow the others "to reprint WP's content and charge for it or run ads against it, i.e., for commercial purposes becomes an issue ONLY WHEN such an ABILITY/POSSIBILITY turns to be a REALITY/FACT. That is to say, as long as WP's material is NOT used for commercial purposes, how can it be problem from the WP's side? Anyway, I still have NOT understand the above logic of the Wiki Admins. By thwe way, I did NOT revert the relevant WP articles since I wanted to learn the essence of this copyright issue~2026-14012-5 (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The licence to reuse Wikipedia's material – you can see it whenever you click "edit" or even "reply" – doesn't allow us to put burdens upon those reusing our material beyond those of the licence itself. Therefore we can't – and won't – limit what and how our material is reused. One such limit would be requiring someone using our material for commercial purposes to obtain their own licence from someone else for using the text you want adding to articles.

This is not just a possibility or theoretical or the like – our largest mirror, Wikiwand, freely uses our material with adverts and has a paid tier. The moment you add restricted material to an article, you are not only breaking our licence, you're imposing burdens they are not aware of upon them. Instantly. This isn't fair, even though they're a bottom-feeder.

So, no, you're on a hiding to nothing with these interesting but ultimately doomed attempts to litigate around a solid fact. Sorry. • a frantic turtle 🐢 12:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) again. It isn't just a matter of what's legal. Wikipedia has said that text material must be available for commercial use, and we do not control who reuses our material. You would know that if you simply read what you have been asked to read instead of going off on rants. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, User:A Frantic Turtle and Phil Bridger, I finally and eventually understood this issue completely.~2026-14012-5 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Massive respect for this humble and mature response. :) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Trolling and threats from ~2026-15171-3

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

---

~2026-15171-3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-15171-3 is only here to troll Talk pages on racially sensitive topics with counterfactual nonsense. (e.g. This tedious rant defending the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.) I reverted their attempts at provocation and gave them a first and final warning. I interpret their response to the warning as a threat of some sort. It's certainly an attempt to intimidate. They also reinserted the rant with a paste of my warning.

They claim to have made "countless constructive contributions to wikipedia". As zero such contributions are shown in the contributions for that particular anonymous account it might be worth doing a checkuser to see what other accounts they might have been using and whether any other contributions were similarly, ahem, "constructive". Of course, they could just be bloviating. I think we need an indef either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Abuse of process

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

---

C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is engaged in a clear abuse of process. They are a part of something called an edit warring (after having looked up what that means), while imposing their version of an article, and imposing a block on the other person (me) to force the version of the article they want. They are claiming a lot of nonsense by relying on woefully out of date sources in a biography, and are wikilawyering (I looked that up too) over a new source that has been added to show a common sense blindingly obvious update to the article. I did place a warning on their talk page to stop their behaviour but they have chosen to ignore this.

The page in question is Natalie Washington. A quick Look at the edit history will show they are happily acting like they own the article and are preventing sourced changes of out of date information.

It cannot be right that one side complaining is allowed to then also impose a punishment on the side they are complaining about simply to suit their ongoing desire to keep an article at a certain stasis. The user here is happily doing the exact behaviour they are complaining about and handing out a block for…which is hypocritical of them not to realise this. The actions here are a clear abuse of process and absolutely a conflict of interest.

You cannot be both complainant and executioner when you yourself are doing the exact and identical behaviour. It should not be a surprise when someone raises the fact you are behaving identically and with impunity. ~2025-32242-94 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2025-32242-94: actually, you are edit warring, and what's more adding unreferenced contentious information into an article on a living person in violation of our WP:BLP rules, and C.Fred and others are trying to prevent that. Hence, you are now partially blocked, and that article is protected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not denying your first line which is completely unnecessary and inflammatory from you. (No different to going, you started it, from a toddler) Both sides here are doing that so make of that what you will. For the record I have sourced the changes made and the other side is blanket going into we must discuss it to death before it is accepted, before they have read the source in question. It is also not contentious to say that all trans women are banned from playing football in England. It is a factual statement supported by the sources where the subject talks about being banned.

I am (having looked it up) saying is the other side is abusing the processes in the way they have acted, ignoring sourcing, imposing their version, and imposing punishment, all to suit their own end.

You make it out like you I don’t see both sides here. What I am complaining about is how the other user has abused their position and abused the process.

I personally don‘t think you have read the changes or sourcing I have posted and are posting in defence before reading the substance. I could be wrong though and if I am wrong what are the grounds you have for the Fred’s behaviour and exclusion of sourcing?

The content being changed which I have sourced removes sources which are now 5 years old to reflect that ALL trans women have been banned from football and the source is a direct interview with the article subject on being a banned footballer. This sourcing is being ignored and the old out of date and in violation of the need for Wikipedia to only give accurate information in biographies. It is be defamatory to claim the articles subject is still playing football in violation of a ban.

In order to achieve this article stasis they are engaging in edit warring, undue and delaying discussion over the article, which if they had read would show they are demanding discussions on sourced content without reading said sourcing first, and then banning the side making the article compliant with the rules on biographies and sourcing the material and removing out of date material.

The claims of preventing a violation of the biography rules are in fact a defence of imposing a violation of the rules on biographies. ~2025-32242-94 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You were clearly and unambiguously violating WP:BLP policy by adding unsourced content. You were correctly reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There's no "both sides" here. Cleaning up your edit warring is no different than a tow truck driver cleaning up a car accident you caused. The WP:ONUS is on you to build consensus for material that you want to add that is disputed. And I think it's quite clear from your tone and subject that you are the same user of this IP address (an uninvolved admin acting can easily cross reference) that has already been blocked twice before this block, including having TPA removed for personal attacks.. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

CFred is one of our most cautious and even-handed administrations. You have clearly been edit-warring, which is a bright-line blocking violation, and being blocked from that article Is about the most minimal sanction available. Shrill denunciations are not an effective response. You are closing in one a more extensive block for personal attacks unless you take responsibility for your own conduct. Acroterion (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for what amounts to long-term abuse. Acroterion (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Owain Glyndŵr article edit war

User IP 2026-32556-7 has been engaging in an edit war regarding the Owain Glyndŵr article. The user been warned prior and continues to edit war, without using talk as recommended. There is no option than to request an IP block as the person is arguing with three consecutive users. Cltjames (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the editwarring been handled by way of a p-block for the TA ~2026-32556-7 and 24-hour full-protection for the page. The content dispute should be resolved on the article talk page. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Persistent unconstructive editing from IP user

~2025-43086-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps adding a claim to the lede of the Cowboy Bebop Netflix show that it was criticized for its cast despite the article body sources clearly stating the opposite. Looks like they've been at this for years now ([72], [73], [74], [75], [76]) and has seemingly made it their life's mission or something. Ought to know better after several years' worth of reverts, just seems to have a weirdly specific axe to grind and isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Might have to semi-protect the article, since this guy is clearly in it for the long haul. Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

PJ Masks

• PJ Masks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just wanted to report an issue I'm not sure what to do about. Four times since September, with three of those times coming within the past 30 days alone, temporary anon accounts have posted "edit requests" to Talk:PJ_Masks that consisted of the entire article being copied and pasted wholesale, including parts of it (the editprotection template, non-free image files and categories) that cannot be on talk pages, without giving any particularly clear indication of what they actually wanted us to add or change — one change I was able to identify is that it inevitably involves trying to add the page to one or more redlinked categories that don't exist to have pages filed in them, although I didn't comprehensively compare the entire copy-pasted text to the article in order to know whether that was their only change or not.

This, then, inevitably requires bots to step in and remove the protection template and non-free files from the talk page, and human editors (usually me) to step in and remove the page from the mainspace and redlinked categories that talk pages can't be in, and having to repeatedly do this over and over again is becoming disruptive. And since the article is currently under indefinite semi-protection due to vandalism, it's quite possible that this is more of the same if their copy-pasted text isn't carefully reviewed by an editor with much, much more knowledge of the topic than I've got — but since they're not formatting their "edit requests" properly, they've just been going unaddressed (which is obviously why they keep reposting them).

Since it's been a different anon-temp account doing this each time, however, the user won't see any talk page warnings and won't be stopped by any editblocks — but since talk pages really shouldn't be editprotected without good reason, I don't feel like I can just do that without wider attention. So is there another way we can make this persistent disruption stop without resorting to semi-protecting the talk page, or is semi-protecting the talk page for a while really the only way? Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

A one-month block of their /64 might also be considered. The underlying IP has done similar stuff at another page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Make that six months. Contribs from a known /64 that vandalized this talk page and several others before the TA rollout, in each case copy-pasting the article into the talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The Miss GEE

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

---

The Miss GEE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please block this User because he add a lot of unsourced details on articles many time.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You've not notified User:The Miss GEE about this discussion. You are required to do so per the instructions at the top of this page when you are editing this page. Further, you've placed no warnings of any kind on their talk page, nor have you attempted any sort of discussion with this person about their edits. This noticeboard is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". You've not demonstrated this nor attempted any sort of communication with the editor. Please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution protocols. If you can't reach an understanding with the editor, then maybe there's a reason to report here. Until then, there's nothing for us to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Persistent unreferenced edits from an Ip user

• ~2025-34429-65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP user ~2025-34429-65[77] keeps adding unreferenced edits.[78][79][80] They have been notified in their talk page, four times by 3 different editors, and they don't respond. The ip user doesn't use the edit summary to explain their edits, they simply revert back their unreferenced edits. I don't think the ip user is willing to communicate and cooperate. I'm asking the administrators to look into this situation.Hotwiki (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Details at The Secrets of Hotel 88 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). User:Titodutta has semiprotected that article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

User:MunkhtushigaTheGreatMongol

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

---

Hello, i would like to report @MunkhtushigTheGreatMongol for requesting a blocked user, @Shadow. 547 to edit for him which i am not sure how but he has requested him on Discord whilst MunkhtushigTheGreatMongol was blocked. I believe this was to make it on Simple Wikipedia and i would like to request both users to be blocked indefinitely on both simple Wikipedia and the english wikipedia for proxying. As well Shadow has also requested me to proxy for him to create a page, which i declined. I am not sure how to send them as i can't upload images. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

They have also threatened me with retaliation with having me somehow blocked from the Wikipedia when i confronted them. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You need to notify editors when you bring them to ANI, I'll do that now. We can't do much about Simple Wikipedia as it's a separate project, but has Shadow asked you to proxy edit this Wikipedia for them recently? Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and i have refused the offer and this is why i made this notice. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not good at all - so that was in January? Do you have a rough date so we can see if it'll affect their current block & some basic info on what they asked you to do? Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Like few hours ago, from Midnight of Jan 25th to 26th. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

If simple Wikipedia is a separate project where can i report them for proxying, personal attacks and block evasion? - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with it, someone else might know more. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@HorseBro the hemionus, it's the same as here - report on the admin noticeboard. -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Where did they threaten [you] with retaliation? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

They have said they have "evidence" and more likely to bluff to do anything. They were also toxic, as they had deliberately harassed me. Where can i send on the screenshots? - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Did they contact you on Discord, Telegram etc.? Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

On a Discord server i co-own. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I would send screenshots, etc. to ArbCom using Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

User keeps arguing with wrong policy

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

---

Hello. (Talk:Rowan_Atkinson#Birth_place) User:AndyTheGrump keeps accusing me of not understanding policy, namely WP:USERGEN, when that policy doesn't apply to FreeBMD as it's not user-generated. Please make him stop. Spectritus (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The transcribing of the records is carried out by teams of dedicated volunteers [who join by registering on the website]... sounds like USERGEN to me EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not as not anyone can edit it and the info (which is also in the GRO Index) comes from official documents. Spectritus (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Active Volunteers 12,412 all-time Anyone who asks, by the look of it. And it doesn't matter a damn where they are getting their data from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The freebmd website is clearly and unambiguously user-generated: see https://www.freebmd2.org.uk/volunteer. And note that Spectritus is arguing that it isn't user-generated, but is a primary source instead - which, given that it is being cited for birth details, would violate WP:BLPPRIMARY, making it an invalid source either way. There are legitimate grounds to query whether the article is currently correct (we have contradictory RS), but this isn't going to be settled by edit-warring policy violations into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

As I've already told you, the policy says a primary source can be cited with a secondary source which is the case here. Spectritus (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't give a damn how many times you misrepresent policy. You are still wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not. Check WP:BLPPRIMARY yourself before you accuse me of lying. And watch your tongue!

"Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source" Spectritus (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Simply reposting a primary source doesn't make it a secondary source, it's still the same primary source at a different location. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I cited with a Britannica article which is a secondary source. Spectritus (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah I see what your saying, but if there is a secondary source why is this being included at all? It's certainly not being discussed by the secondary source in anyway. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It is. The birth place frpm the birth record is in the Britannica article. Spectritus (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

No the Britannia article doesn't mention the birth certificate, even if it mentions the same birth place. Looking at the changes to the article I see the reason you want to include it is to provide evidence for the change to the birth place, that's a misuse per BLPPRIMARY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not a primary source. It's just some user generated content. M.Bitton (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It is not user-generated. The info is from official documents and noone can edit it. Spectritus (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

What "official document"? M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Birth, death and marriage records. The scans are available on the website. Spectritus (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I can post doctored documents on my very nice looking blog and claim that they are official. Will that make them official? M.Bitton (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

They're from the government! Their info is also in the GRO index which is a government website! Spectritus (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

That's what they claim, while stating We make no warranty whatsoever as to the accuracy or completeness of the data. Did you miss that part? M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you not know what the GRO is? Spectritus (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I know what reliable sources are and I can tell you that this is not one of them. M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

As I'm experienced with genealogy, I can tell you it is reliable and the info it has can also be found on a government website and multiple genealogy websites! Spectritus (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

That's a bold, baseless and irrelevant claim. The bottom line, you're not a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Just do some research before accussing me of lying. Spectritus (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not accusing of anything, I'm telling you that you are not a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I never said I was a source. Spectritus (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Note that even after starting this discussion, Spectritus is still attempting to edit-war this policy violation into the article. [81] At minimum, a block from editing the article would seem in order, since Spectritus evidently lacks even the restraint to wait for responses here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, you the person in the wrong, not me! Now, please check the policy before you make any accusations. Spectritus (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not making 'accusations', I am demonstrating as a fact that you are attempting to edit-war your preferred content into the article, even while multiple experienced contributors here are telling you that you are wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not. You are wrong! Spectritus (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Because you say so? And anyone else who disagrees with you is also wrong? That's a really convincing argument... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm am experienced with genealogy. Unlike you, I know what FreeBMD and the GRO are! Spectritus (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you trying to look stupid, or does it come naturally? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You're the stupid one! Do some research before making accusations. Spectritus (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

user GustavaKomurov

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

---

• GustavaKomurov (talk · contribs)

Not much editing since July, and the edits since are not from someone here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to harass: Oct 31: [82][83][84], Nov 14: [85], Nov 25 [86], Dec 7 [87], Jan 25 [88][89]. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC).

Sorry, I should have looked more at their past and past warnings when I warned them. Didn't realize how extensive this was. (Would have given a higher level warning.) LordCollaboration (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Another continually unconstructive LLM editor

WikiNoia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned against using an LLM in various capacities [90][91][92][93][94][95], including a very clear final warning from myself on 30 December [96]. WikiNoia has also stated that they're not using AI for my edits [97], that they did not use any AI tools to generate passages [98], and later that they used an LLM only in that instance to double check wording and This will not happen again [99].

Here are some hallucinations added before the final warning:

• [100] – None of Wild melons of Africa: ecology and ethnobotany, Cultivation of Melons in Colonial America, or Invasive melon species in Mexico exist.
• [101] – Chewa Lexicon and Cultural Notes doesn't exist.
• [102] – thegrocer.co.uk source doesn't exist, redirects to an unrelated page.
• [103] – Puerto Rican Cooking: Traditional and Contemporary Recipes doesn't exist.

And some after the final warning:

• [104] – Traditional Foods exists, but page 313 verifies none of the prior paragraph.
• [105] – Italian Grill exists, but page 21 verifies none of the prior sentence.
• [106] – The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets exists, but pages 399-400 have nothing to do with aquafaba, and the other uses also fail verification.
• [107] – Mongolia: The Bradt Travel Guide exists, neither usage of page 89 verifies the text.
• [108] – Some supported facts combined with with generated synth like Despite later influences from colonial rule and urbanization, traditional cooking methods and locally sourced ingredients have remained central to Nigerian cuisine.

WikiNoia stated on on 29 December: I will continue to verify references carefully in future edits [109]. Enough. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The Grocer magazine? Must be this one: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/news/premier-squares-up-to-pot-noodle-with-super-noodles-pot/544898.article. Sometimes publications reorganise their links. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

this happens sometimes with LLMs, it helps to check archive.org to see whether it's an older url or just a hallucination Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Link reorganisation doesn't appear to be what happened, the url you've supplied existed in 2024 [110] and still exists today, while the above edit was made in December 2025 and the url within it has no evidence of having ever existed. It's not uncommon for LLMs to output near-valid but broken urls.

Those aren't the only examples from December either, there's [111] in Special:Diff/1327841067, [112] in Special:Diff/1328918439, [113] in Special:Diff/1327226798, etc... fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

It's fine if you're learning English while (WHILE) editing Wikipedia, but users shouldn't be using LLMs and then denying it. And then contradicting themselves. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them indefinitely from editing mainspace. The continued use of LLMs to generate their content, most especially with the inclusion of hallucinated sources, is wholly unacceptable. That, combined with their assurances this wouldn't happen again, pushes it way over the top. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern. I’ve reverted the edits where the cited sources did not explicitly support the wording used, and I’m now rechecking citations line by line to ensure they directly verify the specific claims they’re attached to, without synthesis or interpretation.

To make sure I proceed correctly, could you please clarify the scope you’d like reviewed? should I recheck all edits from a specific timeframe, or are there particular recent articles you want me to focus on first?

Thanks for the guidance.WikiNoia (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand why the concern [114], I understand why [115], I understand the concern [116], I get why you’re concerned [117], I understand the concern [118], I understand the concern [119], I understand the concern (above)

No, you have not, and do not, understand.

I left this out of the main report for brevity, but WikiNoia has stated before in very clear terms that they only used [ChatGPT] to review grammar and wording, and to learn proper citation formatting [120], which is incontrovertibly disproven by multiple edits of theirs which contain utm_source=chatgpt.com [121][122][123][124][125], in addition to the numerous other hallucinations and WP:V issues exhibited above. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand your points. I have reverted the edits that were problematic and will continue reviewing citations carefully. Going forward, I will make sure that any edits I add are fully verified and directly supported by reliable sources. I am focusing on improving my editing approach to comply with Wikipedia’s policies. WikiNoia (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Remarkable. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Really, you'd think that sooner or later they'd just stop digging the hole deeper, right? Ravenswing 12:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think they realize they're in the hole. But yeah, CIR to edit. We'll see if they can have productive edit requests while blocked, I guess. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Presumptive revert proposal

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

---

Since WikiNoia has used an LLM to add a substantial amount of unreviewed and unverifiable content to the project, I'm proposing that any editor should be allowed to immediately revert any previous articlespace edit of theirs that does not qualify as WP:MINOR. WikiNoia spent next to no effort verifying their edits, other editors should not be required to spend a hundred times that effort to clean them up.
Noting here that there exists an open LLM noticeboard discussion and a cleanup tracking page. (updated 05:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support Works for me. I've already reverted a few of their edits after evaluating them as LLM generated. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support WikiNoia has created a large mess. Needs cleaning. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support because it would be unreasonable for that not to be allowed. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Blue Sonnet said it better. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support There are tons of them, it'll take someone else literal hours to go through them all and that's not fair on them. It's better to have a reset. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support and let's also get a discussion going on enshrining presumptive reverts of LLM misuse into policy. Otherwise we'll have to go through this straw poll every time it comes up (which is pretty often and will only become more so). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support per Thebiguglyalien's thoughts regarding the presumptive reverts of LLM misuse since we've had a lot of issues with them over the past few months or so. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support - That which is created thoughtlessly should be disposed of thoughtlessly. Once there's no ambiguity about an editor planting LLM slop in articles, this should, as Thebiguglyalien suggests, be the standard response. Vandals and bigots are probably worse people, on average, but the output of LLM slopfarmers are a far more insidious danger to this project than childish vandalism. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  I know people use the word 'slop' as punishment to gross out LLM users, but 'slopfarming' is incredibly disgusting. Congratulations. ~2026-56278-1 (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Slop is the nice version of the word that I'd personally prefer. Calling them LLM beignets would make them too tasty, and "farm-to-desktop, data-churned, artisan spoilation" is both unwieldy and vague. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Christopher Hitchens, and support making it a policy (preferably one line or so, we don't need entire paragraphs of minutiae that will derail the policy proposal). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support This is the purpose of CSD G15. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Challenge Can one of the people who opposes a blanket ban on AI use in composing article text or discussion posts please point to a single example of such use which has done anything other than inject a load of crap into the Wikipedia body, and wasted the time of everyone withing hearing distance? Thanks. EEng 13:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  +1. Because sooner or later, unless the editoriat gets its collective act together and enact stringent anti-LLM policies before it's too damn late, we're going to have the clock reset to 20+ years ago, where large stretches of the public and academia believed Wikipedia too unreliable to be trusted. Only this time, they'll be right. Ravenswing 16:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, WP:SUICIDEPACT is not universally adopted by editors. So, until the overt, existential threat that LLMs pose to the Wiki project becomes absolutely obvious to everyone, there will be a significant percentage of editors who, simply because there's some theoretical possibility that someone, somewhere, can or did make a useful edit with LLMs, won't take a firm stand against them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Support but also, this is allowed already. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Support - editor time is a valuable resource, and should not be wasted on individually reviewing an editor's contributions when it has been shown that that editor is habitually submitting LLM-hallucinated crap. If any of the information that they added is relevant and verifiable, somebody else will eventually add it properly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Goldenpen1 - LLM-generated content and fraudulent sourcing

Goldenpen1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently noticed these two spates of edits. In looking them over, the stilted, promotional writing style and superfluous nature of the content suggests LLM usage. Worse, at least two of these additions are fraudulently sourced: this is referenced to something that makes no mention of the "bowtie" nor it being "one of the most recognizable automotive logos worldwide". The source given for this addition makes no mention of the Stovebolt engine. I didn't check the rest, but I think it's clear that nothing this account has added can be trusted.

In addition, this account has made a succession of unhelpful one-by-one additions to "See also" sections, which raises the possibility that they're trying to game extended-confirmed status. Ten edits here, 31 edits here, 26 edits here. --Sable232 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Blimey, another LLM-generator. Even the user page is, "I am interested in creating and publishing content with a creative approach, committed to sources, neutrality, and objectivity, and I contribute to supporting editors and content creators through influential writing that combines inspiration and professionalism."

Interlaken examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interlaken&diff=prev&oldid=1329248631 "underlines", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interlaken&diff=prev&oldid=1329248631 "encourage",

But overall, AGF about the edits (which I assume are LLM anyways), there is no need to make a bunch of edits in a row rather than package them under one single edit. Probably both gaming and using LLM. Edits probably need to be rolled back. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Adding fabricated sources undermines the entire project. It is the highest level of intellectual fraudulence. Ban them off. Carrite (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• I have blocked them from mainspace and left them a note to explain themselves here. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

User:BBotirk

Vandalism from the user, including the removal of cited content without explanation. Military history RUS (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs you'd care to proffer? Ravenswing 12:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Simply check the following articles: Battle of Ming Sha, Battle of Yehuling, Battle of the Kalka River; all changes from the user. Military history RUS (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Or, rather than asking us to do the work for you, you can provide diffs of what precisely you consider to be vandalism, as the instructions at the top of this page direct. Ravenswing 16:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The contributions from this user look like they are in good faith and are responding to some feedback. They are not vandalizing. They have only been talked to once, on their talk page, about any issues with their editing. This did not need to escalate to ANI yet, and someone could have reached out to them once more on their talk page to discuss more about any issues with their edits.

For the articles you linked, since you did not provide any diffs or explain the issue, I am simply going off what I am seeing. One time[126] they tried providing a source, but deleted it when they couldn't figure out how to create a citation (for which they could have been linked information on how to). Their other edits on that page are because the source itself provides two different numbers, but they didn't do "removal of cited content".

For Battle of Yehuling and Battle of Kalka, they appear to not want the "modern estimate" in the infobox; this is a legitimate kind of content dispute which they could be engaged in., and describing it as vandalism is assuming a lot given their other constructive edits. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This very source provided 129 does not contain this figure (300). This is at least suspicious, 300 against 80,000.
In addition, we have the WP:AGE MATTERS rule (this refers to modern estimates). Military history RUS (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a specific issue, but again this isn't vandalism, just an ill-guided edit. The source contains 300 thousand, so that may be where they got it from, but this reads as a mistake (misreading/mistranslating) as opposed to vandalism. For WP:AGE MATTERS, I don't see anywhere where anyone told them this rule exists; as far as I can tell, no one brought up concerns (or even attempted to) with their editing in a constructive way. You have to talk to other editors and assume good faith.

If you haven't read it before, I recommend checking out WP:VANDALISM to see why I'm being particular about your decision to use that word for your complaint. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

To me, it is obvious vandalism. He does not care about and simply deletes one's good contribution from a reliable source because he does not like it. Military history RUS (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Where is your evidence he "does not like it"?

You are not assuming good faith, bringing an editor to ANI and assuming the worst of them without having even borne to talk to them. You haven't made a convincing argument as to why it's vandalism, you haven't pointed to any definitively malicious action, you have cast vague aspersions without giving the specific evidence to go with it, and you haven't done the bare minimum of talking directly, trying dispute resolution, or asking questions about the other editor's actions. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll give you a rule in return: WP:BITE, which you have a good deal more cause to be well aware of than a newbie does AGEMATTERS. IndigoManedWolf said it all, but it's disappointing to see a veteran taking someone with 44 edits straight to ANI with such a threadbare, unsupported complaint. Ravenswing 21:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Military history RUS:, please read WP:NOTVAND. Referring to edits as obvious vandalism when they are not, and especially doubling down on it after being told the edits are not vandalism, is considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

User Porya Azizi4 keeps adding spam YouTube links to the top of several pages.

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

---

Porya Azizi4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of their recent edits have been them doing this, you can just look through his contributions Special:Contributions/Porya Azizi4 Luka Maglc (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This has been sitting at WP:AIV for a bit as a sock of User:Porya Azizi. echidnalives - talk - edits 11:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, blocked. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user

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

---

Hello, I’m not entirely sure whether this is the right place to report this but the user User talk:Papapici91 has repeatedly been vandalising, mainly reverting a page that was deleted via Speedy deletion, he also told another editor to “go F yourself” on his talk page, which I’m sure is not the kind of behaviour Wikipedia condones. It appears he has just returned from a long absence so perhaps this complaint is too soon, just thought I would inform on this matter. Please correct me if I am wrong. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Every single mainspace edit in user's history was either deleted or reverted. The page they created was quite inappropriate for Wikipedia. Add that to the personal attack: indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I've also just filed for a speedy on Papapici91's sandbox, which has another iteration of the hoax page that was previously G3'ed. Ravenswing 12:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Wow you guys are really efficient, blocked within 30 minutes of the report, perhaps you should join my local council 😂 they certainly need to be taught on efficiency. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP users (potential pattern?)

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

---

Hello,

Noticing some repeated vandalism using similar type of edits by multiple IP users:

• ~2026-54939-3 (talk · contribs) - edits [127] and [128]
• ~2026-57090-8 (talk · contribs) - edits [129] and [130]

Not sure if there's a larger pattern here, but the edits are very similar. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Given the “number of accounts on associated IPs” is the same I’d guess these are also the same IP address. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Belligerent editing, forum shopping, failing to assume good faith, and otherwise NOTHERE behaviour by Jeremie69

Jeremie69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is apparently upset about something to do with the recently created article Syndrone. It seems they were originally upset that this redirected to a different person, which it no longer does, but they have been campaigning on various talk pages ([131], [132]) and most recently RfD for some reason ([133]) about this apparent issue. The use of LLM is obvious in some of these. I'm not sure if the article that's causing all this trouble was ever meant to be moved out of draftspace, and based on this other user's very closely related contributions ([134]) maybe this should have just been reported as a probable sock case. — Anonymous 18:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The characterization presented above is inaccurate and misrepresents the situation.

This was a content dispute regarding an unsourced and misleading redirect that attributed the name “Syndrone” and involvement in the ZP Theart project to an unrelated subject without reliable sources. The former reference supporting the alias no longer existed and was therefore removed in accordance with verifiability policy.

My edits and subsequent discussions consistently focused on evidentiary accuracy and preventing misattribution, which is a core Wikipedia principle. No reliable sources demonstrating the alleged connections were provided at any point.

The suggestion that this concerns notability, sockpuppetry, or improper motives is speculative and not supported by evidence. Likewise, raising the use of language tools is irrelevant to the substance of the content issue.

This was a good-faith attempt to correct an inaccurate redirect and discuss it through appropriate channels after being directed between venues. It was not “forum shopping”, but an effort to resolve a factual problem within existing processes.

I remain focused solely on content accuracy and verifiability. Jeremie69 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Right. The article was copy-pasted from Draft:Syndrone without waiting for AfC. I'm unconvinced that it would pass muster for mainspace at the moment (a number of the citations are passing mentions or irrelevant). Meanwhile, the redirect from Syndrone was useless anyway, redirecting to an article that did not mention it. So, I've deleted the article, and everyone can wait for someone to review it at AfC. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  I guess we'll see if that puts an end to this for now. Thanks. — Anonymous 19:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  The reason the name wasn't mentioned at Machinedrum (the original target of the redirect) was that the mention was removed by User:Jeremie69. I reverted the deletion and found a working reference, so we may want to restore the original redirect. - Eureka Lott 01:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for looking into the actual content issues and resolving them! Jeremie69 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  That being said, it may be worth having an admin examine this "Anonymous" account’s history, as the repeated use of incorrect allegations and assumptions has led to more disruption than constructive outcomes. Jeremie69 (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  You either need to substantiate your allegations with evidence, usually in the form of WP:DIFFs or you need to retract those allegations. Whether or not you agree with the report Anonymous made, there was evidence provided, while you're just making accusations with nothing to support them. Also, your first reply to the report was almost certainly LLM-written, which is something to avoid. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  @CoffeeCrumbs LOL a part of me wants to see how an attempt to report me would unfold (another part of me would much rather not). Also apparently the user does not know that account history is publicly available to all. — Anonymous 00:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  @CoffeeCrumbs

  @An anonymous username, not my real name

  The speculative allegations originated with Anonymous, not with me, and were made without diffs or evidence, based on a misunderstanding of a straightforward content dispute. My edits were solely focused on correcting an unsourced and misleading redirect, which an administrator has since confirmed was inappropriate.

  My later comment was a constructive response to repeated unsupported claims that had already caused unnecessary escalation. If any reminder about substantiating behavioural concerns with evidence is warranted, it should be directed toward Anonymous rather than myself.

  As for the “almost certainly LLM-written” remark: if “LOL” now passes as substantive discourse while clear and eloquent communication is treated as suspicious, I can see how assumptions are being substituted for evidence once again.

  Let us return to a civil, calm, and constructive exchange. Wishing you a pleasant evening/day/night. Jeremie69 (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Lol. If you can't even put in the effort to write your own comments don't expect to be taken seriously on here. Per policy good faith is to be assumed unless there is good reason to believe otherwise, but there's no requirement to show respect to those who don't show it themselves. — Anonymous 01:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  …and that seems to be exactly your problem: you don’t show respect, yet expect others to show it to you. And when you don’t automatically receive it, you resort to reporting and appealing to more powerful parties in order to gain leverage and backing. Not always a smart move, especially when you still end up being outplayed in the end. Jeremie69 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  There are literally four diffs in the "speculative allegations," so it seems that your LLM is not great at reading. In any case, your last message, combined with doubling-down on WP:ASPERSIONS and LLM use have a strong whiff of WP:NOTHERE. This isn't a game, and Black Kite and Anonymous reached a productive conclusion without your input. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Diffs documenting edits do not substantiate speculative claims about motives or misconduct at all. They merely show participation in a content dispute that was resolved on content grounds by an administrator, but certainly not by Anonymous, whose aim appears to have been to introduce confusion and unnecessary escalation into the discussion.

  At this point, it seems that you and Anonymous are aligned in shifting the conversation towards meta assumptions rather than the actual issue, which has already been addressed. I therefore see little value in continuing this line of debate and will step back from further meta discussion.

  Feel free to continue revolving in your carousel of pointless argumentation, devoid of intellectual substance. I’m out of here — “LOL!” ;) Jeremie69 (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Nice job changing the em dash to a hyphen to cover up your AI use. You were real slick with that one. Also have your bot look up the definition of "argumentation". I think that's all. — Anonymous 03:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  "Lol" ;) You wish — I was just a step ahead. I knew I would get you with this. ;) Jeremie69 (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  That feeling when you make a separate edit to change your em dash into a hyphen, but you forget to do the quotation marks. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Revoke tpa

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

---

~2026-54263-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - user did redirect edits after they were blocked, I've already reverted them but I'm considering a request to revoke TPA --みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Mfield (Oi!) 22:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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

User engaging in POV‑pushing, BLP vios, unsourced and incorrect edits, NOTHERE

I am requesting administrative review and possible action on user Grand Anna (talk · contribs), whose edits show a consistent pattern of non‑neutral, unsourced, and politically charged modifications. This editor, with edits to just 6 articles, has had all but one of their edits reverted. There is a pattern of ADVOCACY here, and clearly NOTHERE. None of the edits contributed sources or described their rationale in edit summaries, with 1 serious violation of BLP (adding unsourced defamatory claims about a living person), and all violated NPOV. Given the pattern of edits, all of them, this is not simply a situation of a new editor making mistakes.

1. (diff) In Janów Podlaski Stud Farm, they changed "Soviet invasion of Poland" to "Nazi German invasion", removed sourced material, and downplayed several other Soviet actions. I restored the prior revision.
2. (diff) In George Mendeluk, they removed historically relevant context about the Ukrainian famine Holodomor, leaving it vague. I restored context and added a source.
3. (diff) In Kuban, they removed accurate geographic context, reducing precision without explanation, which I restored. (Note, the removal erases the multi-ethnic regional identity and reframes the area as more uniformly Russian.)
4. (diff) In Active Measures (film), they added the word "debunked" before the content "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". It was reverted by another editor.
5. (diff) In Leroy Merlin, they inserted an unsourced and defamatory accusation about a Ukrainian MP. It was removed by another editor as "Russian propaganda language and false information".
6. (diff) In Letter of Forty-Two, they replaced "Communist Pravda" with "Newspaper Pravda", which has not as yet been reverted.

These examples show a consistent editorial direction. The pattern warrants administrative attention.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't it warrant a warning or two or three on the user's talk page before going to ANI? BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It does - but they need to be made very aware that anything remotely resembling the WP:BLP violation to the Leroy Merlin article is not going to be tolerated, for a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

BBQboffin, I've already spent a couple of hours reviewing this user's edits across multiple articles, and the pattern is clear. Given the severity of the BLP violation and the fact that nearly all of their edits required reversion, I don't think additional warnings would be productive. I also don't have the capacity or desire to monitor their future edits, which is why I brought it here for administrative review.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

'Additional' warnings? I can't see any warnings at all on their talk page. And they've only made 7 edits. If they continue to act this way after being properly warned, action may well be appropriate, but this looks like a call for a pre-emptive block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I've now added BLP and Eastern Europe contentious topic notifications to Talk:Grand Anna, and will keep an eye on them for a bit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Epiphora93

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

---

Epiphora93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Creating articles with LLM after level 4/4im warning in November at Guenter Teubner. Also repeatadey creating articles after their move to the dratspace. Kora ^^ (she/her) ^{say hi!}/_{what I've done} 01:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

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

2026 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

• JTtheOG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The article 2026 Alabama Crimson Tide football team was marked for a PROD, I added references and improved the article but the troublemaker has removed all the updates I made and marked it for PROD again which I don't think is allowed [135]. They did this previously on the same article [136] and [137]. Canceling out edits by others three times is some kind of problem and someone needs look at what they are doing and stop this user.

They also have not stated any reason on the talk page or my talk page or any talk page that I know of, they just keep marking it PROD and removing any changes others make.

If I'm wrong and people just need to keep stopping him let me know but I doubt very seriously I will spend much time stopping them because this is stupid.

If this is the wrong place, please move it to the right place or tell me where. Themeparks (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Please make improvements to the existing draft. See my talk page message to User talk:LuisEspinosaJr0817!, who inappropriately copy-pasted the draft into the mainspace article. JTtheOG (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I will make changes to the real article not something else you've created. You are removing references others added, adding PROD tags back when you're not supposed to, and undoing everything others have done with no explanation other than a private message to another user? How do you expect any one to know that.

STOP. Themeparks (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

They've undone changes again! this is like 4 times from three other people. Themeparks (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

CORRECTED: I got the links to the FIVE times this person has done this:

• [138]
• [139]
• [140]
• [141]
• [142]

I thought three times was the limit? I also think you can't remove references or readd delete messages. Themeparks (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• They did it again but added a sneaky different tag to make it "speedy" instead of one week. This is the sixth time including the ones above. Themeparks (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

You're both edit warring, and now the article is fully protected.

PROD should not be used when the deletion is controversial. Star Mississippi 03:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

NB, repeating what I said at the AfD. If @JTtheOG and @Themeparks are willing not to continue to edit war on the disputed content, the protection can be lowered. I'm about to log off,but any admin is free not to wait until I'm back on. Star Mississippi 04:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to note that yes, once a WP:PROD is challenged by removal of the tag, it can not be restored. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Permission gaming by Wormholexx

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

This user was given a contentious topic alert and is now going on a mass-welcoming spree ([143] [144] [145] and more). This isn't the first time they've welcomed users, but it is the most users they've welcomed in one session. They are past 300 edits at the time of this report. I believe they are trying to game Extended Confirmed. Chess enjoyer (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree; blocked and EC revoked(they'll need to ask for it manually). 331dot (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait a second, @331dot. Why did you block them? They were not warned prior to me filing this report. Chess enjoyer (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I thought since you came here that you warned them. I removed the block. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)