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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bgsu98

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rosguill, Blue Sonnet, Stifle, etc

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

Christopher Hadnagy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am Christopher Hadnagy, the subject of this biography. I have a declared conflict of interest and am not editing the article directly. I am requesting administrative guidance regarding editing conduct on the lead section of this article during an unresolved dispute. The placement of litigation material in the lead is currently under active discussion on the article talk page, with extensive policy-based arguments raised under WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP, and WP:BLP. I explicitly stepped back from further engagement to allow wider input, including noticeboard review. Despite this, after an uninvolved editor made a good-faith, policy-based change to the lead that moved the lawsuit summary to a dedicated section while retaining full factual coverage, User:Dreamyshade reverted those edits and restored the disputed lead version without waiting for consensus or addressing the specific policy arguments raised. I am concerned that repeated reversion to a preferred version during an active dispute, particularly in a biography of a living person, may undermine the consensus-building process and give the appearance of edit control rather than collaborative resolution. To be clear, I am not requesting removal of any verified content, nor am I seeking sanctions against any editor. I am requesting guidance on whether measures such as: • a temporary pause on lead edits • structured dispute resolution • or administrative oversight would be appropriate to allow the discussion to conclude without further reversions. Given the reputational sensitivity of lead placement in BLPs, I believe additional process guidance would help ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s core policies and maintain a fair editing environment. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Christopher Hadnagy (COI declared, not editing directly) ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear if this is the real person, but all of this user's talk page comments have been AI-generated. It also appears to be a single-purpose account. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

there is no pleasing you people. I suggest we delete ILF and my page. Neither are that important. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have made no effort to attempt to please anyone. It has been made abundantly clear that we aren't interested in holding 'conversations' with LLMs. Frankly, I find it astonishing that an author of multiple published works should have difficulty communicating in his own words. As for deletion, see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. You can propose this, though I suspect that given the long history of the biography, and the many sources cited, you are unlikely to gain consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you not covering with LLMs. It is clear you all have an agenda and there is no reasoning with you. The power to edit has gone to your heads and this has shown over and over. Despite solid reasonable arguments. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have an agenda? Really?

I agree with the above that your LLM comments are not constructive (we have told you and others multiple times that we intend to communicate with you, not an LLM). I doubt your requests will be granted or even taken seriously if you continue letting an LLM speak instead of you. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 16:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to reason with moniker's when i used solid reasoning and get ignored, yes. There is nothing in the wiki rules that indicates one lawsuit should be in the lead. Anyone who has been on the internet at all knows that news and media tends to post negative more than positive, so the fact there are more articles about something negative does not mean it is more relevant that 20 years of actual real work and charitable contributions. The fact that i even have to argue this is quite ridiculous. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been civil, i am not sure you can understand the frustration and damage this has caused. I made very valid arguments, spoke respectfully, thanked everyone for helping and i have been accused of using sock puppets, using LLM's and have to fight something that is so ridiculous i dont know why we even have to go back and forth about this. I never argued about having a section about the law suit, it does not need to be in the lead, in 6 more months no one will even think about this ever again. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't ignored, you were disagreed with. There's no right, legal or moral, to have people come around and agree with your position. The consensus has been that the lawsuit makes up a significant enough amount of the independent, reliable coverage about you, that it should have a section in the article, and as part of the body in the article, mentioned at the back of the lead, which summarizes the body. Your goal is to convince other editors -- the only experts that count here -- that the article is improved by not having the lawsuit mentioned in the lead. Using LLMs and making accusations is a poor approach to convincing others to adopt your position. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely clear what in the collapsed comment indicates that it is LLM generated. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it is not - there are a few editors who have made it their cause to ensure this silliness stays in the lead. I am so tired and frustrated and the lack of oversight at wikipedia is impossible. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't, then explain why the AI detectors at quillbot.com, grammarly.com, and scribbr.com all indicate that your initial post in this section was written by AI? You can run it through a checker yourself and get the same results. Using AI to communicate with us is bad enough on its own. Using it and then denying it? This isn't a question of ulterior motives on the part of anyone on this site, or a lack of oversight on this site. If you want us to help you we're more than happy to help. We're not interested in trying to satisfy a machine. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most blatant is the sudden shift in writing style between the start message and the comments below it. Alongside that, the message consistently refers to policy-backed arguments, has a rule of three format in bullet points, oddly bolded text, and frequent linebreaks. It's not too blatant, but the message has a much greater similarity to the much more obviously AI-generated messages on Talk:Christopher Hadnagy. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, the non-AI-generated messages tend to be significantly less civil than the AI-generated ones. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is very easy to explain, I was attempting to appeal to logic and reason and did i use LLM to research wiki rules? heck yes, I am not a wiki expert, did it write my comments no. In the attempt to appeal to logic and reason i tried to be civil, but now my frustration is overwhelming. And I am sure you can all understand when you are frustrated you say things in a way not the best. This should have been one request, changed and move on with our lives, but this has been months of back and forth and accusation. It is tiring. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, TA editor. The comments that @ChristopherHadnagy made right under the collapsed section included typos and grammatical errors, while the collapsed section had no errors, and a completely different tone. It is clear that the collapsed section was written (or rewritten) by AI. David10244 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Number one, there's a drastic and unmistakable change in the writing style between the comments here and the comment at the top of this thread and on the talk page. Between those comments, indicators include:

• Subject line-like headers in title case, e.g., Request for Review and Edits: Conflict of Interest Declaration, Request for Comment: WP:BLP, WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:ORG Review, etc.
• Painstakingly itemizing Wikipedia policy in a certain tone, hard to explain, but e.g., help ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s core policies and maintain a fair editing environment., preserves verifiability while avoiding editorial emphasis., may undermine the consensus-building process and give the appearance of edit control rather than collaborative resolution. (the latter being a subtle negative parallelism as well)
• Phrasing that has become drastically more common in text after 2023, both on and off Wikipedia (see WP:AISIGNS for linguistics research on this, the drastic increase in these from what people were actually writing before 2023 is documented in multiple studies): I will defer to uninvolved editors to determine whether this approach better aligns with WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP., The lead currently highlights a single lawsuit and its dismissal as a defining element of the biography., etc.
• Negative parallelisms, e.g., The question is placement, not deletion., concern is not with any individual editor, but with ensuring that editorial decisions about lead placement reflect community consensus and policy application rather than persistence., etc

Please trust that there are thousands of LLM-generated talk page comments produced on the regular, that they all look basically exactly like this, and that people know what they are talking about. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the user seem too focused on their own works. The user's hostility makes me want to suggest WP:NOTHERE. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 18:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course i am focused on my work? That statement isn't clear. The wiki page is about my work, what else would i focus on? And I am not hostile, I am frustrated. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So are we. Frustrated by, amongst other things, people who insist on spamming talk pages with LLM-generated content after being told to stop. Frustrated by people who invent imaginary 'agendas' to disparage anything they don't like, and frustrated by individuals who seem to think they have some sort of right to control everything Wikipedia writes about them. If there are genuine issues with the biography, you have gone about this exactly the wrong way. I for one am generally sympathetic to those who find themselves subject to Wikipedia's not-always-ideal biographical content: but not when I'm told that I'm part of some imaginary conspiracy plotting against someone I'd never previously heard of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I politely begged for help for months and no one answered. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristopherHadnagy Please note, as stated at the top of this page: "When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page", which you didn't do for me. I understand though that this is your first time posting on ANI.

I've patiently responded to a large number of long comments from you on Talk:Christopher Hadnagy over the past few months, including providing specific references to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've put substantial work into the article to address certain valid aspects of concerns expressed by you and the previous anonymous COI commenter, including replacing citations to court documents and other primary sources with reliable secondary sources. When you've provided links to potential additional sources, I've evaluated them and integrated ones that meet guidelines.

I understand that Wikipedia policies and processes can be confusing, frustrating, and disappointing for subjects of BLPs. The most effective strategy is simple: providing links to additional reliable sources on an article talk page. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamyshade i don't desire additional links, I spoke to a wiki-experts (not editors) and they are the ones that pointed out to me that the the weight of this one law suit does not make it a matter for the lead, that is all i am asking, is to have it removed from the lead, the paragraph about is enough info. And yes i thanked you every time you took the time to reply. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly is this 'wiki-expert'? Where did the conversation take place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Over email, there are services that can help people make wiki pages, i reached out to one of them and asked for advice. It did not happen on wikipedia. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible to find individuals who offer such 'services'. I'd strongly advise against contacting such individuals, given that they have a direct financial interest in telling you whatever you want to hear, and a great number of them don't actually have a clue as to how to deal appropriately with issues on Wikipedia: which would seem to be self-evident from the consequences of you following their advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, many of them are scams, and none of them are in any way official or accredited. In fact, paid editing is highly discouraged, and the vast majority of them go against our policies. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i only got advice, he did try to sell me on editing services but he was outrageous. I also spoke to a wiki editor in LinkedIn who gave me the same advice but couldnt edit since we spoke about it or something like that. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You took advice from someone who was outrageous? EEng 21:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am fascinated by the fact you think some random, obviously biased, for-hire 'wiki-expert' would at all be more experienced or more knowledgeable about this situation than us mere editors who work on this encyclopedia on a daily basis. Athanelar (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

was not getting any answers from you mere editors, I was only getting one editor reverting any changes made. I had to seek advice, this has been truly ruining my life and ability to make a living as well as harming my family. What would you do? Just sit and wait? ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So at what point did you decide that accusing people of having an agenda was a great strategy for generating change? Look, I don't care how frustrated you are. I'm sympathetic to the subject of a BLP having issues with their BLPs. I've dealt with this from time to time and try to handle it appropriately. But, a person such as yourself accusing people of invented nefarious motivations isn't a pathway forward. You can either choose to comply with WP:CIVIL or you will find people unwilling to help you. We are all volunteers here. We are giving of our time of our own free will. That gift isn't going to continue to be given if you keep insulting people and claiming frustration is a valid justification for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I should not have made accusations. I didn't say my frustrations were justifying, but i did let the constant reverting, the lack of reasonableness on the lead and the accusations that i am using sock puppets to manipulate the page. I barely know how to use wikipedia let alone edit a page. I apologize for making unfounded accusations. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for others my concern related to sockpuppetry, which I noted in this section of the talk page: two editors who recently made edits that removed controversial material from the lead (diff 1, diff 2) demonstrated signs of being a person or small team involved in cross-wiki promotional editing, potentially undisclosed paid editing. (Not a concern about the subject creating his own sockpuppet accounts.) Maybe an Orangemoody-style situation? I don't know. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Veteran editors not agreeing with you" does not equal "lack of reasonableness." Among other elements you've run into, we are governed by consensus here. The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes you're on the losing side of consensus, in which case your only recourse is to lose gracefully and move on. (Quite leaving aside the issue as to whether you really are Christopher Hadnagy, something about which we have zero proof, but which in any event would have no more weight than that of any other editor.) Ravenswing 00:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No idea where to put this, but this page (Christopher Hadnagy) seems to be the interest of a lot of IP adresses who all take issue with the same things. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If this keeps spiralling, a WP:NOTHERE and/or WP:CIR block may be needed. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 17:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that these IP edits are a few months old (before the temporary account rollout) and the page has since been semi-protected, so I'm not necessarily worried about an immediate spiraling. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the line has been crossed. Tankishguy 18:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also doubt this is him. Tankishguy 19:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is me, and I took the advice on the talk page to request identity verification, not sure how long that takes, as i have not got a return email yet ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

VRT agent (verify): Identity verified. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Tankishguy 19:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to say now that I am verified? Why would any person who is not the subject care so much about what is on their page? ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I (and everyone else) had enough of you at this point. Drmies, per your warning, wanna block this guy? Tankishguy 20:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to get verified and then make my request, i have done exactly what i was asked to do. everybody was saying i was fake, a troll, etc but soon as Wiki verified me no one had the guts to admit they were wrong. That does not warrant a ban and i would ask other editors to step in. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, no one said that you were fake, besides maybe @Tankishguy's I also doubt this is him. comment which I take as referring to the previous temp account disruption. This is not the reason for which you have been reported and for which editors have suggested a block. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

on my talk page ones called a sock puppet. I am not trying to pick fights. I have followed every instruction I have been given. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No one called *you* a sock puppet. There was some discussion about how sockpuppets associated with paid editing farms have been active at the article in question - that's just a fact. [7], [8]. MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

remind me, Is paying for undisclosed paid editing against the TOU or PAID policy? Tankishguy 21:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very focused on picking fights, and I wonder how you figure that's going to get you anywhere other than a block. No one has called you a fake. No one has called you a troll. But I warrant that no one thinks that your demeanor in this thread suggests that you're a net positive to the encyclopedia. I sure don't. Ravenswing 21:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK. COI self-BLM guy is rude and kind of paranoid (given his comments above,) it seems. He also lied about LLM use. This is limited to the article about him; there's been little problematic behavior elsewhere. Would a partial block from that page solve this? Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 22:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a partial block. There's mostly been disruption on the article's talk page, so maybe that should also be included. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a full block, He might keep being an ass and was warned by Drmies Tankishguy 01:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to go with the minimum sanction that will prevent disruption. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support P-block or some sort of COI block. He's not able to understand notability when it comes to subjects that he's close to, as shown by further AI-generated comments on the article Talk page[9].

I'd also very much like him to stop using AI, that's disruptive in itself and is contributing to these issues as it consistently misunderstands our policies - I find it very hard to believe that the post I've linked didn't come from an AI/LLM. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of this lame accusation, maybe before spouting it off you should run thru phrasly or something

Phrasly.AI Detection Results

Latest (V2) mode

----

Your text is likely to be written by a human.

Result Breakdown

0/6 sentences are likely AI generated. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI detectors are fallible, as are humans - ZeroGPT brings up highly likely to be "polished by AI" so I was operating on my own belief (again this is fallible).

I'm happy to accept your assurance that you wrote that post yourself & take on board EEng's opinion below as well.

It's good that you're using Talk pages, but it's not so great that you're continuing to push points on said Talk page that others have explained aren't sufficient/applicable.

Editing on non-COI topics would allow you to gain experience and understand how notability works in practice in unrelated areas. That's why I'm not advocating for a full block, just a very specific and restricted one. If this is unreasonable, I'm sure that other editors will make their views and arguments known here.

I do find it strange that there were several TA's that edited the article to be more positive (as mentioned by MrOllie here), but it's been protected so I guess that's over with for now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also found that frustrating. People edited it to be more balanced but there are a few editors set on making sure it is damaging as possible. This is why I am fighting so much. Thank you for accepting my writing. I really did write that blog, i am just trying so hard to be respectful and non-confrontational . ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not 'people edited it to be more balanced', that is people who have been blocked for sockpuppetry and connection to paid editing farms, for example [10], [11], [12] as well as people who say they were 'working with the subject of this article' [13] trying to whitewash the article. As you are now finding out, that kind of activity will not help you accomplish what you aim to do - it does the opposite as the Wikipedia community has a strong tendency to resist COI and paid editing. MrOllie (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said I am learning, i didn't know. I was distraught and needed help and looked for answers. I am learning as i go ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any kind of block (for now). He's never edited the article itself -- I'm guessing he recognizes that's a no-no -- so a p-block from the article has no basis. And while he's been somewhat WP:IDHT on the article's talk page, I think there's still hope to bring him around to understanding how our guidelines and policies apply to his situation, so that he can participate usefully (and that requires, at a minimum, posting no more AI excrement). So I think no p-block at all, for now. Even if his ideas about how his article should be structured are ill-considered, I think we should cut some slack to a BLP subject dealing with what is no doubt a most upsetting matter. EEng 18:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm going to take this opportunity to draw my fellow editors' attention to a beautiful example (which happened to arise in the course of this matter) of why we don't draw article content from court filings and judicial opinions, except in extremely unusual cases: see this diff [14], and here's a link [15] to the judge's order, in which you should search the string Hadnagy reasons to see what the judge actually wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I agree we shouldn't be relying on court judgments like that but this example seems significantly more complicated than you outline. You said to search "Hadnagy reasons" and if I search there the only thing I find is this sentence "Essentially, Hadnagy reasons that absent this knowledge, Def Con’s Transparency Reports were false and defamatory when issued, even though subsequent discovery establishes the sexual misconduct implications are in fact true.". I agree that sentence is mostly irrelevant so I have no idea why our article quoted it. The only limited relevance is taken together with the rest of the judgment, it's clear that in the court case even the plaintiff did not dispute that discovery established the allegations sexual misconduct was true, instead they simply argued it was irrelevant since it wasn't known at the time. (It is of course possible a plantiff may simultaneously say I don't accept the allegations were true and here's why, but also say even if they were true it's irrelevant because... Most plantiffs would do both if possible since as this case shows, if you rely solely on arguments that even if it is true it doesn't matter, you're SoL if it turns out you're wrong.)) However at the end of the judgment where it's noted However, even assuming Def Con should have known the potential defamatory impact of the Transparency Reports, the fact the allegations of Hadnagy’s sexual misconduct have ultimately been shown to be true is a complete defense as true statements are not defamatory and thus cannot proximately cause harm. and "The Court notes that while the parties argue over whether Def Con ever spoke directly with Hadnagy about the Code of Conduct violations or communicated only via text messages, the roles Neil Wyler and Kevin Sugihara played, and whether Hadnagy admitted the violations, these arguments do not alter the fact the implications of sexual misconduct that flowed from the Transparency Reports are true and were true at the time of publication, and that truth is a complete defense to a defamation action." So the judgment does arrive at the conclusion the sexual misconduct allegations were true just that sentence we quoted wasn't the right one for it. Either way your removal is justified since the only thing we had is a court record in a BLP and the differing ways people are using the earlier sentence does demonstrate the complexity of trying to intepret court judgments. Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

abd further more of you read the documents the actual sexual misconduct was homework assignments I have students that were misrepresented nothing to do with employees. ChristopherHadnagy (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Hiobazard, I believe maybe a partial block from the page, but I believe that ChristopherHadnagy should be given another chance to edit other pages and contribute to Wikipedia helpfully. All his comments recently seem to be human, but no more AI, obviously. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He has never edited the page, so a block from the page would have zero justification. EEng 11:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said maybe. But all his comments now are human, like I noted, so maybe he's learned a lesson. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any lessons that needed to be learnt have been learnt, and Christopher is editing now without an LLM (I make no comment about whether he used one before) and has not once edited the page with which he has a COI, so I don't think that any action now would serve any purpose. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I'm requesting admin review of the behavior of user Adachi1939 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Over the past two weeks, Adachi1939 has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, battleground behavior, and harassment toward me across multiple pages, including article talk pages and user talk pages.

Diff: Joined a discussion he was not previously involved in to criticize me rather than address content, and stating intent to oppose my participation in any future discussions regardless of topic:[16][17]

Diff: Reported me to WP:ANEW immediately over content disputes, then telling me on my talkpage "BUDDY you are in trouble":[18]

Diff: Posted insulting comments on my talk page, @Alexysun's talk page when I tried to talk with him, and several article talk pages, including possessing a "deep lack of understanding"[19], sarcastically referred to me as an "expert"[20], having not "learned enough in grade school" and being "neglectful" and allegedly "causing issues for other editors"[21]

This is an escalation of past behavior, which included:

Diff: Admitting to following my activity log to counter my alleged "narrative pushing" (whilst also called me a small dog):[22]

Diff: Following me to @Alexysun's talk page to accuse me of spreading propaganda.[23]

Diff: Reported me to WP:ANEW on the basis that I was "in denial", "I didn't know what I was doing", "I spread misinformation", "I falsify history", and for displaying "ridiculous behavior" [24][25]

Diff: Used rude language, including comments about my life decisions and my worth as a person[26]

Adachi1939 has behaved this way with newcomers before.

Diff: Said he "gains satisfaction" from getting negative responses from other editors, or as he describes, "victims of historical propaganda"[27]

Diff: Called other editors "clueless," "victims of Chinese propaganda," [28] illiterate [29], and guilty of fabricating history [30][31]

This conduct only appears to be escalating and has continued despite several requests to remain civil and focused on content. I am requesting administrative review to determine whether this behavior violates WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND and whether any action is appropriate. Wahreit (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And their response was "Imagine what could have been accomplished if you used the same amount of time trying to paint me as the bad guy on some self-reflection and studying of better sources." [32] Great way to disprove Wahreit's allegations there, Adachi1939. So ... what part of self-reflection and studying of better sources were involved in you taking Wahreit to the EW board, eight hours before their ANI report? Ravenswing 07:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ravenswing,

Below are several more Diffs I missed, in addition to those listed above, displaying Adachi1939's behavior:

Within the last 24 hrs:

Diff: His response to this WP:ANI notice (commenting on my life decisions) [33]

Diff: Calling me ignorant [34]

Diff: Following me to @Alexysun's page (without a ping) to insult both me and Alexy, even though Alexy has never been involved in any of these incidents [35]

Diff: Used Tu Quoque allegations on this WP:ANI thread to call me a gossiper and a bad-faith editor (whilst also admitting "I [Adachi1939] am just as much guilty if not more") [36]

Towards me as a newcomer in 2024

Diff: Made comments about my worth as a person, "wasting precious time in my life", and a "spreader of misinformation"[37]

Diff: Accused me of being disrespectful and questioning my ability to understand simple explanations [38]

Diff: Called me ignorant, "ridiculous", accused me of lying, and tried to give me orders [39]

Diff: Accused me of being a troll and being an "unreasonable person" [40]

Diff: Called me an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, someone who "spreads nonsense", and being "misled" [41]

Towards other newcomers

Diff: Calling another newcomer's contributions "fairy tales" and commenting that their efforts "are not welcome" [42]

Diff: Warned another newcomer to "reconsider their actions" whilst calling them a "victim of propaganda", "hostile", "unjustified", and admitting that he "get a strange sense of satisfaction in receiving negative responses"[43]

Diff: Giving orders to another newcomer (and sending arbitrary deadlines) because their changes were "unproven" [44]

For these reasons, I believe WP:BITE applies to Adachi1939's behavior in addition to WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:HA given the length, escalating patterns, and active nature of the hostile interactions.

@Alexysun for visibility. Wahreit (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, commenting here cuz I'm tagged. I think Wahreit has a good argument. Alexysun (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an update to this situation:

Diff: Adachi1939 has just extended the battleground to the Three Alls Policy page: [45]

Diff: Found another instance where Adachi1939 followed me to another editor's talk page to accuse me of ignorance and emotional instability [46] Wahreit (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wahreit has done an excellent job combing through my past few years of contributions to hand-select some of my most negative interactions I've exchanged with him and others. Although I must applaud this labor of love that almost certainly took a few hours of effort, it completely neglects to include the context behind these interactions as well as their own misconduct.

My interaction with them essentially started when they added that the IJA 3rd Division was involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse.[47] Wahreit supported this claim with an uncited web article which turned out to have plagiarized an older uncited version of the Wikipedia article itself and another later published book which relied on the same web page (also see this for a thorough explanation of why/how they did not participate in the battle).[48] I tagged Wahreit and explained with evidence why this was incorrect and did not hear a response from them.[49] Wahreit continued to make edits in spite of my explanation,[50] and I did take offense when instead of responding to me directly, he instead ran off to a talk page to disparage my work and character stating "it seems that this adachi guy has been implementing his own narrative of sihang warehouse by framing the battle as a skirmish and chinese propaganda."[51] It could be argued that they actually fired the first shot in this matter, but at this point I am just as much guilty if not more.

Such rude comments from Wahreit would not be isolated—not long later after I made other edits he started a discussion called "return of the revisionist[52] in which he insinuates I am engaging "blatant historical revisionism" (I personally believe historical revisionism is a often a good thing but it is clear they are referring to it pejoratively here). Even today, Wahreit has taken the time to not-so-subtlety mock me with a friend on their talk page[53] writing "Guess I really scored the multi-year rent-free contract in that funny head of his" after I had interactions with them. As guilty as I may be, at least I afford Wahreit the dignity of saying it straight to them. This poor behavior towards other editors is not exclusive towards myself either, after being met with a differing opinion from editor Keith-264 on the Battle of Verdun article's talk page[54], he started a discussion to canvass for help on another user's talk page[55] where he wrote "Reaching out again, would you be able to assist on the Verdun page? Unfortunately, the Keith guy can't behave".

Based on these above interactions from Wahreit spanning multiple years, it seems they believe anyone who doesn't agree with their view is narrative-pushing, a revisionist, or "can't behave". Even if they are a well-established editor like Keith-264. Furthermore, they seem to believe that good conduct is only expected within talk pages of articles and that user pages are some free-for-all gossip forum.

In closing, I hope the above shed some light on the context of my own interactions and Wahreit's character. This is in no way meant to exonerate my behavior. There are some interactions cited by Wahreit that in hindsight I wish I handled better and others I still stand by to this day. If arbitrators find a ban is necessary punishment for my conduct, I will respect their decision. Adachi1939 (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note, by Adachi1939's own admission:

- "at this point I am just as much guilty if not more"

- "As guilty as I may be, at least I afford Wahreit the dignity of saying it straight to them"

- "no way meant to exonerate my behavior" Wahreit (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another new one, in response to a recent edit-warring request being closed and the both of us advised to deliberate more in the article's talk section to work at a solution:[56] "Hey buddy, You're now 0-2. Even after 18 months of prepping the comeback. You must feel like a real champ."[57]

Wahreit, while taking zero accountability for their own actions, is under the impression they are engaged in some kind of pro-longed battle with me in which score is to be kept count of. Nonetheless, I am still trying to extend the olive branch with this editor[58] but it appears to be a futile effort. Adachi1939 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Adachi has now decided to bring the aforementioned Battleground to the WP:ANI board.

I ask if admins could assist with a WP:HA situation as evidenced by the Diffs and Adachi's response above. I request a block against Adachi1939 for the sake of Wikipedia's community and its newcomers. Wahreit (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I think both Wahreit and Adachi need to be more respectful in their interactions with each other, I'm not seeing anything especially egregious or an immediate need for admin intervention. I encourage both sides to stop trying to get each other blocked and instead focus on understanding the sources being used and the arguments being made by their fellow editor. Toadspike [Talk] 15:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Toadspike,

I have tried to understand Adachi's POV and engaged in dialogue several times, and I have never tried to get him blocked before (he has twice) despite numerous personal attacks. What's changed now is him actively shadowing my account,[59] escalating a battleground to multiple unrelated pages, and joining random unrelated convos just to attack me.[60] Adachi's persistent aggression towards newcomers has gotten him blocked before for similar behavior, and it only seems to be escalating now. Wahreit (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this far more concise summary of your complaint. Looking at the first link, I am extremely unimpressed with your behavior. You seem to be arranging inappropriate offwiki coordination with another editor against "a certain guy". It's hardly harassment for that "guy" to then show up to the conversation. The second link is concerning, so I will warn @Adachi1939 not to follow Wahreit across the project, which is hounding.

So, we have three options: you both work together collegially; you avoid and ignore each other; or we take a long hard look at the evidence, likely resulting you both getting blocked. I would prefer to avoid that last option. Toadspike [Talk] 20:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to go with Option 3. I've tried options 1 and 2 in the past; both have resulted in Adachi harassing me and hounding me despite requesting he disengage multiple times. It was only after months of Adachi commenting about my worth as a person, my intelligence, and my life decisions, following me to different editor's talk pages to insult me and them, and him bullying other newcomers that I became less patient.

I'll take my chances and let the evidence speak for itself. I appreciate your time and will respect whatever judgement you make. Wahreit (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike, forgot to ping.

Thank you. I will refrain from any further behavior that could fall under hounding. I will add however, that while I can't say with absolute certainty, Wahreit seems to be engaging in similar behavior as well. To give a recent example, I edited the Three Alls policy article on December 19 2025[61]. Less than a week later, with no other editors making changes in between, Wahreit came in and undid my changes on December 25 2025[62]. The revision history shows they had not interacted with this article for over a year and a half, nor taken issue with any of the numerous changes made before mine.

In contrast to Wahreit, we can see another editor, RelmC, later did a revert of a newer edit of mine on the same article but gives a clear explanation of their reasoning and invites for the matter to be discussed.[63] This is the sort of collaborative spirit that I wish to engage with.

As it's Wahreit's request, I don't believe I have a say in the options, but from my own view, life is too short to hold grudges, especially against a faceless internet user. I am willing to work with them as I would with anyone else, or if they'd rather be left alone that is totally fine as well. As far as I can remember, until this recent interaction I had not engaged with them since April 2025 anyways.

Thank you for your time. I regret that my poor conduct with this user has resulted in taking so much time from the administration. Adachi1939 (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unknownuser45266 has demonstrated that he is very uncivil and lacks competancy to edit Wikipedia and interact with others in order to contribute to a shared project.

He has been summoned here before, for the same issue, albeit when he was ironically reporting someone else for being uncivil.

In that case in June 2025, he accused User:Onel5969 of something (never really saying what) only that, in his words: "I'm a good faith editor and being honest here, his behavior towards editors is not only disrespectful but also very snobbish." [64] User:Cullen328 put it aptly: "Also, you failed to inform Onel5969 of this discussion as required, after leaving a series of threats and insults on their talk page. That's very poor form." [65] Proving that for a time Unknownuser45266 has had uncivil traits in communication with other contributors.

Recently, Unknownuser45266 took issue with my removal of trivial information that I found unhelpful and non-notable on Matt Cardona. The edit summary read: "Editors with no knowledge on a wrestler's accomplishments on JCW should not judge what is "notable". More specifically information regarding Juggalo Championship Wrestling, an independent lesser known wrestling promotion nowhere near as maninstream as it's contemporaries with not even a TV deal, Unknownuser45266 decided to go to my talk page and say "You claim to say that Juggalo Championship Wrestling is not notable but people in the wrestling community will say otherwise. Do your own research. The promotion is on the rise. Almost everyone talked about the heavyweight title win at Hallowicked last year." [66] I subsequently replied, but Unknownuser45266 clapped back saying my logic was "flawed". [67]

I have ran into Unknownuser45266 and have known him to be very non-editorially minded. For example in August 2024 he blanked then-redirect Forbidden Door (2025) [68] with his edit summary reading: DO NOT REDIRECT THIS PAGE, and showing that Unknownuser45266's conduct hasn't changed, did the same at Holiday Bash (2025) in December 2025 [69]. Another experience was when I successfully nominated an article Unknownuser45266 had created in June 2025 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JCW Lunacy. In which the article was filled with original research which Unknownuser45266 freely admitted and even encouraged and defended saying: "I'm sorry but in terms of Wikipedia articles, most editors often find themselves walking a figurative tightrope. Besides, original research is something that in my opinion is a way to avoid plagiarism. Also, I know it was very rushed but the number of people in the pro wrestling media who have shafted the promotion is problematic.". [70]

I have thus shown that Unknownuser45266 is incapable of being civil, is not editorally inclined, is not capable of talking to fellow editors in a civilised manner, completely rejecting Wikipedia policy and defending whatever he feels like doing at that paticular time. With such a track record, this user should absolutely be looked into conduct wise. Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have already commented on Unknownuser45266's civility issues. The deep concern that I have at this moment is hinted at by their comment Besides, original research is something that in my opinion is a way to avoid plagiarism. Unknownuser45266, you are completely incorrect when you say that. No original research is a core content policy and compliance is mandatory. I am also concerned about Unknownuser45266's seeming lack of understanding of what notability really means. In brief, topics (including people) are notable when they have received significant, in-depth coverage in reliable published sources that are fully independent of the topic. I am concerned that this editor seems to be deeply invested in a walled garden of articles related to Juggalo Championship Wrestling, a business venture associated with the horrorcore hip hop group Insane Clown Posse(ICP). I see sources owned and controlled by ICP being used to attempt to establish notability of this group of articles, including Psychopathic Records, Psychopathic Sports, Psychopathic Video and Juggalo Championship Wrestling itself. None of these sources are independent of ICP or of any use in establishing notability in this lengthy group of articles. I also see press releases, passing mentions and routine directory and event listings, also of no value. These issues are especially concerning when it comes to biographies of living persons where high quality sourcing is mandatory and non-negotiable. I lack the time and motivation to dig deeply into all of these articles but my initial look at a few of them show serious problems. Professional wrestling has been a highly problematic topic area in the past. I am pinging Lee Vilenski, an adminstrator with wrestling expertise, and EEng, an editor who has made many trenchant observations about problems in this topic area. I hope that they will have useful input. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "pro" wrestling's coverage on WP is that, for far too long, pro wrestling fanzine publications (now mostly online, of course), and other promotional trash, are allowed to be treated as independent, reliable sources, when in fact they're just output of the gigantic kayfabe wrestling promotional machine. As a result, mind-numbingly endless in-universe junk is narrated in wikivoice as if actual events were being related:

The demonic duo had a short run-in with each other in 2005; at the Royal Rumble, Undertaker faced off against Heidenreich in a casket match. Before the match, Gene Snitsky, who was in a feud with Kane, told Heidenreich he would help him that night. Due to the interference, Heidenreich was positioned to win. However, when the casket was asked to be opened, Kane emerged from the casket coming to his aid, attacked, and battled Snitsky out of the arena, allowing his brother, The Undertaker to defeat Heidenreich and gain the victory.[48][49] Originally, initial plans were for this to lead up to a tag team match between the four at WrestleMania 21, but the match was scrapped when The Undertaker instead decided to take on Randy Orton, and Kane would compete in the Money in the Bank ladder match. ... The return of the Brothers of Destruction was announced on the October 27, 2006 episode of SmackDown! when Montel Vontavious Porter (MVP) interfered with Kane's match against Mr. Kennedy, helping Kennedy beat down on him. As a result of the interference, General Manager Theodore Long scheduled a tag team match pitting the Brothers of Destruction against Kennedy and MVP.[50] The next week on SmackDown!, the Brothers of Destruction reunited for the first time as a tag team in five years and gathered three wins over MVP and Kennedy in that one night.[10][51][52] The first two wins were made by countout, and disqualification at which point General Manager Theodore Long twice came out and restarted the match with no disqualifications or countouts.[51] Finally, the brothers hit simultaneous chokeslams, and Undertaker finished with a Tombstone Piledriver to Mr. Kennedy.[51][52] ... The brothers continued their rivalry with their individual opponents before reuniting for a rematch on the last SmackDown! before Armageddon. This time, the match would go to a double disqualification as Kennedy threatened to run over Kane with a hearse parked ringside.[10][53] The Undertaker, who had run off MVP, emerged in the passenger seat as his gong tolled and the lights went out, thus scaring Kennedy out of the vehicle.[53] At Armageddon, Undertaker defeated Kennedy in a Last Ride match, which was why the hearse had been at ringside for the last two weeks,[54] and Kane defeated MVP earlier in an inferno match.[54][55] The next week on SmackDown!, the Brothers would reunite once again, defeating King Booker and Finlay,[10][56] before parting ways as Kane began a rivalry with The Great Khali while Undertaker ...

And here's the key: look at the reference list for the article the above nonsense came from: [71]. It's all WWE publications. Unfortunately, the kind of editor who finds this kind of nonsense worthwhile also turns out to be the kind of editor who can't seem to learn to follow the project's basic rules (possibly because they bring wrestling's battleground mentality with them), which is why sensible editors have never succeeded in pushing back on the use of such obviously inappropriate sources. Only when that happens will WP finally be spared the embarrassment of being used as an auxialary of pro wrestling's fandom. EEng 02:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are good examples of truly independent, reliable sources that can be used in the pro wrestling sphere (WON/F4O, Fightful being good examples). I agree though anything from a WWE publication is inherently going to be presenting things from an in-universe perspective (most of the time; there are some exceptions). The problem with most pro wrestling BLPs is that they're written largely as plot summaries, and usually in a lengthy manner. — Czello ^(music) 07:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is probably better to look at the remarks and the WP:OWN tendencies, rather than the content, but having a whole subsection for what amounts to two matches in almost 1800 career matches seems overkill. the JCW itself is likely notable, but the article is crazy to have a list of everything that has ever happened.

Unknownuser45266, I'd really like to hear why you think that you can order people about, why you think things don't need to be cited, and why something being "on the rise" means it has to be imported. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very concerned by the last diff [72], which tries to justify violating a core content policy (WP:NOR) and also seems to show that Unknownuser45266 is not able to edit neutrally on this topic. I wonder if a topic ban from Juggalo Championship Wrestling would solve these issues? It seems all the issues in this report, as well as the prior spurious filing against Onel, center on this topic. Toadspike [Talk] 15:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lemonademan22 claims that I'm personally attacking him and yet his logic is so broken that when I tried to call him out on his "notability" issues with Matt Cardona, he flips and uses the logic of "I could pay Cardona to wrestle in my back yard, but that doesn't mean I can write a paragraph about it or that it's even notable." despite the fact that smaller promotions like Game Changer Wrestling and the National Wrestling Alliance have paragraphs on him. I do believe he should be looked into because there needs to be a clear line drawn in the sand between notability and bias. [73] Unknownuser45266 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unknownuser45266, please explain your understanding of the critical importance of source independence when it comes to establishing notability. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding when it comes to source independence is that the source has to be independent of the topic of discussion. My recent edits in regards to JCW mainly have sourced prowrestling.net and Fightful which are both on the industry-specific Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources reliable sources section. User:Lemonademan22 has been right a few times and I have refrained from using no original research since then but I feel as though his logic on notability gone too far with the quote listed above along with "What you wrote is too much for such a small promotion, regardless if it's getting more and more popular, it's not as big as WWE, AEW, TNA, NJPW ect. (all of which have TV deals mind you), it's still an independent promotion which doesn't need the coverage it had on Cardona's page" despite the fact that Game Changer Wrestling, DDT Pro-Wrestling, and the National Wrestling Alliance at the time did not have TV deals nor were very "notable" in his logic despite them having paragraphs on his page (DDT and GCW still do not have television deals to this day with GCW primarily relying on pay-per-views from Triller TV though any promotion can say they have a contract with Triller TV. Even very obscure ones have deals with them). [74] Unknownuser45266 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unknownuser45266, our article Matt Cardona says that he has wrestled for Game Changer Wrestling and the National Wrestling Alliance. In your view, is any "paragraph" that these companies publish independent of him? Lemonademan22 may not fully understand the applicable policies and guidelines, but I am concerned that your own understanding may also be poor. Cullen328 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for TV deals or the lack thereof, that is completely irrelevant to the policy issues around biographies of living people. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 My understanding was, if no TV deal, how is it notable? Just my take. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonademan22, notability in this context is entirely a matter of whether or not the specific topic has received significant, in depth coverage in reliable sources that are fully independent of the topic. Countless people and countless business ventures are notable and are the subject of Wikipedia articles without having TV deals. I have no idea where you got this TV deal notion, but it is incorrect. Cullen328 (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was probably not clear and that is my fault.

In my mind I equated not having a TV deal and thus being "independent", in the sense of being relatively small, with being not notable as it was independent, thus very small, and lacked in-depth coverage or nobility due to it's small size compared to main stream companies, as they would be notable due to in-depth coverage due to having a TV deal and not being independent.

I was probably wrong, but my overall message was that the content I originally deleted off Matt Cardona wasn't notable and that JCW isn't notable enough to be mentioned on the page. Lemonademan22 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be the metric? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my response to Cullen328. Apologies for any confusion. Lemonademan22 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick reminder that other examples of bad practice isn't a reason to keep something else that is also bad. I agree that we also shouldn't have subsections on a time the person was in DDT (probably should be merged into an "independent" section), but that's not really a reason to have a subsection for two matches. Iregardless, my worry is that rather than trying to improve an article, you simply want to promote the ICP and their wrestling company. Suggesting the NWA, one of the most famous wrestling promotions in the world, is "smaller" than the JCW is wild.

As a bit of context, for anyone reading this, this is the number of matches that Cardona has had for the promotions that they are talking about:

Game Changer Wrestling: 63 over 4 years

National Wrestling Alliance: 21 over 5 years

DDT: 3 matches over 3 months

Juggalo Championship Wrestling: 2 matches in 2 months

. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that is "flipping out" and, ultimately, Lemonademan22 is correct there. — Czello ^(music) 00:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain it. User:Lemonademan22's response was poorly thought out as he may not understand what he is talking about when he says "I could pay Cardona to wrestle in my back yard, but that doesn't mean I can write a paragraph about it or that it's even notable." and "What you wrote is too much for such a small promotion, regardless if it's getting more and more popular, it's not as big as WWE, AEW, TNA, NJPW ect. (all of which have TV deals mind you), it's still an independent promotion which doesn't need the coverage it had on Cardona's page" both of which are incredibly flawed takes that could easily be debunked. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And if that's your explanation, it fails the smell test. Yes, we get that you're a hardcore fan of this relatively small, semi-cultist indy promotion, but to consider it in the same breath as the WWE, TNA, NJPW etc is what's "incredibly flawed." What you are describing as "poorly thought out" is simply an opinion with which you disagree, and your difference of opinion scarcely constitutes inerrant fact. Beyond that, if you're genuinely stipulating that the measure of the notability of some of these minor promotions is that someone put paragraphs about them on Cardona's page, you have a very serious misunderstanding of relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines, and one that would be a poor look in an editor with far fewer edits than you. Ravenswing 01:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Maybe, I messed with the Cardona article. I summarized the NWA, GCW, DDT and MLW sections into one. I was unaware of this discussion. Similar to Lemonademan, I think the JCW was't notable. Looking to Unknownuser's editions, several of them are about JCW/Independent wrestling. Since Cardona left WWE, he worked for several promotion [75], more than 30 per year. Also, he won 28 titles [76] . Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide states "Summarize the major events and key points of the wrestler's career". So, we have to find the major events and key points of these promotions. Obviously, if we use Cagematch.net (a database for every promotion in the world) and TV/Events reports, we can create endless articles with detail on every promotion on every show, but these are WP:ROUTINE, not focusing on Cardona. So, I tried to summarize into a section with sources focusing on Cardona, not a ROUTINE report about the whole event nor a database like Cagematch. JCW section included no notable events ("On September 18, 2025, Cardona returned to JCW at 2 Tuff Country where he faced 2 Tuff Tony for the JCW Heavyweight Championship." yeah, Cardona wrestled 76 matches in 2025, I don't see this particular match as major event or key element). Sources were 217, Cagematch. 218, a report of the event, ROUTINE. 219 His own Twitter 220, A report, ROUTINE. For me, it's not about lack of TV, it's lack of reliable sources focusing on why his work with JCW is a key element of his career. Cardona winning the GCW title has two sources focusing on him winning the title. Same for Cardona winning the NWA title. Of course, we should improve the article and the sources, but we shouldn't include every independent title he held or create a section for every promotion he worked with. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting administrative attention regarding the conduct of Hemiauchenia and StAnselm at Tziporah Malkah. Their behaviour has escalated across multiple noticeboards and my user talk page, and has resulted in repeated restoration of policy‑noncompliant material about a living person.

1. Repeated restoration of unverified and contradictory BLP content The article contains an unverified engagement claim about the subject. This claim: • has no reliable, contemporaneous source • appears to originate from speculative reporting • is contradicted by a 2024 Sydney Morning Herald article in which the subject states she has never been engaged to any man • is currently under active discussion at BLPN Despite this, the claim has been repeatedly restored by the above editors, including after the BLPN thread was opened. Under WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES, contentious material about a living person that lacks high‑quality verification must not be included.

2. Misuse of warning templates and accusations of edit warring After removing the unverified claim twice under BLP, I stopped reverting and moved the issue to BLPN. Since then, I have received: • multiple edit‑warring warnings • repeated notices on my user talk page • accusations of “OWN”, “double standards”, and similar claims These warnings were issued after I had already stopped reverting, and while the BLP discussion was ongoing.

3. Noticeboard shopping and escalation The same editors have escalated the dispute across: • the article talk page • BLPN • COIN • my user talk page ANI has also been threatened. This pattern appears to be escalating the dispute rather than resolving the underlying sourcing issue.

4. Personalisation of the dispute I have been repeatedly asked to “confirm or deny” whether I personally know the subject. Wikipedia does not require editors to disclose personal information or private relationships, and such questioning is inappropriate.

5. Reintroduction of previously removed UNDUE and poorly sourced material In addition to the engagement claim, the same editors have reintroduced other material that had previously been removed for policy reasons, including: • content removed as WP:UNDUE • negative personal details sourced to low‑quality or tabloid outlets • sensational or disproportionate coverage of minor events • material removed in earlier clean‑ups for failing WP:BLPSOURCES These restorations have occurred after the BLPN thread was opened and have contributed to instability on the page.

6. Request I am requesting: • administrative review of the behaviour described above • enforcement of WP:BLP and WP:BLPENFORCE • stabilisation of the article (page protection if appropriate) • guidance for all involved editors on proper BLP handling I will not revert again and am seeking administrative assistance to prevent further disruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeuu (talk • contribs) 21:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deeuu, do you have a bullet character on your keyboard? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If they're using a mobile device (which is possible despite the lack of tags, if they're using a mobile browser), many mobile keyboards have the bullet character. Additionally, you can get it on Windows by selecting Alt + 7 (•). Today's utterly useless top tip! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or on Macs by option-8 (•). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or it's even easier to get an LLM to generate it for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no evidence of LLM use that I can see - the use of a • character isn’t evidence of LLM use. I just obtained that character in two button presses on my iPhone. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I read some of the posts on Talk:Tziporah_Malkah#Proposed_removal_of_relationship_content_under_WP:BLP_and_WP:UNDUE, they definitely read strangely as if they were generated by a LLM. But that's just my judgement. Katzrockso (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there I agree, especially the three consecutive "thank you for your comment but I'm going to go on at length in numbered paragraphs repeating the same boilerplate" answers starting from the one dated 00:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC). Not unlike the one that started this thread. But I don't think the bullet character by itself is convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I saw another post on a thread which I have forgotten (perhaps it's also ANI?) today, and it too used bullet points but didn't have any spacing between each point; it was clearly AI-generated, so it's definitely possible that the same thing here is an indicator. Maybe it's a new thing that one of the LLMs is doing. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And although this is not at all solid proof, it's interesting that such an infrequent editor uses (and knows) the term 'noticeboard shopping', especially given that almost all editors use the term 'forum shopping'. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LLMs do seem to generate bullet hell, in my reading experience (and WP:AILIST mentions this). Perhaps the odd punctuation in this case is the result of LLM output being pasted into another editor before being inserted here. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is 100% LLM generated. wound theology◈ 16:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deeuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an infrequently active user who has made less than 150 edits in the 20 years their Wikipedia account has existed. Over the last three years, their editing activity has been primarily confined to the article about Australian glamour model Tziporah Malkah (better known by her former name Kate Fischer), persistently removing information regarding her high profile relationship with billionaire James Packer (particularly the widely reported fact that she was engaged to him, which she denied much later in 2024), as well as unflattering details about her recent personal life, claiming WP:BLP issues, such as allegations it is based on speculative reporting [77] and gossip [78] despite the fact that they are cited to reliable sources like the The Sydney Morning Herald (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The Sydney Morning Herald), . Deeuu's perspective has been persistently rejected by other contributors (see discussion at Talk:Tziporah_Malkah#Proposed_removal_of_relationship_content_under_WP:BLP_and_WP:UNDUE, where there is a 4:1 consensus against them).

I know this would be easy to dismiss as a content dispute and a legitimate BLP concern, but I believe that Deeuu's editing goes beyond the bounds of legitimate concern to have become tendentious. Deeuu has been repeating the same arguments over and over again on the talkpage discussion and also in the BLPN discussion (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tziporah_Malkah), and keeps edit warring despite a consensus against their edits [79] [80].

When asked about whether or not they have a conflict of interest, Deeuu has persistently misrepresented the WP:COI policy as only applying to people that directly represent the subject, rather than people who have a direct connection to it, and refused to confirm/deny whether they have a personal relationship with the subject despite being specifically asked to, stating Wikipedia does not require editors to disclose personal information or private relationships, and I will not be doing so. [81].

Deeuu also has a history of making extreme transphobic, personal attacks on other contributors, appearing to describe the transgender community as a bizarre, paedophile inspired cult [82], for which they were blocked for a week by @David Eppstein: back in 2022 (the context is that they were edit warring to change the pronouns of model Munroe Bergdorf, a transgender woman, to male [83], [84] [85]). In his block notice, Eppstein stated that Deeuu was likely WP:NOTHERE [86], a view with which I concur. Deeuu responded to the block by telling Eppstein to Stop being a woke arsehole. [87] Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet looked into the matter, and I will be going to bed soon so I doubt if I will before tomorrow, but must say that better a woke arsehole than its opposite, a fast asleep arsehole. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Deeuu: @Hemiauchenia: I've combined your remorts since it's the same dispute, but from opposite sides. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for merging the reports. I want to clarify my position as simply and neutrally as possible.

My involvement in this dispute has been limited to enforcing WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES. The engagement claim in question is:

• unverified by any high‑quality, contemporaneous source

• contradicted by a 2024 Sydney Morning Herald article in which the subject states she has never been engaged to any man

• currently under active discussion at BLPN

I removed the claim twice under WP:BLP when it was re‑added, and then stopped reverting entirely once the dispute escalated and I opened the BLPN thread.

Since then, the claim has been restored multiple times while the BLPN discussion is ongoing, and I have received several warnings and notices on my user talk page after I had already stopped reverting. I have also been asked to confirm or deny personal information about myself, which I understand is not required under WP:COI.

I am not here to argue about anyone’s motives or history. I am only asking for administrative guidance on how to stabilise the article and ensure that BLP policy is followed while the sourcing discussion is active.

I will continue not to revert and will follow whatever direction administrators provide. Deeuu (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who have interacted with Deeuu: @Funcrunch: (opposed the edits to Munroe Bergdorf), @StAnselm:, @Schazjmd:, @Doug butler: (participants in recent talkpage discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, to say that Kate Fischer and James Packer were not engaged is a pretty blatant example of gaslighting. Anyway, the claim now has five reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deeuu has not been able to convince any other editors that his position on the content dispute is correct, but he persists. At this point, his edit warring on the article and intransigence on the talk page are disruptive. Schazjmd (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Deeuu's disruptive edit warring, editing against consensus and refusal to confirm, deny or explain their possible personal connection with the subject, I have indefinitely pageblocked the editor from editing Tziporah Malkah. If they engage in similar behavior elsewhere on Wikipedia, the block may be extended sitewide. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am another editor who has interacted with Deeuu back in April 2023. It was not a pleasant experience. You can see our interactions at User_talk:Deeuu#April_2023. Since then Deeuu fell off my radar and I have not been following the Tziporah Malkah business at all. Looking back at it, and other messages on that Talk page, it strikes me that Deeuu was exceptionally lucky to avoid an indef over the egregious transphobic vandalism. I also note that they have been warned about LLM use. Has anybody checked their tl;dr section above (with all the strange bullet points) and their large comment here for signs of being LLM generated? (The formatting makes me think that it was pasted in from something external, not that that is intrinsically a problem so long as it isn't from an LLM.) Also, I note that they have made personal attacks on their User Talk page such as "You really are a bitter twisted, irrelevant wee boy aren't you." Finally, I note that after the transphobic nonsense they went away for more than a year before starting on the Tziporah Malkah stuff. Apart from a comically inept attempt to insert LLM generated crap into Dannii Minogue they have not edited on any other subject since then. I think this all adds up to a sustained pattern of WP:NOTHERE and being a general timesink. It's not like they are doing any good work in other areas. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are WP:NOTHERE, but I don't think their discussion comments regarding this issue are AI generated. They lack the hallmarks of AI generated text laid out at Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing. They just seem to be very verbose. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how the editor conducts themself going forward. As I warned them in my pageblock notice, any further disruption may well result in a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that they claim this photo of Malkah posing inside a newsroom is their 'own work'. Interestingly, I couldn't find the image anywhere else online, suggesting that it may indeed be their own work. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the metadata looks remarkably accurate. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He denies it is his own work here: "Regarding the image: the “own work” tag on Commons refers to the uploader’s licensing declaration, not authorship. The photo was taken from the subject’s public Instagram feed. I did not take the photo, and it does not indicate any personal or professional connection." StAnselm (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly poor explanation for using the wrong tag, and given the metadata, it seems unlikely. Thank you for pointing me to this discussion though aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's plausible that the Instagram claim was an impromptu fib that they made in order to try to disguise their connection to the subject once I began interrogating them about it, given Deeuu's habit of bending the truth. I can find no evidence that the image was ever posted to her Instagram. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot bigger than the Instagram maximum size, so it couldn't have been "taken from the subject’s public Instagram feed". Omo Spotnick (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on The photo was taken from the subject’s public Instagram feed. I did not take the photo...[88], I've tagged it for copyvio on Commons. Meadowlark (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously our goal is to be preventative, not punitive, but we have here an editor who edit wars, possibly inserts LLM slops in discussions, insults others, filed a frivolous ANI report, doesn't understand sourcing, has acted in a bigoted fashion in the past, and bludgeons conversations. At the same time, there's a debate going on to pin down precisely which very serious infraction the editor is lying about: copyright infringement, undisclosed paid editing, or possibly both. While the block to the Tziporah Malkah page is helpful triage, can anyone here honestly say that they'd be comfortable with Deeuu editing anywhere at this time? Note that this edit was well after their weeklong block for transphobic attacks. [89] CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not new, but I'd just like to add that I missed something in my comment above. Back in 2023, Deeuu denounced some entity, I assume meaning Wikipeda itself, as a "a paedophile promoting cult" (diff). Given that the dishonesty, combativeness and time wasting are ongoing on their User Talk page, I'm thinking an indef without TPA might be the best way to put an end to this. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indef sounds reasonable to me. (Replying since I was also pinged regarding blatant transphobia) Funcrunch (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Deeuu did you use a LLM to generate your comments at Talk:Tziporah Malkah#Proposed removal of relationship content under WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE? Katzrockso (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. All comments were written by me. Deeuu (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I cannot help but sympathize with Malkah/Fischer. She is rather well-known in Australia and has done so much for women's mental health and so on, yet her ex of many decades ago (who has a VERY poor reputation) dominates half of her 'Personal life' section. (This is not a statement in support of Deeuu.) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that's the section on personal life. The other stuff you're talking about doesn't seem to be about her personal life, and would be best covered in other sections. I'd note that "half" is complicated here. There are three sentences in the personal life which mention the engagement. One of these sentences only exists because of her bizarre denial. (It's one thing to say I wish people would stop f-ing talking about this person in relation to me. If that was all she'd said people might have said she had a point and there might have been much more sympathetic treatment of her in sources. But the fact she also simultaneously tried to deny what was and AFAICT is widely accepted turned it from something reasonable into something stranger.) The third sentence only mentions the engagement to explain the context, it's nearly entirely about something else. And I'd also note this isn't even one of those cases where part of the problem is we cover almost nothing about the other stuff. While I'm sure sections on the other things can and should be expanded, they are are already significantly bigger than the sentence on her personal life. To put it a different way, her engagement is even being generous, less than 10% of our article. Which considering how often it comes up in sources, seems not surprising. Ultimately it isn't our place to WP:RGW. Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring (from 2022, I admit) was already covered, but Deeuu once called Funcrunch "a small minded bigot [plural s removed]", and accussed him of attempting to "beat the truth through mind fascism." Seems pretty WP:NOTHERE to me.

Also, most of his edits are arguing over discussion and editing Tziporah Malkah. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The user Techoliver298 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a multi-year history of ignoring warnings on their talk page (they also have a Sept 2025 level 4 warning on their talk page), so I'm bringing this to the administration page.

The user has added sources from Instagram and Facebook profiles to connect an actress to a purported family member. I removed the information and FB/IG sources, but the user added them back.

Diffs:

First edits inserting Instagram and Facebook as sources

For Tatiana Ignatieva

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tatiana_Ignatieva&diff=prev&oldid=1333501456

For Bailey Bass

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333501574

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333501879

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333502005

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333502037

Revisions of edits removing IG/FB sources, adding IG/FB sources for second time

Bailey Bass

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333659795

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333659488

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333659451

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333659375

Thank you very much,

Pommeperson (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published posts on social media cannot be used if it involves a third party per WP:BLPSELFPUB. @Techoliver298: Can you explain why you keep inserting it back? Northern Moonlight 05:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef pblocked them from those two pages, but their editing in general needs scrutiny - they have severak prior warnings for unsourced or poorly sourced edits to BLPs. Fences&Windows 20:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This response is at least 2/3rds AI-generated, and has been used multiple times, specifically at [90], [91], [92], and [93]. It combines the edit summaries from [94] and [95]. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell is the offending user [96] referring to themselves as We? Borgenland (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arminuae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arowana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arminuae has been edit warring at Arowana, and ignoring all attempts on their talk page to communicate with them.

They have made multiple attempts to highjack this article, about a subfamily, and turn it into one about Asian Arowana (which already has its own article). They are also including unsourced information about a breed of Arowana, that is non-neutral in tone.

This is an example of the same edit they've introduced eight times in the last day. Multiple editors have left messages on their talk page asking them to stop. Nil🥝 11:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given their user page is in thai, I think this may be a WP:CIR language barrier issue. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Their creation of Arowana (disambiguation), and adding the Thai page as an external link to the Infobox of Arowana certainly adds to that impression. Nil🥝 11:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have referred to ppl reverting their edits as scammers def WP:CIR. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pr0m37h3u$: has reported to AIV. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR Agree with this Pr0m37h3u$ 12:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have been blocked for 24 hrs, given the CIR issues that needs to be an indef. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Callanecc, blocking admin. Rusalkii (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this user is the world's foremost expert on fish, a topic that I know little about, they need to start communicating to convince others. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Counting all their edits, they have made a upmost of 6 reverts on that page shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hounding

My interactions with User:Aradicus77 began in late November 2025 with disputes about the content of the Post-noise page.[A] By 7 December, another editor filed an ANI report against Aradicus77, citing ‘Lack of competence and disruptive editing.’[B] I contributed to the discussion, citing my own recent content disputes with Aradicus77, like the Post-noise one, as context. The result of the ANI report was both editors being blocked for a month.

In that month, my activity slowed down as I was busy, and by the time I got back to making major edits Aradicus77’s block had expired. I have since ignored most of their activity. They, however, have been following my edits from article to article, reacting to all of my activity, usually with a great quantity of minor edits.

Both of the articles I’ve made major contributions to this month, Toytown pop and Freak folk, are being ‘monitored’ by Aradicus77 in this way. I can’t direct my activity to another article (as they will immediately follow me there) so I can only disengage from the site completely – or file this report.

Yesterday, I asked them to stop on their talk page:[C]

Can you please cease the minor, pointless corrections to my edits like removing red links, slightly changing the order of sentences for no reason, and other completely arbitrary changes which only seem to be made to 'correct' me?

They don't improve the quality of the articles at all; why even go out of your way to make them every time I finish editing a page for 10 minutes?

There are so many articles which could be targeted for improvement in different ways, but you have to monitor my edits specifically and make minor, arbitrary edits. I am genuinely asking, why?

Admittedly, the tone of my message is inappropriate as it escalates instead of deescalating.

Aradicus77 defended their pattern of behaviour with:[C]

This is the Manual of Style of Wikipedia. If you do not want to comply by the manual of style then you are breaking some of the core policies.

This shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia’s core policies are. This defense also does not take into account the edits Aradicus77 had made not on the basis of any policy; for example, this edit[97] changing the order of three sentences I had written with the arbitrary and subjective justification 'Not right chronologically, 2025 source should be later.'

Again, I unfortunately escalated, needlessly bringing up their recent block to undermine their authority. Their further responses accused me of lying (several times), using WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics, and pointed out that I've been contributing to the encyclopedia for a shorter amount of time than they have.[C] Ultimately, Aradicus77 wrote:[C]

Man get out of here. I'm not talking to you anymore.

I immediately disengaged. However, they kept reacting to my edits on the freak folk page in the same way and wrote a content-related message on my talk page little over three hours later, to which I responded neutrally.[D]

2. Continued disruptive editing

Building on the previous point, the issue is not just Aradicus77’s continued monitoring of and responses to my activity, but also the nature of their responses.

Much of their reactive activity is not based on adding new information, but making a great quantity of minor, unimportant changes. Some of these changes could be justified by the Manual of Style (yet that does not justify monitoring all of my activity), but many are simply subjective choices, sometimes including major reorganisation of the article without seeking consensus.

Due to the high volume of edits in a short time, even edits which clearly seek to fix mistakes, like removing duplicate in-line citations, are sometimes not carried out correctly and result in e.g. correct in-line citations being replaced with incorrect ones.[98]

While many of these are minor in nature, the high volume of these edits, and specifically in response to all of my activity, makes trying to add quality information to the encyclopedia highly frustrating.

Finally, even in the edits where they do add new information, this information can be irrelevant,[99] undue,[100] or misplaced.[101] On the other hand, recently they simply removed some cited and relevant information I had added,[102] with the additional justification that 'this source is talking about free-folk not freak folk,' which a look at the source will prove false.

The editor’s disruptive patterns of editing line up with what I already observed in December and recounted in the ANI report. Echoedits67 (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to this point - Can you please cease the minor, pointless corrections to my edits like removing red links, slightly changing the order of sentences for no reason, and other completely arbitrary changes which only seem to be made to 'correct' me? - I'd advise you both to remember that neither of you WP:OWN your contributions. I can see exactly where you're coming from with regards to having your edits immediately changed for what might seem to be a vague reason, but it is other users' prerogative to make these changes. This would be an issue if the edits were disruptive (i.e. reversions of your contributions), but expanding or correcting them isn't contravening policy in and of itself. Becsh (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, some of my comments have arguably bordered on WP:OWN and I will refrain from any such comments going forward. Again, I take my part of the responsibility for escalating the dispute.

However, even if simply because of the high volume of quick, careless edits User:Aradicus77 makes daily, many of them are absolutely disruptive. They often contain mechanical errors or are based on a misunderstanding of the sources, like some of the examples I've given in the report itself, or the example I broke down in this comment, where the editor removed an entire well-sourced and relevant sentence I had added because they thought it cited a completely different source than it actually did.

These kinds of edits have been unfortunately common in my interactions with Aradicus since our first interactions in late November 2025. Echoedits67 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

not based on adding new information is so incredibly disingenuous. I've added like half of the information on that page which you have tried to remove or trim: [103], [104] Aradicus77 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is just so disingenuous that I have no clue what to say. I never reverted anything you added. You were the one reverting me. You are doing a similar WP:BATTLEGROUND thing as Buf92 did and I haven't touched that article in a few hours giving you space to continue editing. I even said so yesterday on your talk page: User talk:Echoedits67#Freak folk article.

Anyone reading this, keep in mind this user was complying with another user who tried to disingenuously get me banned known as User:Buf92, the editor he cites as reporting me prior, he is now currently indefinitely blocked for insulting me[105], [106]/

Both users don't like me and are trying to use any means necessary to stop me from editing. I never monitored the articles you cite. I have a lot to add on those topics and contributed to both just as much as you did. The idea that I am trying to monitor or correct you is a fabrication you have made yourself. The only articles I have edited that you were on were Toytown pop and Freak folk. You don't WP:OWN these articles, anyone is free to edit. I never expressed animosity when communicating with you. It feels to me like you have chosen to report me to bring up previous recent experiences in order to dupe who ever is passing by to think I'm deserving of a longer sentence. I didn't break any policies by editing Freak folk. All I did was add constructive edits. WP:BOOMERANG

My proposed compromise is either I stop editing Freak folk for let's say a week to let this editor do whatever he wants so he doesn't feel I'm "monitoring" him or we could also get an interaction ban arranged so we don't have to interact or touch each others edits. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched that article in a few hours giving you space to continue editing - Remember that there is WP:NORUSH, though! We all have a responsibility to disengage when we feel that things are getting heated and I am glad to see you did so, but you could leave an article for a day or two to let the editor's work speak for itself a bit more. It seems like Echoedits had a valid reason for moving that quote and it could be worthwhile to just see what they're trying to do before stepping in - in other words, leave it for a bit longer and make sure you're reacting based on policy rather than emotions. Having an open discussion on the talk page (i.e. not going to the user's talk page) or inviting a third opinion are alternative actions you could take to avoid escalating the issue. Becsh (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I only went on the user's talk page, because the user went on my talk page first with the "Pedantic edits" thing. You are right to point out they should have first opened a talk page on the page itself. Maybe a third opinion could be helpful on that page as well? It's hard to know who decides how an article should be structured or how sentences should be written. Most of the edits I make in a given period are met with echo completely removing them or being angry that I'm editing the page. It seemed to me as WP:OWN but I never wanted to accuse them of that. This to me isn't a matter that should have gone to ANI, which is obvious as well with what you are saying. As I said before it feels like the user trying to "finish off" their opponent per how they jumped on me during Buf92's previous report of me. It doesn't feel amicable at all. I'm open to stop editing the article for as long as they want but it makes no sense if I come back to make contributions and echo continues doing what he has done prior in removing most of what I add. But until that time comes I won't call it WP:OWN Aradicus77 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading this, keep in mind this user was complying with another user who tried to disingenuously get me banned known as User:Buf92, the editor he cites as reporting me prior, he is now currently indefinitely blocked for insulting me[276], [277]

To clarify, I have no personal associations with User:Buf92. I had no contact with them until shortly before they filed their ANI report, and have not communicated or interacted with them in any way since then. Echoedits67 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To comment on your point here[107], Echoedits is not reporting you to get you blocked, they've come to AN/I to flag their concerns to admins. They've pointed out that they consider your edits disruptive and an instance of WP:HOUNDING, not that they want you blocked. It isn't wise to accuse people of wanting you blocked, however much you might think this is the case, when they've raised a fairly valid concern. Becsh (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a case of hounding at all. They say I monitor or follow them around. But I've been wanting to make edits to the Freak folk page for a while. I was the one who even split the section in Psychedelic folk to make freak folk its own page. I have been focused in expanding a bunch of undertalked about music genres on this site. I made the Post-noise page which was what started me and Echo's friction as Echo saw a problem with everything I was adding even though the page had not yet been finished and I was working through it as he is stating here that he is working through freak folk. Echo also cites Toytown pop. But I made typical constructive edits any editor would make on the site. The page was missing an infobox, the lead was too short and it didn't have the right citations. Nobody ever protested to these edits not even Echo so I'm confused why this is even cited. You see why I feel this is a bad faith report rather than a valid concern? It reads to me more like someone trying to tally or cobble up something against someone rather than any concrete example of the user being disruptive. You yourself stated "This would be an issue if the edits were disruptive (i.e. reversions of your contributions), but expanding or correcting them isn't contravening policy in and of itself." So that's where I'm coming from personally. So when you look at it the only examples of "hounding" or "monitoring" is 2 pages this user cites. One where you have stated I'm not making disruptive edits and the other where the user never made any concern at the talk page or informed of any issue with what I had contributed. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I've been editing a large amount of different pages such as Freak scene and Shitgaze. It's again very disingenuous to say I'm following or monitoring Echo's edits when said user is only editing 1 page while I am editing a big range of pages and even said yesterday that I'd step away from freak folk for a bit which you said was good. Now I know to step away from a bit longer before resuming editing. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to arbitrate here, but my point was that I don't think it is fair to say that Echo has made this report to get you blocked, however little you might agree with the contents of their report. There's a reason I advised both of you to remember WP:OWN and WP:NORUSH since the escalation here seems to stem from both of you being very passionate about and invested in the article/articles you're contributing to. Becsh (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that last point. That’s fair. I am open to step away. The last edits I made to the page were not even disruptive nor trying to change echos wording. They were just 3 edits, which is why I don’t understand this report. I could have equally reported him for all the reverts he made towards me but alas. Aradicus77 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respond to some stuff here which are false. When I said that source is talking about free-folk, the section you added specifically said "Free-folk is also heavily influenced by British folksingers from the latter half of the twentieth century, mirroring, however inadvertently, the exact origins of all American folk music, which itself was inspired by Celtic, Scottish, and English folk songs in the early 1800s. British bands and artists like Bert Jansch and Pentangle, Comus, Shirley Collins, the Incredible String Band, Donovan, Vashti Bunyan, Fairport Convention, Roy Harper, and loads of others peaked in Britain in the 1960s and '70s". You used that section to equate that these artists were influencing freak-folk. I moved the section to Free folk.

Also everyone reading this, note I have never once removed anything Echoedits67 added besides duplicated citations. However, Echo has many times reverted and removed contributions I added. I have also not changed his wording on the article that much besides just moving around sentences so it not be "anachronistic" such as citing a 2025 source in a paragraph then later a 2006 one instead of the other way round.

The information Echo calls "irrelevant" makes no sense because the criticism section which discusses in length Kandia Crazy Horse's criticism of freak folk which also references Harvilla's article which brought up the genre as well as part of criticism is needed to have proper context in that section.

And finally the source that Echo calls "undue" is when a reliable source known as American Songwriter magazine stated that freak folk had emerged in the 1970s as psychedelic folk then took off in the 1990s only to experience a resurgence in the 2000s. I added this source and paraphrased it into the lead of the article because Echo had removed all mention of the genre "emerging". The source was a reliable source that specifically stated when exactly the genre emerged, which Echo marked "undue". Aradicus77 (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute.

However, no, the source for the sentence you removed, a Pitchfork review by Amanda Petrusich says:

For the most part, freak-folk tends to eschew any clear genre parameters, but its participants-- willing or not-- are still blissfully united in an eyes-closed, drifting-to-the-strums adoration of ancient British folk tradition, while routinely pilfering from late-1960s/early-1970s folk-rock heroes Fairport Convention, Vashti Bunyan, Shirley Collins, the Strawbs, Pentangle, Comus, the Incredible String Band, and more.[108]

The source you just cited, which uses 'free-folk' instead (as a synonym anyway), is a completely different link, albeit also by Pitchfork and featuring writing by the same author, Amanda Petrusich.[109] (Free-folk is also heavily influenced by British folksingers ...)

I assume you'll argue this is an easy mistake to make since both links are by Pitchfork and Petrusich. But this kind of misrepresentation of sources is something you keep doing over and over - it was part of my evidence in your previous ANI case.

It feels like you don't read full articles about the articles you edit, instead searching for keywords and skimming for out-of-context excerpts which 'fit' what you want to add at a given moment.

It also feels like you don't go into editing articles with a strong grasp of the subject matter, instead learning about them as you go along and adding the first opinions you find without evaluating whether they are undue or not.

All of this combined with the fact that you make dozens of quick edits every day and it's not surprising that you keep making careless mistakes like this.

This is something I know other editors, including ones much more experienced than me, have told you already. Echoedits67 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's bring up your reverts. Here you remove my source from etymology and move it to characteristics which is also wrong: [110]. Here you hound me for using the term "scene" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freak_folk&diff=prev&oldid=1333587817] but you later use it "the "patron saint" of the 2000s freak folk scene".

You falsely removed this cited source and called it original research: [111]. I re-added it and pointed out how you were disingenuous in removing an entire credible source for your own biases: [112].

Here you reverted the removal of red links for artists and albums that are not notable enough to have their own pages on Wikipedia: [113].

Here you remove an image I added stating that because the image is from 2009 and the paragraph is talking about the artist work from 2004 that it has no relevance in that section when that's not how images work on music articles: [114]. Here you lie about there not being a rule for removal of red links which is outlined in WP:NORED [115]. Here you make your own biased assertation that the sourced paragraph I added should be moved further down per no policy or MOS rule: [116] (this is when you yourself have criticized me for 'pedantic' editing and claimed I was not following any rules for such edits)

Pretty big list here that showcases WP:OWN behavior to me but I digress. Aradicus77 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've heard more than enough now from Aradicus77 and Echoedits67. Please can you both shut up now so that others have the chance to evaluate what you have said? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil - there are better ways to ask people to hold back from discussing. Becsh (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are better ways, but they would be uncivil. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think you're capable of civility. ~2026-21568-0 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you involving yourself in this matter at all? ~2026-41922-2 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aradicus77 defended their pattern of behaviour with: "This is the Manual of Style of Wikipedia. [...]" → The Manual of Style may not be a "core policy" of Wikipedia (I informed Aradicus about this after the fact), but it's still something that "editors should generally follow". If you are editing against the MoS, then there has to be a good reason for it. Otherwise, your edit will get (inevitably) revised at some point, whether it's by Aradicus, or someone else. I myself make a lot of MoS compliance edits on articles these days, too. There even exist user warning templates for deliberately breaking MoS: {{uw-mos1}}, {{uw-mos2}} and so on.

for example, this edit changing the order of three sentences I had written with the arbitrary and subjective justification 'Not right chronologically, 2025 source should be later.' → Really!? I think most people with a common sense would see that the 2020 item should come first before the 2025 item. Chronological flow of events is how a massive load of Wikipedia articles are written.

I immediately disengaged. However, they kept reacting to my edits on the freak folk page in the same way and wrote a content-related message on my talk page little over three hours later, to which I responded neutrally. → Aradicus77 literally informed you in that message on your talk page that "I’m stepping away from the Freak Folk article for a few hours because things have gotten a bit chaotic, with edits being added and reverted simultaneously. [...]". Aradicus gave you room to edit the article without running into conflicts again, and also gave you another chance at hopefully clearing up any misunderstandings here.

Much of their reactive activity is not based on adding new information, but making a great quantity of minor, unimportant changes. → What's wrong with that? Minor edits like fixing up a grammatical mistake are still very helpful in the end. Pleeeeenty of people here on Wikipedia focus on mostly making small improvements to articles rather than big additions. There's even a barnstar for doing that: Template:Minor Barnstar.

many are simply subjective choices, sometimes including major reorganisation of the article without seeking consensus → That borderline reads out to me as if you are personalising content disputes on Wikipedia. You do not need a consensus to make major changes to pages on Wikipedia. It may be "recommended", but it is not a must. Have you not heard of WP:Be Bold??

Due to the high volume of edits in a short time, [...] → Why can't you just simply wait until the other editor is done with editing the article? Or even better, ask them when they'll be finished with the editing??

Many editors out here have their own different ways of editing Wikipedia. For me, I tend to try and combine many changes into as little number of edits as I practically can, while for others, they prefer to publish little edit after little edit after little edit again. There's nothing seriously wrong with whichever way people edit on Wikipedia, just that the latter habit comes with the higher risk of running into edit conflicts. I have not seen a Wikipedia policy or guideline state that the former way of editing Wikipedia is strongly preferred or a must.

Regarding concerns of stalking / "monitoring" articles or whatever: I've just had a look through Aradicus77's contributions history and it does not appear that Aradicus77 is really "hounding" the OP like they claim here. Aradicus edits a wide range of articles, and the number of articles where Aradicus77 ran into editing conflicts with Echoedits67? I could count on one hand.

Examples of articles recently edited by User:Aradicus77 but not by User:Echoedits67: HexD, Alternative hip-hop, Hyperpop, Shitgaze, Vito Paulekas, Hippie, Zippie, Freak scene, Flower child.

Additionally, Echoedits67 too has made a high volume of edits in a short time to several articles: [117][118]. One word I would like to say here: hypocrisy.

All in all, a lot of this drama feels like nitpicking to me. And much of it could be avoided by being more careful around when other editors are actively working on the article, so as to minimise edit conflicts. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aradicus77 literally informed you in that message on your talk page that "I’m stepping away from the Freak Folk article for a few hours because things have gotten a bit chaotic, with edits being added and reverted simultaneously. [...]". Aradicus gave you room to edit the article without running into conflicts again, and also gave you another chance at hopefully clearing up any misunderstandings here.

No. They returned to continue editing the article again an hour and 16 minutes after leaving that message.[A][B] Echoedits67 (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added very minimal edits compared to the slew I added before and even then I still began focusing my attention more at other articles besides that one after I sent that message. To the point that 90% of my editing on that article has gone down since yesterday as well. Once you stopped editing I also resumed to add bigger edits like the ones I outlined prior which I didn't add until you had left: [119] Aradicus77 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user has been warned by multiple users, repeatedly, for their disruptive editing and unsourced genre changes. After I gave them a final warning last month, they made an edit with the same issues earlier today. We are unfortunately at the point where administrator intervention is necessary. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain precisely what the issue with that edit is, since having seen the movie several times, I can't see anything inaccurate in it? Ravenswing 04:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the user is that they keep saying I consider xyz a black comedy, or something similar; Wikipedia doesn't care what you think, you need to cite genres. That being said they are correct, I can find sources, for instance, saying Reservoir Dogs is a black comedy. @MaxweltheBoi:, please know that while you may be correct, a core policy of Wikipedia is that you must cite most statements; in the future, please stop adding unsourced statements as this is disruptive. Also Reservoir Dogs has had a black-comedy category without it being cited for quite a while now. Anyone? jolielover♥talk 04:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point that I think many, many new editors get burned on. What the policy actually says and the de facto policy in practice are two different things.

The policy WP:Verifiability requires that all claims be verifiable in RS, and that citations are required for any content that has been disputed. And I am aware that there is not agreement on the meaning of "disputed" (i.e., some believe challenged content for no other reason other than being unsourced is not "disputed" content, but others have the opposite opinion), but going off the examples discussed in this thread, the genres added are verifiable in RS, and nobody actually disagrees with the content itself, only that the editor did not add a source?

Therefore it would seem the editor did not actually violate the letter of the policy, only the generally accepted community norms. ~2026-42313-0 (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The policy isn't just for content that is challenged, but for content that is likely to be challenged. Under your reading of the text, nobody has to add any sources, which would then invalidate WP:BURDEN which is also a part of policy, since the burden would shift to the challenger to demonstrate there is a reason to remove the content beyond being unsourced. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you check WP:Verifiability, immediately after “material whose verifiability has been challenged”, it says “material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged”. Not sure how this was missed by ~2026-42313-0, but it’s very clear and not hidden on the policy page.

About whether or not RS existing for the particular edit brought here mattering, I would think it doesn’t matter for the overall ANI case. What might matter is if sources also exist for all of the previous edits being referenced, but that is still just a shade of the same problem. The burden should still be on the person adding the claim to provide a source, especially when they have been asked to do so in the past. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And, I should note, genres of media are absolutely things that are likely to be challenged. Genre wars that lead to actual indefinite blocks are not uncommon occurrences around here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user's favourite phrase in edit summaries seeems to be "I consider". Nobody cares what MaxweltheBoi considers. What matters is what reliable sources consider. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef from article space until they take on board the recommendations they've been given regarding sourcing their edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Syed Hasan Imam Rizvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone delete this article please per G4? It was deleted at Syed Hasan Imam Rizvi Zangipuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Hasan Imam Rizvi Zangipuri and recreated at the new title by the same editor pretty much straight away. There's an IP who won't let the speedy deletion request stand. Thanks. FDW777 (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Black Kite jolielover♥talk 08:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And now back again at Syed Hasan Imam Zangipuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with the same TA (~2026-20632-9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back to removing the tag. FDW777 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked TA, deleted page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...and back again at Syed Hasan Imam Rizvi. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. Figured the account creating it should probably be blocked too if the TA was, although I'm not sure of the specifics so I'll leave that to another admin. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammad Ali Rajab earlier. It seems pretty clear both named accounts and the TA are connected. FDW777 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've indefinitely blocked the two registered accounts. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See diff (Iran CTOP). Iskandar323 (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and left a warning for the TA. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-42489-3 has been doing consistent vandalism to articles as well as using my real life name on all of their edits. If you can, also delete the revisions from the revision history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parid123 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Parid123, instructions at the top of the page include Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to WP:Requests for oversight. I've done this for you so hopefully it will disappear soon. Meadowlark (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, the reason why I didn't send it to the requests for oversight was because imo my name isn't really that personal. The main reason I reported was for vandalism but this is the cherry on top. Parid123 (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone667 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user first came to my attention when they asked a question on the Teahouse about why editors don't translate articles from the list Wikipedia:Articles in many other languages but not on English Wikipedia

It was explained to them that other-language wikis normally have less strict standards, which they acknowledged in this AI-generated reply (note the odd formatting and boilerplate 'This isn't about X, it's about...' and wishy-washy language about 'improving editor awareness'

Despite this acknowledgement, they have now continued translating pages from this list using an AI, I suspect without substantial human review. Note the markdown formatting in this article. LLMs are evidently their go-to solution for any problem, as in this case where they asked it to interpret an unclear question by another editor. In a slightly more deceptive example, they again asked an LLM to interpret an unclear question, but this time rather than saying that that's what they did, they said they 'tried making sense of it'

They also evidently lack a solid understanding of Wikipedia's notability criteria, as they unilaterally moved Berthe, Duchess of Rohan to mainspace despite it being declined at draft because 'the sources are reliable' (which was never in question - the notability was in question)

An example of their recent article creation is Söndrum parish, an article about a seemingly entirely unnotable Swedish town which doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND either given that it doesn't even exist as an administrative unit anymore.

Their talk page is awash with issues relating to their articles, which does not seem to be stopping them at all. I think they need to be pblocked from article creation at a minimum.

Courtesy ping for @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four who might want to make an AINB tracking subpage for these articles/contribs Athanelar (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the move of the Duchess of Rohan was wrong, as both I and DoubleGrazing had declined it previously (and from what I can tell the issues weren’t resolved that much). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of machine translation is worse than useless; it doesn't even attempt to deal with red-links, or make the inter-language-links work. If you instead browse to the original Swedish Wikipedia site, and let your browser auto-translate to English, you end up (in my case: using Chrome) with exactly the same text, but functional blue-links to other auto-translatable pages such as Söndrum Church [sv] It's hard to justify creating a hard-wired, non-updating Wikipedia translation that makes its target less functional. Elemimele (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like well I have re-created it and I made sure this time it was "human generated" on their talk page don't inspire much confidence. (What does it even mean to "make sure" it's human-generated? Do you have to monitor yourself to make sure you don't accidentally turn into a non-human? Are the edits by someone else? Why the scare quotes?)

Note that their userpage seems AI-generated as well. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was just considering bringing this editor here as well, agree at least an article creation block is needed. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 18:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally any disruptive editing patterns should be shown to have stopped before a tracking page is created to avoid any treadmill effects, and having an open WP:LLMN report is best. I'll refrain from commenting further to avoid any appearance of canvasing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

there's no need to for all of you dehumanize me like that, doesn't WP:FAITH say that editors must assume in good faith?

First of all I dont use AI that much, I only use it to fix certain grammatical and format mistakes and to find sources that might be too hard to find (which I do find it somewhat convenient). And who says I dont proof-read the articles and the sources?

Secondary, I have been translating and creating numerous articles for a few months now with any issues (until now), maybe look through my older wiki articles as they have not broken any policy.

About the "Duchess of Rohan" draft, I have mistakenly thought that it had enough reliable sources for it to be moved into main space without noticing the rejection which I have apologized for and moved it back as a draft.

I hope any issues about me can be solved very quickly. Someone667 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I only use it to fix certain grammatical and format mistakes and to find sources that might be too hard to find This is evidently not true. In the 'history' section of this article you translated, there is **markdown formatting**. If you were writing and checking the article yourself you'd obviously have noticed that the markdown formatting was not rendering as bold text as you intended it to. The much more likely explanation is that you copied the LLM's translated output verbatim. There's also excerpts that were not translated fully/correctly, like To配合 the First Linjiang Campaign which, again, you would have noticed if you were properly checking the output. Athanelar (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Going to your older edits isn't very helpful.

In this edit, back in September, it's extremely clear an LLM wrote it [120]. How do I know? You left in the LLM's response to you after writing it for you If you like, I can prepare this with infobox, images, etc., or format it nicely so it’s ready to be inserted into Wikipedia (or your own knowledge base).

There are definitely many LLM hallmarks in your edits, with [121], [122] as a couple examples. I'm highly skeptical that this AFD edit is written by a human [123]. Same with this comment [124], which itself was a follow up from this edit [125] which reeks of LLM even before noting that you had two hallucinated ISBN numbers.

And these are just examples; I'm not going to flood ANI when the point is already made. I'm not even sure it's sufficient, but I believe a restriction on you using LLMs/chatbots in Wikipedia editing for any reason is the bare minimum of what ought to happen if you'd like to keep participating in this project. My impression is that you haven't been honest about at least some things in this discussion, and that complicates matters. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA WP:SOCK The editor with multiple accounts named @Breannareanna, 㙮伟㝣德 and Октябрина Мстислав is probably the sockpuppet of @Amberlit12 and @Neonmen1 and he is edit warring on the same articles again and again by making different accounts as he was doing earlier. The editor is not at all following the guidelines of Wikipedia and making personal attacks of particular state and region, as he was doing in his previous accounts.

He wrote this on Jaunsari language edit summary :- diff [126]

Similarly, he personally attacked on the edit summary of the page Bangani :- diff [127] I request to kindly block him from editing for indefinite period 502hsuya (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hate is disruptive. Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Rsjaffe, but as I edited later he is probably the sockpuppet of @Amberlit12 and @Neonmen1 and he has made two other accounts few hours ago, apart from the one which is blocked just now by you, which are named in different languages, but he is editing the same pages and reverting my edits unnecessarily. Kindly look at them too @Октябрина Мстислав and @㙮伟㝣德 502hsuya (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While they have an extremely high chance of being sockpuppets given everything you have said, to me it looks like "reverting unnecessarily" isn't 100% true. It would be a good idea to back up the edit you made here with a source, perhaps on the talk page. Without one, to me it looks like they are simply making the table adhere to the Glottolog page, which disagrees with what you said, so putting a source somewhere could help. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reverting was done by the account which is recently got blocked, named as @Breannareanna, I haven't said that these two particular accounts are reverting or doing personal attacks as it is done by the recent blocked account, but these accounts seem to be the socks of blocked accounts of @Neonmen1 and @Amberlit12, you can check the timing of account creation, all three accounts has been created few hours ago. Kindly check. 502hsuya (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to the existing sockpuppet investigation for Neonmen1 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neonmen1. The case is stronger for Октябрина Мстислав than for 㙮伟㝣德. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done [128] IndigoManedWolf (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @IndigoManedWolf 502hsuya (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@502hsuya The SPI resulted in the three accounts you mentioned (plus one more) being linked and blocked. Is there something else? Otherwise this can be closed. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IndigoManedWolf Thank you. These @अशोक्समिर and @Tapaiko chettri accounts also seem to be the socks. Here is one diff of @अशोक्समिर diff:[[129]]

502hsuya (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User: Shah Peter Griffin II has repeatedly changed the word of Muammar Gaddafi's assassination to "executed" despite there being no consensus for that wording. I brought it up on his talk page and he removed it without edit summary. This is borderline repeated vandalism.

Shah Peter Griffin II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) JPHC2003 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPHC2003 Repeatedly? I only see a single change. Also, I note that Killing of Muammar Gaddafi uses both terms, "executed" in the lede and "assassinated" in the infobox. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Try following the directions and include diffs. ~2026-43825-4 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-38994-0 (talk · contribs)

IP address ~2026-38994-0 (User talk:~2026-38994-0) is repeatedly edit warring contested material into Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. The reason their contested unsourced change is a problem has been clearly explained, however, they have explicitly stated they will not stop edit warring, saying "... I will keep putting it back, and then if you block me, I will wait until the expiration date and try again, stop undoing it ... " [130]

Considering they have explicitly stated they will continue edit warring after a block expires, I would request a particularly long block. Also please check if this has violated 3RR by the time this request is processed. It's sitting at 3 reverts today at the time of posting, with their stated intention to keep edit warring. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring noticeboard is thataway → SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the TA jumping temporary accounts, blocking isn't really going to help. I've protected the article for a week. If they resume their edit war when the protection expires, request resumption of the protection at WP:RFPP. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This report is against @Ender-theBoy: On the Battle of Borodino page an edit war ensued over the result parameter. Eventually, I tried to promote a discussion on the talk page.

We discussed, but the user exhibited WP:ICANTHEARYOU after a clear talk page consensus. [131]

First they accused me of WP:CANVAS [132] after I invited two recent major contributors of the page (and a major contributor toward military infobox pages) to promote consensus.

Second, under a false edit summary, they claim they were fixing the lead (after consensus was established on the result), but in reality, edited the result instead with it as well. [133]

Third, they misrepresented WP:BRD, which clearly says to not fall into edit wars, and discuss on the talk page instead. (especially after a consensus had been established...) [134].

Fourth, they continue to edit war the result after consensus had been established: [135]. [136].

Overall, this user has been incredibly disruptive to the page. They've accused me of WP:CANVAS, while I warned them of WP:BLUDGEON as they littered the talk page with numerous comments to every user who disagreed with them.

Given ANI notice: [137] Noorullah (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment, they're also under WP:SPI. See here: [138] Noorullah (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, defense I just reverted to the last revision before Military history RUS's edits. Per WP:BRD, Military history RUS put forth a bold edit, I reverted it, and now we're discussing it. People can see how the proposed edits [139] make the third paragraph overlong, the paragraph takes up the whole screen. I'm merely doing gardening work with the revert so I'm confused why Noorullah reverted my revert and took his complaint here. Check out the proposed edit and you'll see the revert was necessary and in accordance with WP:BRD I reverted to the last revision before the proposed edits. Ender-theBoy (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But...is there anything actually wrong with the paragraph, or were you just reverting completely fine additions because you felt they were "overlong"? (Why not just add a line break and make it two separate paragraphs? 4 paragraphs in the lede of such a page is not unusual.) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the appropriate response to an edit that makes something too long (but is otherwise appropriate) is to find ways to pare down the prose, not to simply revert it. As far as I saw, the content dispute was only over the infobox. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Length of article/length of paragraph can be the wrong thing in itself... Here's my further explanation from the discussion which I'm rolling into a footnote here^[a]

Ender-theBoy (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lead as it was in the reduced state was around 250 words, around the lower range of the 250 to 400 words MOS:LEADLENGTH (not policy, but a fair reference when talking about lead length) says are typical in featured articles. While the 500+ words of the expanded lead could very well have been too much, it certainly isn't necessary to revert the entire edit. Removing half of the sentences could have been appropriate. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been acquainted with WP:BRD and isn't that just how it goes all the time--first a bold edit, then revert (then discuss). It's happened to me before. Maybe there are alternatives but I thought that's how it goes and perfectly acceptable (?) Ender-theBoy (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A principle issue is you overrode the edit regarding the result parameter as well. You are responsible for the edits you make.

I explicitly told you on the talk page: "Moreover, stop edit warring to restore your result, it is exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU and I will report you if you continue to ANI"

BRD doesn't mean to edit war. Noorullah (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update comment: Seems like they were blocked for being a sockpuppet. See SPI [140] Noorullah (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ChitoCastillo1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor doesn't post any reference to their edits.[141][142][143] This edit[144], shows a copied/pasted reference that doesn't even back up the edit. The editor also marks all of their edits as "minor edits", when their edits aren't minor. They have been notified 4 times through their talk page, about their unreferenced edits, another for misusing the minor edits box and another for not using the edit summary. The editor doesn't communicate in their talk page, and doesn't use the edit summary.Hotwiki (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@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" [145]. 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 [146] (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 [147], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In Talk:Stepanakert, I raised a request to move the page to Khankendi (as well as Stepanakert in the Republic of Artsakh to Stepanakert.) One of the respondents to the request, User:KhndzorUtogh, deleted the message of another respondent, User:Cuman, twice (revisions 1334077778 and 1334106156), citing "reversion per WP:GS/AA" as the reason in both cases. I restored Cuman's message in strikethrough (revision 1334126317), acting out of an assumption of "good faith but bad form" on KhndzorUtogh's part in deleting it, but I later went through WP:TALK and realized that not only is deleting messages expressly prohibited, but so is striking them through (in other words, both KhndzorUtogh's deletion of Cuman's message and my restoration of it in strikethrough were in violation of the talk page guidelines.) I would like an administrator to resolve the situation. Glide08 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An admin can correct me if I’m wrong, but do you realize that the move request you made is under extended confirmed protection? “ However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.”

What’s the point of this ANI? I’m simply following the restriction. Assuming good faith on your part, you didn’t even bother to warn me or discuss with me if you really wanted to “resolve the situation”. Straight to ANI! KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I went to ANI for this because:

• 1) it involves someone deleting someone else's message in the talk page, which is a violation of the talk page guidelines (I have only went to ANI over an incident once before, and that was also due to someone deleting someone else's talk page message)
• 2) my own attempt at patching the situation, restoring the deleted message with a strikethrough to reflect that Cuman wasn't supposed to make it, turned out to also be a violation of the talk page guidelines.

Glide08 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok, what about the first paragraph of my comment? Are you satisfied with my rationale? I could’ve just told you this on my talk page btw, still don’t see the reason for direct ANI escalation without any prior warnings or discussion. This is not just some random comment deletion, there is a clear extended confirmed restriction here, its relevant remedy I quoted, and a user violating it. But admins can correct me if I’m wrong, no shame in that. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph I actually agree with, and that's why I initially restored Cuman's comment with a strikethrough to indicate that Cuman wasn't supposed to make it. Glide08 (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, WP:GS/AA specifically allows its own enforcement of limiting talk page access through reverting edits, so it was an appropriate move. When weighing the sanctions against guideline, it’s worthwhile remembering that the sanctions were community-authorised and have more weight than the guideline you mentioned (for which there is a non-exhaustive list of exceptions). IndigoManedWolf (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Glide08 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

fyi Indigo is not an administrator. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I'm gonna leave the deletion be, both because Indigo clarified that it's warranted and because it was the status quo ante. Glide08 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have shortened the Proustian-length thread title for convenience. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC) [reply]

I was hoping to avoid ANI, but it seems further action is needed with regard to Dmartin969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) work in deletion areas.

Since last year they have been cautioned about their work in CSDs. This ultimately led to @Voorts revoking their NPP right. See User_talk:Dmartin969#Maybe_take_a_break for the most recent discussion started by @Ponyo. I had also flagged it a few days prior. While I encouraged them to use other deletion processes, their success there has also been an issue due to how they understand our policies around notability in addition to them misunderstanding what makes something an A7, which is the bulk of their CSDs. On User talk:Behappyyar you can see Dm969's notifications, some of which have closed and the majority of which have been retained due to their misunderstanding/misapplication of notability policies.

This is not about their success rate, but rather how they go about it including re-nominating an article for CSD when it has been declined. I warned them, and they have not responded.

Therefore proposing that Dm969 is topic banned from opening deletion discussions including XfDs, PRODs and speedies. I know CSD and PROD are not discussions, but not sure what a different ideal word would be. I do believe they should be able to participate as that's a great way to learn more about notability. I am neutral as to whether they should be able to clerk the discussions as I haven't fully been able to look into those edits, although I see a few flags. Star Mississippi 21:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi, from what I've read you're stating that they have an issue with CSDs (A7 in particular). Why are you suggesting a TBAN from XfDs and PRODs also? If the issue is CSDs, why not just propose a TBAN from those? TarnishedPath^talk 23:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem @TarnishedPath is that they don't understand notability sufficiently to make good nominations. The AfDs are being closed as Keep with no support for the nomination. While that happens to all of us at one time or another, it is happening with regularity in DM's nominations and they're a drain on the already limited community time. Star Mississippi 01:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of the eleven recent AfD noms I've made(that have been closed), four were deleted, six kept, and one withdrawn. Not a great success rate, I'll admit, but I don't think worthy of a topic ban. –DMartin (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmartin969, when you state that one was withdrawn, are you referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gurr? TarnishedPath^talk 02:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British military bases, which I withdrew after I realised I misunderstood WP:SALAT. –DMartin (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused about what I've done wrong? Is it not standard procedure to take articles to AfD once prod/speedy has been declined? After receiving your note on the ninth I have only nominated one article for CSD. Any other nominations I have PROD-ed, and then taken to AfD if that was declined and I felt there was a strong argument for deletion. What would you have preferred I did?–DMartin (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say for the record that I think jumping directly to proposing an indefinite topic ban which would exclude me from anything to do with the deletion process is a needlessly extreme measure.–DMartin (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that a topic-ban from all deletion discussions is warranted so quickly here. Their AfD track record isn't great, at a 65.5% match rate [148], but I'm sure we can find many editors whose track records aren't so close. Perhaps a sanction to prevent the high rate of nominations, which has been a problem with other editors, and might be a problem here. Katzrockso (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have a high amount of open nominations [149], which might not be an issue but for the fact that their match rate for nominations is 41.7%. I'd hope that even if no sanctions comes from this discussion that they let a lot of those close before nominating anything else so that they can take onboard any learnings. TarnishedPath^talk 03:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine too @Katzrockso as it would allow @Dmartin969 to focus on quality of their nominations. But noting I mentioned starting, not from them entirely.

@Dmartin969, yes, you're correct in that PROD and AfD were open to you but until this discussion you have not shown a track record of listening to the feedback from your fellow editors about why your read of notability was not good. You referred to them as "declined on technicalities" when that was not at all the case. Why are you in a rush to clear the soldiers to the extent that you used speedy twice and PROD on the same article? I would suggest slowing down and participating so you get a better feel for notability allowing you to make stronger nominations. Star Mississippi 03:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When did I tag the same article after CSD was declined? If I did I'm sure it was an accident.–DMartin (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Naseem in mainspace and Draft:Omer Naseem. It's the same article regardless of namespace Star Mississippi 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't've thought it counted as the same article in different namespace. It's going to be deleted under G13 anyway as the creator is banned, I just thought I could speed up the process. I'll keep it in mind though.–DMartin (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No it won't, because it should have never been sent to draft in the first place per WP:DRAFTNO. If there are concerns about the subject notability, it should be nominated for WP:AFD. TarnishedPath^talk 04:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that it should've not been draftified, thank you for moving it back. I went ahead and nommed it via AfD, which is ironic considering… why we're here –DMartin (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given why we're here, starting another AfD while this discussion is open is a bold choice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it fails GNG it fails GNG ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I'm not gonna leave problems for others to fix. –DMartin (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read what I wrote above? TarnishedPath^talk 05:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You said "If there are concerns about the subject notability, it should be nominated for WP:AFD." so I did? Was there something I didn't pick up on? –DMartin (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have a high amount of open nominations [187], which might not be an issue but for the fact that their match rate for nominations is 41.7%. I'd hope that even if no sanctions comes from this discussion that they let a lot of those close before nominating anything else so that they can take onboard any learnings. TarnishedPath^talk 05:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a topic-ban from CSD and PROD (as there are deletion processes with less other editorial input that could lead to improperly considered deletions) and some sort of rate limit on AfD nominations, to ensure that this editor fully conducts a WP:BEFORE search and spends more time comparing the article to the existing notability guidelines. Katzrockso (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi, from what I've read you're stating that they have an issue with CSDs (A7 in particular). Why are you suggesting a TBAN from XfDs and PRODs also? If the issue is CSDs, why not just propose a TBAN from those? TarnishedPath^talk 23:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that I nominated a large swathe of Pakistani soldiers, this is not a coincidence. Most of them were created by the same now-banned user, and all followed a similar pattern. Part of that pattern being that they failed WP:GNG. It does look at this point like most of them are leaning delete(though several, already closed, were kept after defence from a different, now globally locked user). I'm not nominating these at random, they were all created by the same abusive user. Nor am I nominating them indiscriminately, I have gone through all of that user's cerated articles to confirm that they passed GNG.–DMartin (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and step back from this discussion as I think I've made my position clear. If any resolving admins would like some more information please ping or email me. I would like to say in conclusion that all of the nominations I made were made in good faith. As I participated in the backlog drive I tagged a number of pages for CSD, several of which were deleted. A couple users left messages on my talk page(rightly) saying that I had been overusing CSD. From that point I reduced my use of CSD, and used PROD and, if PROD was declined, AfD. A large number of nominations were pages created by a now-banned user that followed a similar pattern, and did not satisfy GNG. I did not nominate at random, nor indiscriminately. I only ever nominated articles that I in good faith thought met the criteria for deletion(though I did make a couple of hasty mistakes, for which I apologise). I maintain that nominating the articles was not disruptive, that no harm was caused by attempting to gather consensus via AfD. Finally, I strongly believe jumping directly to proposing an indefinite topic ban which would exclude me from anything to do with the deletion process is a needlessly extreme measure. Thank you. –DMartin (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into things enough to make any recommendation, but must point out that this proposal is not to exclude anyone "from anything to do with the deletion process". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the source that's cited mentions the Tulsa archives. Acroterion (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

His correspondences are held at that university, which is what I understand this revelation comes from. The university does not say in their archives he was a Holocaust denier. The information has never been published in a reliable source, and we can only use published sources, not unpublished archival materials. I hope a qualified historian or other scholar will investigate it because it is unfortunate we have no RS about it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Sykes II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See Special:Permalink/1334076692. It is unclear which account is alleged to be compromised. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems like WilliamGoonsO7 (talk · contribs) with a new name, they were creating the same nonsense on Monday for Thomas to 'clean up'. Nathannah • 📮 06:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So what should be done? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts should be INDEF'd so nobody has to waste their time on this aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised their username wasn't picked up by some filter... Nil🥝 09:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that "William Goons" is their real name. They created a Draft:William Goons that is now deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I find this almost impossible to believe aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's definitely not an offensive pseudonym like Nate Higgers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am reformed and owned the II account however one of my friends pged it... WilliamGoonsO7 (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamGoonsO7: What does "pg" mean? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

password guessed WilliamGoonsO7 (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have since changed the password and have assumed control of the account however I would like to ask a question about how to add citations.

Where can this be done? WilliamGoonsO7 (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think any of this has the ring of truth to it. Low-level, childish vandalism seen happened started from your very first edit, three minutes after you registered your account. Removed because on second read, I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're alleging. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That the "Thomas Sykes II" account was compromised. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the timeline is absolutely crazy compared to anything WilliamGoonsO7 is saying. The first edit ever from Thomas Sykes II was Thomas Sykes II saying that Thomas Sykes II was compromised even though they were currently logged into the Thomas Sykes II account. And weirdly, alleging that Thomas Sykes II had been impersonating them without any edits ever impersonating them. Then proceeded to edit war with WilliamGoonsO7, but oddly enough, Thomas Sykes II was reverting WilliamGoonsO7's poor edits, and it would be pretty unusual for the hacked account to be fixing the problems with the legit account.

So yeah, absolutely confused what is going on here. Which makes me think it could be more grade school shenanigans. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that even starts to make sense to me is if WilliamGoonsO7 was the compromised account. And even then, given how quickly this compromise happened, and on the back of two very new accounts apparently started by the same person, that still doesn't seem to sit quite right with me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Burntonion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –

On User talk:AlphaCore: The problematic behaviour of the editor when I try to improve articles created by the editor. Draftified articles as they weren’t meeting notability. And he attacked in my talk page and even when I responded him politely, he stated that he won’t read any guidelines and he accused editors from particular region see this revision. AlphaCore talk 10:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]