Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

User:IZAK

Historically, User:IZAK has been noted to engage in disruptive behavior. There was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673#Proposal to sanction IZAK, etc.

Sadly, this has not stopped, despite the numerous discussions on their behavior and their long years on Wikipedia.

For example, this administrator openly says that IZAK told them to vote on a discussion at Special:Diff/1367580564 and Special:Diff/1367581535. This was presumably done off-wiki, since I couldn't find the notification in their talk page history. This is even more worring.

Also, User:Yonkeltron, who had not not edited since December 2025, suddenly breaks their leave to vote in two low-level discussions that IZAK also happened to vote on Special:Diff/1367579059 and Special:Diff/1367578785. The notification for this was also off-wiki.

This canvassing was after he reverted some changes I made by on some categories (Special:Diff/1367279187, Special:Diff/1367279275, Special:Diff/1367279328), so he also WP:HOUNDED me.

He also bludgeoned the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in East Africa page.

Interestingly, when he was informing WikiProjects of that discussion, he did not bother to notify the Africa WikiProject. Only Jewish ones, and for some reason, the Israel WikiProject (Special:Diff/1367409688, Special:Diff/1367409688, Special:Diff/1367409084). I think this was done because he wanted to have people with his POV vote there. This is because of the omission of notification of a relevant WikiProject, and the notification of an irrelevant one.

I think it is time to say that enough is enough, and put an end to this user's continuous disruption by indefinitely blocking them. It is unlikely for someone who has not learned in 23 years to learn in some more. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment giving my 2 cents as someone new-ish since this person seems to be a regular. I think regardless of whatever personal animosity there is between him and the submitter IZAK's conduct is hugely uncivil and hostile. I'm not sure if I agree with an indef given that there's a 6-year gap between their last block and now, but I think some kind of a block should happen since this is a really toxic way to behave 49dhelmise [talk] 03:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Response by IZAK

There was no canvassing, just normal editing. And yes, I tend to edit on the WP:BEBOLD and WP:IGNOREALLRULES side sometimes when I am deep into writing up articles for WP not just for hours but for days on end. This is a case of sour grapes and a sore loser who failed in his AfDs for articles that he wanted deleted but that I recently worked hard to improve, namely: History of the Jews in East Africa, History of the Jews in North Africa, History of the Jews in Southern Africa which HerrHeuluse resents because an admin closed the AfD discussion as Keep, see @Dr vulpes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in East Africa for more on this. There is no such rule that once articles or categories are nominated for deletion that "because of WP:CANVASS" an editor is never allowed to communicate with another editor or WP project under any circumstances about anything, anywhere any time as if the article and the AfD is radioactive and embargoed and belongs to the nominator only as if he were the WP:OWNer of it. The old case against me over 20 years ago was when the rules for canvassing were not clear and when I was a newby editor unaware of the rules, but I have abided by such rules since then. HerrHeulesse is attributing things to me and reading into my edits all sorts of conspiracy theories and he also violates WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. This complaint is baseless and it just shows how far some editors will go even if they lose AfDs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that this user, instead of even apologizing for off-site canvassing, engages in WP:PA. Obviously users who will report bad behavior from other users will be those who are in disagreement with them. This is common sense, and does not devalue my complaint. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm far more interested in who User:HerrHeulsuse is, who has been here for one month, and has made over 1,500 edits, many in CTOPs. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, this report is weak stuff to ask for an indef block. User:HerrHeulsuse, don't try to weaponise AN/I. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Fences&Windows 21:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

While I agree that this user's actions surrounding the AfD came close to or even exceeded the threshold for Wikipedia:Canvassing and that this user's temperament can be aggressive and unilateral, having had several rather unpleasant and circular interactions with them recently, their actions don't come close to warranting an indef, especially not as displayed here. I would certainly appreciate it if IZAK would think a bit more about how they interact with others, try to understand other users' points a bit more, and take a bit more time thinking out and crafting their edits, though. LPHaddleburg (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, it would help if they cut down their comments to half their current size on the noticeboards. If they want, they can link to longer comments elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Good to hear from you again. You must be referring to very old edits by me going back to the early 2000s when WP was new, discussions were more free flowing and wide ranging and the accepted thinking was talk pages were for talk since WP:NOTPAPER. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I am referring to your above comment which comes to about 264 words. Maybe try to keep it down to 100 and then link to longer comments elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Compared to the "plaintiff" in this case my responses by comparison are far shorter than his growing list of allegations against me. At this time I am being as brief as I possibly can in response to his very lengthy and mostly false and testy accusations. IZAK (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Izak, you already know that the persuasive value of a defensive response tends to be inversely correlated with its length, as readers increasingly encounter it as TL;DR. Is there something preventing you from incorporating this into your writing style? Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

IZAK could be compelled to a limit of 500 words per thread. Otherwise, the evidence against him is thin. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Most unfair, why would you wish to WP:CENSOR an editor who is a gifted writer as if this was Twitter/X limiting words and sentences? There is no reason to limit good faith free expression by editors on talk pages as long as they are to the point, logical and factual. Has there ever been such a WP policy to limit talk in threads by editors to "500 word"? I strongly doubt it. IZAK (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The reason is to make communication effective and efficient for everyone. These rules were once encoded but have been lost over time. I repeat them here: Get to the point. Avoid huge walls of text. Make one clear point. Provide context. Don't ramble. That's it. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I would not look amazed if I got imposed the same limitation. Sometimes I talk too much. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I fully support your and my freedom of speech because WP:NOT CENSORED! IZAK (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Yonkeltron and he should not be able to vote in the same discussions, it's pretty clear that he is at least habitually canvassed considering the overlap and inactivity. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is whataboutism. Clearly, someone who wants action taken against another user must provide evidence against that user. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if I am missing something, but the responses by IZAK here and at deletion discussions appear to be well within the bounds of readability compared to the walls of text you often see by accusers/the accused (#~2026-41404-95 and Zirthes?). -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@IZAK: Are your overlaps with Yonkeltron really just coincidences? There is such an extensive record of them? For some reason, it seems like you and he both vote the exact same on every AfD you share. Some of these votes have very small gaps, and then there are other obscure pages which you both edit but with a long time gap.

I notice that you literally notified him of a discussion User talk:Yonkeltron#Messianic prophecies (disambiguation). After there was some action against your behavior, its probable that you started emailing them or communicating in some other way. This means that Yonkeltron is your WP:MEATSOCK

Same with that admin .

There is also this overlap, , this with a banned account, this huge overlap makes it seem like you're the same person, ,

There were two previous attempts to deal with this user's disruption, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2. The complaints there can still be found in this user's behavior.

It's also pretty clear that you have tried to curry favor with users so that they will take your side in disputes. This can be seen with one of the people who did this with's comments on your talk page Special:Diff/187884372, Special:Diff/193002880, Special:Diff/186333390, Special:Diff/187080128. As expected, they do return the favor with this comment

Also, does anyone want proof that this user continuously bludgeons discussions? Then look through his edit log.

• This discussion where he participates, he makes up about 37% of the text
• In this one , he is at 27%, just behind User:tgeorgescu
• 35%
• 30%
• 10%

from 2014 and before

• 48%
• 24%
• 26%
• 49%
• 41%
• 13%
• 36%
• 36%
• 35%
• 28%
• 18%
• 14%
• 18%
• 39%
• 29%
• 22%
• 23%
• 16%
• 33%

If anyone else's bad behavior continued for so long, so intensely, especially while editing about one of the most persecuted group's in the planet, then they'd surely be blocked. So why the exception for this user? HerrHeulsuse (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@HerrHeulsuse: There is no rule for how long comments should or should not be simply because WP:NOTPAPER see also this: . Your arguments are ridiculous. You merely prove that in almost 24 years I have made more friends on WP than enemies, is that a crime, according to you it is. You cannot arrive at WP:CONSENSUS unless you have things in common with others who share your editorial interests. I have no idea who @Yonkeltron: is, he is an entirely independent editor, and we are not connected in any way beyond the fact that we share a common interest in articles about Jews, Judaism and Israel. Kindly stop attributing falsehoods to me, such as he's a "meat puppet" when I have absolutely no clue who he is and I have no connection to him. As for you bringing records about my voluminous edits, it only shows that over the years I have been a very active editor. I would suggest that you kindly Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Finally the couple of past ArbCom cases, 20 years ago, that involved me were because I was over-zealous in fighting ANTISEMITIC editors who were harassing me and vandalizing WP with their Jew-hate. I hope you don't object to that aspect of those cases and at least give me the benefit of the doubt per WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not seeing how the majority of these cases would qualify as bludgeoning. At Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process: Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions. IZAK's comments are somewhat longer than those from other editors, sure, but they're contained within their own thread and don't extend to refuting every other editor individually (which is usually the identifying feature of bludgeoning). I don't see Cunard being accused of bludgeoning even though their contributions to deletion discussions are often quite long. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER applies to article content, if it applied to discussions too, WP:BLUDGEON wouldn't exist. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

IZAK's vote in AfDs is quite predictive of outcomes. I wonder whether that is best explained by "bad behavior" on their part, complicated coordination via canvassing/meatpuppetry, or by participants and closers being highly susceptible to bludgeoning etc., or simply by IZAK having a decent understanding of AfD related community norms? The last option seems quite likely. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@HerrHeulsuse: You keep on attributing dark and sinister negative motives to me as if that is my "style" on WP when in fact I have created and improved thousands of articles and categories without any problems over 24 years. I do believe that in 99.9% of the time I have abided by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style! If you look at WP:BLUDGEON you will see that it also states: "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Everyone should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building". Just as I naturally can write up articles I also can likewise respond on talk or AfD/CfD pages. That's called a logical and factual presentation. In fact this whole one-sided argument of yours started when I went ahead and fully expanded the 3 articles History of the Jews in East Africa, History of the Jews in North Africa, History of the Jews in Southern Africa that you had nominated for deletion - how come you didn't accept that as WP:NOTPAPER in those cases? Yeah, I know you said it was "synthesis" but it's not, as the successful AfD Keep result proved which you are now disputing as well per WP:LAWYERING. Please stop your vendetta against me it does not become any serious editor. By the way, I have a question for you, if you as you claim you have been on WP for one month only, how come you are so familiar with all the methods of WP, and the fine print and minutiae of WP policies that would normally take years to learn? IZAK (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what type of intellectual or educational difficulty someone needs to have for them to take years to understand Wikipedia policies that added up, would be less than 100 pages long, but I don't seem to have them. And I don't even understand all 100 pages, only some about notability and some about behavior. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't have much to say but I saw you pop up in my watchlist and I was meaning to question it, but of course I forgot which article. However, it's clear here that this isn't your first rodeo at Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@HerrHeulsuse: Congratulations that you don't have any learning disabilities. I still don't see how anyone can master, and smoothly apply, all the nuances of WP policies within one month, on top of mastering the technical side of WP with all the bells and whistles and ease of doing deep dives into WP archives and stats as you do, not to mention your busy schedule of getting into Wikipedia:Contentious topics on WP as noted by @Black Kite: such as Islam, terrorism, Jews and whatnot, all while you merrily start and get involved with controversial AfDs and CfDs, and then also spending plenty of time here at AN/I attacking me and raking me over the coals as if you have known me for ages. No wonder you have raised the suspicions of others such as by @Black Kite: and @Fences and windows: above as to who you really are and what your aims are at WP altogether?! IZAK (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The way this is phrased sounds retaliatory. I don’t like this tone. Can I call for a dismissal? WorldClassChampion (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

HerrHeulsuse's attempts to delete nearly 50 Holocaust deniers categories

Very worrisome: While away and not responding to this still open and ongoing discussion at AN/I @HerrHeulsuse: has not been idle but has, for example, launched a massive WP:CFD attack to delete dozens of Holocaust denier categories that includes hundreds of Holocaust deniers by country, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 August 18#Genocide and atrocity deniers wherein he nominates almost FIFTY categories for deletion! This is a very worrisome development! Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

This does not seem like an unreasonable or politically motivated CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: You are conveniently overlooking HerrHeulsuse's unapologetic violations of constantly editing and nominating in Wikipedia:Contentious topics bordering on WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior as if that was "normal" editing behavior. IZAK (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I am a bold editor, if I can improve something, I do it. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@HerrHeulsuse: This must be the joke of the day! What have you "improved" on Wikipedia? How many articles and categories have you edited positivey or created that can be called "improving" Wikipedia? All you do is run around nominating articles for deletion or cutting others down to sze. IZAK (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

HerrHeulsuse's use of Wikipedia's age against itself to delete articles and categories

It is clear that @HerrHeulsuse: has figured out how to use Wikipedia's nearly 25 years of existence against itself in nominating articles and categories in the spirit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by nominating articles and categories for deletion that were written 20, 15, 10, 5 years ago and whose original creators have long since retired or are basically inactive and cannot and do not respond when HerrHeulsuse informs them on their talk pages that their work has been nominated for deletion. This way even if HerrHeulsuse is just the only person at the AfD or CfD as the nominator and noone responds besides himself then he can get away with murder and have huge numbers of very valuable older articles and categories deleted because the original authors and those who contributed to the original articles and categories in question are long gone from Wikipedia. I am not sure what the lifespan of an average editor is on WP but it must be relatively short in years and therefore veteran editors like myself are very few in numbers and can take a stand against HerrHeulsuse's rampant rampage of WP:DELETIONISM. He has outdone himself with his over-cleverness and needs to be stopped and Wikipedia needs to come up with a policy ASAP to protect articles and categories from being obliterated because of this chronological loophole coming from the retirement of old time editors who created valuable content when they were active and who would have surely joined deletion discussions to protect their good work from being destroyed but cannot because they are long gone and retired from WP. IZAK (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Histrionic nonsense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: It would be helpful if you would point out and debate the point/s you disagree with instead of just saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IZAK (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not a deletion discussion. Nevertheless, the idea that articles or categories created 20 years ago must be protected because their creators have retired is quite frankly absurd. You don’t like that articles and categories created 20+ years ago are nominated for deletion, so you pretend the creator(s) have WP:OWN rights and any nominations for deletion is a “rampant rampage/over-clerverness/get away with murder/politically motivated attack to delete categories of Holocaust deniers”. You would have us pretend that nothing could ever be deleted because the original defenders MIGHT defend it, so there! Wikipedia is built on what is here now, and the editors who are here now, not the babies who might be born in 2050, or the long-departed editors from 2001. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Having taken the time to look through HerrHeulsuse's XfD Log, I note this was written in response to one single XfD that was closed with no other participants. Per the close it is a soft deletion, so if anyone wants this stub back in the mainspace (where it will be swiftly re-nominated) they can request it at any time. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@REAL MOUSE IRL: Thank you for "opening up the books" on HerrHeulsuse's deletionist rampages since he "joined" WP a little over one month ago, see User:HerrHeulsuse/XfD log that shows his deletionist mania in nominating 14 AfDs and CfD in July and, now that he has been emboldened by this AN/I case he has gone ahead and nominated 70 AfDs and CfDs in August and August is still not over! You can see for yourself how he gravitates to and focuses on Wikipedia:Contentious topics such as these examples nominating:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Tashkent suicide bombings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cats That Look Like Hitler!
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Uppsala rape
• Talk:2021 London, Ontario truck attack#Requested move 4 August 2026
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Tiran Fero
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 Route 60 vehicle shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Lê Hoàng Hùng
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Eilat bombing
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Market bombing
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Dimona suicide bombing
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Al-Nurayn Mosque attack
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritually Israeli
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahrawi refugee camps

It should also be noted for the record that HerrHeulsuse has used proposals to Wikipedia:Redirect by cutting down and reducing articles and conjoining them with lists that detracts from the information contained in redirected articles, see examples:

• 5 September 2016 Syria bombings
• 17 October 2017 Afghanistan attacks
• 22 April 2018 Kabul suicide bombing
• 2013 bombing of Indian consulate in Jalalabad
• List of Mexican states by homicides

These are some of the most egregious and glaring examples of constant wading into Wikipedia:Contentious topics that are bound to induce a WP:BATTLEGROUND situation as editors wake up to what he is doing to their articles/lists/categories. IZAK (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

You are trying to justify your battleground attitude. Congratulations? Also, you continuously imply that I am a sockpuppet. Please file a SPI against me if you think that this is true, otherwise I will ask you to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS in WP:BADFAITH. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Regardless of whether this discussion results in a site ban, it is clear that IZAK should be topic banned from editing about Jews and Judaism, broadly construed. All of the discussions about IZAK's conduct involved tendentious editing in this topic area. I should note that the Archive1040 discussion in 2020 also resulted in a topic ban from controversial additions of religion-related categories that was never logged at WP:EDR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

It does not seem clear to me based on the evidence presented that "IZAK should be topic banned from editing about Jews and Judaism". What seems possible is that HerrHeulsuse is a ban or block evading actor. I would be interested to hear whether IZAK has come into conflict with any LTAs in the past, people like Icewhiz and their many socks, or other accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

You're right. Do you have a clue who the sockmaster might be? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03@Sean.hoyland I've tried looking into it, but there isn't any account that is anything more than a slight maybe yet. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If this user is not a sock, should HerrHeulsuse be topic banned from Jews or interaction banned from IZAK? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd support this. There's definitely some concerning battleground behavior going on here from HH, who seems to be on a persistent campaign to purge Wikipedia of the history of Palestinian terrorism incidents via AFD , ,, , etc. on the grounds of them being commonplace non-events with no persistent long-term coverage (while inconsistently failing to do the same for attacks against Palestinians, that were under similar circumstances.) Whether those nominations are correct or not is besides the point -- it's the fact that they're all based on policies and processes that a new, unfamiliar user would absolutely be unaware of that I find disconcerting, combined with the single-sided weaponization of the same.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Is it inappropriate to nominate non-notable pages for deletion unless I do it for both sides? Is there any proof of my actual misbehavior in sourcing, bad nominations, etc. or is it just vaguely problematic? I have had lots of nominations before to understand event notability criteria. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I support a protection ban WorldClassChampion (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean a page protection. WorldClassChampion (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know either. I'm too lazy to look at accounts in detail nowadays given the near frictionlessness of account creation, but the editing speed, knowledge, possible use of misdirection, and what looks like pettiness to me of this report is not inconsistent with Icewhiz, I guess. If I take the human out of the loop and just treat things as vectors, I get these top 5 candidates in descending probability order from 6 different methods. The catch is that this is opaque, has questionable reliability/some kind of delusional misidentification syndrome, and can produce something akin to the Charlie Kaufman film Anomalisa where (almost) everyone looks and sounds the same.

Extended content

	A	B	C	D	E	F
0	User:HerrHeulsuse	User:HerrHeulsuse	User:HerrHeulsuse	User:HerrHeulsuse	User:HerrHeulsuse	User:HerrHeulsuse
1	User:Ruzhiner	User:PeleYoetz	User:Ruzhiner	User:BasselHarfouch	User:BasselHarfouch	User:BasselHarfouch
2	User:Shemgeneri	User:110 and 135	User:MelikaShokoufandeh	User:110 and 135	User:110 and 135	User:Shemgeneri
3	User:MelikaShokoufandeh	User:Rajoub570	User:110 and 135	User:Ruzhiner	User:Ruzhiner	User:Ruzhiner
4	User:110 and 135	User:BasselHarfouch	User:IgnorantArmies	User:Owenglyndur	User:Owenglyndur	User:MelikaShokoufandeh
5	User:IgnorantArmies	User:IgnorantArmies	User:Icewhiz	User:Icewhiz	User:Icewhiz	User:IgnorantArmies

Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland What about Irtapil? EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Not the type to be thanking blocked accounts called BallLicker or filing an SPI then telling the subject "I think you are doing great work". Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

These results are meaningless without probability estimates. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

That's true. But including probability estimates wouldn't make them meaningful. I'm okay embracing meaninglessness. What I can say is a) these accounts are in the 99th percentile actor similarity-wise under a specific set of conditions, b) change the conditions and the results will change a bit, and c) it's only looking at about 600 accounts out of millions, so assigning a zero-ish probability is not wrong. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland What tool are you using for this? EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It's a hobby project I mess around with when I have spare time. It's far from reaching the reliable tool stage, if that is even possible. Maybe it is possible to shrink the sock search space a bit. Although I should add that I think the 90-day CU data retention schedule and no-fishing rule makes looking for socks more like security theater than a practical solution to ban and block evasion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland They have changed their user page. Does this indicate who the possible sockmaster could be? EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I suspect User:NoCal100 to be your sockmaster. I will have to do more research to see if this is the correct conclusion. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

No idea, but Icewhiz enjoys playing dress up games via their socks. Either way, if they could focus more of their attention on improving the dark triad article it might be win-win. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

My encounters with IceWhiz mostly involved them POV pushing a pro-Israel stance rather than a pro-Palestinian one though, I suppose, they have got up to joe-job antics before. Regardless this account does look like a lost sock regardless of who the master is. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

This is rather odd too in relation. ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. The very obvious sockpuppetry going on is a mitigating factor to some extent, but IZAK's behaviour blows way past that. If one suspects a fresh account is making bad faith deletion nominations in a CTOP, they should not raise the temperature with emotive language. ("massacring" categories, "getting away with murder" at AfD, etc) When this behaviour stretches all the way back to that arb case in 2005, a TBAN is well overdue. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose the tone of IZAK's comments were not always necessary, and I'd advise them to cool it, but I'm really not seeing any problems here besides a moderately inflamed tone. Simply asking a specific person to comment is not canvassing, canvassing is doing it in an attempt to support your POV. The editor who was "canvassed" did not even vote the same way IZAK did. Having somewhat long responses is not bludgeoning and none of these rise to WP:WALLOFTEXT. None of the comments in the AfD where bludgeoning is claimed rise to bludgeoning at all!.They responded to one editor back-and-forth, not responding to everyone. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Support per @REAL MOUSE IRL. IZAK's behaviour deserves a sanction 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per PARAKANYAA. I instead support a two-way IBAN between IZAK and HH, necessary because of the ridiculously extreme bad faith accusations against each other. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  I’m not trying to be a dick this time but

  Support, same reason as Airship’s comment WorldClassChampion (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  just to clarify that do you support the tban or you support the same reason as Airship, since Airship opposes a tban? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  The two way IBAN airship proposed WorldClassChampion (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  This user voted support down below. @AirshipJungleman29: can you please clarify your vote, because right now you vote twice in the thread. @WorldClassChampion: you may also be interested in reconsidering for this reason, although I see that you have retired. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  HerrHeulsuse, I have not !voted support for this proposal. Please take more time to read. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WTF? Are we really debating a TBAN based on this discussion with an obvious non-newbie? Even discouting that, what is the justification for a TBAN based on Izak's edits? If you want to tell him to tone it down a bit, that's one thing, but to ban someone? This is a ludicrous proposal. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support I'm kind of sick of Wikipedians enabling toxicity from long-term users and just giving it a gentle nudge with "cool it". We complain about how toxic the site can be, and we just let people be toxic without taking any concrete steps to stopping it. I don't really care how productive the users in question are; if they are toxic, they are potentially chasing away multiple other productive users. I think a topic ban and of course allowing them to appeal it in future would be helpful. grapesurgeon (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think there is a difference between toxicity and needing to cool it a bit. I also chime in and say that someone with over 20 years at Wikipedia is bound to run into some issues. Overall, I think it would be a disservice to Wikipedia to TBAN him from Judaism topics, especially when this most recent issue is between someone obviously hiding behind a new username. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  No, I've seen enough to identify toxicity. If you're not seeing that as toxic then I beg you to reevaluate. Normal people don't enjoy being treated the way IZAK treats others. And IZAK's done it to multiple people, not just HerrHeulsuse. They've also been given a long leash over time too, and situation still remains not great.

  Tired of Wikipedians enabling this. Enough is enough. Soft chastising has failed and will fail again. IZAK would be welcome to appeal the ban in time. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  I did not say that based on them being a long term user, or being productive; I quite frankly cannot recall having ever interacted with IZAK, or had any knowledge of IZAK prior to this incident, or any knowledge of how productive or nonproductive they are. I agree that would not be an excuse anyway. My problem is as far as I can tell most of the allegations in the original ANI post are not true, and so to topic ban someone based on that is a poor choice imv and results in deeply perverse incentives. Both users here have acted very strangely and neither of them are helping their case. Further, if the problem in question is tone/toxicity, I do not see any reason why a topic ban in this way would be the solution, when the behavior does not seem to be restricted to that topic area. If we want to indeff the user we should be discussing that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  I wasn't speaking about you in specific for the long term user bit.

  I do not see any reason why a topic ban in this way would be the solution

  I think we have different priorities. I'm seeing in the above posts and in the interactions between these two users a pattern of toxicity. This is what I'm worried about; for half the comments IZAK has posted in this thread, they really really should know better. They'll probably treat others like this in future; after all if we just let this happen, what incentive is there to change?

  Temporary or topic blocks leave a very visible and noticeable track record to both the user and to others; this is why I prefer we use them more. Users like IZAK are committed to Wikipedia and I think the likelihood they'll return (after hopefully learning a lesson) is high.

  I'd be ok with a timed block as well, doesn't need to be a topic ban. But considering IZAK is particularly active in this topic area, a topic ban would be similar enough of a signal to stop. grapesurgeon (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose need more clear diffs and evidence to escalate like this? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Bluethricecreamman: please see my comment here. There is also IZAK's behavior across this ANI, his reactions are valuable in forming a judgement. I also included some information in the original filing statement HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Id support a one way IBAN at minimum. That seems entirely inappropriate hounding, from a long term editor who should no better. I shall withdraw my oppose. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is not based on firm findings, and is poisoned by being opened by an editor qho doesn't seem to be new and seems to have an agenda. Supposed bludgeoning is often just IZAK being wordy. A two-way interaction ban with HerrHeulsuse would be better. Fences&Windows 17:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that an interaction ban would benefit both parties to this discussion. There have been some clarifications in the meantime but at this point it does not seem to be a benefit to anyone to keep this thread open. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support IZAK's general posture here is bizarrely toxic, or perhaps toxically bizarre. For the love of God, they posted what an LLM spat out with regard to their "positive qualities". And it's bizarre to me to see the amount of people covering for IZAK, perhaps this is because I am a newer user. Buddy Gripple (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's why the site stays toxic: enablers. grapesurgeon (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. After all the discussion that has taken place here, IZAK has hounded me again. He votes on various AfD nominations that I have made (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 Route 60 vehicle shooting, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Eilat bombing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Lê Hoàng Hùng, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Market bombing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Market bombing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Dimona suicide bombing).

In each of the cases, he puts a short comment that is slightly rephrased on each nomination. His votes do not really engage with anything in my nomination statement, and are not based in WP:PAG. He ignores that events need to pass WP:NEVENT in addition to WP:GNG. This behavior shows continued WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, he does not even stop while his actions are being scrutinized at a disciplinary board.

If you look at the time between the edits, it ranges from 3 to 1 minutes. That is not even enough to read the nominated page and look for sources using a search engine. So his intention here does not seem to be to engage in the discussion. I suspect that it is either to make a WP:POINT against me, or to vote and hope for a closer that only counts votes. It is definitely WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that does sound like it calls for an interaction ban on at least one side between you two. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose because if HerrHeulsuse can get to vote twice (nominating me for a site ban and then now supporting a topic ban also, so which is it?) then I can get to vote here as well. I was not "hounding" HerrHeulsuse nor was I being "disruptive" but I was responding to @REAL MOUSE IRL: post above for "opening up the books" on HerrHeulsuse's deletionist rampages since he "joined" WP a little over one month ago, see User:HerrHeulsuse/XfD log. I looked at the log and the dozens of AfDs nominated by HerrHeulsuse and voted Keep accordingly citing WP:N and WP:RS in each case because it is so! That is not hounding or disruption, it is called being responsible while others sleep and ignore HerrHeulsuse's bad actor behavior. To my great surprise I was usually the only one voting simply because HerHeulsuse has carefully chosen articles that were written long ago and therefore notifying the original authors gets no response. HerrHeulsuse is very tricky and cunning in his deletionism tactics and strategy, especially on giving Islamic terrorism a free pass and is causing great harm to Wikipedia and needs to be stopped very soon! IZAK (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  HerrHeulsuse is very tricky and cunning in his deletionism tactics and strategy, especially on giving Islamic terrorism a free pass and is causing great harm to Wikipedia and needs to be stopped very soon!

  This is ridiculous. For the love of god please vote to block IZAK, they clearly have learned nothing from all this. grapesurgeon (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban and 2-way I-Ban. Neither party has made themselves look good here. I was getting comfy sitting on the fence going through this but IZAK's behavior in this thread really makes me worry about their ability to contribute in a healthy and neutral manner. It's true that it's not a crime to have passion for your areas of interest on Wikipedia, nor to be a personality in talk spaces. But if the topic of Jews and Judaism consistently inflames IZAK into the kind of behavior I'm seeing here, I think a topic ban becomes a reasonable measure. Their behavior below is so bizarre it raises additional alarm bells for me. I can look past my irks with calling oneself a "gifted writer" and other unbidden self-praise, but a direct call to not put any restrictions on them because of their track record, equating themselves to [Wikipedia's] Jewish Nose, and calling themselves a WP:EXPERT while seemingly oblivious to the purpose and message of that essay, are all massive red flags to me. Especially since, correct me if I'm wrong, they haven't once substantially owned-up to sub-standard conduct in this thread. I think them having AI write their praises speaks for itself, but I would draw attention to the doubling down with an 'AI is the future!' screed and this inane schoolyard bickering. I include I-Ban support due to the recent hounding shown above. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment HerrHeulsuse has been blocked for a month for persistent disruptive editing. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose As I don't see this as meriting a topic ban, though I would suggest that IZAK take some things a bit easier in terms of engaging editors like HerrHeulsuse. I have been on several of the same articles and AfDs as IZAK, and have seen a consistently strong and thoughtful editor. User:IZAK defines themselves as an Inclusionist on their User Page, and I don't think I've seen any editor who has worked so hard and so fast to be an Arch-Deletionist as HerrHeulsuse, so it's hard not to imagine sparks flying between the two of them when they overlap. IZAK would be well served by working to de-escalate, even with editors who have been as combative out of the gate as HerrHeulsuse has been. I don't see a justification here for a topic ban, as proposed here, particularly as I share concerns expressed elsewhere that HerrHeulsuse is a operating in evasion of a block or ban. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support—This whole thing has been a very bad look for both users. IZAK has been very unpleasant, self-aggrandizing, and shown themselves to be unable to take criticism or consider how their actions can be seen as aggressive and disruptive. The AI thing was infantile and indicative of an incredibly unproductive outlook. The attitude on display here shows, I think rather clearly, that this user should not be editing within the sphere of controversial topics or topics, like Jews and Judaism, with which they clearly have a very personal relationship/connection/interest. HerrHercules is another story altogether, but this !vote is not about them, and they have already been banned for a month, it would seem. LPHaddleburg (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I have no opinion on an IBAN. IZAK appears to lack certain expectations of social interaction and engagement. For example, I and others have asked him for years to tone down and shorten his comments as they are too long. This has never happened. Furthermore, IZAK's recent posting of an LLM summarizing his edits demonstrates that he doesn't understand how this technology works and how it would have generated the same slop for just about anyone else. I would encourage IZAK to listen to what others are saying here. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't understand how you can say IZAK has conduct issues and then propose nothing concrete be done about it. Clearly regular asking has and will continue to fail; IZAK is still being erratic in this thread.

  Wikipedians and enabling are two peas in a pod. grapesurgeon (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  How do you enforce impartiality, humility, and self-transcendence? Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  At this point, ultimatums and forcing compliance or getting increasingly long blocks. If you're worried about losing IZAK's productivity, don't; I don't really care how productive the users in question are; if they are toxic, they are potentially chasing away multiple other productive users.

  IZAK will need to learn to sink or swim. If they can't, frankly we don't need them. Lot of other people who aren't this toxic grapesurgeon (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  I will defer to consensus on this. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  You see IZAK's latest post about communists? Your oppose vote is still up btw; this is still enabling. grapesurgeon (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies, but I will be temporarily indisposed due to the tending of my wounds from the incessant bludgeoning. Please excuse my absence. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN at the very minimum per Fram's reply below, and also because it sets a bad precedent to let them get away with bragging about turning LLMs into some kind of Magic Mirror to show off how they are indispensable to this project while we have indeffed tons of editors for embracing the future. Borgenland (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Support any sanction As noted by others below, the mentaity of IZAK towards disputes is not ideal, seemingly attempting to throw any dirt at opponents, writing implausible screeds, and making mountains out of tangential detail. Also, using Gemini to prove your worth is like paying an advertiser to make your brand look good. Overall, this needs to be mitigated before it escalates into something more like a dispute with a legitimate editor. FoxOutOfRange 20:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN; I would also be sympathetic to a community ban, if that's the way people wanna go. I hate to support a sanction against a fellow Yiddish speaker, but the toxicity and lack of care for Wikipedia's collaborative environment displayed by this user cannot be condoned. Wikipedia has no elders, and a user's editing legacy cannot be used to excuse such behavior. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 14:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Personal request by IZAK in his own defense

I am not proficient in digging up stats on Wikipedia but I do know that I have dedicated a long time of over 23 years, and counting, to creating articles and categories about Jews and Judaism of which I consider myself and by my friends on WP as a proven WP:EXPERT editor. Any type of ban (whether it's to limit the amount of words I can use in a thread/discussions/ or a site ban/ or a topic ban) would be like WP cutting off its "Jewish" nose to spite its own face! I believe that I have logged between 80,000 and 90,000 edits in that time, not counting the actual hours and days I spent on many of those edits. Instead of focusing on essentially insignificant sporadic negative incidents by me where virtually in every case the editors I was opposing were quite often opposed to my world view and perhaps even to my strong support of Jews and Judaism. My request is, how about focusing on the 99.9% of the time when I was positively and constructively contributing to Wikipedia. Can someone please help me out here and dig into the stats relating to my editing over 23 years and list both the number of articles and categories that I have contributed to Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. And to the user above who alleged that I write "tendentiously" I totally deny that because I have always striven to write from the core WP policy of WP:NPOV. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• By the way, just for the record, I looked up what it says about "Tell me about User:IZAK on Wikipedia" on Gemini AI it notes my positives such as:

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.

"User:IZAK is a long-standing, prolific editor on English Wikipedia who joined the platform during its early years (active since around 2002–2003). Focus Areas: He is best known for his extensive contributions to topics surrounding Judaism, Orthodox Jewish history, Hasidic dynasties, Rabbinic literature, and Jewish biography. WikiProject Leadership: IZAK was instrumental in the foundational organization of WikiProject Judaism, helping structure categories, guidelines, and article standards for Jewish subjects across the encyclopedia.Editing Style & Impact: As a native Yiddish speaker (listed under Category:User yi-N), he brought deep domain knowledge to articles regarding traditional and historical Jewish life. Over the years, he has created and curated thousands of articles, templates, and categories in these subject areas. Discussions & Controversies: Due to his active involvement in shaping Wikipedia's early categorization policies for ethnic and religious groups—as well as debates surrounding Neutral Point of View (NPOV) on sensitive religious and historical subjects—he was a prominent voice in major community discussions, deletion debates, and WikiProject governance throughout the 2000s and 2010s."

There is a lot more detail about me as User:IZAK on Gemini AI if you enter "Tell me more" after each segment comes up. I am very proud of my record!!! Something to think about! IZAK (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You are saying that you are irreplaceable and because of your good efforts, you should never be blocked. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This argument is a being a bit personal and mean spirited. I vote for both users’ suspensions from discussions or editing for a fortnight WorldClassChampion (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You're not even extended-confirmed. IZAK was talking about himself (personal) and a refutation on that can only be personal. Please do not troll other users. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m not trying to troll, I’m just trying to disambiguate this situation and reach a consensus WorldClassChampion (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Previously you said that you supported a page protection (to which page?) and that you supported a ban on protection. Now you are talking about disambiguation when it is not relevant. This seems like trolling HerrHeulsuse (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Topic protection I kinda meant for the previous case. But after reviewing this side it’s better if you both take a break from this platform. This spiralled out of control, we’re here for a shared purpose, to improve this platform, and interrogating people like that is not a way to conduct operations here. WP:BITE WP:CIVIL WorldClassChampion (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

By the way, just for the record, I looked up what it says about "Tell me about User:IZAK on Wikipedia" on Gemini AI it notes my positives such as:

This is truly bizarre. Why did you think this would be helpful to post here? grapesurgeon (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

A hagiography to affirm one's own notions; an echo chamber HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@HerrHeulsuse: You mean biography about me, how I built up Wikipedia and saved it from deletionists like you. If it was about you it would simply say, "he tried to delete Wikipedia, but, predictably, did not get his way"! IZAK (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This comment strays to WP:FORUM and it is not productive in resolving this dispute. It makes it harder to resolve the dispute by bloating it up with comments. It may even be counter-effective, as this behavior may result in sanctions for you. I advise you to only comment when it is beneficial in dispute resolution. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Closing comments by IZAK

In response to those above who objected to my mini-use of Gemini AI (Google AI) in my own defense, I say wake up because artificial intelligence is here to stay in a big way! Governments, corporations, armies, movies, internet, commerce and all sorts of industries are absorbing and supporting this astounding cutting edge new technology and using it to upscale everything! In fact according to news reports, for the first time since its founding 25 years ago readership of Wikipedia has started to decline and the main reason is because of the rise of AI that has absorbed WP's information and data base and then can create and spit out a trillion plus times more information. Choose a topic or article that has not been written and ask AI and see what you get! Yeah I know, people hate AI and call its products "slop" but it ain't so simply because all the time it is being used to replace or do what humans cannot do at such speed.

Now I would like to turn to the past allegations at AN/I and ArbCom against me. In all four cases cited it was my standing up to bad actors over-zealously that made the bad actors themselves bring complaints against me to AN/I and the ArbCom and that is why they all basically lost. As in the present case I am being accused and hounded by a mystery one month old wonder user who has been proven to be a sock through his sockpuppetry sock puppet account, see the above investigations into his "true identity".

1. All of his allegations of me being involved with sockpuppetry or meat puppetry are false because I have never engaged in that kind of tactic anywhere anytime.
2. All of his allegations of bludgeoning are false because that has never been my intent, I simply write in full sentences and paragraphs, the same way I contribute to or created articles.
3. The allegations of canvassing are are not correct, there was only normal editing and communication between editors who share a common interest to arrive at WP:CONSENSUS which is impossible without contacting like-minded editors.

Please take the time to read and understand them before you jump to judgement.

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK (2005). See my responses to that case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Responses by User:IZAK that involved a retired user and a blocked user.
2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 (2008). See my responses at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#Response by User:IZAK that involves a blanked empty user page.
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673#Proposal to sanction IZAK (2011) that was brought by an anonymous user who refused to register as an official WP account.
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#Edit warring, Aspersions and Canvassing by IZAK (2020) and my responses interspersed in this discussion that is basically about me representing traditional classical Judaism versus modern scholarship in interpreting the biblical Exodus about which there is plenty of material to support both sides of the ongoing scholarly versus traditionalist debate concerning the Hebrew Bible, Biblical studies, Torah, Written Torah, Oral Torah and Tanakh. A modernist editor disagreed with me and ran to AN/I to get his way.

These are the four cases over the last 23 years. In each case I confronted either controversial, or banned, blocked, anonymous editors or those that opposed a traditionalist classical Judaism and Jewish perspective so vehemently that they had to go to war with me at AN/I or even ArbCom. As it seems, during my 23+ tenure as a WP editor I have had the dubious "honor"" of running into shady characters whose aim has been to erase and damage content on all of Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel which I have always tried to save, sometimes in an over-zealous manner simply because when I err, I err on the side of WP:BEBOLD and WP:IGNOREALLRULES and not of caution, for better or worse. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

IZAK, because of this and your above screeds, I now support some sort of timed block on you. Your behaviour is more and more apparent to be disruptive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: You are gravely misreading me. What you are in fact looking at is the ongoing struggle of deletionism and inclusionism on Wikipedia. While I am basically an avowed inclusionist on WP, all my detractors, naysayers and opponents on WP have been and are mass deletionists. IZAK (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I am perfectly reading you then: you are so deep in this factional WP:BATTLEGROUND that your editing has become openly tendentious. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: You seem to be confusing two entirely different things: (a) How I write and edit WP:N articles which I do in a totally WP:NPOV way using WP:RS and (b) How I respond to what amounts to WP:NPA against me by editors who are bad actors and therefore I must be more vehement at an AN/I case like this where allegations against me are twisted and contrived to cause me maximum credibility damage. It's like asking a man to shut up when he is being mugged! Not very reasonable. I did not and never have engage in battleground tactics when writing or editing articles nor am I disruptive in such situations. But here at AN/I, I must speak up in my own defense and not pull any punches. IZAK (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

On the AI-generated bit, even if that had been written by some non-Wikipedian human you knew, I would still have been bewildered by it. I don't care what Gemini thinks about you. I've seen enough to have made a judgment.

But it is true that the fact that you still chose to show up to the "I hate AI club" (Wikipedia) with a long useless AI post just screams that you can't read the room and communicate efficiently. I've said this before, but a block would be in order.

Please, please, please learn from this. Tone it down. We don't need crusading warriors that get into heated arguments with long text walls. We need people who can communicate efficiently and with minimal friction. grapesurgeon (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: You are falsely mistaking my ability for critical thinking and dialectical argumentation for "battleground behavior". I am most definitely not tendentious in my general editing because I strictly adhere to WP:NPOV all the time when I create or contribute to articles. Obviously at AN/I and at ArbCom I need to be more seriously pro-active in my own defense which is not the same as calmly writing or editing articles. AI is the wave not just of the future but of the present moment and it is self-defeating to remove veteran WP:EXPERT editors when the AI threat is standing at WP"s door to devour and subsume WP in one huge gulp. IZAK (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is twice now you’ve told me what I should think. Thanks, but I don’t trust your judgement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Grapesurgeon: I am not a "crusading warrior" but I am an interesting editor and I try to make what I write interesting as well. Are you saying that WP cannot tolerate people with personality but only welcomes boring one track mind simpletons? Obviously not, as WP editors automatically reflect the varieties of humans that exist in the real world, some being calm and other being passionate which gives them the energy to contribute to WP in the first place. IZAK (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  Are you saying that WP cannot tolerate people with personality but only welcomes boring one track mind simpletons No, I'm saying there's ways to be tactfully and charismatically disruptive, and you're neither. I think the way you're being disruptive is self-absorbed and annoying. You can't read the room and posted a inane AI slop summary of how great you think you are; think about that carefully. I'm not alone in feeling this way. Take a hint and tone it down. WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  You can't read the room

  You do keep saying it, despite this discussion stuck here for a rather long time, OP is temporarily blocked already, current votes are at 2-to-1 ratio indeed, but if confusing WorldClassChampion's position is excluded it's become an almost 1-to-1 then. Add to that your redundant mentions about toxicity and it could be read that adding a certain material intended to 'troll' certain users is a tactfully and charismatically disruptive way, compared to IZAK's toxic ways. It would be moving to a boomerang, but OP already undertaking a good labor to make it redundant. ~2026-46001-44 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Final warning about User:HerrHeulsuse

Userboxes

This user misses the USSR.

This user is an Atheist and believes religion is harmful to society.

This user supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israeli apartheid.

This user supports strong India–Palestine relations. (Hindi: भारत-फ़िलिस्तीन के सम्बन्ध; Arabic: العلاقات الهندية الفلسطينية)

This user supports China–Palestine solidarity and hopes China will do more to support Palestinian liberation.

Important message to the closing admin/s and to the Wikimedia Foundation:

At the time that HerrHeulsuse (talk · contribs) began his AN/I allegations against me his user page was a bland generic simple one. Now as he feels emboldened by the support he has received here he has now so to speak raised his "skull and crossbones" flag as he moves in for his "kill" and alarmingly now openly declares on his user page that he is a Marxist-Leninist and wishes that the USSR still existed complete with a photo of Stalin on it. Does Wikipedia need this kind of user who wishes to create a Soviet Wikipedia or a Marxist-Leninist Wikipedia by, in one month, deleting hundreds of articles and categories that do not blend into his USSR-like Marxist-Leninist intolerant totalitarian worldview?

Just take a look at the user boxes he has recently proudly posted on his user page, I re-post them here for the record to remove all doubts.

No wonder he got blocked , see the notice  : "This user is currently blocked. The latest active block log entry is provided below for reference: 10:13, 24 August 2026 Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) talk contribs blocked HerrHeulsuse talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing) Tag: Twinkle"

HerrHeulsuse should be permanently blocked and his AN/I case against me should be immediately dismissed! Thank you for your attention! IZAK (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

So, this entire thread was a communist plot all along! Thanks for letting us know!! I'll bear this in mind when looking at AfD discussions In Future!!!! And while I'm at it, start work on the WP:NOTDELETIONISTMARXISTLENISTPLOT section we clearly need to add to [[WP:NOT]!!!! AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

No one needs to take the bait and play their stupid games here, at SPI, or anywhere else. There is no reason to believe anything they say about anything. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• I saw that HerrHeulsuse was blocked because I have installed a script that strikes through the username of every editor that is currently blocked and then came here to read this very long ANI thread and was surprised to find that they weren't blocked based on this discussion. Can anyone tell me the grounds of their block if it wasn't what was presented here? I have no position on IZAK, it's difficult to judge an editor with such a long history based on one noticeboard discussion but I have to agree with other admins and some editors here that it is impossible that this is HerrHeulsuse's first account. That's as far as I'll go or I'll have to open a case at SPI and I have no idea who they are connected to but I've also seen some very new and suspicious TA supporters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  I checked the discussion few times, and as it looks like I'm the only TA participated here, from your words it's follow that my writing failed me again, seemingly up to the full opposite of that was intended. I could try to clarify the places if you see that worthy of.

  49dhelmise account that used to write here only the times HerrHeulsuse is blocked, together with their overall account's history, and now with He's blocked already, no? And this thread isn't about him anyhow. few minutes after another HerrHeulsuse's activity is truly suspicious, though. ~2026-46251-76 (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hey hold on I just don't have anything to say about HerrHeulsuse. Thats not the same as defending him I just dont think I have anything to contribute on the matter since, again, he's already blocked. 49dhelmise [talk] 17:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Re: my contribs thats cause I used to be an infrequent TA editor, made an account cause my institution caught an IP ban (and also cause I got fixated on userboxes for a bit and wanted to make my own userpage) 49dhelmise [talk] 17:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  ~2026-46251-76, I wasn't pointing fingers or naming names/numbers and it was a general comment based on other discussions and AFDs that I read over that involved HerrHeulsuse. Please do not take my comment personally. If I had the "receipts", I would share them but this is based on a general observation as I was looking over their account activity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not taking it personally at all, why. All I meant that if there are some places where my writing failed me, I'd prefer them to be clarified instead of persisting, if possible. In case "receipts" would appear, I'll try to address them. ~2026-46456-07 (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• @AndyTheGrump: not sure if you are being facetious or not, but all the talk of me being "toxic" is utter poppycock and the focus should be on the damage HerrHeulsuse was causing to Wikipedia regardless if he's Marxist-Leninist as he says he is or not. A lot of his AfDs were to delete articles about acts of Islamic terrorism and of its victims. If he is indeed longing for the USSR headed by Stalin then he may just as well be an admirer of North Korea the last Stalinist state on the planet that does not look kindly on Wikipedia, see the list of states that enforce censorship of Wikipedia. In addition, this is no laughing matter because if HerrHeulsuse would be the vanguard of more like him to come then Wikipedia does have a record of confronting group malicious actors not just Marxist-Leninists, see Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia and severe restrictions on pro-Lyndon LaRouche editors as two key examples. So no jokes please, this is a very serious matter for Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  All I see in this discussion is one troll who is correctly blocked, and one editor who has completely lost all sense of perspective and is making whole mountain ranges out of molehills and sees all of Wikipedia as one giant battleground. Your behaviur throughout this discussion, from the bizarre LLM post to the severe battleground behaviour you demonstrate, doesn't give me the impression that you are an editor we should keep around. Fram (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  He's blocked already, no? And this thread isn't about him anyhow. Regardless of if he opened this ani because of a personal grudge against you or something the things he said are still valid, and the way youve been talking to people here goes beyond whats reasonable for self-defense IMO.

  Like this isn't a duel between him and you where if you prove he's more wrong than you you win: he literally can't contribute anything cause he's blocked 49dhelmise [talk] 09:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  IZAK, with all respect, if you really can't tell whether I was being facetious or not (I was), I'd have to suggest you would do well, for your own mental health, to just step away from this thread and accept what happens. Your judgement is clearly clouded by your emotions, and you apparently don't have the capacity to judge how your histrionics are being received. You are making things worse for yourself, and the longer you go on, the harder it will get to get anyone to take any notice at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Convert HerHeulsuse block to a cban and then trout IZAK I don't think either of these editors are covering themselves in glory. Confronted by an obvious and transparent troll, IZAK seems to have lost all perspective. What's worse, they seem not to distinguish between a troll and a socialist and are converting their fury at the former into conspiracist thought about the latter. I am not inclined to push for sanctions, however, over an editor blowing their stack at an obvious troll. HH, on the other hand, is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I do persist, as I said above, in thinking they're likely a sock of some LTA or another. Regardless of whether they are a returning troll with a new username or a new troll having some fun at everybody else's expense, they should not be editing Wikipedia. So let's indef HH, remind IZAK to keep their cool lest the next time they act silly it's toward someone who isn't such a blatant malicious actor, and wrap this sideshow up. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  We've reminded IZAK over similar for years with no improvement. You're enabling. This is why Wikipedia stays toxic; it's not "silliness", this behavior chases away newbies and distresses regulars grapesurgeon (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Whilst IZAK hasn't exactly covered themselves in glory here, HerrHeulsuse is an obvious returning sock/troll and should be indeffed. Then this can be closed with hopefully everyone having learnt something going forward. Black Kite (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed re: HH. At the absolute least, topic banned out of anything to do with CT/A-I, that should be table stakes given their behavior thus far, but we're going to be right back here in about a month if we don't address this now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I also think that the HerrHeulsuse account should be indefinitely blocked and locked to encourage the operator to switch to one of their less disruptive accounts. The something I learned is that combining "fail" with "WP:DICTDEF" is surprisingly rare. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree to close. Trout Izak with warning that they are more experienced than some rando accounts and should rise above this conduct. (If the randos dont behave well, they clearly get banned, but stooping to their level can lead to same result too). User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:23, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Totally agree re: HerrHeulsuse, who has acted like a fool this entire discussion and is almost certainly a troll/sock of some sort. But I must say that a Trout for IZAK is likely to do exactly nothing. Although HH was the instigator here, IZAK has shown themselves to be unrepentant, as evinced by their endless, wall-length "defenses" of indefensible action and, importantly, as noted by several experienced users above—as @Viriditas wrote above, for example, "I and others have asked him for years to tone down and shorten his comments as they are too long. This has never happened." I'm not trying to extend this already too long thread, but I feel like a Trout is just asking for us to be back here again at some point because IZAK won't actually give it any thought or take it to heart. Something a bit more serious and/or pointed, I think, would do much more than a humorous non-warning. LPHaddleburg (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree with an indef for HerrHeulsuse but I agree with LPHaddelburg that a trout won't do anything for ISAK who seemingly cant acknowledge what they're actually doing wrong 49dhelmise [talk] 20:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

A valid concern coming from a non-valid source can still be valid. And from how this thread has been going, it is clear that concerns regarding your behavior and civility are, not only valid, but painfully obvious. Implying that there is a "communist" or "anti-zionist" conspiracy against you is entirely inappropriate, and disrespectful to our community's dispute resolution system. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 14:48, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Postscript by IZAK

• To: @AndyTheGrump: @LPHaddleburg: @Grapesurgeon: @AirshipJungleman29: @Borgenland: @GabberFlasted: @Buddy Gripple: @Bluethricecreamman: @REAL MOUSE IRL: @LaundryPizza03::

I realize that you voted to sanction me and for that I am truly sorry because you were initially fooled by HerrHeulsuse's sophisticated sock/troll bag of tricks into believing his WP:LIBEL against me. Although I am may have over-reacted at times but my over-all strategy was to push HerrHeulsuse into revealing his true colors as he eventually did by over-reaching himself and thinking he had "support" from enough editors here to over-reach and get himself blocked, deservedly. It is not just about what he says on his user page, or his displayed user boxes, or his technical proficiency, all of which we could live with. But if, as I hope, you were really following his editorial/deletionist path carefully as I did once he latched on to me, it reveals an editor obsessed with deleting hundreds of perfectly fine Wikipedia articles and failing that he nominated them for redirection or listification. He could have gone on doing this ad infinitum. This is destructive to Wikipedia and had he been allowed to continue he would have caused huge damage to Wikipedia articles and categories. I therefore decided to stick my neck out and oppose him as best I could. For that I should get credit! I know I did not do a perfect job in your eyes in this regard but please WP:AGF and be assured that I have always tried to abide by the rules and policies of Wikipedia. By the way @LPHaddleburg: in all my 23+ years on WP no one has ever complained about the length of my comments on talk pages and I was never accused of "bludgeoning" until this time by HerrHeulsuse who was digging up and twisting arguments against me. No one is perfect and I ask for your forgivenss if you were irritated by me, but I sincerely hope you can, please reverse/strike you votes, and put your trust in me as a sincere "defender of the Wiki" from bad actors. Thank you so much! IZAK (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Textbook WP:IDHT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: And "the" point being?! Please communicate in full sentences. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

If you cannot understand two words, I doubt you would understand a full sentence. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't vote to sanction IZAK. If I see any more of the nonsense above though, I very likely will. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You really should though, the above has been ridiculous and IZAK has given every indication they'll keep doing this in future to more people. They'll chase people off the site grapesurgeon (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You've made this point in 13 separate comments now. Please give it a rest. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll pace this out on my own, thanks. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

And I'll make my own mind up regarding voting for sanctions, thanks. If I wanted advice, I'd ask for it. From someone not participating in this mess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Honestly both users need to face sanctions for this mess. IZAK wants to keep dancing on grave or something, i dont know what this is or why i was pinged, but if they cant let this all rest, my vote to just trout probably is woefully inadequate User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I usually dislike the whole "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument, as I feel it kicks the can down the road, but despite claims of longstanding disruption from IZAK, I haven't seen proof for it. (Maybe it got lost in the huge text morass?) Because I see no pattern of recent disruption from IZAK, a sanction seems very much premature. I suggest a better approach is to formally warn IZAK for bludgeoning and incivility, let the other sanctions stand, and if IZAK really is a serial disruptor, bring him to ANI with new evidence, cite this warning, and ask for a sanction. That way we can all get on with our lives, and there's a clear path if disruption continues. If I'm wrong and there is evidence of a history of disruption, perhaps a new section compiling and summarizing it would be useful? EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable approach. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Who needs HerrHeulse when you yourself are inviting others to support a ban further with your prima donna and attention-seeking attitude, as if there exists a barnstar for acting WP:NOTHERE and taunting everyone to have yourself sanctioned to bait a sock. Borgenland (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Community Ban of HerrHeulse

The comments about HerrHeulse have gotten so scattered around that I will open this section for a site ban. Not expressing an opinion at this time on IZAK.

• Support as one of various proposers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support Either they are a sock or a troll. EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support—Of course. He has been nothing but trouble. LPHaddleburg (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support also toxic grapesurgeon (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support per SwatJester above and Black Kite below. I gave my CU bits back a decade ago, but I find it extraordinarily curious that a new user is so well-educated about specifics from almost 20 years ago. If not actual sockpuppetry it does imply a level of deliberate off-wiki communication and training, which is counter the spirit of the project. -- Avi (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support as someone who is not in favor of doling out cbans. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I think thinking is so important, my Lord

In the discussion following from Sean.hoyland raising the possibility that HerrHeulsuse is an LTA sockpuppet, and in direct response to EaglesFan37 linking to this userpage edit by them, HerrHeulsuse volunteered the following:

I suspect User:NoCal100 to be your sockmaster. I will have to do more research to see if this is the correct conclusion. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Regrettably, no editor appears to have even noticed the comment, much less its implications: Namely, that you have a tacit admission to socking, and perhaps even the sockmaster's identity—though this being a troll suggestion is a possibility.

I give up, I'm off to see the queen. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

How is an accusation of someone else socking a tactic admission to the same? Fences&Windows 09:39, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Frankly it reeks of WP:JOEJOB. I do hope a checkuser is having a peek at HerrHeulsuse. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

You are asking me how HerrHeulsuse's response to the question of 'Who is HerrHeulsuse's sockmaster?' with 'My guess is it's NoCal100' is a tacit admission to socking? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

It was clearly a response to Sean.hoyland's comment about socking. HerrHeulsuse is suggesting that NoCal100 is Sean.hoyland's sock. I really can't see how it could be read any other way. Clearly nonsense, but not an admission to socking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I suspect User:NoCal100 to be your sockmaster in reply to EaglesFan37 absolutely could be read as saying that it's EaglesFan37 who's accused to be a sock of NoCal100, with "sockmaster" being their words. Also could be very late answer to LaundryPizza03, as it's where "sockmaster" appeared initially. And definitely it's in reverse order any case, "Sean.hoyland is NoCal100's sock". Also I do agree that it could be read the Mr rnddude's way; as a trolling or another nonsense example from the user with aplenty of such examples provided. ~2026-46456-07 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I grant that these are also plausible readings. I read it as an answer to the question being asked:

... Does this indicate who the possible sockmaster could be? EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
      I suspect User:NoCal100 to be your sockmaster. ... HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd interpret that from any other editor as 'You're probably looking for NoCal100 as the master' rather than as 'Oh yeah, well I think you're NoCal100' directed at either editor. In this context, I took it as a trolling admission from the user. The latter interpretation makes sense in the context the TA is suggesting as a random casting of aspersions, but not as a serious accusation (no evidence presented). Mr rnddude (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• And of course you'd need to consider how an editor who has allegedly been here for less than two months knows about NoCal100, who was indeffed over 17 years ago. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Bigger Picture: LTAs and Other Socks

I think it’s possible that this was a case of socking, but I want to gently suggest a second possibility. This area has generated widespread attention, especially from people who care deeply about erasing the legacy of Jews in places where they once lived, or from people who care deeply about not erasing that memory.

A state agency or NGO might find itself tasked with bringing Wikipedia into closer compliance with a particular policy. This is contrary to WP policy, but would be difficult to detect or enforce against skilled opponents. That organization could have legitimate new accounts who also could rely on the sort of expertise that knows about User:NoCal100, and also about deleting lots of categories at once. (Has anyone done a study of LTAs? They are a remarkable phenomenon...)

I also very, very gently note that some of the initial rush to censure User:IZAK makes me uneasy. Yes, IZAK in this discussion is garrulous, loud, and defensive. I think that was worsened by the censorious tone of the early stages, abetted by some comments that seemed to smell the blood of an ideological opponentin the water. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to imply here? Casting aspersions that fellow editors in this thread "care deeply about erasing the legacy of Jews in places where they once lived" is completely inappropriate to this conversation. If anything, it seems like you're the one who is jumping at the opportunity of "ideological opponents in the water" in order to push off-wiki political narratives in what is supposed to be a community discussion about user misconduct. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 22:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

AI-usage, edit-warring and failure to meaningfully engage with problems with new articles BasedItalianMonarchist

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

---

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

This user is producing large numbers of articles relating to the Libyan Civil War and Taliban which are often sourced from trivial mentions in a single source. These articles are clearly AI-generated, as indicated by their prose, hallucinations, and pervasive broken links. There is also a discrepancy between the level of English in the articles, and the weak language skills in evidence in the user's limited engagement with the warnings they receive on their behaviour

As part of my work as New Pages Patroller I have moved many of the articles to draft, which the user has reverted in a strange way that makes it look like I have written them (thanks for that!). They also consistently edit-war tags indicating their creations' failure to pass WP:GNG and AI-use off of articles.

@Ponyo: has warned them for edit-warring previously, as has @TEMPO156:.

Ai-signs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Barka_Wardougou&oldid=1357768022

Hallucination: The source supporting Barka's death in 2016 is from 2011. The article states he had stomach cancer, whereas he actually died of gangrene (no source on the page states there was cancer).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Issa_Abdel_Majid_Mansur&oldid=1366018221

Extraction of non-notable fact: The article states "In September 2012, he led a Tebu border guard unit across Libya's southern Sahara Desert from Murzuq to Rabyanah and Kufra", this is based on the text from the source "Author observations based on travelling with a Tubu border guard unit, led by then revolutionary leader Issa Abdul MajidMansour, across southern Libya’s Sahara Desert, from Murzuq to Rabyanah and Kufra, in September 2012." That text is not making any claim that this journey was notable for anything other than the presence of the journalist and the observations he made. But it is exactly what an ai does when you give it a name and ask it to write about a person who hasn't left much mark online, it extracts every piece of information on them and makes it more significant than it is.

Exaggeration of significance without substance: "He was one of the leading Tebu military figures in southern Libya during the years following the fall of Muammar Gaddafi and is mentioned in connection with security developments in the Fezzan region." Nothing in the source suggests this.

Throughout the created articles there is ai-summary speak "is mentioned in connection with security developments in the Fezzan region" (above)

"The identification and attribution were made by Mozambican officials and have not been independently established in the available sources"

"Al Hameel was mentioned in reporting related to the final stages of the 2011 Libyan conflict, during fighting between forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi and the anti-Gaddafi forces of the National Transitional Council." Imhamed Al Hameel

Edit-Warring:

Please see user talkpage, all the red-links reflect pages moved to draft which have been restored to mainspace and have had the maintenance tags (notability and on occasion ai) removed. In particular I would draw attention to these three pages where the user has removed justified tags twice on each page. [], ,

Basically, the user will not tolerate tags on "their" pages and reverts them constantly.

Failure to understand or discuss:

The user has weak communicative competence on talkpages, which does not reflect the prose in their articles. They also fail to engage substantially with points made to them:

User talk:BasedItalianMonarchist#Discuss
User talk:BasedItalianMonarchist#Sock tagging
User talk:Boynamedsue#Why did you move the pages to draft pages?

Next steps:

I would like to request a tban from the creation of new articles until they demonstrate an understanding of WP:GNG and a mainspace block until they address concerns about their ai-usage here.
Boynamedsue (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Good report. A straight up indef block might be best, as they clearly can't communicate coherently, are writing bios based on a few sentences in single news reports, and are using AI. A partial block and topic ban would be fine, but I don't see contributions here worth salvaging. Fences&Windows 23:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• I would just add that I have realised the user is using a translation programme to write even their extremely basic comments on talk pages. In one of the discussions I linked, an admin asks them why they are tagging sock accounts without checkuser status, their answer is Where? Where am I from?. This is probably a machine translation of "Ma dove, di dove sono?" which can mean "Where am I from?" or "Where are they from?".Boynamedsue (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I endorse Boynamedsue'a suggestion of a machine translation of that Italian phrase. I'm not fluent, but compare "Dove sono". Narky Blert (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I've tagged ten or so articles under A7, and I'd like to add my strong support for either an article creation ban or a move ban (so they have to send drafts through AfC). I would also definitely support a CIR indef.

They have created some categories that I don't feel qualified to judge, and some other articles with at least a claim to notability; I'm planning to investigate the latter and AfD where appropriate. Meadowlark (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

We are in clear CIR territory here. I don't think this editor has even the basic Wikipedia competence to make constructive edit requests. They can always as for an unblock if their English fluency improves enough for basic communication. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• CIR block clearly needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Block per nom grapesurgeon (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• I would like to ask for some action from an admin to close. BIM shows no sign of appearing here, and a consensus that at the very least action to stop new articles being created or moved into mainspace is necessary, perhaps a CIR block too.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

To close the loop here, noting that I've blocked BasedItalianMonarchist indefinitely.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Serious years-long WP:COMPETENCE issues from Zolgoyo

Long, original version of the post (scroll down for TLDR version)

The following case deals with a years-long case of WP:COMPETENCE issues by a user who has consistently remained a net negative for the project and whose actions have taken a lot of time away from other users. They have been advised a lot of times on how to improve, but not only has all of that been useless, the quality of their work has worsened with time after finding out they could produce pure slop with AI.

Zolgoyo's area of interest is the region of Dobruja in Romania and Bulgaria. Since the very beginning, they've constantly promoted the idea that the Crimean Tatar dialect spoken by the Romanian Tatars is its own language, "Dobrujan Tatar". They were absolutely relentless in pushing this POV for years. Zolgoyo's account was created in February 2022, in March I started an AfD for the "Dobruja Tatar language". I noted there that the sources did not in fact talk about a separate language of its own. Because there are no reliable sources attributing such status to these dialects.

This is a constant recurrent problem with Zolgoyo, all of their additions are filled with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, they will often push sources' content to make it look like they refer to whatever idea they're making up. In April 2023, they created "Romanian Tatar language", plainly a made-up thing, which has no presence in reliable sources, purely to push that the Dobrujan dialects of Crimean Tatar are a separate language. I redirected this page , see the discussion that ensued (only one thread, doubting the topic's existence, started by a third user).

They recreated the article in May "", contradicting the outcome of an AfD for the second time. I redirected this page again , and another discussion in the same thread started . In June, they recreated the article again, as "Tatar language in Romania", later moved that same month to "Dobrujan Tatar language", once again promoting this fringe idea of theirs. It is important to note that, throughout all of this, not a single source in any of these articles included the idea of the Dobrujan dialects being a separate language from Crimean Tatar. I was losing my patience, so I started a formal RM to seek WP:CONSENSUS and warned that I would take them here at ANI if they kept promoting this WP:OR idea in Wikipedia. I was given assurances from their part that the new title, featuring "dialect" instead of "language", "has been glued", but they tried to promote this language idea once again in September, still 2023, through a RM . It was rejected, so let's count now: one AfD, two RMs. In October 2023, they created a category titled "Dobrujan Tatar language", for which I gave them a final warning, stating I would file an ANI report if they continued their promotion of this idea . They later continued this behaviour, and the ANI report has come three years later.

Under the title "Dobrujan Tatar", the article created in May 2023 lasted for longer, as I was not opposed to its existence so long as it was framed as a dialect. But this article was highly problematic and badly-written. A dispute arose in July 2024 on whether this dialect was spoken in Moldova and Ukraine . Here is the talk page thread . To keep it briefly, the Tatars in Dobruja (Romania and Bulgaria) came to the region two centuries ago after they were expelled from Budjak to the north (Moldova and Ukraine) by the Russian Empire. So, it was a total anachronism to claim that the dialect was still spoken there. All of this was verified in the discussion with reliable academic sources. Zolgoyo used instead several flawed sources, including the Joshua Project (deprecated), "demoscope.ru" which directly made a claim on the 2004 Moldovan census not present in the census itself, or "cyberleninka.ru" which directly contradicted their claim that these Tatars were still present in Budjak by saying they had left. In this discussion, I was accused of the following: You no longer want to accept the existence of the Tatars in this regions, due to your discrimination and ignorance., You ignore the sources that you have not found or seen as real., Because of people like you, the minorities have been considered non-existent for years. I'm sorry, but it is a great stupidity not to accept that there are Tatars there. , and If you read the source and understand it as you please, the blame is not mine. The problem is that you also block the whole thing. I don't want to argue with you about it anymore, you don't want to admit it yourself, there is enough evidence. .

The Dobrujan Tatar article was absolutely terrible, and I was fed up with its state and created a lengthy thread in June 2025 demanding fixes for its most serious issues, or I would otherwise take the article to AfD . Here are some of the problems: still presenting Dobrujan Tatar as a language, using Romania's legal recognition of the Crimean Tatar language deceptively to prove the existence of this "Dobrujan Tatar language", claiming an extinct people (Dobrujan Arabs) are speakers of this language without any sourcing, claiming that this language would have an alphabet when it is an unstandardized dialect, widespread usage of unreliable sources, usage of secondary sources that do not verify the topic, etc.. I tried giving them advice to improve the article , but they simply nuked it .

There was more WP:disruption about this topic outside this article. As you can see, there are dozens of articles featuring this original research idea of Dobrujan Tatar as a language of its own, being used and included as such in these articles . A notable example is its inclusion in "Languages of the Soviet Union" (as shown above, speakers of this dialect have zero geographic presence in Budjak today, it is not even an issue about linguistic classification). It is still directly presented as a language in some articles , thanks to years of disruption since 2022. They created an article on "Dobrujan Tatar grammar" and "Dobrujan Tatar alphabet" for this unstandardized dialect, with all of this presented not as proposals from linguistics, but as if a grammar and alphabet had already been formally adopted. And of course, both articles presented Dobrujan Tatar as a language.

They wrote several other articles throughout the years, the majority of very poor quality, for which they received many talk page notices . You can see that a majority of the articles they've ever created have been deleted . Some of the articles they created are not shown there because they were later drafted (this is present in their talk page). Here is an example on the low-quality slop they've tended to produce: Siberya (song), a very short article for which I started an AfD, sourced only to YouTube links, with most revisions in the page supressed over copyright concerns . Another article, Dobruja Horde, was also sourced to a YouTube link.

In more recent times, editors stopped bothering and just started to nominate their new articles to AfD. Check this one for Crimean Tatar (Romania) Language Corpus, which lacked any coverage by secondary sources. But here the worst starts: they created "Domba Tatars" in March 2026, starting their new phase of producing articles for made-up ethnicities and languages. This article was simply filled with original research, a content fork not covered by reliable sources. Here is a comment from Zolgoyo from that discussion: Please stop the discrimination against the Roma people. To delete a article about a Roma people is a discrimination. . Only one month later, Zolgoyo recreated this deleted article under a new title, "Tatar Roma". What, did you expect them to have improved since their old contradictions of AfD and RM outcomes in 2023? Once again, another personal attack from Zolgoyo to the AfD's nominator in that discussion: Stop this Anti-Roma statement. There are enough sources showing this people. You're just talking nonsense.. (they later struck this message). Not only that, they also provided several sloppy AI replies . So, we have to clean up after this guy, and he can't even be bothered to write replies of his own? Me and another editor analyzed the sources used in the article, and found that, unsurprisingly, the topic was not covered in any of them. And then again in April 2026, "Romani Tatar language" was created, again with the same issues: poorly-sourced, original research-ridden article this time written with the help of AI, with Zolgoyo once again providing replies written by AI . In August this year, they added a new addition to their work of inexistent ethnic groups, Millet people, filled with original research and questionable sourcing (Joshua Project is back). Tell me, doesn't this article's structure look suspiciously AI-generated, with all those bulleted lists and strange capitalizations at the section headers? For how long do we have to keep cleaning after this trash?

I've been cleaning after this user for years, often for them to simply revert my changes (e.g. the entire language/dialect dispute, the inexistence of speakers of this dialect in Moldova and Ukraine). And I did try to help them improve, sometimes giving them advice. I tried to improve their article Taner Murat (I even moved it back from draftspace , as I thought and still think the person is notable). It's all useless. After years of "experience", they've decided to spurt out AI slop, coupled sometimes with personal attacks. Look at them trying to act offended after another user warned them recently on their usage of AI in discussions . They have constantly proven uncapable of understanding Wikipedia policy on notability, original research, and proper source usage, and they have also constantly WP:GAMED the system, recreating articles deleted through AfD with new titles.

Long thread, isn't it? Because the disruption is years-long, and I wanted to provide a strong case for the following. For everything argued above, I want to propose an indefinite block against Zolgoyo, not a temporary one nor a topic ban. We have a lot to clean-up, and all these issues, of multidimensional nature, have been shown by Zolgoyo for years, after countless commentary and advice from other users. This editor is simply not competent enough to participate in Wikipedia. Much of the current disruption present in multiple articles is present there because I got tired of policing their edits. Will you clean after this user after their temporary block expires? Super Ψ Dro 10:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Summarized TLDR version

I'll simply give you the diffs here, judge by yourself. I believe Zolgoyo has serious WP:COMPETENCE problems and that a strong sanction is needed to stop the project's disruption. The original post called for an indefinite block.

• POV-pushing and WP:GAME: with regards that the Crimean Tatar dialect spoken by the Romanian Tatars is its own language, "Dobrujan Tatar" (no sources for such thing). AfD in March 2022 , unilateral recreation in April 2023 (I redirected it), second recreation in May 2023 , formal RM to stop the "language" POV-pushing in June 2023 , second RM rejecting a "language" label in September 2023 , creation of a category with this label despite the outcome of one AfD and two RMs in October 2023 . The article continued promoting this unsourced POV thereafter until its redirection in 2025.
• Issues in article writing: Use of unreliable sources (e.g. WP:JOSHUAPROJECT and other websites and blogs, see this article sourced to YouTube links ) or the misreading of them (see this dispute in which Zolgoyo defended that Dobrujan Tatar was spoken in a geographical area by citing sources that were saying the opposite ). Chronic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems, which has recently resulted in the creation of articles on non-existent languages and ethnic groups; all recent AfDs note the same issues . Consider reading this message from mine noting the various issues in an article they wrote. There was simply something wrong with everything.
• Project-wide disruption: Their original research works on how X dialect is actually a language is still present in dozens of articles and will need a clean-up . Writing of grammar and alphabet articles for an unstandardized dialect while failing to present it as such (it was presented again as a language) in line with reliable sources.
• Personal attacks: Resulting from responses to their total lack of understanding on how Wikipedia works .
• Use of AI: for article writing and in discussions ; they deny using AI .

Keep in mind the diffs go from 2022 to 2026 (they're mostly from 2023 and 2026). The issues have been present for a long time now, despite advice and countless talk page notices (multiple diffs as they tend to delete everything in their talk page from time to time). There is no improvement throughout the years, but the opposite: now they use AI to produce articles on made-up languages and ethnicities. They have wasted many hours of my and others' time and are a net negative for the project. Super Ψ Dro 11:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I endorse the above meticulously documented report and support an indefinite block. As someone who’s repeatedly sent Zolgoyo’s “work” to AfD, where it invariably got deleted, I too have had enough. What we see is what we’re going to get — and it simply isn’t worth much of anything. It would simplify everyone’s life to eliminate the problem by blocking an irremediable user. Biruitorul ^Talk 11:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support indef. Yeah, it's a long post, but thanks for putting it all together. I realized (but had forgotten), that I even participated in one of the AFDs linked above. Looking at more of this, there are clear competency issues here. Older talk page posts from when the account was first created demonstrate a significant lack of English proficiency, yet more recent ones all have miraculous complex sentence structure and grammar. Recent creations should be scrutinized as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support indef per the summarized TLDR version above. HypnoBlader (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Partial block from article space: This is quite a long post, with respect to @SD, this can be condensed. The issues are low quality articles being published, some edit warring according to their talk page history and WP:POVPUSHING. This, whilst obviously disruptive, is almost entirely taking place in article space, not across the various project namespaces. @Zolgoyo doesn't have any prior blocks on their record, so this will be (historically speaking) their first recorded sanction. A block from article space would prevent any further disruption, allowing them to have a chance contributing on other parts of the project. A remedial sanction is preferred over a sweeping sanction, especially when the issues have only taken place on one part of the project and this will be their first. 11WB 💬 22:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

No offence, but it would be much easier to determine the status if this post is condensed. WorldClassChampion (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support a block from article space/draft space. I totally get that this editor's adversarial history and AI slopfarming are quite concerning, but I don't think it's the end of the world to give this editor a pathway to improvement through edit requests since this would be a first block. It ought to be made quite clear that any AI garbage that appears in an edit request is going to be a quick indef. Call an indef my second choice here; the conduct has been atrocious in multiple dimensions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  Like Reconrabbit, I would also prefer Zolgoyo be given as much opportunity as reasonable to respond before any action is taken. However, if they don't return in a reasonable timeframe, I am against holding off, given the improper conduct involved. At that point, if they have a reasonable argument to make, they can do so in an unblock request. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support indef based on 1) the extensive use of AI which others have had to clean up and b) the disrespectful denials and refusal to listen to other editors (you know, the ones cleaning up). Not knowing is one thing, rudely refusing to improve is another. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support indef, I agree with the others above me. It’s going to create a lot of hassle cleaning this up. WorldClassChampion (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• I would like to see a response from Zolgoyo before taking any action, as they have not edited since 13 August. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  • About Dobrujan Tatar — following a discussion within the AfD, it was decided that the article could remain. However, Super Dromaeosaurus kept sparking debates, claiming the sources or the edits were incorrect. For years, he was intent on having the article deleted/redirected. That is what led me to redirect the article to the Crimean Tatar article.
  • He distorted certain information. For instance, another user had added information to the page "languages of the Soviet Union" — but Super Dromaeosaurus removed it — However, it was not me, also not here.
  • Some untrustworthy sources cited in an article don't necessarily warrant its deletion if there are enough other reliable sources. These cases were not considered in my articles.
  • I have clearly emphasized to many participants in past discussions that AI will not appear in my edits.
  • The article I wrote recently covers also a Tatar-speaking population (who do not identify themselves Roma). I have tried several times to write articles about these people, in some cases I used names the community itself accepts. But every time the articles were steered toward the AfD mostly by the same person(s) (I had the same problem years ago with Dobrujan Tatar articles).

  I do not understand why Super Dromaeosaurus, specifically, classifies my articles — or rather, the articles/information about minorities in Romania/Moldova — as AfD-related.

  The real reason for this report is that they want to stop me from creating articles about minorities in Romania — I perceive that this is the case. Zolgoyo (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS filled with direct lies and nothing substantial. If I am in a crusade against minorities in both countries having their own articles, why have I initiated articles for several of them ? I never sought the deletion of the Dobrujan Tatar article, only that the topic would not be characterized as a separate language, as no reliable sources back this claim. You could revert the redirect right now, I would not oppose that. I noted several serious issues with the article and then offered advice on how to improve it within 24 hours , but I didn't ask for it to be redirected, that was your decision . following a discussion within the AfD, it was decided that the article could remain. lie, there was only one AfD in 2022 with the outcome "Redirected" .

That it has been other users that added certain inaccurate/false information into other articles (such as that Dobrujan Tatar is spoken in Moldova or Ukraine) based on what you wrote only reinforces the fact that your edits have caused widespread WP:DISRUPTION. These cases were not considered in my articles. In the Tatar Roma AfD (April 2026), two separate editors (plus another one here ) analysed the cited sources. I checked every single cited source, and at times they either said nothing about or even directly contradicted the text you had written; take a look at this message, please . It is far from the first time sources you cite directly oppose what you write, another notable example was in this case which I've explained in extension in the original post above.

These are the real problems with your editing. And you're arguing that inappropriate sourcing does not warrant article deletion, yet make no effort whatsoever to improve in this regard. I informed you two years ago that WP:JOSHUAPROJECT was an unreliable source for Wikipedia; you've used it again in this new article . Actually, you often reverted my edits attempting to bring your articles in line with Wikipedia policy (notice the several months-gap since my edit and their revert, again WP:GAME). Tell me exactly, why should someone waste their time once again to produce a comment of this style about that new article, or send it to AfD? It is undeniable from all the diffs here that I wasted a lot of time trying to improve your content, all for nothing, and my patience has ran out. To avoid falling into a WP:BLUDGEONING self-trap in an already long post, from now on I will refrain from responding to Zolgoyo unless I see something particularly noteworthy or egregious. Super Ψ Dro 11:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Final note: I do not understand why Super Dromaeosaurus, specifically, classifies my articles — or rather, the articles/information about minorities in Romania/Moldova — as AfD-related. What exactly produced this incomprehensible message, the use of AI or a lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia procedures after four years of editing? Super Ψ Dro 11:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• "But every time the articles were steered toward the AfD mostly by the same person(s)".

  If you have evidence for this (I'll check Xtools regardless), then it may be the case that this is an editor to editor dispute. Regardless, it looks like there will be much verification work to assess what requires cleaning up per the WP:NOLLM guideline. I think an apology and commitment to at least offering to help with this process would go a long way here. 11WB 💬 00:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  I can confirm that AfDs were primarily opened by @Biruitorul according to those that are accessible through this. 11WB 💬 00:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  What seems to me more relevant than who started the AfDs (a perfectly valid step) is the outcome: in each case, deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romani Tatar language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatar Roma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domba Tatars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimean Tatar (Romania) Language Corpus.

  Repeatedly starting articles that end up deleted should prompt some introspection, rather than a reflexive sheltering under a conspiracy theory: “the real reason for this report is that they want to stop me from creating articles about minorities in Romania”. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

11WB, I vehemently dispute the labelling of all this as a content dispute. I don't see how would it be relevent what person started the AfD nor do I know what policy would recommend us to look into this. Those four recent AfDs (which I stress have not been the only ones covering Zolgoyo's content) counted with the participation of a total of 10 different editors, plus six from this deletion review . Only one editor ever issued a keep !vote (on the same AfD that was later reviewed and its result re-endorsed). The noted issues are consistently WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, lack of notable coverage (WP:SIGCOV), mismatch between the content of the articles and that of its cited sources (!), and recently use of AI. Issues that have been taking place for years, in contradiction to offered advice, and which have actually worsened with the advent of AI.

An apology might look like a kind way to end an ANI report but is nothing actually substantial. I stress we need a real guarantee that these issues are not going to spill over to the project again. After all, why exactly would you want help for cleaning up from an editor that, no offense intended, very clearly does not understand editing policies and practices? We might have to end up cleaning up after their clean-up. In this regard I only see as minimally acceptable your suggestion to block Zolgoyo from mainspace, so as to possibly give them the chance to show improvement with drafts. I still support an indef block though. It might motivate them and give them time to start fixing the multiproject-wide WP:OR disaster that they have been spreading across several Wikipedia language editions . Maybe it should be in those and not in en.wiki where they should start showing improvement. Super Ψ Dro 11:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It is often Super Dromaeosaurus (and few others) who always find problems in my articles. I am very interested to know that almost no other user has highlighted these problems. Super Dromaeosaurus (also Biruitorul) shouldn't have been stalking me all these years, there are enough users who could point out my mistakes.

What Super Dromaeosaurus emphasize about my articles is that "no such people exist" or "no such language exists".

Regarding AI that came into play in certain situations, I have emphasized in the past that this will not happen. I apologized to those involved in the discussion at the time for my inappropriate language.

I don't feel safe because I'm constantly being followed, and even personally attacked in discussions. Zolgoyo (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

You were literally just told that ten different people voted to delete your articles. You’re not the victim here, no one is stalking or harassing you, just sorting out the deeply problematic content you contribute. I detect a serious case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus, I think you need to understand how AN/I actually works, with all due respect. Blocks given here are preventative, not punitive. @Zolgoyo hasn't caused any disruption in other namespaces, meaning an indef would not be proportionate whatsoever. By bringing this here, you automatically subject yourself as well as the editor you've posted about, to scrutiny. 11WB 💬 18:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the given advice, I think I'll say no more and leave it for the community to decide at this point. Thank you for your participation so far. Super Ψ Dro 22:05, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@11WB: ⛏⛑ Looking into what Biruitorul has linked to plus my searches, I feel that there are up to seven relevant discussions.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimean Tatar (Romania) Language Corpus: Participants were: Bearian, Biruitorul (Nom), Deacon Vorbis, Deltaspace42 (Technical only), Kelob2678, OwenX, (Closer), Wcquidditch (Technical only), Zolgoyo
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dobruja Tatar language: Participants were: Biruitorul, Liz (Technical only), Red-tailed hawk, Super Dromaeosaurus (Nom), TenPoundHammer (Closer), Zolgoyo
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domba Tatars: Participants were: 11WB (Closer?), Biruitorul (Nom), Mycaeneangreecetuffboy, Shellwood (Technical only), SouthernNights (Closer?)
• Note for above: Article was deleted in the first 24 hours of AfD by SouthernNights who cited the AfD in the edit summary while it was still open. 11WB closed the AfD about 40 hours later due to the article already being deleted.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romani Tatar language: Participants were: Agnieszka653, Altenmann, Biruitorul (Nom), Kepler-1229b, Star Mississippi (Closer), Super Dromaeosaurus, Wcquidditch (Technical only), Zolgoyo
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberya (song): Participants were: BangJan1999, Liz (Closer), Partofthemachine, Super Dromaeosaurus (Nom)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatar Roma: Participants were: Altenmann, Biruitorul (Nom), Cryptic (Technical only), Dr vulpes (Closer), Kelob2678, Kepler-1229b, SenshiSun, Shellwood (Technical only), Spartaz (Technical only), Super Dromaeosaurus, Vanamonde93 (Technical only), Zolgoyo
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 May 2#Tatar Roma: Participants were: Biruitorul, Dr vulpes (AfD Closer), Jclemens (Closer), Katzrockso, OwenX, Robert McClenon, SmokeyJoe, Spartaz, Zolgoyo (Nom)

There were a number of users who participated twice or more, but some of them only did technical work like relists and/or WikiProject Deletion sorting notifications. Others were a closer in one discussion and then participated in some other form in a separate discussion.

For those who participated three times or more: Biruitorul (Participated six times; Nominated four times; Endorsed at DR), Super Dromaeosaurus (Participated four times; Nominated two times), Zolgoyo (Participated five times; Nominator at DR) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't realised I had closed one of these myself. I should mention I ceased closing at AfD back in April of this year. @SouthernNights didn't state any CSD criterion, so I'm unsure why they deleted that article only a day into that AfD being open. Whatever the case, this has still only taken place in article space. An indef wouldn't be proportionate. Whilst the clean up may take a while, blocks are not supposed to be punitive. 11WB 💬 09:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

On the first half, yep, but that situation was abnormal anyways per the note and per your own comment here. (If I wrote my comment above today, I might have wrote "Deleter?" for SouthernNights.) Regarding most of the second half of your comment: *Shrug*. This was just regarding Zolgoyo's claim in their last bullet-point that you mentioned might be an editor to editor dispute if Zolgoyo had the evidence for it. My comment above does show that Biruitorul and Super Dromaeosaurus have participated the most with regards to Zolgoyo's articles and all three users were in the majority of the discussions that I found relevant, but that is all it shows besides some extra details like who nominated which article. But I do agree with that last sentence that blocks, if any arise from this, should be preventative. I just didn't look into this enough to have an opinion one way or another on if any sort of sanction and/or restriction is need or is unnecessary. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I deleted the article under speedy delete WP:G7 b/c Zolgoyo, the editor who created the article and who had almost all the edits, requested its deletion by putting the speedy delete template on the article. If an editor requests speedy deletion of an article they created with few edits by others, it's almost always speedy deleted under that G7 criteria. It's also not unusual for an editor with an article at AfD to request that the article be speedy deleted b/c they realize the article has issues after the AfD is brought to their attention. As for why the edit summary lacked a SD criteria, that's my mistake. I always try to include the SD criteria in my edit summaries but for some reason it didn't happen this time. I also can't speak to the other issues raised here about Zolgoyo b/c I am not familiar with this editor. I simply speedy deleted this article b/c they requested it.SouthernNights (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

So on the basis of the TLDR and the overview of the discussion (I admit I have not gone through the diffs, because the discussions provides a fair enough overview to form this scope of ban opinion). I think we are not dealing with something that needs an indefinite block. The user has clear competence issues, but they are only related to the content they create and modify. That is the only thing being alledged here with the exception of a few behavioral issues that, based on what has been said, have not been adressed with temporary bans or blocks at all. Thus, the issues presented largely do not impact their ability to take part in talk page, AFD, CFD, TFD etc discussion. Due to that I believe they can still have a positive impact on Wikipedia. I will support an indefinite ban from article space. Finfixer (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Vasilystepanov violating ECR

Vasilystepanov has mainly edited Indian caste and military in violation of WP:CT/SA despite warnings. He just gained ECP while doing so which also needs to be removed. Orientls (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Well he has crossed the 30 day/500 edit marker, and behaving quite responsibly in the edits you shown, I don’t think this needs the attention of ANB WorldClassChampion (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I have checked your edits again and indeed they were before the marker, but he was mostly removing unsourced claims. I think I can safely call for a dismissal WorldClassChampion (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Those edits were made before he gained ECP. Gaining ECP while frequently violating the ECR for weeks requires admin intervention. I have undone your non-admin closure. I note you are not ECP yourself. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 05:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Right. Yes, I’ll observe the consensus of admins WorldClassChampion (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Sir I would like to clarify the record: I was not banned from editing Indian history generally, nor was I given a separate ban on editing caste-related history. The restriction communicated to me concerned Indian military history because I had not yet obtained extended-confirmed status, meaning I had not yet met the 30-day/500-edit requirement. On 8 August, Zalaraz specifically instructed me to stop editing Indian military history until I reached those requirements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vasilystepanov#c-Zalaraz-20260808013300-Welcome_and_introduction_to_contentious_topics-1. I followed that instruction and avoided Indian military-history editing while completing the requirement. BusterD subsequently told me to continue making other good-faith edits and to return/ping them after reaching the required period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vasilystepanov#c-BusterD-20260808122800-Vasilystepanov-20260808084400. On 19 August, after reaching 30 days and 500 edits, I reported that I had fulfilled the requirement and asked about resuming Indian military-history editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vasilystepanov#c-Vasilystepanov-20260819190600-BusterD-20260808122800. Therefore, characterizing this as though I had been generally banned from editing Indian history or caste topics is misleading. My restriction was connected to my not yet being extended-confirmed and therefore being unable to edit the applicable contentious Indian military-history topic, not a general prohibition on editing Indian history or caste-related subjects. I complied with the restriction, reached the required 30-day/500-edit threshold without editing Indian military history, and sought clarification before resuming it. I acted in good faith and did not knowingly violate the restriction. Vasilystepanov (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I can see your edits. It doesn’t add anything contentious from what I can see. I’m willing to dismiss it as a misunderstanding, but the requirements require an administrative consensus. I apologise for the inconvenience, but that’s how the platform work WorldClassChampion (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks for believing me sir Vasilystepanov (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I operate on facts, not beliefs. WorldClassChampion (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Vasilystepanov with his AI-written response is admitting he edited enough about castes even though the notice on his talk page clearly said in bold "The rule that most affects new editors is the prohibition on making any edit related to Indian military history or castes, including on talk pages, unless you are logged into an account that is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits." THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 07:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

stop manipulating and framing me in false conspiracy you can ask admins zalaraz and buster saying to stop me editing 'Indian military history' only until i edit 500 edits by crossing 30 days without editing military history topic and I respected their rules and i crossed 500 edits and 30 days age without editing Indian military history articles, i only edited the Village, forts and imaginary Dynasties which are without citations and about author and i didn't even edited any caste topic if you want me to Target me in Caste topic in order to complaint me first show the evidences where admins zalaraz and buster said to me to stop editing in 'caste' or 'history' topic before crossing 500 edits and 30 days age remember one thing zalaraz and buster said that time that not ro edit 'military history' they didn't prohibited me in editing 'caste' or 'history' topic . I request wikipedia admins to neglect this peoples who are framing me in false conspiracy. Vasilystepanov (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't increase the heat in this discussion. I know you're a bit stressed about this, but making charges of "false conspiracy" are really unhelpful. The contentious topics notice on your talk page on August 8 dropped by Zalaraz absolutely says caste. Precision is really important here.

Your edits aren't problematic on a general level, so I don't think a sanction beyond EC being revoked until you manually request it after a few hundred more edits is necessary. But you did neglect to read a notice or follow-up with it if you had questions, so it's a real question about what to do about it, if anything. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I just said you may be dismissed with no major penalties, why are you ruining it for yourself. Be civil. WorldClassChampion (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry sir i understand my mistake and i will not continue this kind of behaviour. I will be More carefull and respectful going forward Vasilystepanov (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Right. I accept your apology. You just need to be careful when speaking on this forum or when it’s high-stakes. Consequences can be significant. We all want the best out of this platform. WorldClassChampion (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@WorldClassChampion When you say "dismissed", I am confused. Is the user getting fired? Is some idea being ignored? If you are talking about the thread being closed, I didn't think that "dismissed" was the usual term for that. David10244 (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

According to them it is the latter. There are also other numerous oddities from them all the day, together with this (compromised account?). ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC) strike another ECR vio

Here is the evidence: -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• The second and third diffs are completly unrelated to WP:CT/SA and remaining two diffs were quite in the range of good faith edits, that is not we consider pile of repeated violation out of their 510 edits. I cannot think of any recent XC revoke for few violations either. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  First diff reads eschewed caste and second one concerns Yadav caste by saying Yadavas of Devagiri. They are ECR violations. What made you edit after 9 days and engage in misrepresentation of the diffs here is also suspicious. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 13:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  My points still stands out and WP:AGF. Familiarize yourself with Yadav (disambiguation) and Yadavas of Devagiri which comprises a polity not caste, I have no idea why you are citing 1st diff when it wasn't contested. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  You have no point in the first place. See WP:PACT. Yadavas of Devagiri were named after the caste as this section describes. This diff which you are contesting concerns Indian military history by saying "mighty Magadh Empire was spread from present-day India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan up to Iran after defeating the forces of Alexander and Seleucus." It was also an ECR violation. Out of 510 edits the user has made, over 300 were in caste and Indian military history. Pulling EC is fully justified here. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hey ho... aspersions and ABF are basic behavioral tenets and should be avoided. It's not that hard to differentiate between ancient peoples/confederacy of Yadava with the Yadav group of castes, there's no thin line between them. I hail from the region whose history we're discussing and there's a good reason a hatnote is placed on Yadav to not confuse it with Yadava. For more context regarding your confusion: the disambiguation page is listed with this polity, a village, the caste and ancient peoples, all four are unrelated to each other. Similarly for another instance, saying editing around Yadav Wadi violates ECR for invoking "Yadav" is invalid. Before closing, the only remedy I can forsee is that pages should get ECP'd.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  To everyone, please check my edits after the warning on 8 August, most of my edits are clean, to achieve Extended confirmed user right, I don't want to lose it, please don't sanction me, I had never meant to edit caste or military related topics after that and I just thought of improving pages by removing unsourced para, thanks. Vasilystepanov (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

If it was about 1 or 2 edits, then nobody would be bothering, however you have significantly violated ECR even after warnings. I agree with above users that removing your ECP would be enough for now. Orientls (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Technically 3 offside violations after awareness aren't significant but welp it's upto administrative discretion.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The article is flagged as falling within CT:IPA, with the warning on the talk page detailing This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.. CT:IPA was rolled into CT:SA, which while it does have the subtopic specification of CT:CASTE, still covers social groups more broadly. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cdjp1: Yadava =/= Yadav. Secondly the editor in question hasn't been in any vicinity of the latter. The only few violations but good faith edits I see are #1, #2 and #4.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Even if we were to accept that you are correct (which multiple editors say you are not), the article is still within the CTOP due to the notice, through the other areas the CTOP explicitly states it covers, unless you would like to argue that a former polity in South Asia has nothing to do with the history of South Asia.

As to good faith edits, it does not matter whether edits are done in good faith when they are explicitly within a restricted CTOP. Considering that Vasilystepanov has almost exclusively made all their mainspace edits within the CTOP since being informed of the restrictions on 8 August, while not meeting XC status, this is very much a blatant behavioural issue. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The history of South Asia is not under ECR, and there are no further restrictions as such; please go through WP:CT/SA and my comments above again. Diff #3 is nowhere close to WP:CT/IMH & WP:CT/CASTE. Again, a hatnote on Yadav distinguishes it from Yadava (the ancient peoples), latter, from which the Yadavas of Devagiri claim descent. I have yet to encounter a valid argument as to why editors here cannot distinguish between the two. Saying "Vasilystepanov has almost exclusively made all their mainspace edits within the CTOP since being informed of the restrictions" is a fundamental misinterpretation of why CT/SA was enforced; there are barely three violations around IMH & CASTE since the editor was informed, not all, if you, perchance discover more, feel free to share it.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Vasilystepanov has made over 160 edits alone on Vishnuvardhana, Someshvara I, Govinda III and Krishna III which falls under Indian military history (IMH). By falsely claiming that there "are barely three violations around IMH & CASTE" you are looking for sanctions for yourself with this your misleading advocacy. Just drop the WP:STICK. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

They said "since the editor was informed", that is not misleading. ~2026-45995-27 (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC) Strike ECR violation

Sanction for yourself..misleading advocacy: sighs... WP:READBEFORE, not the first time here I am being forced to remind a few of you about aspersions & aggression. Agitating unnecessarily about personal behavior without evidence might very well attract a WP:VEXBYSTERANG, which I am sure you don't want to earn. Calm down, don't be a fanatic and no need to WP:RUBBERNECK. Best regards,Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment - the intended purpose of ECR in CT topics is to prevent disruption. Sanctioning non-EC editors for making objectively good edits (potentially contentious material that is unsourced should be removed!) because they edited an article they should not have, but which should been protected, and wasn't (why wasn't it?), IMO is against the spirit of what these rules were intending to achieve. With all due respect to the filer, I do not agree that a strict to-the-letter enforcement, sanctioning good faith editors who are not being the slightest bit disruptive for technical - and highly questionable - violations that are nevertheless constructive edits that improve the encyclopedia is something that should be done. ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC) strike ECR violation

The problem with this approach is that "objectively good" edits may not be universally seen as ones (if nobody would see any problem with them, there wouldn't be any problem with indeed). Is that an example of an approach to that "Bold" as "just do it, and if it will stick, then it was good (and if not, there is no problem too, as rules are preventative, and opportunity window for it is passed already anyway)"? ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC) strike ECR violation

ECR is not a mandate for ECP. There are a very few contentious topics (WP:PIA the most prominent) where ECP is mandated, but WP:ECR only notes that ECR is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required, and in cases where only part of an article falls under ECR restrictions ECP is contraindicated. The problem with your suggestion is that ECR is imposed due to long-term patterns of heavy disruption, that indicates editors need experience to be permitted to edit in the topic area. It is entirely possible for a brand new editor to be capable of constructively contributing in one, but if we let "technical violations that are constructive" pass, we may as well not have ECR at all because allowing some new editors to contribute (if they're constructive) but not others (because they're not) is how every normal page on Wikipedia works. This is entirely within the spirit and the letter of the rules; this may seem unfair, and may even be unfair, but complaints about this unfairness should be delivered to the legions of disruptive editors who made ECR necessary where it is imposed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The two above comments by the TAs were removed by Orientls in Special:Diff/1370590053; I have restored them, since they were not disruptive (WP:TPO, WP:TPNO). 7amiþ reform · solidarity · 💬 · 📊 05:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@7amithorn: The removal was correct, see WP:CT/SA. Non-ECP editors are not allowed to edit the area about caste and military related to India. I have struck the IP comments since they have been replied now. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 06:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

They are allowed to engage in necessary and legitimate dispute resolution concerning a EC restriction. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree but they are not allowed to present their defense against ECR violations carried out by some other user. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 12:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

This sprawling, unstructured, and unnecessarily confrontational discussion is a reminder as to why these reports may be better handled at AE than here on ANI. On the substance, given the apparent confusion as to exactly where the line for the ECR is to be drawn and the lack of any challenge to the substance of the edits, I perceive no need for any action here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Action is needed. ECR violation in this area concerns non-ECP user editing about caste about Indian military history. There is a clear cut agreement above that the user made 100s of edits by violating ECR and still violated it even after warnings. This includes a detailed notification from admin BusterD as well. Even after that, the user kept editing caste about Indian military. His hostile reactions above such as "stop manipulating and framing me in false conspiracy" only tells he is still not serious about his conduct. The most minimum action would be the removal of ECP right from this account. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 05:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad:: I'd second, leaving this open will only lead to WP:FORUMSHOPPING. As we speak there is already a histronic report at ARE regarding OP's tagging with another editor, and I have transcluded this here. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see no reason for WP:CLEANUP edits about topics which seem arguable whether or not they even fall within that to result in any form of sanctions or punishment Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

No policy allows cleanup of Indian caste and Indian military history by non-ECP editors. Orientls (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I haven't checked all of them, but a lot of the ones you're citing as Indian military history or caste seem to be just... general Indian articles? rulers, dynasties, etc - not battles, not generals, not castes, not caste activism Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Check the content the user has edited, not just the category of the subject. Orientls (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

take it up with arbcom if you beleive a clarification is in order. i know we're not a bureaucracy, but CT rules exist for a reason. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Here are more ECR violations done by Vasilystepanov after warnings on 8 August and before reaching ECP. They concern Indian caste or Indian military history: (Indian military history) (Indian military history) (Indian caste), (Indian military history) (Indian military history) (Indian military history) (Indian military history) (Indian military history) (Indian military history) and more.

These edits are from 17 and 18 August alone. Before that, the user edited only on 16 August by mainly inflating edits count by editing their userpage and editing this AfD which was itself a borderline violation of ECR at best since the main page Chandelas of Jejakabhukti is all about Indian military history. Before editing on 16 August, he edited on 8 August when he was warned for not editing this area before reaching ECP. Orientls (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts for self promoting

PabloMK7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jondbarrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are clear single purpose accounts who made their accounts purely to promote their homebrew projects.

Here's the story. PabloMK7 created the Azahar Emulator article. The draft was originally rejected because Azahar emualator did not meet GNG standards and that PabloMK7 was literally the owner and the creator of the project. Fastforward to August 20 (yesterday), and i merge the article to Citra as Azahar has neutrality and GNG problems. Then PabloMK7 complained on the article's talk page and bringed his friend, Jon Barrow (the founder of Pretendo Network) to petition for the article to come back, which i believe is a example of a WP:MEATPUPPET. Additionally, right after I explained to Pablo in good faith about why the article was removed, he went on Twitter complaining about "Conflict of interests declaration on Wikipedia is a joke" Additionally, he took a screenshot of a warning he received on his talk page for disruptive editing. This is a clear example of WP:CANVAS, where Pablo is just getting friends and people from his Azahar community to potentially overturn the merging I did over Azahar.

It's clear to me that, both Jon Barrow and PabloMK7 are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopedia. Not only was their accounts purely created just to create and promote their projects, they have also violated multiple guidelines of COI, CANVASSING, and Neutrality. Monathephantom (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll reply to this once, and only once, because you continue to spout nonsense and baseless accusations. After this, I'm not engaging with this topic further and could not care less what happens. I'm only replying this one time to make corrections and set certain records straight, hopefully so the admins can see the kind of editor you are and how you interact with the community.

The draft was originally rejected because Azahar emualator did not meet GNG standards and that PabloMK7 was literally the owner and the creator of the project

— Monathephantom

Like Pablo, I won't argue the GNG stance. But you keep beating the COI dead horse after being repeatedly told that the COI was disclosed from the start and the only changes made were based on objective truths. All subjective areas where a COI would actually matter, like the "Reception" section, were not written by Pablo as he did not want to influence anything subjective. Genuinely, if the people are unable to even state objective facts about the works they are a part of then what on God's green Earth are we doing here. There is no way to maintain a good faith encyclopedia under the idea that an objective truth cannot be stated simply because the one stating it is related to said truth.

are clear single purpose accounts who made their accounts purely to promote their homebrew projects

— Monathephantom

As I have already stated several times, I made my account over a year ago with the intention of helping any Nintendo related pages if I saw any issues. In fact, I still have my welcome notification which clearly shows this https://imgur.com/xNvw2ug. I never really saw any issues worth editing, so my account remained basically unused for the most part, but that doesn't change the fact that I made my account with that purpose. I genuinely don't know where you get off saying otherwise, making these kinds of accusations/assumptions with no actual proof. Not to mention, I never even promoted anything. I only referenced my own project to disclose a potential COI in the Azahar discussion. I never once interacted with the drafts or discussions happening around my own projects page, nor did I influence them in any way, nor did I fight Wikipedia when they took our page down. Because I genuinely do not give a shit if we have a page or not. I don't need, nor want, Wikipedia for any sort of "promotion", our project has existed for a decade without Wikipedia and have done just fine, trust me. The idea that I'm seeking some kind of promotion by simply disclosing a potential COI on a discussion page that all of 4 people will ever see is, quite frankly, insane of you to suggest.

Then PabloMK7 complained on the article's talk page and bringed his friend, Jon Barrow...which i believe is a example of a WP:MEATPUPPET

— Monathephantom

Pablo didn't bring me in on anything, and I was not asked to share any of my opinions. I follow Pablo on Twitter, and we share some communities on Discord. I saw his frustration with what happened, checked it out myself, and decided on my own to chime in. You can be as upset with me as you want for the way I did that, but trying to paint Pablo as someone "calling in bullets" and tarnishing his/my character with no actual evidence to support that is quite frankly gross on your part.

to petition for the article to come back

— Monathephantom

This is just straight up a point-blank lie. I did not petition for anything. The only I did was call out the way you clearly had no idea about the subject material the page was about, but yet still tried to dictate what happens to the page. Keep the page down or don't, that has zero relevance to me and is not what I did. Be upset, but let's not resort to point-blank lies. This isn't Reddit, have some integrity.

This is a clear example of WP:CANVAS, where Pablo is just getting friends and people from his Azahar community to potentially overturn the merging I did over Azahar

— Monathephantom

Once again, just a lie and accusations. People should be allowed to vent their frustrations without you attacking their character. No one, on Wikipedia or outside, was calling for the decision to be overturned, I never once suggested it and Pablo even stated in the discussion that due to his COI he was not going to resubmit the page. Pablo was asking for clarifications on things, and I called you out on the fact that you clearly have no idea about what the subject matter the page is on and urged you to either educate yourself on the topic more or to not be a part of future discussions on the topic. Pablo never called for anyone to do anything, and I only chose to chime in because it's what I wanted to do. He posted his frustrations on his own personal Twitter account (not the Azahar brand account), and in a private Discord channel in a server unrelated to Azahar. That is the FARTHEST possible thing from "people from his Azahar community" to do anything. And I have no actual stake in the emulator itself besides being friends with Pablo, which again he did not ask me to do jack.

It's clear to me that, both Jon Barrow and PabloMK7 are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopedia. Not only was their accounts purely created just to create and promote their projects, they have also violated multiple guidelines of COI, CANVASSING, and Neutrality

— Monathephantom

Again, none of this happened the way you propose it did. Pablo was absolutely in good faith trying to improve the encyclopedia because people kept mentioning Azahar in the Citra article, only for those mentions to be deleted and other maintainers saying they would be better in their own article, and I called you out for your own mistakes related to your own incorrect assumptions about the pages subject matter because I also genuinely care about the encyclopedia and that starts with the editors. If you want to feel slighted because you got called out over it, then that's no skin off my back. Like both Pablo and I already said, we don't care anymore and have already sent emails to the privacy team requesting our accounts be deleted and we no longer have any interest in trying to help the encyclopedia in the future. Jondbarrow (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Pablo didn't bring me in on anything, and I was not asked to share any of my opinions. I follow Pablo on Twitter, and we share some communities on Discord. I saw his frustration with what happened, checked it out myself, and decided on my own to chime in.

To you and to @PabloMK7:, just so you understand, this is meatpuppeting. PabloMK7 complained about the situation honestly rudely on social media, and then even if PabloMK7 didn't explicitly invite others to participate, it implicitly has the effect of drawing others in. And those people have their views colored by PabloMK7's description of the situation. We heavily frown upon this, and actively discount opinions from people who have been drawn in in this way.

That said, Wikipedia's rules are complicated and it does sound like the both of you are frustrated with how the site works; I get it. But the both of you handled this poorly.

We're all volunteers here and you publicly insulted both the platform and users on it. grapesurgeon (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

just so you understand, this is meatpuppeting

It would mean that Wikipedia editors are under the oath of disclosure about that part of their life. They couldn't tell anybody about anything happening there, because it could lead somebody else to take some action, resulting in a meatpuppetry. They are free to discuss other topics, though. Is that a right understanding? ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

It would mean that Wikipedia editors are under the oath of disclosure about that part of their life

Obviously, this isn't true. I assume you are also a meatpuppet considering you just created an temporary account today just to edit in an ANI. The problem here is that PabloMK7 is canvassing, by sharing the situation on their very high-profile Twitter account of 7.8K followers. Because of that, people who do not use Wikipedia at all, such as JonDBarrow (creator of Pretendo Network) and other individuals on Wikipedia are trying to overturn this, as seen here. In no way does saying on Twitter that "Conflict of interests declaration on Wikipedia is a joke" is neutral and wouldn't bring people over here. Monathephantom (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Obviously, this isn't true.

It doesn't turn into obvious merely due to stating it, otherwise you would be able to magically turn complicated things into obvious just with 4.5 words any moment.

If you're willing to actually address that is written in a message you're responding to, take your time. ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

No. You can wait until the consensus building period has ended, then discuss it. There's no possibility for disruption at that point. Also, nobody can force you to do anything; this is purely out of respect for other users and to try to keep discussions fair.

Also, if you choose to discuss something on social media, do it in a way that is respectful, not just insulting the entire platform and people on it. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

What consensus building period have to do with it? Suppose I see editor A made an edit B on a page C, and I'm telling about it for a friend of mine at our meeting in cafe. My friend then, returning home, go that page, and revert that edit, because they're think that it's wrong. But it's very possible that friend of mine wouldn't learn about that edit for long time otherwise, or, possible, never at all, if that talk of ours wouldn't happen. If it constitute a meatpuppetry, it's means that there is an oath of disclosure included, yes.

Also I understand that you're about social media here; but example about private communication would be a case of even more malicious stealth canvassing then?

Respectful etc is unrelated to the question; I'm not defending that particular conduct, but trying to get if I understood you right about meatpuppetry only. ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't like that phrasing "oath"; you're making it sound melodramatic when it isn't.

We ask people to avoid off-wiki discussions of on-wiki consensus building processes. Yes, that can include in person. If you do mention it to others in your private life, then maybe ask them explicitly to not hop on and influence the consensus building. Is that an "oath"? Perhaps, in the same way that asking people to throw their trash away properly in the trash can involves an "oath". It's just polite and fair behavior given the nature of consensus building. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing melodramatic about it, and the way you're describing it now looks like you're indeed have essentially it in mind. If I do mention it to others in my private life, and I have to ask them explicitly to not hop on and influence the consensus building, it means I'm restricted to discuss it. But I really unable to get how you're manage to reach so odd unrelated example about "throwing a thrash" here. Related ones would be like "I used a road N for a ride today, it's horrible, but I have to ask you now explicitly to not hop on and influence anything related, and keep driving it as is". Or "there is a politician elected from our ward, and they're doing X and Y; but I have to ask you now explicitly to not hop on and influence anything related". Or "potatoes you're bought are rotten; but I have to ask you now explicitly to not hop on and influence not cooking them". And so on. ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

How do you not see an issue with bringing in other people to discussions that are influenced by the number of people voting? Last comment I'll make. If you don't like this policy, post on the talk page for MEATPUPPET, stop debating with me. grapesurgeon (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello grapesurgeon, as far as I can tell, me publicly sharing my opinion has not affected in any way the dispute, in fact nobody has commented on it (except for Jon who has had previous bad experiences on the matter) because at no point I asked anyone to do so. I see what you are trying to express, but it is unfair to call out someone for something done externally, as if we had a binding contract to respect Wikipedia rules outside the platform. Afterall, we are here to build an ecyclopedia, and for all reasons and purposes I'm keeping my messages here relevant to that while sharing my honest opinions outside.

I'm sorry if you felt insulted by "wikipedia is a joke", this is not an insult to the editors, but rather to the system in general that doesn't seem to respect good faith. Again I'm sorry if you or someone else has felt insulted by it. I think that, I've been respectful to everybody involved. Please take the arrogant claims as a way to improve, not as an insult. PabloMK7 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Please take the arrogant claims as a way to improve, not as an insult.

Bluntly I think most of that comment is just excuses for being rude and telling us to deal with it. When I have feedback for people or communities I give them plain feedback, I don't bundle in insults along with it.

Just please own up to the behavior. It's this kind of thing that makes me not particularly upset that you want to leave. I'm sorry your experience was bad, but we need people who can handle disagreement better than this. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

My plain feedback is not to be arrogant and better treat people that did uninterested contributions, with a more calm tone explaining how things work. I will not talk further about my behaviour because I don't think it's relevant here, please don't treat that as a excuse to not address that point. I've had a lot of situations where I've been involved in disagreement, some that I ended up understanding that I was not right, I think my ability to come to a middle point is there, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just "say yes" to anything told to me, more even considering that it was done in a very inappropriate tone and with a warning issued to me. PabloMK7 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I've already explained to you that I think both sides could have handled things better. Your behavior is relevant in this too. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

At the risk of having my own account have some sort of action taken against it is a really good first ever words from the account. I couldn't care less is exponentially losing its shine with further usage. It's possibly that you (with PabloMK7) couldn't "delete" your accounts the way you're intended, also. ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to make things clear again, please don't mix Jon and me together, we have our own independent opinions and ways to communicate them.

In my case, I mentioned that what happens to my account is irrelevant, unless something extraordinary happens that makes me change my opinion. But what happens to this conversation is pretty relevant, to me and to any third party reader to be able to build their opinions on their own (whether that is aligned with mine or not). PabloMK7 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You were mentioned only for a part about deletion of accounts, that you both talked about. ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Monathephantom, I think I already left clear my intentions in the mentioned talk page, the experience overall in wikipedia has been extremely unwelcoming, therefore any actions on my account are irrelevant as it's already marked for deletion.

Still I feel the moral obligation to reply to this message. I did not bring anyone to defend myself, my opinions and acts are mine, and Jon's opinions and acts are theirs, please don't mix both of us together. There were indeed external interactions between me an Jon externally, but Jon decided to act not in my behalf, but rather based on his previous experiences on Wikipedia.

Yes, I openly stated that I believe COI declaration on Wikipedia is a joke, because I believe that following a honesty system should should help editors understand that the article was written in good faith, something that you did completely in opposite: believing the article was made for publicity. But in any case, what's the matter? This was just my opinion on how the situation was handled, put in social media, I didn't ask anyone to defend my at any point, nor I didn't want to link to the Talk page until finally someone asked for context. Please respect my freedom of expression and opinion, I don't think there are guidelines against that, as it would be otherwise dangeriously become close to censorship.

About the single account allegations, I have already done edits to multiple Wikipedia articles using anonymous accounts, mostly related to typos I saw while reading the encyclopedia. I only created the account once I commited to write the article to properly disclose the COI situation.

About the warning, I still believe it was highly disproportionate. I little experience editing Wikipedia, so I didn't know it was acceptable to undo an editor change with clearly stating that "this is a one-time thing, explained in the talk page, if you disagree revert and a third party can decide". There were no intentions to get into edit wars at any point, yet again it was instantly assumed that I was acting in bad faith.

Having said that, whatever happens to my account I don't think I care. I still feel unwelcomed here, the amount of arrogancy I was met with was pretty unconfortable, I'd prefer to stay away from any future situation like this one. PabloMK7 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

here were no intentions to get into edit wars at any point, yet again it was instantly assumed that I was acting in bad faith. Yeah I agree that templating on your talk page was too harsh. @Monathephantom: that wasn't a proportional response; please assume more good faith from new editors.

That said, per above PabloMK7 the way you handled this, by immediately going to social media to publicly name and shame Monathephantom (as well as Wikipedia in general), isn't great either.

I'd like for you to stick around; we appreciate new editors. But if this is how you'll handle every dispute you have on Wikipedia, by going to social media and publicly insulting people, then I'd rather you not stick around. grapesurgeon (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon Just so you know, i was not the one who warned him - I simply just put a COI notice under good faith as he only edits articles he is close with (Azahar emulator and Citra) Monathephantom (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh my bad; I should have tagged @Agent VII: grapesurgeon (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, please check the social media post again. At no time I didn't shame on Monathephantom, that was not even close to the intention. I probably should have hid Agent VII name as well but I missed it, sorry about that.

If disputes are handled with disproportionate "disruptive editing" warnings and deletion threats then I'm not sure if this is a place for me anyways. I had hoped for constructive discussions instead of a situation where clearly one party was acting "above the other". I respect editors and the incredible job they are doing, I do not agree on the manners. PabloMK7 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I misunderstood; thought Mona was the talk poster. I agree with you that Agent VII was too harsh.

However, you called Agent VII arrogant and showed their username while doing it. You also insulted Wikipedia in general, as well as implicitly the users on it. Do you see what I mean when I say both sides made mistakes? Part of working on Wikipedia is being patient with mistakes; we're all volunteers and all humans. Some of us can have bad days.

While it seems like you kind of regret aspects of these actions, esp the phrasing here puts a bad taste in my mouth.

My last comment on this topic: if you stick around, don't do this again. Make sure you understand our MEATPUPPET policy and don't run to social media and insult individuals and the entire community. And if you do do that, own up to it cleanly. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the arrogant claims are about this sentence by Mona:

> This article has many issues that make it completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Please do not restore it, or I will have to nominate it for deletion.

You can't have a sane dispute if one side is threatening on an action that affects the other side. I hope that you also understand that the warning didn't improve the situation.

I understand the meat puppet policy, I don't think I've invited anyone here to influence anything, Jon jumped in influenced by their previous experience, not by my calling, and I think people have enough context to build their own opinions idependently of what I have said. PabloMK7 (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

An amendment to this comment, I think I understand what phrasing gave you a bad taste.

To make it more clear: I'm actually sincerely apologizing if you felt insulted by my claims because they were NOT, in any ways, expected to insult anyone. If I had to think back about it, maybe I should have not been driven by the heat of the moment and should have worded it differently. Maybe it has to do with language barrier, but the "is a joke" is meant to express that it is not serious. As I've said before you can't have a honesty system that makes the situation worse than if you just weren't honest and tried to hide everything. That is prone to fail like it has failed in this case. The warning just after that reinforced my belief that the system was indeed, not serious. PabloMK7 (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You can't have a sane dispute if one side is threatening on an action that affects the other side.

We absolutely could. I could tell you that I'll do something in some case (say, that I will bring it for an admin's attention if you'll threat me with a lawsuit (merely an example)), and we definitely could just have a some sane dispute still.

The fact they would nominate it for deletion doesn't meant they'll succeed in it. But in case they'll reliably would (I don't saying this is a such case), it could be just a proposal to not waste a time. ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

That is just a dispute, where one party has more power than the other. Following your lawsuit example, if you were the plaintiff you would be probably conditioned on your acts because it can lead to a bad output for you. Same thing happens here, if you condition the other party with threats, instead of only acting once the other party actually does something in bad faith, then the situation loses equilibrium and the result is conditioned beforehand. PabloMK7 (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• defendant, not plaintiff.

PabloMK7 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

That is just a dispute, where one party has more power than the other.

It's happening very often, those circumstances. It doesn't mean that you can't have a sane dispute then. It doesn't mean that you will have it, but it definitely possible to have it, and it happening in a wild too.

My example wasn't about lawsuit in that sense. I meant that Wikipedia have a strong reaction for a users, who threat other users with a lawsuit, with action coming against an offender rather quickly. But this misunderstanding is good to show the very point I was trying to made. I will again tell you (technically it could be read as a threat, as it about a possibly negative thing), that that I will bring it for an admin's attention if you will threat me with a lawsuit, and it will likely have a quick negative result for you in this case due to their actions. Despite it, we're still could just continue to have a sane discussion after me saying that. Probably you mean something about it being not possible if one side treat other unfairly overall? It's other thing then, and I'll agree with it. ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You just illustrated that you don't understand the meatpuppeting policy; see here.

Maybe it has to do with language barrier, but the "is a joke" is meant to express that it is not serious. No, it's not a language barrier thing, this is an insult. If I called you a joke that wouldn't be polite.

Wikipedia's systems around honesty work better when its volunteers are polite and perfectly enforce its standards, but as they're volunteers, they make mistakes. You see these mistakes, and then mock the entirety of the system and insult the volunteers. You're also doing this strange balancing act between downplaying your insults while also acknowledging that your wordings were insulting... Just own up to it cleanly without the excuses.

Ok for real this time, I'm dropping this, have a feeling it'll just be more excuses. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I do a lot of volunteer work too, I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't agree that it should be taken personally by Wikipedia contributors.

I obviously would never call a person a joke, that's actually a personal insult that would lead nowhere.

About the balancing point, I think that's what supposed to happen when you try to reach an agreement with other, or should I stay forever in my original stance and never change my mind? The wording was too harsh and I'm acknowledging it, but I still believe the message behind is true and worth addressing. PabloMK7 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, this is PabloMK7 after having deleted my account and scrambled email+password as part of that process. It appears that @Monathephantom has taken things personal and unilaterally decided to remove my user page speedy deletion request, which seems like a clear case of WP:NPA. Please stop as this is uncomfortable. There are no claims anywhere in the guidelines stating that the COI must be preserved in the user page, that seems to be an excuse to undo my edit and remove the request. If that was true anyways, the COI notice could have just be added back while keeping the deletion request. Since I can no longer edit my user page I hope this message serves as a clear statement that {{Db-userreq}} should have stayed in my user page and should be treated as such. ~2026-45734-74 (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe you cannot remove COI notices. The Wikimedia Foundation states you must state a connection somehow, and even if the Azahar Emulator article has been removed, you were apart of its predecessor, Citra. Monathephantom (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Per M:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/181878, PabloMK7 has left Wikipedia and WP:VANISHed and is therefore M:global locked-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

It is normal that their messages here still keep the original name, and that it also possible to see it from their history? Or it will be gone after some update? ~2026-45880-56 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

No, signatures remain forever. To my sorrow. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Though their contribs are now attributed to the new account. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Is it possible that both PabloMK7's temp account and Jondbarrow both be blocked under NOTHERE policy? Monathephantom (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

But having original account name I could get that new account, and from it reach the original messages. And starting with that new account name, I could connect it with original account too. Is it really that it's planned to do, or I miss something? It basically changed colour of original account from blue to red, and also require one more click to do the same as before compared to a pre-deletion state. ~2026-45880-56 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Monathephantom: That's for the community to decide. I just performed the vanish. @~2026-45880-56: No, that's the way it works. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:VANISH: Courtesy vanishing allows a user to have their account renamed and userpages deleted for privacy reasons. It does not include deleting the user's contributions or talk pages. This is done as a courtesy, not a right, and the user is expected to permanently leave the project. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

If the community determines those are socks, they need to be blocked. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I did decide to revert this after some additional thought, but you beat me to reverting it. In any case, my point with quoting the policy was for ~2026-45880-56 as they seem to not understand what vanishing is per the "new account" part. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Per haps a {{checkuser needed}} could apply the coup de grâce to any socks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra If you think a CU needs to get involved, please file an SPI. I'm not going to read through this wall of text to figure out if a check is justified, and I don't expect any other CU would either. RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

(The same person as ~2026-45880-56, not the same person as vanished user)

To clarify that more and more looks like some misunderstanding. My question was not a complaint from the vanished user, who is dissatisfied with a result achieved. It was a question from the 3rd party observer, to clarify essentially the a user to have their account renamed and userpages deleted for privacy reasons part. Being a 3rd party, and having either the original username or new vanished-numbers-name it seems I could rather trivially connect those accounts (learn the original username from the vanished-numbers-name) and retrieve the messages (it seems to actually work in rare case then user had no messages on their userpages, and made only article edits). Making it of being of much use for privacy reasons rather questionable, so I asked if there is no some mistake, and does it work as intended. Deepfriedokra explained that that's the way it works. Currently it seems to work as a light (with a more privacy included) version of changing Username to AccountPreviouslyKnownAsUsername.

But having original account name I could get that new account, and from it reach the original messages. < I see now the place it came from, definitely would been reading way better if I didn't missed "name" in "I could get that new account" part (intended as: "I could get that new account's name", i.e. vanished-numbers-name). The way I wrote it, it definitely could be read as if I "get that new account" to write it, sadly, sorry for confusion caused.~2026-46251-76 (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

~2026-44199-45

• ~2026-44199-45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring at VeraCrypt:

Personal attacks:

• "Frankly, I expected this nonsense... I knew there is always the risk that someone as careless as Guy Macon might review my changes."
• "It's always easier to blanket-revert and throw mud on the contributor, than to do the right thing, i.e., be careful, compassionate, and precise... Guy Macon has made an effort to find the most unreliable sources for his allegation, probably to get rise out of me. (I've seen this psychological tactic before.)"

Admits to having another account and using a temporary account to avoid WP:SCRUTINY:

The language seems to me to be almost identical to a user who has been blocked twice for what looks to me to be the same behavior:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1224#Very Polite Person user behavior

I have no evidence other than WP:DUCK, and because I am the target I am biased my judgement on this should not be trusted. I don't want to file a SPI unless at least one other person sees the same pattern I see.

Both users mentioned have been notified. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

That's pretty outrageous. You have stalked me to multiple WP:GANs and articles I have worked on, hounding and harassing me with your manic UFO hysteria.

LEAVE ME ALONE. You're an active disrupting presence now. Stop now or the community will stop you. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

No comment to the rest, but that diff doesn't seem to admit to having another account. In fact, You've done it to me more than once because I don't have an account seems to say the opposite, that the TA claims to have no other accounts. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

""Your method of interacting with others seems very familiar"! If that's your way of asking if you've harassed me before, the answer is yes." Is the more concerning one to me. The temp account only has 23 edits. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

What exactly you do see as concerning there? ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you ever had a registered account? EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

No. (Assuming Wikipedia; otherwise the answer would have to be "yes", most likely leading to a misunderstanding in result.) ~2026-45568-80 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully that will settle any misunderstandings of the above quote. If there's other evidence, examine that, but this quote seems innocuous. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Temp accounts are deactivated for many reasons, meaning the next session has a new temporary account. WP:Temporary accounts#Temporary account deactivation details this. WP:AGF applies to temp accounts as well as registered users, and it seems very plausible to me that the TA is noting that they've had interactions with Guy Macon before. There still might be a behavioral issue here, but an [admission of] having another account and using a temporary account to avoid WP:SCRUTINY it 'aint. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fair enough. I retract my comment. I would prefer to address the behavior presented anyway, as being something everyone can examine as opposed to something that I can't prove. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

That said, VPP's response being to lash out with severe personal attacks is not impressive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Why am I supposed to be gracious when Guy has dogged me for months across multiple articles he's never touched, and drags me here over something utterly unrelated to me?

I've done nothing wrong and no one is obligated to get feces dumped on them repeatedly. There's literally no justifiable reason for me to called out, challenged, or dinged whatsoever for another user's bad behavior. Guy is out of line dragging me here and needs to be commanded by an Admin to leave me the fuck alone once and for all. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Even if someone else is violating policy, that is no excuse for you to violate policy. Do not make further personal attacks no matter what you believe any editor has or has not done to you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Can I ask a genuine question:

Why is Guy allowed to spend now pushing half a year giving me shit? I have religiously avoided him after Earthquake light and he has come after me since here and showing up on various GANs I began.

Perhaps it would behoove admins to chide troublemakers like OP before they waste many hours of many people.

I will not reply again here and guarantee the next time Guy harasses me it's WP:RFAR. I have done nothing wrong. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: It has been nearly a full week. What is the DUCK evidence that you have? What is the specific words or language that ~2026-44199-45 used that are identical or are nearly identical to what Very Polite Person has said? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You want me to list a bunch of examples of VPP engaging in personal attacks, after I had repeatedly withdrawn any accusation of LOUTSOCK, and after they had been reported an ANI (ANI report initiated by Geogene, not by me), blocked and stopped the behavior, knowing full well exactly what VPP's inevitable reaction to me posting such a list would be, and after the two of us voluntarily went back to trying to ignore each other?

"I printed out some of the personal attacks by both users and showed them to a relative, asking "do these look like the same person?" The answer I got was "They are both acting like the victim while attacking, but lots of people do that. The person with the name keeps doing something that the person with the number doesn't; they repeatedly claim that they are required to be nasty because their target deserves it. I don't see any of that in the person with the number. That looks like an ingrained habit to me. I would say not the same person." --Guy Macon 19:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

"Regarding the sockpuppetry, you're still on it, but Guy Macon explicitly withdrew the accusation. You don't have to defend against an accusation without evidence; the burden of proof is on the accuser." --EducatedRedneck 19:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

"I withdraw the LOUTSOCK claim." --Guy Macon 21:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

"A lot of people get accused of sockpuppetry when they aren't socks. The vast majority get cleared and life goes on. :The majority, quite possibly the vast majority, never know they have been accused of sockpuppetry because SPI does not have a notification requirement (for multiple good reasons). Your history is why the OP brought this to ANI instead of quietly filing a SPI. A response of 'no, I am not this TA' would have more or less been the end of it." -- The Bushranger 05:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

REQUEST DENIED.

You made your case for sanctioning me. Twice. Despite several accusations that I was tempted to respond to I did nothing to defend myself or dispute your claims, preferring to let ANI do what ANI does best and trusting the community to evaluate your evidence.

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

In order here as I encounter them:

You want me to list a bunch of examples of VPP engaging in personal attacks" (and from later on to avoid repeats) "knowing full well exactly what VPP's inevitable reaction to me posting such a list would be: No, what I wanted was what I said: What is the specific words or language that ~2026-44199-45 used that are identical or are nearly identical to what Very Polite Person has said? If your evidence was not the words that they used, but engaging in personal attacks, then that isn't DUCK.

after I had repeatedly withdrawn any accusation of LOUTSOCK: Ah, you have? Then I don't need the DUCK evidence. I was wanting this because you didn't retract the claim as the text wasn't stricken, so I was under the impression that you still were accusing both of being the same account.

and after they had been reported an ANI (ANI report initiated by Geogene, not by me) Huh? What ANI report?

blocked and stopped the behavior The temp account got blocked? I am not seeing that on my end.

and after the two of us voluntarily went back to trying to ignore each other? If you are, then gotcha.

Quotes: Ah, I missed these comments. Then, yes, you have retracted the accusations. (Though the relative stuff is concerning to me because that still isn't DUCK as it isn't the same or similar words/phrases/editing tics.)

You made your case for sanctioning me. Twice. If you want to treat is as a sanction on just yourself, then fine though I disagree as it would be a sanction on both of you. Twice is where I get confused. Because I replied to you twice in a row here? Or because I replied to the Evidence, please comment and then agreed with the suggested two-way interaction restriction?

Despite several accusations that I was tempted to respond to I did nothing to defend myself or dispute your claims Personally, if you think I got the facts wrong (and you seem to be implying so), then you should feel comfortable pushing back. You should say that I got it wrong, point out where, and make it clear with diff that I messed up and my facts are wrong. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Super Goku V, what are you trying to make happen here? Guy Macon felt, erroneously but genuinely, that there was a sock situation. He was mistaken and withdrew the accusation, and clarified it was withdrawn several times. You have now had that clarified for you. Unless you're making some odd WP:CIR argument that being mistaken in WP:DUCK is sanctionable, I can't tell what you intend here nor what your justification would be. I find Guy Macon's restraint in not bludgeoning the discussion admirable. What's been done is done; let's just let this thread die and move on to more productive things. If there's a pattern, it'll come up again and we can deal with it then. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

As I said above and below, the DUCK evidence for their sockpuppet claims. But again and with more detail, I didn't realize that they withdrew the claims as it is unstricken at the top and I missed the two spots where they withdrew. That was why I asked for the evidence on the 24th and again today because I thought it was still an active claim.

Unless you're making some odd WP:CIR argument that being mistaken in WP:DUCK is sanctionable, I can't tell what you intend here nor what your justification would be. Same as the above and down below. I sincerely thought that the sockpuppet claims had not been withdrawn.

What's been done is done; let's just let this thread die and move on to more productive things. Sure, I am fine with that. Just have been confused since the 24th and today it got resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC) (Amended at 11:33, 27 August 2026 (UTC))

Sounds like a misunderstanding then. Always nice to have things resolved amiably. Cheers! EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

(Ugh, I missed a word... Just going to add un- to the next word and note it here.) --Super Goku V (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I am still confused about a few things, but feel free not to answer those questions. Now that my mistake has been corrected, everything to do with the original comment has been resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

If, as they claim, ~2026-44199-45 has been "harassed by me" under a different account, they should be happy to tell us which account so that I can be punished for my crimes. I don't recall any temporary account having a dispute with me that could possibly match that description. In fact, I can only think of one other account that has exhibited a pattern of engaging in nasty insults while claiming to be a victim of harassment. That being said, I am a biased observer and thus invite others to examine the behavior pattern for themself rather than taking my unreliable word for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Any "checkuser" can check me and when you're again proven wrong, I demand an apology from you here explicitly, and you are regardless going forthwith irrevocably banned from my talk page. If you come near any page I am editing or pop into every third WP:GAN I begin as you were for a while, I am damn well sending you to RFAR. You have been harassing me repeatedly since the communmity rejected your position at Earthquake light.

Leave me alone. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

1) Apologies are worth very little if compelled. 2) WP:CHECKME notes that, even at user request, a user cannot be checked against a TA. 3) If you're going to make accusations of harassment, it would help the community if you could supply diffs. Showing areas which they didn't touch before, and then did after some event (e.g., with the editor interaction analyzer) with diffs showing them to be detrimental to you would go a long way to getting an IBAN in place.

To the TA, I concur that it's a reasonable question: can you identify the previous dispute you alluded to? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no valid reason I am here on this ANI. None. It's an attack on me. I don't care if it's compelled or not. I want this person to leave me alone. They suddenly appeared to my GAs for Field propulsion and Leik Myrabo after the community hard rejected their position at Earthquake light. Heck of a coincidence.

Guy has been harassing me, not the other way around. I don't want an IBAN unless he comes after me again. I want to be left alone. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

"They came to these GAs of mine because they were a sore loser" is an aspersion, not evidence. If you are being harassed, supply diffs as evidence showing that harassment. Also you cannot demand anything. You can request an apology, but not demand. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe do your job, friend, and chide the problematic editor casting WP:ASPERSIONS on me instead. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Supply diffs as evidence or stop accusing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

VPP, unless someone is a paid editor, doing anything on Wikipedia isn't their job. We're all volunteers. And I'll tell you this; I did run the simple search with the editor interaction analyzer. This shows that, for most of the pages you two have overlapped on, they edited the page first. I also checked Talk:Earthquake light and wasn't able to identify any proposal of theirs that the community rejected. I'm not saying that none of this happened, but I am saying that it's not immediately obvious to an uninvolved party. If you have evidence, it's more likely you'll get action if you provide it. If you have no evidence, consider that your mutual animosity may make it feel as if he's hounding you, when in fact it's random chance. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

They did NOT edit first. Look at article and GAN, not all of Wikipedia. They are 20 years old. Of course their fingers are all over due to that.

@The Bushranger Earthquake light Macon RFC on May 19. 100% I edited first. They were determined to get UFO people into Earthquake light; that has nothing to do with UFOs. There was consensus to remove that, and in fact other editors did that as seen here - not me, but I was overtly blamed. Then immediately after I later sent Earthquake light to GAN, he attempted to WP:CANVASS WP:FTN here on this but was largely ignored. Guy has never touched Leik Myrabo but then saw fit to show next there, and again showed on Talk:Leik Myrabo/GA2 to bring up UFO things yet again. Guy was fine when he jumped into Field propulsion for the first time here in March, but then goes off in Talk:Field_propulsion/GA2 to push more UFO things. GANs are not typicallly group activities. He had no history with any of these articles until I showed up.

Yes, I do believe he is wikistalking me after Earthquake light. This thread is the latest example. I am not that TA and this entire thing, yet again, is a farce to try and get even with me. The idea that checkusers can't settle this instantly sounds like nonsense. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note that Checkusers do not check on request, and are prohibited from publically connecting accounts to unregistered TAs/IPs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

So this sockpuppetry accusation is... what, his word against mine? There is literally no way to defend this against this lie? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I looked through your evidence. First, the provided RFC is one in which Guy Macon didn't appear to support any position. I do not find it credible that somehow he was so invested in a position as to stalk you out of revenge, but also stayed mute on the topic and didn't !vote.

The FTN posting seems like an attempt to get more neutral eyes than theirs on the topic. Which seems to have worked.

The contribute to Leik Myrabo/GA2 was a random aside. Same with Leik Myrabo/GA2. Their posts seem to be helpful and constructive and not aimed at you. You say they're not typically group activities seems to go against the GA FAQ which, in the "Who can respond to the review?" heading, says, everyone interested in the article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. (Emphasis original.) There were also other participants in some of those, which you haven't objected to.

Regarding the sockpuppetry, you're still on it, but Guy Macon explicitly withdrew the accusation. You don't have to defend against an accusation without evidence; the burden of proof is on the accuser.

I do note that Guy Macon asked the TA a question, but you responded. Why did you respond? EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The FTN posting was clear canvassing - the posting was not neutral - generally anything beyond a one-sentence notification is considered non-neutral - and FTN is well known for having a general disdain for certain topics and it is reasonable to presume that they would be biased against articles whose subjects they dislike achieving GA. Whether or not they actually would be in practice is irrelevant: it is reasonable to think that they could be, therefore notifying them with a non neutral message about a GA nomination they're reasonably likely to be biased against violates WP:CANVASS. ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you VPP?

generally anything beyond a one-sentence notification is considered non-neutral Can you point me to that guidleine? Also, I didn't say the posting was neutral, I said it was an attempt to get neutral eyes. You can disagree, just like you can disagree when I say I don't view it as canvassing, but it seems the community and you have very different takes on this matter. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, that tool is shoddy on context, because for the Field propulsion GA, the reviewer creates the GA nomination page. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Field_propulsion/GA2&action=history - an article that I am nearly 1000 edits into, but it lists him as first on the GA nomination on the technicality that he saw it first before me. I honestly don't think I've ever seen other people interject in GANs as an antagonist, and I got that three times from the same person in a few months. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Re: "forthwith irrevocably banned from my talk page", could someone please gently explain to them that posting ANI notices is mandatory? I will, of course not post there unless required to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Stay away from me. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

ANI notices ARE mandatory, and one of the few exceptions to WP:TPOWN. Aside from that, your harsh words clearly aren't doing anything, and unless there's an WP:IBAN, you have no right to dictate how someone else edits other than banning them from your talk page, which you've already done. I suggest you not address Guy Macon directly and let the rest of the thread play out. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This made up accusation of sockpuppetry against me MUST be settled. I have literally done nothing wrong and not crossed any path with this guy. He keeps waklking in my footsteps. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Cool. Then don't talk to him and keep presenting evidence. If someone steals your bike, you're not allowed to go take it back at gunpoint. You notify the authorities, provide evidence, and let them handle it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I printed out some of the personal attacks by both users and showed them to a relative, asking "do these look like the same person?" The answer I got was "They are both acting like the victim while attacking, but lots of people do that. The person with the name keeps doing something that the person with the number doesn't; they repeatedly claim that they are required to be nasty because their target deserves it. I don't see any of that in the person with the number. That looks like an ingrained habit to me. I would say not the same person." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This was a very smart thing to do, getting a second opinion. It sounds as if you're withdrawing the WP:LOUTSOCK claim. Is that correct?

I also have a question related to VPP, above. Are you following VPP, and if so, for what reason? If not, can you explain how you came to the GA noms they referred to? EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I withdraw the LOUTSOCK claim. I don't believe ~2026-44199-45's story though. I can't find a candidate temporary account that matches. Could be someone else.

I don't follow VPPs edits, but occasionally check their history and talk page after they ping me (after repeatedly being asked to stop doing that) or when searching for something I remember them saying.

My first edit to Field propulsion was this on 28 February 2026

The page came to my attention because of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 112#Field propulsion (posted 27 February 2026), where I made this comment:

Note that neither comment in any way attacked or even disagreed with VPP.

Having the page on my watch list I saw the GA nominations, I didn't comment on the first one, but did on the second: Talk:Field propulsion/GA2. If you read that discussion you will see that I had legitimate concerns over the quality of the page and its suitability to be a GA.

Is there some rule I don't know about that says VPP owns certain GA nominations and that I can't comment when I see obvious flaws in them?

As for Earthquake light, that page has been on my watchlist for years as one of the pages that regularly attracts pseudoscience, See

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Earthquake light
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 111#Earthquake light
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 113#Removal of skeptical material and sources at Earthquake light
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 114#Earthquake light: The gritty reboot

This is off-topic for ANI (this page is for user behavior, not article content), but I was and still am very much concerned that VPP is pushing the fringe position that earthquakes cause lights in the sky, and aggressively removing any skeptical sources. So of course I have a history of editing that page. And I will continue to do it as long as VPP keeps pushing his fringe POV that it is settled science that that earthquakes cause lights in the sky.

Now for Leik Myrabo. One edit. That one edit is the "wikistalking" that led to a thousand complaints. I reverted VPP's WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSH attempt to cram field propulsion into the page of an engineer best known for lightbeam-powered propulsion. I don't remember how I ran across the page. I was doing a lot of searching to see what pages linked to each other at the time, but maybe I saw it when checking VPPs edit history ("now where was it when he called me that name? Better make a note of it"). I honestly don't recall. I do know that I have zero interest in VPPs edit history unless I am looking for something specific. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

It should be noted that VeryPolitePerson has come within an ace of being sanctioned by the community before. More than once. As I said in the second discussion there: VPP has proven they can, and are, a valued and valuable contributor, both in articlespace and at ANI. But when it comes to [the topic of fringe theories], they can't help but dig in their heels. From the evidence in this discussion, that has not changed. Speaking frankly their contribution-to-timesink ratio is growing mighty thin, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy Macon, for the very thorough explanation. Honestly, I was expecting something like, "I noticed a policy violation here, so I went through the contribs to make sure there weren't more" which is explicitly mentioned as a legitimate act in WP:HOUND. I am quite satisfied there was no stalking or harassment. I also concur with Bushranger that VPP appears to be causing the issues with WP:OWNership of their GAs, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and an earnestly held but utterly unsubstantiated accusations of stalking. As this is a recurring theme, I wonder if a one-way IBAN would be necessary and, if so, if it would be sufficient. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

A one-way IBAN wouldn't affect me one way or the other. I have had a reporter from The Daily Mail and someone from the Ministry of Ayush come after me on multiple social media sites. VPP is a strictly amateur flamer by comparison -- easily ignored. It would be nice if they could be forced to stop pinging me though. At this point it is clear that they are doing it on purpose to annoy me. A one-way IBAN would, however, save everybody else from having to read things like calling " interjecting in GANs as an antagonist".

Even a TBAN from fringe topics would most likely be ineffective. They think that Earthquake Lights (the idea that earthquakes cause lights in the sky) are settled science and keep adding examples that happened long before quakes, long after quakes, or hundreds of miles away from quakes. They will never admit that this is a fringe view. (The idea that earthquakes definitely don't cause lights in the sky would also be fringe, BTW. No proof of that either). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

They think that Earthquake Lights (the idea that earthquakes cause lights in the sky) are settled science and keep adding examples that happened long before quakes, long after quakes, or hundreds of miles away from quakes.

Provide links from AFTER May 25 2026 or retract this immediately. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Now wait a second. This thread on ANI isn't even about me. It was about this other user. I got roped into it and had nothing to do with any of this. I'm 100% hard WP:UNINVOLVED. I was an am justifiably upset because I was busy minding my own business and suddenly got pinged into this new chaos in which I have no role or history or knowledge. Then I'm immediately dog piled, again, for my entire history.

I was blocked May 25 2026. Every single link about "me" here is from before May 25. Here is every single edit of mine from moments before my block to now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=all&start=2026-05-25&tagfilter=&target=Very+Polite+Person&offset=&limit=5000

Why am I even here? Am I going to be sanctioned a second time for last time? Or because I defended myself against a retracted major evidence-free sockpuppet accusation?

I have literally zero idea why I'm being discussed today in the first place. What have I done? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You were named in the OP, which makes you one of the subjects, but if you want to think of yourself as uninvolved (a link which refers to admin actions, by the way) then see WP:VEXBYSTERANG: There's also no "immunity" for commenters. I have not considered any links about your behavior, other than the ANIs which establish a pattern. What I am considering is that you could and should have left a single reply in this thread: "I am not that TA, and I see no link between them and myself."

In my view, the problem here is that you've taken a minor provocation (a case of mistaken identity) and blown it up into a massive thread. That is the disruption, not any accusations of sockpuppetry. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, my apologies. I just want to be left alone by them; I genuinely feel like this one specific individual is closely monitoring my edits. If they're not, fine. Then they can simply not talk about me, ever, like I don't talk about them or look at whatever they're doing. I apologize for my initial insult, but given I was suddenly facing down a well-written and apparently non-contestable site ban accusation, that's why I was upset.

As to the other exaggregated claims, putting it mildly... they're made-up. But you know what, it's fine, because I got blocked last time I tried to defend myself against this individuals actions toward me. He can say whatever he wants. I don't care. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The only person who has mentioned a site ban in this discussion is you, right here. Blocks are not bans. Let's try to explain something here: accusations of sockpuppetry are not personal attacks. A lot of people get accused of sockpuppetry when they aren't socks. The vast majority get cleared and life goes on. The majority, quite possibly the vast majority, never know they have been accused of sockpuppetry because SPI does not have a notification requirement (for multiple good reasons). Your history is why the OP brought this to ANI instead of quietly filing a SPI. A response of "no, I am not this TA" would have more or less been the end of it. The entire reason this thing has dragged on so far is because you chose to lash out in response, and have continued to dig ever since. You say you want to be left alone and don't care. That's fine. Stop replying here. The fact you continue to reply indicates you do, in fact, care, and you are coming very close to talking yourself into an indefinite block for being not compatible with a collaborative project. It does not matter if you are 100% in the right and Guy is 100% in the wrong; being right is not enough. You have to be right and be within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In this very discussion you have broken several. If you truly want to be left alone and do not care, drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Consider the discussion I had above with EducatedRedneck. They asked "Are you following VPP, and if so, for what reason? If not, can you explain how you came to the GA noms they referred to?" Did I go berserk, start accusing them of persecuting me, and demand an apology? Did I call for them to be sanctioned for daring to ask such a question? I did not. That's because it was a completely reasonable question. So I gave an honest answer to the best of my ability. It never even occurred to me to become outraged. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Guy Macon, VPP is only being discussed here because you falsely accused them of being a TA you were edit warring with on an entirely unrelated topic (and you're seeking support in your edit war at this board below, which you know is not what AN/I is for). The constant of you getting into heated disputes is yourself, not LOUTSOCKING. You now characterise VPP's understandable upset at being dragged through the mud as "go[ing] beserk". It's obvious to me that you have an unhealthy fixation on VPP and so I believe you need an interaction ban if you can't stop following VPP. Just because you write calmly doesn't make your behaviour OK. Fences&Windows 13:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Evidence, please. Show some diffs supporting your assertion that I am "following VPP". If I was I would freely admit it because it is allowed. WP:FOLLOWING says that "correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Removing skeptical sources and pushing fringe theories is a good example of "related problems on multiple articles". So, while I could follow VPP around, I don't. I only address his pushing of fringe theories when it happens on pages I am already watching. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

F&W, It's obvious to me that you have an unhealthy fixation on VPP is WP:ASPERSIONS. Provide evidence or strike this statement please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and The Bushranger: ⛏⛑ I think part of the evidence is already here. Guy Macon says that he does not have any evidence of ~2026-44199-45 being Very Polite Person other than WP:DUCK, but then says that I don't want to file a SPI unless at least one other person sees the same pattern I see. The second paragraph at DUCK applies here: The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases. Unless there is evidence which proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, editors must assume good faith from others. (EM) Guy Macon had doubts, yet cited DUCK anyways and then started this section instead of going to SPI.

Going backwards, it seems like in May there was an issue between the two of them. Part of it goes back to the ANI discussion that Guy Macon linked to above. Very Polite Person wanted a one-way interaction ban on Guy Macon that didn't occur and that discussion led to Very Polite Person getting a two week block. During the block, Guy Macon goes to Very Polite Person's talk page and intentionally comments there. (And yes, Guy Macon went on to say that Very Polite Person is a good editor at the time, but it was still a bad idea in my opinion when Very Polite Person had already said a week prior that they wanted Guy Macon to stay away from them.)

During the block, Guy Macon would participate at the Good Article nomination of Field Propulsion that Very Polite Person started and posted a notification at the Fringe theories noticeboard regarding it. (This become relevant a few paragraphs from now.) In the end, the Good Article nomination ends up being withdrawn and ends unsuccessfully.

After the block expired, Very Polite Person went to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and started a discussion regarding expanding required notifications which can be seen here. Three days later, Guy Macon also goes to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for his own suggestion regarding ref tags on article talk page which can be seen here. Rewind thirty minutes prior to see where Guy Macon intentionally responded to Very Polite Person's proposal with references to their prior dispute. The last line in particular There is a benefit to having a calm discussion with editors who understand sourcing. Or COI. Or fringe theories appears to refer to the disputes at the Reliable sources noticeboard and the Fringe theories noticeboard. (I will note that I did not find a dispute between the two at WP:COIN with Guy Macon's last comment there being in April and the closest thing I could find in relation to COI was a few comments in the linked ANI discussion regarding it.)

A week following the village pump suggestions, Guy Macon gets involved in a discussion about the Field propulsion article that Very Polite Person was already involved in to accuse them of something (keeping UFO enthusiasts out of the article?) while bringing up multiple past quotes from them. The discussion would be archived with minimal discussion of Guy Macon's quoting and instead lead to Field propulsion going to AfD where Very Polite Person supporting keeping the article while Guy Macon would suggest deleting most of the article and merging the rest. (Around this time, both would end up participating in what ended up being called WP:SANGERBAN, so I will move onward.) With the AfD of Field propulsion ending in no consensus, but with a suggestion of a move discussion, we move into July with said move discussion. Both Very Polite Person and FaviFake agree early on to ping the participants of both the Good Article review and the Articles for Deletion discussion, with Very Polite Person doing it. As noted above, Guy Macon participated in both, which somehow leads to the following comment by Guy Macon: DO NOT PING ME!!! I do not want to have any interactions with you. The next time you do it you will be reported at ANI. Similar messages appear in the edit summary and at Very Polite Person's talk page. Guy Macon would go on to say the following: I want them to leave me alone. I would prefer that they not refer to me, accuse me, ping me, talk about me, reply to me, or in any other way attempt to interact with me. I never initiate any interaction, even when they edit or post to a page in an area such as fringe science where I typically edit. I don't even talk about them other than to respond when they attempt to interact with me, asking them to stop. Having them attempt to interact with my (historically this consists of accusing me of wrongdoing on article talk pages and noticeboards) and not seeing the notification isn't good enough. I do not want to have ANY interactions with them, including one-sided interactions where they are doing all of the interacting. This is the last thing I will say on this. If you want any further comments from me, email me. (EM)

Two days later, Guy Macon brings up Very Polite Person's Good Article nomination of Earthquake light at the Fringe theories noticeboard with the title: Earthquake light: The gritty reboot. Very Polite Person proceeds to ignore the discussion and it ends up archived with very few comments with those who commented not sharing Guy Macon's concerns.

Now in late July, we get to the Good Article nomination for Leik Myrabo that was started back in September 2025 and has been for the whole month of August up to this point been a discussion between Very Polite Person and the reviewer. That changes with Guy Macon's comment about UFOs on the 25th, which Very Polite Person proceeds to ignore.

At the end of July and going into August, both would get involved with the List of reported UFO sightings article with Very Polite Person and then Guy Macon both restoring a then recent edit. When the discussion moves to the talk page, Guy Macon gives a deadline of a day before he will remove the edit by self-reverting while adding the following: (To the person I don't want to interact with, feel free to object. I won't respond in any way). Guy Macon's message ends up requiring clarification by the user who was reverting, Hi Guy Macon. I think I was catched by the UFO CPPover. Hope you are not referring to me. Cheers. Very Polite Person proceeds to ignore this discussion with another user providing what Guy Macon wanted.

And that brings us to this week and near the top of my comment where Guy Macon claims at Talk:VeraCrypt that ~2026-44199-45 appears familiar and asks them if they have another account. ~2026-44199-45 literally says at the end "You've done it to me more than once because I don't have an account, so I seem vulnerable to you." (EM) This somehow leads to Guy Macon invoking DUCK, accusing two editors of being the same, and here we are. And there is still no specific reason that Guy Macon has provided for his claim of Sockpuppetry outside of his DUCK claim. It is not clear what language is similar between the two that Guy Macon had to invoke DUCK and bring it here. (Oh, and for the record, Very Polite Person has never edited VeraCrypt.) --Super Goku V (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Could someone please roll back VeraCrypt to an appropriate stable version from before the edit war and temporarily protect it? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Why? I accepted my mistake. Why can't you accept yours?

Instead of all those WPs and "per"s you throw at me, be human, be responsible, be a team worker.

• I anticipated that you won't like this change and misjudge it; you did it anyway.
• I isolated the will-be-disputed diff but your reverted every other change I made too, like I'm a bug in the system.
• I explained why you were wrong, You abandon discussing the subject altogether, go into wiki politics, become full evil lawyer, and then revert again, even though you know you're wrong, but "per WP:THIS and WP:THAT" /s. Your last act is coming to this ANIM place for forum shopping. Shouldn't you be going to some astroturfing investigation committee or something? (EDIT: Ah, yes, I remember. The astroturfing committee is called "SPI", same as the SPI memory bus discussed in the VeraCrypt article. I was wondering where I had heard SPI on Wikipedia. )

It's not crazy that you come off belligerent.

If you're wondering when was the first time you pulled this stunt on me, it was years ago, when the Magnificent Eight still edited Wikipedia, you know, ViperSnake151, Jamie Hanrahan ("Jeh"), etc. Then you've done it once a year or two, I suppose. I don't keep count. ~2026-44199-45 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Consider this a final warning: your next personal attack will result in a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I can offer you a much better deal than empty threats. (It's empty because my account is temporary. It expires anyway. And I'm not invested in editing Wikipedia.)

If you and Guy Macon want "personal attacks" (whatever you mean by that) to stop, he should stop treating people and their work so despicably, and optionally, start doing good work. He'll get respect instead. Reverting stuff just to say "No personal attacks" in the edit summary is disgusting.

But let me reassure you that as long as personal attack is the only relief for mistreated editors, they won't stop it, and you admins like you won't have a moment of peace. ~2026-44199-45 (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

What I mean by that is your references to astroturfing. There are lines editors who feel they have been mistreated are allowed to push in the name of venting. You stampeded over several, and now it sounds like you're saying you'll disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Take a deep breath, step away from Wikipedia, and get a nice cup of tea. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

If you don't want me to mention "astroturfing", don't accuse me of it. Guy Macon called me a "lout sock". That's rude. I've added a dictionary link just in case. If it's a personal attack, I'm the one being attacked, not the one doing it.

No, I will not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I'm saying others are doing that. We discussed things in the talk page. It is now quite apparent that people who revert me have neither reviewed my changes objectively nor care to do so. They have a crave for edit warring. Did you say something about crossing a line? What lines did I cross? I made an improvement and got reverted out of prejudice. ~2026-44199-45 (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it is not rude. It's standard Wikipedia phraseology. WP:LOUTSOCK. Either provide evidence of other editors edit-warring with prejudice or stop casting aspersions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

What an unfortunate coincidence. ~2026-45982-24 (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It is standard phraseology AND rude. It's a part and parcel of Wikipedia, whose standards are deliberately low. Wikipedia has rude policy titles (e.g., WP:HITLER), policy pages with rude or distasteful contents (e.g., WP:Don't assume), and outright discriminatory policies (e.g., WP:NFCC, which is a petty vendetta against the so-called non-free content disguised as something related to copyright). So, next time you thought just because something is standard here, it's not rude think again; if something's standard, it's probably rude.

Your standards of person conduct is no better. On your first communications with me ever, you use a threat. How depraved are you? Next, you use emotional blackmail ("editors who feel mistreated") and weasel word ("stamped over several"), followed by random platitudes like WP:POINT and "take a deep breath". And finally, the bastion of every troll, denial ("it's not rude" and "provide evidence", which I did, by the way). Let's not forget pretense, double-talk and double standard.

Others are not better. Weaponizing policy to deteriorate Wikipedia is the order of the day. There is even policy against it! That too is weaponized. The result: I come to the VeraCrypt article, fix a few grammatical mistakes, fix a date, remove an original research, convert a damaged list to a sentence, etc. Next thing I know, I'm accused of "dubious changes", being in league with Very Polite Person, committing personal attacks, and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. What I write in the talk page is conveniently ignored. Then you demand that I should be grateful that you let me vent! If you've done your job, I wouldn't need to. Instead, I'd stay calm while admins took care of a person who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. (See? I can use WP links too. After all, it's standard. /s)

You know what? I'm about to click "Exit session". Go ahead and block this dead shell of account if that makes you feel being the king of the world. I know my self-worth and the worth of my contribution. I know Wikipedia's net worth too. Its editor have defaced 1,813 featured articles! The incident with Guy Macon shows exactly why. ~2026-44199-45 (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the OP's accusations, your reaction (and VPP's for that matter) was entirely unacceptable and against policy; one of the five foundational policies in fact. Wikipedia:Godwin's law is not policy. "Don't assume bad faith" is not rude or distasteful content (and Wikipedia:Don't assume is, also, not policy). WP:NFCC is a legal policy. The only person being rude here is you, and you have established very clearly that while you may or may not be here to help build an encyclopedia, you are not compatible with a collaborative project. As for the rest of your rant, which boils down to "Wikipedia is dying and good riddance", Wikipedia has been declared to be 'dying' since at least 2004, and it wouldn't surprise me if the first claim of its imminent demise was made on 16 January 2001. Wikipedia is still here, regardless of whether you choose to continue to participate within policy or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

...and if you have a better suggestion for how to abbreviate Logged Out SOCKing that isn't "rude", then by all means feel free to suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Greetings,

Thank you for helping to keep the project accurate. You sure seem passionate, which is great.

Oft when a fellow collaborator seems distraught, I consider suggesting they read this, but I never actually end up making the suggestion.

Thanks again, Augmented Seventh (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Restrictions applied to temporary accounts do not expire when the account expires. A new temporary account would still be subject to the same sanction(s) or other enforcement policy/policies that were applied to the expired account(s). --Super Goku V (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Seeking support in an edit war is not what this board is for. Fences&Windows 13:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Evidence, please. Show the diffs where I edit warred. Show the policy that says that asking an uninvolved administrator to roll back a page to an appropriate stable version is "seeking support in an edit war". I get that you have a personal beef with me and like to show up on pages where I am participating to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, but doing that at ANI without any diffs to back up your accusations is ill advised. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you might want to step a bit back here. You have already come here to accused two editors of being sockpuppets of each other with limited evidence and now you are going after a third editor. (If you want policy, WP:STABLE is the essay that appears to cover the policy on this.) The Bushranger has already added FULL protection to the article and the article has reverted to your preferred version, so this part should be resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2026 (UTC) (Updated at 05:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC))

For the record, I did not revert the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

For the record, ...AHHHHHHHH.

Minerva P. Malveen was the one who reverted. Thank you for the correction. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm persuaded that a two-way IBAN between Guy and VPP would be a good idea. If there's a problem with VPP's behavior, Guy clearly isn't the person to deal with it. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mackensen I wouldn't oppose a two-way IBAN, but am unclear on where Guy Macon has demonstrated a pattern of disruption. Maybe I haven't paid enough attention to the right parts; could you share what persuaded you to have it be a two-way IBAN rather than one-way? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Seconded, especially given that both users have asked for the other to stop interacting with each other in one form or another in these last few months. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any IBAN on myself and request that if anyone wants one that they open a new ANI case requesting it. I have no public position on sanctioning VPP and have not called for any sanctions on this page.

I would also note that Fences&Windows, Mackensen, and Super Goku V have so far failed to provide a single diff showing me making a single disruptive edit (I am sure that a diligent search will find some -- I am far from perfect) much less a disruptive edit aimed at Very Polite Person. VPP's diffs appear to be content disputes in the areas of engineering or fringe science, mostly on pages I have been watching for years.

Alas, I also cannot say that I agree to voluntarily not interact with VPP. That would seem to be an obvious solution, but it turns out that if you do that you get additional hidden sanctions piled on you that nobody warned you about. You can't run for any elective WMF position. You cannot apply for a clean start. And, most important, I only found out about those by accident and have no idea what other restrictions I would be "volunteering" for. So all I can say is "search and try to find any VPP talkpage or noticeboard comment (after I figured out what their behavior pattern is) that I replied to. Try to find anything of VPPs that I reverted without a clear, policy based reason." From that you can figure out what my policy is towards interacting with VPP. But allowing them to claim that maglev trains are field propulsion or to delete skeptical sources about earthquake lights? If that's what you want, gather your diffs and open an ANI case asking for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you seem to be implying that we need an ANI case showing fault to apply an IBAN. There are no-fault IBANs. And you both want the other to stop interacting with yourself. I again quote you: I want them to leave me alone. I would prefer that they not refer to me, accuse me, ping me, talk about me, reply to me, or in any other way attempt to interact with me. I never initiate any interaction, even when they edit or post to a page in an area such as fringe science where I typically edit. I don't even talk about them other than to respond when they attempt to interact with me, asking them to stop." "Having them attempt to interact with my (historically this consists of accusing me of wrongdoing on article talk pages and noticeboards) and not seeing the notification isn't good enough. I do not want to have ANY interactions with them, including one-sided interactions where they are doing all of the interacting. This is the last thing I will say on this. If you want any further comments from me, email me.

If you do not want to have ANY interactions with them, then here is the chance to apply that. That is why I am supporting an IBAN between you both. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, your interactions with Very Polite Person is inconsistent with what you are saying above and have said since early July.

• July 2nd: You tell Very Polite Person that the next interaction they have with you is going to ANI.
• July 3rd: You make it clear that Very Polite Person is not to refer to you, accuse you, ping you, talk about you, reply to you, or otherwise interact with you. You imply that Very Polite Person is the one initiating interactions with you.
• July 4th: You post a discussion to FTN over your concerns regarding Very Polite Person's GA nomination of Earthquake light with a non-neutral title.
• July 25th: You suddenly show up to Very Polite Person's GA nomination review for Leik Myrabo with a random comment and source about UFOs that you admit cannot be added to the article.
• July 31st: You impose a 24-hour deadline before you undo the reverts of Very Polite Person and yourself at List of reported UFO sightings.
• August 21st: You bring Very Polite Person to ANI and claim that they are sockpuppeting with your evidence being language based, without providing any proof.
• August 23rd: You now claim that you have figured out "what their behavior pattern is" without any proof.
• Today, August 24th: You have continue to keep your claim above unstricken that Very Polite Person is sockpuppeting with still no proof provided about your DUCK claims regarding language and/or behavior.

Very Polite Person has been trying to ignore you as best as they can within reason in my view. You have not been helping with that when you claim you have concerns about Very Polite Person's GA nomination at FTN in the days after you tell them that their next reply to you will result in them being taken to ANI. You have not been helping with that when you go to Talk:Leik Myrabo/GA2 to randomly talk about UFOs. You have not been helping with that when you enforce Very Polite Person's restoration of an edit at List of reported UFO sightings, only to then say that you will revert it in 24 hours if you are not satisfied. You are not helping when you claim evidence of sockpuppeting without providing proof. You can try to convince me that this is one sided, but I am seeing otherwise. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

A note here that the 24th was incorrect as Guy Macon did withdraw the claims of sockpuppetry prior to the 24th which I missed. I have stricken that as a result of my mistake. I apologize to Guy Macon for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• I remember the Earthquake Lights fiasco. VPP was subjected to quite awful conduct then,* but was incapable of moderating their frustration culminating in sanction. Support a two-way 'no fault' IBAN. Guy Macon's sockpuppetry accusation against VPP here is vexatious and vacuous. To say that accusations of sockpuppetry are not personal attacks is also false. Evidence-free accusations of misconduct are aspersions and are, in fact, personal attacks. Commendations to Fences&Windows for their timely interjection that halted the direction this thread had been going in; equally so to Super Goku V for their thorough collection of evidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• '*'For clarity, I do not mean Guy Macon specifically here. There were several editors in that dispute that could have been blocked for disruption in that dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Claudiogostoso

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

For more than a year, User:Claudiogostoso has been making erroneous edits which eventually became disruptive as it was pointed out to him several times. Mostly it is related to statistics in goals/assists/disciplinary records of football clubs' seasons. I'm more dedicated to update SC Corinthians Paulista articles and since the 2025 Sport Club Corinthians Paulista season he has been doing it. The whole article history shows that in several edit summaries I made while reverting the incorrect updates. They consist of several updates ignoring alphabetical order in specific tables, as well as the numerical order.

At the same time, a lot of unregistered users did the same type of updates, including the same on purpose mistakes. I pointed it out to him here (in Portuguese as his nickname clearly reinforces our shared nationality), to which he denied knowing what he did was wrong and that he would watch out for it in the future (blatantly ignoring the fact that there were several summaries about it). And what happened? The unregistered users disappeared and only he continued the modus operandi. He kept doing it despite being reverted and having those complains listed on edit summaries of another season.

In addition, he has a recurring issue with communication on his talk page (reinforcing his behavior as something he does on purpose). When people point something out to him or gave an advice, he just blanks the page. I did a second direct message a couple days ago (the first one was in July 2025) and he did the same. Last night, he once again made the incorrect updates and I told him he would reported because of it. This was his response and he proceeded to blank the page.

He updates a lot of similar articles and I'm sure other issues have happened and/or are happening. As a matter of fact, I was approached by @Sakiv regarding those same problems. I'm sure he can vouch for it. Something must be done from an admin position to stop it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The user continues to make edits despite the discussion. Sakiv (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

And he did it again... Nothing has been done to stop him. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree, this user only seems to be interested in acting unilaterally towards their own vision of the encyclopaedia. They've clearly been informed about their disruptive conduct, and their blanking of their talk page can be taken as tacit acknowledgement of these warnings. A block seems warranted at this point. – PeeJay 13:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks, edit warring and possible (rather probable) sockpuppeting

Some time ago I reported here the user @Vitoria85 for personal attacks, disruptive editing and reference forging. Some admins noticed that this user looked very much like a sockpuppet and suggested me to report it, even though they also agreed that, because of timing issues, the investigation would have to be carried out behaviorally instead just running a CU. The user went inactive and, since I did not want to waste any more time on this issue, I let it slide. Now the user has returned and keeps displaying the same kind of behavior. This includes new personal attacks such as this comment and several edit summaries (, , , ) mimicking a previous edit of mine - as a form of mockery, I guess, for the summaries did not even make sense contextually. Additionally, I have spotted several new "mysterious" non-registered users (and some registered ones) that display the same behavioral patterns, agenda and editing habits as this user. I would like to request three things:

a) That some sort of warning be issued to this user. I'd prefer to edit Wikipedia without being insulted, much less by someone who won't even bother reading the references I provide for everything I write.

b) I would like to start a sockpuppeting investigation, but I would need it to be carried out in behavioral terms instead of just a CU. There are two reasons for this: 1) just as the admins told me (see above), the temporary accounts used by this user are currently out of range and 2) if my guessing is right (and I would say the evidence I collected is pretty conclusive), this user is an experienced sockpuppeteer that has been active for years; if they have been cautious enough, they will have avoided connecting from the same device/IP, etc.

c) Shall the edit-warring persist (they are particularly active in Valencian Community, Spain and Languages of Spain), I would like to request the intervention of someone able to stop it. Thank you. Glottonymia (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The correct venue for sockpuppet investigations is WP:SPI, so if you know how to, I would recommend opening a case there or adding evidence to a related previously opened one. Alternatively, you can contact a WP:CHK directly, but it would be their choice whether they investigate or not (most will or they'll send it to SPI anyway).

I don't know anything about the topic but WP:PA does include making unpleasant remarks against another editor's beliefs, which they've done here based on those diffs. The edit summary looks fine on its own, but if it was done to mock another editor, that is again an issue. There looks to be enough for a formal warning or temporary block on civility grounds. I recommend that you cease any further contact with this editor as well, as you've been involved throughout all of this so far. 11WB 💬 20:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @11WB, thank you for your response.

I'll open a case in WP:SPI, then.

Concerning WP:PA, I must add that this user had previously insulted me very explicitly (check the edit summaries in here: , , , , ) and that the user whom I suspect them to be a sockpuppet of had already been warned against attacking other editors (). As for the edit summaries I mentioned in my previous comment (, , , ), I do believe they were intended as a kind of mockery, insofar as they were just copies of one of my previous edit summaries and half of them made no sense contextually: this user urged me to answer some issues raised on the talk page, but by the time they made those comments no discussion on the relevant topics was open on two of the four talk pages they urged me to refer to (, ). I think there are sufficient grounds to grant a temporary block or at least a warning. Glottonymia (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

None of those diffs show edit summaries that could be deemed as insulting, they are generic reversion summaries. Of which, whilst neither of you have breached WP:3R, you have reverted each other repeatedly across articles. This is disruptive. I stand by what I recommended before, you should cease interacting with this editor entirely (pretend they don't exist and edit elsewhere). 11WB 💬 11:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

None of this seems insulting. I agree with 11WB here. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

AI usage by The Regulator 1

@The Regulator 1 has been using LLM-generated messages at @Sulfurboy's talk page (thread). They also left me an AI-generated message. The user has not been warned on their talk page but has been warned or notified at the relevant threads. I do also have concerns about AI-usage in articles as I have run some of the user's content through a detector and it came back as "polished". Also, Draft:Camtek has AI signs. Regardless of the content generation being of AI, I think the disingenuous usage of LLMs when asking for help from reviewers should be enough for something as a violation of etiquette. Also pinging @IrisChronomia for being involved with the thread who also might have more information than me. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The walls of passive aggressive text describing people of accusing [them] without proof that [they] used AI instead of a simple rejection of LLM use, is for me an immediate case of LLM loudly proclaiming that no LLM is being used. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 17:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

English is not my native language.

Because I am not a native speaker, I use Google Translate to help me fix my spelling.

If these reviewers consider using translation tools as "undisclosed LLM slop", then every non-native English speaker on Wikipedia is in danger of being banned.

I am a newcomer. I spent hours working hard to improve Draft:Camtek (a major Israeli company listed on the TA-35 index) by adding independent secondary sources. Instead of getting professional feedback, I was met with extreme hostility:

1. My draft was declined in just 2 minutes without any specific explanation.

2. When I asked politely what was wrong, User:Quxyz kept accusing me ("At least admit to using AI") and then threatened me with an ultimatum: "I am seriously considering dragging this to ANI for undisclosed LLM-usage unless you stop now".

3. When I expressed my human frustration about being called a robot, User:IrisChronomia jumped into a dispute that didn't involve them to hint that I wish to advertise Camtek and that Camtek is non-notable, and worst of all: attack my tone and call it "passive-aggressive", completely ignoring the explicit threats, bad-faith assumptions, and hostile ultimatums directed at me by User:Quxyz.

4. Both User:Quxyz and User:IrisChronomia openly admit to relying on unreliable "AI detectors" which are known to show false positives against non-native speakers.

Now they are ganging up on me here at ANI just because I defended my rights and asked for specific feedback on my sources. This is a clear violation of WP:THREATEN, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

Even after being bullied and threatened by User:Quxyz, I decided to:

a. Try to stay as professional as I can, address their feedback (although it stayed vague - I got a very high level and confusing explanation, as can be seen on the thread - and I still don't understand the reason why the draft was declined).

b. Stretch my hand out in peace, hoping to restart our relationship with mutual respect. Unfortunately, I just found out they chose to ignore this truce proposal and materialized their threat of "dragging me to ANI".

c. Step back for a few days to try to cool things down and to properly work on the article's depth.

I understand Wikipedia's LLM policies. But isn’t civility still part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars?

I am happy to take a break from submitting the draft. But I ask the administrators to protect new editors from this kind of gatekeeping and bullying just because our English is assisted by translation tools.

The Regulator 1 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Google Translate uses AI these days, so if you do use Google Translate, then you are using AI and the detectors and the other editors are accurate. The question is if you used AI appropriately or not. I don't think that all your statements are completely driven by AI as there are some grammatical errors that AI knows to avoid, but there are some weirdly specific sentences that AI likes to spit out.

The easiest way to resolve this uncertainty is to simply agree to not use LLMs at all anymore. If you're using LLMs properly on English Wikipedia, then you'd certainly be fluent enough to communicate constructively. We much prefer your own words with poor spelling than pristinely spelled AI words. If you don't have the English fluency to communicate constructively, then you wouldn't be eligible to use LLMs. The limited use of LLMs on English Wikipedia is as a time-saving device who editors who do not need to use LLMs, not for editors who need to use LLMs.

Also, there are no real private discussions on English Wikipedia outside of a very specific admin areas. An editor in good standing may participate in nearly every discussion if they communicate constructively. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

There are some AI humanizers that can make those grammatical mistakes systemically. I believe this reply is the most authentic voice of this editor based on tone and dialectical choices than AI does not do supported by the fact that GPTZero outputs a result of total human authorship.

Also, I think you are being too generous with this editor's word. Google Translate might pick more corporate or LLM-sounding words, but, as it is not an LLM, the formatting and content are coming from the editor. Further, there are simply too many signs to ignore. In this editor's writing are many, many lists of three, some miscited essays, guidelines, and policies (WP:THREATEN as an example), inconsistencies using certain grammatical rules (more human texts from this account drop the Oxford comma, for example, while obviously AI-generated ones use them, which is the standard in American English which most LLMs are based off of), some dashes, et cetera. A couple of these would not be of note; I often switch between American and British spelling, as an example. However, to paraphrase WP:NOPROOFOFAI, the fact that there are all of these signals that are distinctly used post-2023 and associated with LLMs probably means LLMs were involved.

Finally, I was also toying around with Claude (AI) and it uncannily spat out some of the exact talking points this editor has used. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Google Translate has used Gemini since December 2025. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Is it legitimately putting in an LLM into Google Translate? I am inclined to believe that it is just a marketing ploy to make Google Translate seem more forward to shareholders. Below, I translated a conversation on frwiki to English and I think it displays pretty well that Google Translate does (should) not inject that many LLM hallmarks outside of some grammatical changes necessary when changing from on language to another. Maybe Hebrew translation is different—I do not speak Hebrew—but I doubt it would be totally distinct.

Using Google Translate on this thread. See that page's history for attribution.

Four years into the conflict, this massive article (650 KB) gets bogged down in a day-by-day account of events; subsequently, due to waning interest or fatigue, it hasn't been updated in a long time. Before my intervention today, there was nothing on trench warfare, the unprecedented use of drones, or the destruction of infrastructure caused by bombing campaigns and long-range drone strikes by both belligerents. This article requires a great deal of work—volunteers are welcome.

What are the suggestions for improving the article?

We could move the information from the "Incidents at nuclear sites and impacts on nuclear safety" section to a detailed article. While that certainly isn't enough on its own, it would still save around 25 KB.

That suggestion seems interesting to me. I don't know if the English Wikipedia has an article on the subject of nuclear sites and their impact on nuclear safety. I can't recall. If it does, it could be useful to us.

✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it's really unclear whether it's on by default, what languages it applies to, whether it's rolled out to everyone, etc. But there's been at least one prompt injection found that seems to unambiguously confirm the presence of Gemini. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Both User:Quxyz and User:IrisChronomia openly admit to relying on unreliable "AI detectors" which are known to show false positives against non-native speakers

That's news to me. Never knew I have selective amnesia.

If English is not your native language to the point of preventing you from effective communication, you're editing the wrong Wikipedia. This is English Wikipedia. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 02:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Many non-native English speakers are perfectly fluent and use their own words to communicate here - including some of the same people you're arguing with. Claiming that any and all ESL speakers must use translation services in order to edit competently is blatantly false. As others have said, if your own fluency is not up to par for English Wikipedia you'd be better off editing at the wiki in your native language. I don't believe that to be the case, however. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by ~2026-41404-95

The TA has been submitting disruptive edits to multiple music related articles going back to July. They have already been blocked once for 1 week, for battleground behaviour, after they attempted to report me for hounding when I was trying to correct some of their edits.

• The TA tends to use a citation style which is similar to the examples displayed at WP:CIT, however they are adopting this in articles where the other citations do not follow the same style. I believe this is a WP:CITEVAR violation, although admittedly it is more of a formatting issue. They have reverted my edits explaining that their version of the citations are "better". When I have tried to correct other edits in the same articles, they have frequently reverted my edits without backing this up with clear or supported reasoning.

Possible WP:CITEVAR violations by the TA:

TA reverts edits based on personal preference:

• The TA consistently attempts to introduce citations after the mention of aggregate weighted scores in the prose. This seems to be specifically to explain how the scores are weighted by the aggregator, which is not common practice in album articles.

They add the citation inline after the word "weighted", and have removed the Template:Metacritic album prose from some articles so that they can manually type out the scores in the prose and add the citation, which I believe is a violation of WP:CITEKILL and WP:NPOV. The TA is assuming that readers will click on the link in the citation to read how the aggregators weigh the scores. Here the TA explained on another editor's talk page why they are doing this with questionable reasoning:

Attempts by the TA to cite aggregate score weighting:

It has been explained to them by at least one other editor why they don't need to do this.

• The TA has insisted on wording the aggregator website AnyDecentMusic? as Any Decent Music without seeking consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. They have rejected using the ADM parameter in the music ratings template, instead using the generic aggregator parameter so they can input the wording as "Any Decent Music". Examples of this: It has been explained to the TA by at least one other editor why they shouldn't be doing this.

On my talk page, the TA explained that they manually added the Any Decent Music aggregate score to the music ratings template without using the pre-set ADM parameter because they believe it should be worded as "Any Decent Music" instead of (in their words) the "obsolete stylisation" "AnyDecentMusic?".

The TA seems to be mistaken in thinking that other editors are criticising the material they have added to articles when the issue is actually to do with their editing style. This has caused an endless cycle of them deviating from editing policies, having their edits reverted or amended, and then them reacting with battleground behaviour rather than learning from their mistakes. Zirthes (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

In regard to your main points:

however they are adopting this in articles where the other citations do not follow the same style. I believe this is a WP:CITEVAR violation

You're interpreting what Wikipedia considers "citation style" differently than I am. My interpretation may be incorrect, and I tried to have a discussion with you about this on your talk page back in late July, but your responses personally felt like you weren't open to considering my point of view.

The TA consistently attempts to introduce citations after the mention of aggregate weighted scores in the prose. This seems to be specifically to explain how the scores are weighted by the aggregator

Not how they are weighted, but that they are weighted. Why should readers just trust that Any Decent Music, for example, uses a weighted average, unless the article shows how this is known?

The TA has insisted on wording the aggregator website AnyDecentMusic? as Any Decent Music

Yes, because "AnyDecentMusic?" is a) not used by the website in text any more and b) is a violation of MOS:TM anyway.

without seeking consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums

I tried to start a discussion about this on the talk page of the music ratings template back in March. Still no response from anyone.

If any admins have questions, please let me know. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

To respond to your counterarguments in simple terms:

• I don't recall you trying to have a discussion about the citation style on my talk page, and if you did it was undermined by your battleground-y behaviour. Besides the WP:CITEVAR issues, the most common citation formatting style is to have each field on the same line, because this take up less space in the article's source and makes editing easier for everyone.
• You do not need to add a citation to support that the aggregate scores are weighted or how they are weighted, because this is self-explanatory through the word 'aggregate' which means "a whole sum, total, or mass made by combining smaller parts or amounts together". It already says in the prose and the music ratings template that ADM and Metacritic are aggregated scores.
• Even if you have attempted to reach consensus on the wording of ADM, like you said there was no response. Therefore, you should not be taking it upon yourself to word things a certain way when that has not been supported by the outcome of a consensus. Please take some time to read WP:CON to understand how seeking consensus works.

Zirthes (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't recall you trying to have a discussion about the citation style on my talk page, and if you did it was undermined by your battleground-y behaviour.

I don't see how you can make this kind of judgement about a conversation you don't remember ever happening.

You do not need to add a citation to support that the aggregate scores are weighted or how they are weighted, because this is self-explanatory through the word 'aggregate' which means "a whole sum, total, or mass made by combining smaller parts or amounts together". It already says in the prose and the music ratings template that ADM and Metacritic are aggregated scores.

Aggregated average scores are not necessarily weighted averages. The Rotten Tomatoes average score is not a weighted average, for example, while Metacritic's and Any Decent Music's averages are weighted. I first explained this to you on 29 July 2026 on the edit-warring noticeboard. I have also explained this to you on your talk page and here at AN/I in a different thread. This is one of many issues in which you refuse to acknowledge the things I say to you.

Even if you have attempted to reach consensus on the wording of ADM, like you said there was no response. Therefore, you should not be taking it upon yourself to word things a certain way when that has not been supported by the outcome of a consensus. Please take some time to read WP:CON to understand how seeking consensus works.

No. I'm allowed to make edits on this website without going through a long and bureaucratic process over every little thing.

---

I want to be left alone now. I reported you for disruptive edit-warring in 29 July 2026, for which you were warned. Shortly after, you started declining my edit requests and following me onto other editors' talk pages to tell me that I'm not allowed to discuss interpretation of policy, which inspired me to report you here at AN/I for hounding my edits. You then filed a retaliatory AN/I report of me for "disruptive editing" which contained so many false statements that I still never got around to refuting them all because I was waiting for an admin to step in and ask questions. Instead, you ramped up the obsessive following of my edit history, turned the thread against me to the point of editors elsewhere on Wikipedia scolding me for "being the subject of an AN/I thread", and eventually an admin came in and banned me for a week while refusing to elaborate on their decision per WP:ADMINACCT. Now, only a day after I return to editing, you've brought me back to AN/I with another report. You're also having a conversation on your talk page with a user who was heavily involved with my hounding report in which you're both discussing how best to present this report to get me banned again. You have left me in tears several times over the past month. Please stop. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

You did not notify me and now accuse me of discussing how best to present this report to get [you] banned again. That is not accurate, as the diff will show; I was discussing how to shorten the report to make it easier for others to read. I'm also pinging @Voorts as you are alleging they have failed WP:ADMINACCT, despite them explaining to you on your talk page and stating, I believe I have satisfied my obligations under WP:ADMINACCT. I have no comment on the merits of this report, as its subject is outside my wheelhouse.

I have also advised separately that both editors stop responding to each other, and answer questions from uninvolved editors, instead, to prevent this thread from ballooning like the last one and prevent any WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

You did not notify me and now accuse me of "discussing how best to present this report to get [you] banned again".

Are you implying that that is unacceptable behaviour? You didn't notify me (or this thread) that you helped write the report. I consider that pretty important to disclose. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

In light of what happened on the previous hounding report, I won't be responding to any further comments on this report from the TA while I wait for input from an administrator on my initial discussion. If the TA has anything they want to raise in relation to my ongoing edits they can do so on my talk page or on the article's talk page where I have made the edit and those instances can be discussed there. Zirthes (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting that this appears to be the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior they were previously blocked for. As always, I'm available if any uninvolved editors would like me to answer a question or respond to something. I won't continue the back-and-forth with the TA as it seems to encourage said battleground behavior. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in battleground behavior. Your replies closely resemble that of this account. I will not engage further. HypnoBlader (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I would like to point to this talk page conversation. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Really does not sound like disruptive editing, just a disagreement Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Editor not communicating

Richardh1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) last edited their talk page in July 2024. Since then they have edited various talk pages for various purposes, but despite 37 edits to their own talk page, including numerous pings and even a content dispute which they failed to even acknowledge, they haven’t once touched their own user talk. They also don’t seem to be changing how they’re editing in response to message on the talk page, so I’m honestly thinking they’ve started to go WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

I don’t want to lose a productive editor - however, an editor that refuses to communicate with fellow editors who are trying to discuss concerns, however minor, with them isn’t necessarily productive on a collaborative project. Is there a way we can break the WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Realistically, an article space block, with a link to this discussion in the block notice, might be the only way. I'm not familiar with this user so I can't comment on whether their misbehaviour is a choice or whether it's due to a genuine lack of awareness as to their mistakes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Normally I’d support an article space block immediately, but given this editor is usually productive I’m in two minds… but communication is rather key in a collaborative project, so perhaps if it really is the only way? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the key would be to phrase the block message in a non-punitive way (because it's not a punishment, we'd be doing the block because it's the only way to get their attention) and making it clear that the block can be lifted once they engage with us satisfactorily. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Support block until communication grapesurgeon (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

How are they going to communicate if they'll be blocked though? Gigman (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Article space block. They'd still be able to edit discussion pages. grapesurgeon (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose block - very few of those messages seem like things an average editor would assume needed to be responded to so I think a block would be too hasty here. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

What would be the alternative to get them to communicate then? grapesurgeon (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, waiting a bit. From what I can tell on their talk page, this is the first time they've been directly asked/told to communicate - and given WP:AGF, we should assume that they didn't realize they needed to respond - a partial article-space block would be too harsh for this in my opinion Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

danners430 clearly asked them to communicate earlier this month, no reply and functionally ignored grapesurgeon (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't notice that - deep within a header. I still OPPOSE block, however, because he doesn't seem to even be active right now and thus have any chance to respond to this pre-block (last log was the day before this incident was posted, and he doesn't seem to have been very active the days before that). If he doesn't respond here by maybe the 30th, then I'd consider it as an option. for now, no. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

But that’s literally the purpose of an article space block - so that when they do log back in, they’re prompted to discuss the issues at hand, upon which they’d be unblocked if they agree to communicate Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Bear in mind all that’s being proposed is a partial block from article space to be lifted as soon as they start communicating Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:15, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

진화되영 - very experienced editor but zero communication, unwilling/unable to cite sources, continued creation and restoration of unsourced content

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

This user has edited here for 4 years on a semi-regular basis but doesn't seem to have ever engaged on a talk page. Until this year, that wasn't necessarily an issue, but their behaviour has become a bit more disruptive starting with a few weeks ago. Their main interest seems to be football goalscorer lists but, for reasons unknown, they don't cite any sources. The articles tend to also be non-notable, by long-standing consensus, unfortunately.

Example 1: List of FIFA Intercontinental Cup goalscorers

• 14 Aug - created as unsourced and was draftified to Draft:List of FIFA Intercontinental Cup goalscorers with a user talk message
• 15 Aug - created exactly the same as unsourced and draftified again to Draft:List of FIFA Intercontinental Cup goalscorers 1, user talk message given
• 15 Aug - created unsourced for 3rd time and sent to AfD and deleted after 8 days
• 23 Aug - a few hours after AfD deletion, this is created identical and unsourced for a 4th time and deleted again via a speedy delete

Example 2: List of FIFA Club World Cup goalscorers

• 14 Aug - previously deleted and redirected at AfD, this user reverts the redirect and creates an unsourced list
• 22 Aug - after 7 days at AfD, consensus is to redirect
• 23 Aug - reverts the redirect with no explanation

Example 3: List of FIFA Women's Champions Cup goalscorers

• 16 Aug - creates unsourced article despite previous warnings
• 23 Aug - after a couple of delete !votes are registered at the AfD, they remove the AfD tag and unreferenced tag without any edit summary to explain why. 'Unreferenced' tag should only be removed if you add a reference...

Today, I gave them a final warning about creating unsourced articles, after which they created another unsourced article, List of FIFA Women's Club World Cup goalscorers, and removed an AfD tag.

Please can someone have a word with this user? They've gone without communication for too long, imho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that their username is Korean although I don't know if that means it is their nationality or first language. Often when editors pass on talk page use, I consider whether or not they are not confident in their English abilities. But after 4 years, I agree there should have been some instances of editor-to-editor communication. It seems like we get a lot of these editors who want to work on articles and drafts but avoid interactions with others. I think it is too soon to draw conclusions here but I've seen some editors in the past go to great lengths to avoid interacting with others to the point of abandoning their account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

If anyone here is proficient in Korean, it may be worth trying to communicate on their talk page in Korean and explaining why they need to add sources and respect AfD consensus etc. The cynical side of me does seem to think that they probably know they're behaving inappropriately when removing maintenance templates, AfD tags and reverting redirects back to articles, though.

Their behaviour is very reminiscent of User:대한민국 헌법, who had the same areas of interest and the same reluctance to communicate, although they did very occasionally use talk pages. They were indeffed not long before this new account joined Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm a Korean speaker, but imo they know what they're doing and language barrier is not the issue.

I'd support a block from mainspace editing if they do not participate in this discussion and acknowledge feedback grapesurgeon (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I would agree. A mainspace block may be what they need, seeing as they've not communicated before, and communication is important for collaboration. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - just noting that this user only edits on weekends so, hopefully, the first thing they do this weekend will be to contribute to this discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Eggpot continuously performs cut-and-paste moves from drafts, ignores talk page warnings

I have been working on Draft:Serena Joy (song). Eggpot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has performed a cut-and-paste move, creating Serena Joy (song). I left the standard warning on their talk page, but I now see from their talk page that they have a history of doing this and ignoring the warnings. They have also created several articles via Articles for creation submissions, so it's not like they have no familiarity with the process of drafts. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

[EDIT] I'm amending my original comment because, as has been made clear from some of the replies, my careless description of this situation as a "cut-and-paste move" was misleading. Here is the draft at 19:08 UTC, 23 August. Here is the article being created from the redirect at 19:55 UTC, 23 August. As can be seen, there are several significant differences, but there are also a handful of parts that make it difficult to believe Eggpot had no knowledge of the draft when creating the article. Then, two minutes later, Eggpot makes this edit in which the exact same release history table as in the draft (with one exception) appears in the article. I also didn't make clear enough in this original comment that part of my concern is that some things that I considered okay to include because they were in a draft (e.g. "Unknown" in the release history table) were also in the article, and that this bypassing of the draft process can create problems like that. Bizarrely, there is one way in which the release history table was different, which was that the citation in the "reference" column had been replaced with a different citation from the same publication that didn't relate the table at all. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I did not notice your draft and made the article thinking there was no draft. It was only a second after I uploaded that I saw the draft article was all the way up there and that's my fault. Eggpot (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

How do you miss the large notice?

There is a draft of this article at Draft:Example. If you are writing about the same topic, please do not create an article here. Instead, edit the draft and then publish it once it is ready.

It's shown both on the empty page and when you go to create it above the editor. That with the obvious copying as shown below makes me think that it really is a behavioral issue here. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett @Johnuniq @Nil NZ Pinging everyone who has weighed in on the "Did Eggpot know about the draft?"-aspect of this thread because I've now amended my original comment with further clarifications and evidence that I really should have included the first time around. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It just looks like an unfortunate coincidence – Eggpot's article is not a replica of your draft, so can't have been a cut-and-paste move. Considering the song was released two days ago, it's not surprising that two editors have unintentally created two versions at the same time. In solidarity, nil ^nz 08:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Eggpot: How do you "notice" a draft? Why is some text in the article identical to that in the draft (example: Rodrigo released five hundred copies of "Serena Joy" on compact disc exclusively at Analog Record Shop<!-- incorrectly called Analog Music Shop in several sources -->)? Why are there multiple warnings at User talk:Eggpot regarding copy/paste? Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I missed the hidden note and agree that it is concerning, along with the similarities of that paragraph as a whole in the first revision of the article:

−

Draft: Rodrigo released five hundred copies of "Serena Joy" on [[compact disc]] exclusively at Analog Record Shop<!-- incorrectly called Analog Music Shop in several sources --> in [[Tustin, California]], also in support of the festival. The store reported later that night that all copies had sold out. The song is expected to be released in other formats three days later.

+

Article: Rodrigo released five hundred copies of "Serena Joy" on [[compact disc]] exclusively at Analog Record Shop<!-- incorrectly called Analog Music Shop in several sources --> in [[Tustin, California]], in support of her [[Daisy Chain Fields]] festival. The store reported later that night that all copies had sold out. The song is expected to be released in other formats three days after the compact disc release.

In solidarity, nil ^nz 03:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I see now that my post wasn't very clear. I shouldn't have implied the articles are identical, but I also have trouble believing the non-draft was created coincidentally, given that they both contain the very specific phrasing and formatting It was released as a [[charity single]] via [[compact disc]] on August 21, 2026, and is expected to be released in other formats on August 24, 2026. as well as the identical "Release history" section. My report is more about my concern that this user consistently ignores the "there is a draft; don't create a separate article" pop-ups as well as talk page warnings from various users about doing this exact thing. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with ~2026-41404-95 that the articles ought to be merged and the efforts of those who have worked on the draft article shall not be ignored. I don't think it makes any sense that our contributions should be excluded from the article history/authorship curation just because we have decided to honor Wikipedia's notability guidelines and policies like WP:TOOSOON by keeping it in draftspace, and I hope we can come to have more clear guidelines that mandate such drafts have to be merged into the final article regardless of presence or absence of cut-and-pasting.--NØ 03:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The wider interaction of TOOSOON with the 'prestige' of a new article has always been a source of complexity (it can't even be solved in the small matter of ITN nominations), but in the case of a draft cut-and-pasted somewhere else we should histmerge due to attribution alone. IP-95 appears to have effectively done a content merge already through their edits on Serena Joy (song), so the only question here is technical. CMD (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Just jumping in to say that MaranoFan here (whose username displays as "NØ") is the original creator of the draft. A lot of my expansion of the draft was built upon the phrasing that they laid down in their first couple edits. The mention of the previous charity single "Purple (Happy Version)" was originally by them, and they also established the vertical citation templates now used in the article. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Any editor here at AN/I being able to perform the history merge would be greatly appreciated. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thecatdennis

Thecatdennis (talk · contribs), seemingly the subject of Cathy Dennis, has been removing sourced information from said article for eleven years now, ignoring multiple warnings. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Seasider53 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Two issues:

First issue, blatant COI editing. Thecatdennis needs an indefinite block with an offer to reevaluate the block if they can convince an admin that they are willing to follow the rules for COI editors.

Second issue: Basing a section in a biography on a garbage source like

• Was Britney Spears's pop song Toxic written about Irish Supervet? Noel Fitzpatrick returns for 14th season to heal a distraught couple’s grotesque fur-child --Irish times

Is a clear violation of WP:BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The Irish Times is scarcely a "garbage" source; it's Ireland's newspaper of record. Ravenswing 13:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Riiiight. Home of hard-hitting fact-filled journalism like The consequences of a hard Brexit for an importer/exporter like Santa: Santa will have to use the door because after the Tories relax the child labour laws the chimneys will be crammed with urchin chimneysweeps and little matchgirls. Pull the other one. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

And I'm sure I can find some lurid headlines out of the New York Times, given enough time to dig. Do you have a genuine point to make? Ravenswing 13:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

And even if it wasn't, since it's only sourcing the fact that Dennis co-wrote "Toxic" (not the entertaining speculation about who it was written about), there are dozens of other sources anyway (i.e. , which also mentions that Dennis gets 50% royalties out of the four songwriters). Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with a claim that Dennis co-wrote "Toxic" cited to a reliable source. Using a source that clearly fails WP:BLPRS to support the only entry in a personal life section being about someone she once dated fails WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Even if the editor is Dennis, Dennis is a Grammy winner, for pity's sake. Any genuine stalker doesn't need Wikipedia to get the town in which she was born sixty years ago, or the guy she dated twenty years ago (as if her claims that those two facts have a material effect on the issue hold any more water than a sieve); these are items of public record. She's had -- and has -- far too prominent a public life to scrub away the parts she doesn't want people to see. Ravenswing 13:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

For now at least, I've blocked the user from editing Cathy Dennis and the related discography article; they may make edit requests to argue why the content they are keen to remove shouldn't be there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think more action needs to be taken than this. If they are genuinely C. Dennis, then they should be able to voice their concerns. I think they should be taught how to do it properly too, because they seemed confused. No offense intended to anyone, but older people do struggle with the internet sometimes, so it is helpful to walk them through it.

Speaking for us 'older people', I quite agree. And none taken. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

<senile cackle> Especially those older editors who were programming computers before the Internet was even thought of.</senile cackle> Narky Blert (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

If you remember who Cathy Dennis is, there's no need to prove your age any further frankly. Gigman (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't remember her, because her success came well after my time. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would impersonate this singer to remove personal details. It seems like they are who they claim to be. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Four things :

1) If a section on personal lives and relationships isn't important to a biography (eg: Brigitte Macron is married to the President of France and is ... quite a bit older) then if in doubt, leave it out. I don't dispute the block, but I think an explanation that we're not complete ogres over BLP wouldn't go amiss.

2) I sort of agree with Guy Macron Macon, a single newspaper (even broadsheet) source isn't good enough for listing non-notable family members, it really needs to be something stronger like an authorised biography.

3) Seasider53 "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia." Of course she isn't, she's here because she doesn't like being libelled elsewhere, and assumes Wikipedia's got something to do with it. This essay is worth reading.

4) I've got a recording of me performing "Can't Get You Out of My Head" in the style of Kevin Ayers ... must dig it out and have a listen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It isn't that deep. Someone took care of the problem. Seasider53 (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, but we can't really solve the actual problem. This editing is a symptom of her having her identity stolen as she believes the details came from Wikipedia. Sadly for her, what she want excluded isn't covered by WP:BLPPRIVACY which would otherwise cover this. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

hi

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

---

Hi, can you take a look at the page list of tatars one user do edit war and cant cannot accept that they have tatar origin. King kral 1 (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Both users blocked for edit warring. --Yamla (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Reywas92 - Repeated civility failings, aspersions, and refusal to take responsibility for their edits

Reywas92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has slowly becoming more problematic over the last few months in their edits on the Aviation WikiProject. As many editors on this noticeboard will be well aware of, there's long been a problem with the standard of sourcing on these articles, which myself and various other editors have slowly been cleaning up. Reywas92 seems to be dead-set against such efforts, routinely restoring swathes of content with the bare minimum of sourcing. I've never complained about this, and never will, as a single reliable source which verifies a large amount of content is infinitely better than no source at all, and improving sourcing is what my goal has been.

However, more recently their edits have taken a more problematic turn, with extremely WP:POINTY edit summaries , and in two cases restoring a huge number of unreliable sources in their rush to revert myself . Those unreliable sources include flight trackers (agreed as WP:SYNTH at RSN ), sources which were 404 pages on addition, booking engines, and airline homepages (which of course don't verify anything...). When I attempted to discuss these issues with them and the other editors involved, their response has been to fling aspersions and insults towards myself, refusing to recognise that it's a normal activity for recent changes patrollers to remove content which was added without a supporting source, and refusing to take responsibility for the restoration of large numbers of problematic sources. Just a few of the recent messages, which effectively show it's nearly impossible to actually discuss content without them starting to comment on other editors, as this list includes nearly every single reply they've made across three talk pages:

• You deleted accurate information! It is a pain for you to make more work for everyone, including yourself, by reverting and removing appropriate content. Booking engines and flight trackers are not bad sources! What is bad is deleting the content altogther when it is trivially easy to be verified. Again, stop pretending this is complex or controversial content! Add more cn tags, but stop deleting things unless you believe they are wrong.
• ... stop pretending that you need to be the cop enforcing it this way. There are sources and this content is easily verifiable, if not already verified by sources already in the page. You make this so much harder for everyone by artificially limiting sources that can be used even when they are perfectly reliable for straightforward, uncontroversial content.
• You are overzealous about limiting what actually verifies content and removing information rather than simply tagging or adding an alternative source.
• ... You make this so much more complicated than it is. Stop making more work for yourself and everyone else as if this were controversial or potentially harmful or something.
• It is such a massive pain to manually fix the mess you make by deleting accruate, verifiable information.

They also previously made a long comment on my talk page, which included this - ... Why don't you be useful...

It's worth noting that on both of the articles where they recently restored bad sources, they had never edited those articles prior to reverting my removals. The same previously happened at Bratislava Airport where they reverted having never previously edited the article. This does point somewhat to them stalking my edits, which is rather concerning, although there may well be an innocent explanation for this.

I've said to them previously that I have no issues with them improving sourcing across the WikiProject, the reasons for this hopefully being obvious. However, I very much draw a line when they start restoring swathes of problematic content and refuse to take responsibility for it, and start throwing out accusations and POINTY edit summaries. As a veteran editor with over 80k edits, they should absolutely know better than to send some of the messages they've been sending, and they should be well versed with the literally perfectly normal practice of reverting unsourced edits, a practice which they seem to have taken umbrage to. At this point, given messages like ... Why don't you be useful... or It is such a massive pain to manually fix the mess you make..., I feel like some kind of admonishment is needed, and for Reywas92 to take a step back and recognise that Wikipedia has policies in place, and editors following such policies shouldn't be the subject of repeated attacks. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Danners has repeatedly been deleting accurate information from articles to the annoyance of numerous editors. It is creating a lot of work to restore deleted content that is easily verifiable. The airline destinations in these tables are straightforward, uncontroversial information, but rather than adding sources to improve the articles, Danners has often removed them altogether in large-scale edits that are hard to parse and restore to its original state with improvements. I acknowlege that a couple of my recent edits restored some less-than-optimal citations in addition to the verifiable content, but when there are other sources that do in fact reliably verify information, Danners has nevertheless removed them and the information rather than improving the pages with more and better sources. As I pointed out on talk pages, these sources are not in fact the site covered by the linked RSN and do otherwise verify the information, and I believe this is making things more complicated than they need to be. The innocent explanation to my edits is that I want these articles to be more complete and accurate – my edit to the Brataslava article was an improvement that restored accurate content that Danners deleted and I added sources that verified it – I addressed his concern with the page! I request that Danners consider checking whether information is correct or not before removing it, and adding sources rather than simply reverting or deleting those he doesn't like. I appreciate his work patroling airport-related articles, but many of his edits are reverting good changes rather than implementing improvements. Reywas92^Talk 16:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know how often I’ve pointed out to you that not only is reverting unsourced additions a normal recent changes patrol activity, it’s explicitly permitted by policy - I even quoted the section of WP:V which supports that. Removing unsourced content which has languished in articles for years is also supported by that policy. These articles have been so poorly sourced for so long that they’ve been overdue a cleanup for a long, long time. It’s also worth stating that this has been litigated to death in previous ANI filings, with the result being the same - no policy is being breached, and unsourced content has no place on Wikipedia. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm saying to use some common sense and think about what will actually improve the article – just deleting accurate, longstanding content because it's technically permitted does not improve the article, and you could work on adding some of those sources yourself! Adding general sources can also easily address the cleanup issues, and it's "languishing" because it's not causing problems when it's correct. It's unverifiable content that has no place on Wikipedia, and we would be better off if you added that verification instead of simply deleting everything on sight. You literally just got blocked for edit warring to delete information when, sure, the IP adding it didn't include a source, but it was trivial for another editor to find one (and me to add general sources that also verified it) because the IP was actually helping with accurate content! When I patrol recent changes I try to assess whether something is correct or not and perhaps help with any additional changes or sourcing that would make the article better before reflexively reverting. Reywas92^Talk 17:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

What you think is common sense isn't what anyone else might consider to be common sense. See WP:NOCOMMON. Imploring Danners430 to provide sources for material other people added runs afoul of WP:BURDEN. It's a bit absurd to expect one editor to add material they think is correct and then force another editor to play 'Where's Waldo' to go about the Internet trying to find the source they used for the information they've added. No, the burden lies with the editor who adds the material, per WP:V policy. As for "not causing problems when it's correct"; if it's not sourced, then how do you or anyone else know it's correct? Not only is Danners430 not out of line for removing this material, your admonition that he has to provide sources is completely out of sync with policy. If you don't want Danners430 to remove material, don't chastise them for it. Instead, go and find sources for the material you want to add or be kept. That's your burden, not Danners430's. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

That's "Where's Wally" for our British editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

This is making me feel peely-wally. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Cries in currently-sunburnt ginger Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It continues to baffle me how the people adding this unsourced stuff start screaming when it's removed entirely cromulently. If you added it, then you clearly have the source right there that you added it from, right? ...right? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

He was blocked, correctly, because he misunderstood what edit warring was. If you know where all the sources are, so why aren't you adding them? CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 04:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)