A bizarre one - random IPs (which I suggest are linked due to their similarities, such as majority being in Brazil and use of wording e.g. 'old age' etc.) making only one edit of vandalism, changing words and infobox parameters (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) - any idea what is going on?! GiantSnowman 12:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paki ain't a bad word 46.56.250.117 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a new IP shows up to make this comment suggests a single user hopping IPs. Might need to see if a rangeblock will do more good than harm. —C.Fred (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are they even talking about? I notice most of the IPs in the OP are flagged as open proxies. I haven't really looked further. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they're running random words through a translator, leading to either awkward English in the pose or broken parameters in infoboxes. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, I got more IP blocks than an advanced Lego set.

Deal with it 46.56.250.117 (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please deal with the sock threat.14.162.206.244 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edgelord behavior. "i am a badass hacker" type edginess grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a 'bad word' see Paki (slur). Is this just going to be ignored? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Paki" is a filthy word in England, in pretty much the same way as the N-word is every English-speaking country. Narky Blert (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Truly vile, I'm not sure that's understood outside the UK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted a bunch of these, looks like someone using a thesaurus without a brain attached, it did strike me as possibly an AI bot of some kind. DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked for edits flagged as 'very likely bad' and 'likely bad' in recent changes and there are hundreds of similar edits in this time period. Same pattern. Mellk (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clocked two incidents of this today. It's replacing with synonyms... but not necessarily synonyms for the usage at hand. The first replaced the infobox parameter "parent" with "raise", which would make sense if we were talking about a verb (parenting a child), but not the noun (and certainly not as a parameter name.) The second replaced "state" with "express", which is fine if you're stating a preference but not if you're California, as was the case. So I'm not sure this takes AI level of smarts (as weak as that may be.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted a bunch of these from around 6 hours ago, filtering for "likely have problems" IP edits. Can corroborate that it seems to be replacing random words with synonyms inappropriate to the context + breaking infoboxes. Weird Abasteraster (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to favor certain word substitutions, i.e. years -> old age. Also noticing a pattern of it sometimes inserting words, like "language" after "German" or "English", where it's unnecessary or doesn't make sense. Abasteraster (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides breaking infoboxes, they are also breaking wiki markup and introducing lint errors, for example changing </small> to </weeny>. I cleared several dozen of them earlier today. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits seem to span from about 10:20 to 11:00 GMT. Is there a way to nuke these edits? Mellk (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted every edit flagged as 'very likely bad' and 'likely bad' that wasn't already reverted (there were several hundred). I suspect a number of their edits slipped through. Mellk (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the same person but there is an IP hopper engaging in the same kind of vandalism at Slavs. Mellk (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now Great Turkish War. Mellk (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now Nikolai Zaremba and Eaglehawk Football Club a few minutes ago Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 17:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear now this is the same person. Mellk (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Now recent changes is flooded with their edits starting at 17:54 GMT. Mellk (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wack-a-mole, but I just protected the last two articles. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's now random articles. It's non-stop. tony 18:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred those edits seem to be triggering filter 1367, which also contains false positives. Looking at the AbuseLog seems to help catch most of it. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're back on my watchlist, see e.g. this. GiantSnowman 18:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are making dozens of edits every minute. If this continues every day then we are in trouble. Mellk (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I requested enabling CAPTCHA to the edit filter at WP:EFN so it hopefully slows down the disruption. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen this technology before, hopping IPs and making edits that quickly?! GiantSnowman 18:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the edits did not trigger any edit filter but that seems like a good idea. Mellk (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to 1367 (hist · log), I originally had it set to captcha but there are simply too many false positives. The point of 1367 is simply to gather data on different proxy types using the IPReputation variables which we can then use to make more specialized actions. That is the reason 1367 is currently log-only, as opposed to a captcha/warning/disallowing action. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the moment 1367 is the most efficient means we have of dealing with most of the edits by this bot, so maybe it needs to be temporarily repurposed until a better method is put into place. Acroterion (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back at it again. Lynch44 18:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is getting a bit ridiculous. Obviously this is some form of a macro/bot hoping between different addresses rapidly and making edits, sometimes without the edit filter picking them up as problematic. This is starting look less like a single actor doing a bit of trolling and more like a coordinated cyberattack of sorts in a less threatening-looking package. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked my watchlist and noticed vandalism from various IP addresses around the same time. This looks to be the same person since some changes they made are similar e.g. changing "Moscow" to "Russian capital" here and here. Here are also other examples.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

These edits were made within minutes of each other and they edited under a different IP each time (all of which have only one edit). These IP addresses geolocate to places all over the world and do not come up as a proxy via Proxy Checker but I suspect some kind of IP hopping is going on here. They may have vandalized other articles but I am not sure how to find the rest of the damage. Mellk (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk:, this is the same as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP word vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're probably right. Mellk (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an IP-hopping vandal changing 'small' tags today. I have fixed about ten of them in articles. Here is a link to a few reverts. I am not sure how to report an IP hopper, since AIV takes only single addresses in its template. The editor is changing words into synonyms. See the page history at Glyphicnemis, Ceratostigma, Listed buildings in Wombourne, Kessleria, and Entandrophragma utile. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP:ANI#IP word vandalism to me. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing a rash of random IP editors each making one or two no-edit-summary edits with small size changes that replace words in articles, often by synonyms, sometimes by total vandalism. Examples: [8] [9] [10]. Anyone have any ideas how to prevent these, other than being vigilant on our watchlists? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a planned transition from IP users to a new form of "temporary accounts" aimed to occur back in May? I have been away for a while so I didn't keep track of whether it was implemented or not. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to capture some common replacements I'm seeing in this disruption, which may be can use as search terms when cleaning up:

- village -> greenwich

- village -> hamlet

- former -> onetime

- Career -> vocation

- (Any full month name to the short variety (e.g., October -> Oct)

- located -> situated

- neighborhood -> vicinity

- community -> local

- named -> titled

Table syntax tags

- style -> cut, tailor, stylus, trend, mode

- center -> centrist, shopping mall

- scope -> orbit, telescope

- align -> aline, line up, coordinate

- right -> honorable, proper, right-minded Mad Jim Bey talk 19:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The temporary accounts transition has rolled out on many other wikis, but hasn't reached enwiki yet I believe. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at non-reverted "likely bad" edits in the RecentChanges feed is also helpful. It is not my usual beat, and I see that multiple gnomes are quite active there. It makes a person question whether we have enough filters in place on IP edits. Yuck. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, my bigger concern is that I'm seeing these unregistered single-word swaps in the 'May have issues' filter (and some of the higher ones). Mad Jim Bey talk 20:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just found three edits like this one, adding commas to numbers and messing with colons in DEFAULTSORT and categories. These are also single edits by different IPs. They may be related to this word replacement activity. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are. Removing commas, adding commas seemingly randomly, adding duplicate commas. tony 16:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're also changing 'career' to 'vocation' pretty consistently too. VergilSparkles (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, now appears to be changing numbers randomly. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. I know this seems common but these are first-use IPs and I'm seeing the same pattern as the word-switching. Note that some edits they're also changing numbers in CSS, page numbers, etc. in the same edit. They're coming in faster than I can revert. --tony 21:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks like they are trying new ways to evade detection. Mellk (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ST47ProxyBot may have had flaws[19] but the WMF need to step up with a solution for this kind of problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF may need to implement a bot/system that would check IPs for potential proxies the moment they visit Wikipedia/another project. This is becoming insane-insane. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 13:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2409:40C2:2005:C1D9:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also? Robby.is.on (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're now re-using IP addresses during the same attacks. [20] [21] [22] are the first three IP's I've seen. tony 13:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which suggests that if you see an attack, you should definitely do a contributions check for previous attacks missed... and it may be worth going through your recent reverts to see if any of those accounts have surfaced again. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they are doing a lot of one word changes instead now. Mellk (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know we have a much more sophisticated filter running but I've just enabled Special:AbuseFilter/1374 as an emergency response for this. Sam Walton (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have started again but with IPv6 addresses now. If any administrator is bored and looking for a list of blockable addresses, any revert at my contributions from this point forward today which doesn't have an associated talk-page warning immediately following it might be worth looking at. tony 15:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not triggering any edit filters. Mellk (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edits are not getting flagged as 'very likely bad' or 'likely bad'. There are a lot flagged as 'maybe bad' instead. Mellk (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also getting these too. Pretty much all of my recent reverts are of that kind. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, the ones I've seen are of the thesaurus kind, I mixed up the two sections. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, the vandalism I was referring to was the word-swapping kind, even though I put it in this section. tony 16:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[23] more grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-enabled 1374, which I had turned off once the previous bout had ended. Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-exhaustive list of ranges. Looks like most edits have not yet been reverted from the most recent batch. These things seeem to happen in spurts of 15 minutes or so:

• 2601:2008:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:2009:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E300:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:200F:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2001:5A8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E303:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E302:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:200D:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:CB04:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

tony 15:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are webhost IP addresses (LIGHTNING-HOSTING-SOLUTIONS) and should be blocked for longer. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're back at it, this time on IPv4 again. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More number vandalism.[24][25] Mellk (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming exceptionally problematic. Can we just block all numeric changes from IP addresses? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what I thought about, but I think it would be too collateral for the rest of legitimate anons. What about requiring CAPTCHA for all non-confirmed users as a temporary measure? I know some other wikis use this feature, like the Chinese Wikipedia. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This vandal seems unaffected by the CAPTCHAs. Filter 1375 is slowing them down but they're still going. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's not just number vandalism - I'm still getting word vandalism on my watchlist. GiantSnowman 19:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about blocking all edits when user_type == "ip" & page_namespace == 0 & length(summary) == 0 & edit_delta < 100? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz or Bush's? ;) tony 19:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it'll buy us some time. I also suspect this abuser isn't very new here. I have created a ticket (T399996) to allow the AbuseFilter to see if an edit originated from the MediaWiki API (which is what this abuser and a few more are using), but I ran into some issues when trying to implement it myself. If anyone here is familiar with the MW code base, I'd gladly appreciate some help. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure they will keep tweaking the script in order to bypass these kinds of restriction. Mellk (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another large wave now. Mellk (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are aware of this but I wonder should the WMF be made aware of it, since the nature of the attack leads me to believe more than one device is involved, considering some of these edits are within mere seconds of one another when I was patrolling yesterday. It's possible they are multiple virtual machines, but I don't see there edits being marked as being mobile ones. Fantastic Mr. Fox 21:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF is aware. Giraffer (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in my earlier comment I meant to require CAPTCHA for all edits made by all non-AC users as a temporary measure, not just edits caught by filter. I don't know how quickly such could be implemented, but I think it just might solve our current problem. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 19:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Myrealnamm: It's possible to enable EmergencyCaptcha, and it's possible to disable IP editing entirely if an emergency occurred, but I certainly wouldn't be eager to flip the switch on such a filter, nor is this disruption probably at the level of that. Additionally, EmergencyCaptcha is a severe restriction to legitimate editors with visual impairments, and would be a drastic measure to take, even for a short period. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an IP anymore, nor am I an EFM, but I am guessing that this filter must catch a lot of FPs based off how quickly it was deactivated after the first attack. This has been going on for two days now, with no signs of stopping. Is keeping this filter on long-term even feasible? Lynch44 16:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So...are we blocking these when they turn up on RC patrol? I understand that there are edit filter or other measures being looked at, but for now? And if so, how long a block? Joyous! Noise! 18:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they're back. I've noticed they've been at it for the past few hours, but only at a relatively slow pace. At the moment they seem to be focused on number vandalism again. Mellk (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We might need to add blanking to the list of behaviors from these IPs. Lynch44 20:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth adding this to WP:LTA for easier reference in case it happens again (as opposed to digging through the archives here)? If so, what should we call them - the 'Thesaurus IP'? GiantSnowman 16:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would be a good fit for an LTA entry. The people who "need to know" patterns and behaviors are the edit filter managers, and they have their own spaces to work in. Documenting details in a public place like an LTA entry is just going to allow them to alter their behavior, which is the opposite of what we want. As far as names, they don't need a name. tony 18:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that new LTA pages are, I believe, discouraged from being created per WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. GiantSnowman 20:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a lot of stuff is done on the general premise of WP:DENY or WP:BEANS, even when it seems extremely counterproductive and wastes gigantic amounts of volunteer time. I wonder if we even have any solid evidence that this encourages LTAs so much as to offset the gains in efficiency. jp×g🗯️ 04:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have they disappeared for now? I have not seen anything since 31 July. If they re-appear, do we need to open another report here? Mellk (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential single-edit IP number changing vandal: [26]

This edit changed the ranking parameters to have Ireland's CPI be 90 (instead of 77). The change did not have any visible effect. I'm mentioning it here for suspicion. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of IP editors are replacing words throughout articles with synonyms—here’s a few: [27], [28], [29], [30] and many many more. They’re easily found on the recent changes page with the problem filter active. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the same IPs as in the above 'IP word vandalism' section 37.186.45.131 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it appears so—thanks, I missed that. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Moguy, who has managed to accumulate 4500 or so edits to Wikipedia over 8 years with next-to-no interaction with other contributors (38 talk space edits, and very few edit summaries), appears to have difficulty understanding the concept of a collaborative project. Having had an edit the new Your Party (UK) article [31] reverted for perfectly legitimate reasons (i.e. "talked to the article", and referring to local elections that have already occurred in the future tense), then went on to attempt to edit-war similar content into the article, despite being reverted by multiple contributors, in the process adding inappropriate "Don't revert this edit" edit summaries and similar. It took a warning by User:Czello about edit warring to finally stop the edit-warring, though with a thoroughly hostile response "I wasn't aware of the three-revert rule. However, the people who opposed my contributions didn't act with good faith at all. They deleted all of my contributions for BS reasons instead of trying to find a middle ground. I won't repeat my mistakes, but I will stand back with my claims unless I find a good reason." [32]

Having failed to edit-war, the hostility than shifted to the article talk page, [33] featuring such highlinghts as "bad-faith actors", "whataboutism" (the relevance of which eludes me), "you appeal to authority and behave in a bigoted way", and after I made it clear I wasn't prepared to engage with such relentless belligerence, a final "Hahahahaha, you guys can't provide ANY argument for your case, yet you try to cyberbully me and still claim the moral high ground. You are pathetic." [34]

Now, I'm not going to attempt to claim the 'moral high ground' regarding civility in general (that would be pushing my luck), but I'd have to suggest that at minimum, one might expect that an experienced contributor would make a token effort not to treat a simple content dispute as an excuse for relentless hostility. Though whether someone who has engaged with other contributors so little really counts as 'experienced' is questionable. Regardless, I'd have to suggest that Moguy needs to be told in no uncertain terms that such behaviour is unacceptable, that taking things to the article talk page should be the first response to a content dispute, and that such disputes are not settled through invective and a complete refusal to take note of what others are saying. And since I have my doubts that mere instruction will get the point across, I would also suggest that maybe Moguy needs to be blocked from editing for a few days, to give them time to familiarise themselves with how this collaborative project is supposed to work (i.e. by reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, along with relevant policy in general concerning article talk page usage and regarding the legitimate use to which a source can be put, and why one cannot cite sources describing past events to justify one's own speculations about the future, which seems to be behind some of this problematic attitude) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A mid to stern warning is probably all that's due here, in particular on civility but also WP:ONUS given their apparent misunderstanding of how inclusion of material works. Much of what they've said in the article talk page is certainly unacceptable behaviour but I can understand why the edit summaries first from DeFacto[35][36] and then yourself[37] when making your reverts could've struck a raw nerve given they appear to focus more on the poor grammar rather than the material nature of the edits, and therefore look like you were only reverting because you thought their English was poor.

Think this is one of those situations where the initial revert and poor summary as to why it was reverted is what caused this to snowball here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with DeFacto's first edit summary. It isn't reasonable to expect a complete breakdown of everything problematic with an edit when reverting, and attempting to provide one is liable to result in the sort of edit-summary argumentation responses we see. Content disputes are supposed to be resolved on article talk pages, not in edit summaries, and I'd have hoped that anyone with the editing history that Moguy has would know that. And know that "Don't revert this edit" is never an appropriate edit summary for anything. Moguy was clearly set on imposing their confusing content from the start, and I very much doubt that any particular edit summary would have made much difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that the edit summaries are limited and shouldn't contain a complete breakdown, but that's why I think the focus on language skills rather than the actual source itself being inappropriate is possibly what led to the inappropriate behaviour here that was otherwise unavoidable.

Compare what DeFacto said (doesn't make much sense: "talked to the article"? Which "upcoming local elections"?) to a later reversion by Bondegezou (Given none of that then happened, I don't how this is particularly useful)[38]. As someone just reading the history page, DeFacto's summary reads like they haven't actually looked into the material changes of the edit but just reverted for poor English, which I think has an outsized role to play here as to why it spun out of control so badly.

Moguy was clearly set on imposing their confusing content from the start, and I very much doubt that any particular edit summary would have made much difference

Honestly I'm not comfortable making that assumption in this case. The comments you've highlighted on the talk page suggest to me it was more that they viewed themselves as being unfairly targeted for their grammar (probably because DeFacto and yourself kept highlighting that in edit summaries as the primary reason for reverting) and therefore were upset as a result. To me this paragraph in one of their replies reveals as much[39]

One of the reasons my contributions were reverted was the failure to give the name of the aide. Even though the article DID NOT DISCLOSE the name of the aide, the person who reverted my contribution demanded the name of the aide. Is this the experience that you talk about? Or did Wikipedia add arbitrariness as one of its pillars? How should I assume good faith when other users don't even bother to read the article? I am open to a discussion and cooperation, but you guys are not. Give up your strange ideas.

So yes, while uncivil, I don't believe this was an attempt at imposing content but a rather easily avoidable heated argument if the material content itself had been focused on and not some poor grammar that, if it had been the main issue, could've been easily fixed without reversion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that you are reading this with hindsight. Not an option for those actually involved, where issues concerning the content - specifically, the way Moguy seems to be suggesting that the Spectator article (which pre-dates the article subject considerably) can be used as a source for statements about the newly-forming party's future electoral strategy - only really became apparent later, when Moguy was finally persuaded to use the talk page (not that that went well). Up to that point, all we had to go on was confusing wording, and an insistence that their edit had to stand. Yes, different reasons were given for reverting by different people, but that was because there were multiple issues with the edit, and no explanation forthcoming from Moguy as to why they were so insistent on including what, even at their last edit, amounted to a vague claim in an old source concerning something that never actually occurred. The unnamed 'aide' was discussing a hypothetical strategy for the May local elections, in which the aide's organisation appears to have taken no part. And note that the edit didn't explain what the strategy was. It isn't at all reasonable to expect contributors to explain in depth everything wrong with an edit. Not when it makes little sense, appears to be off-topic (clearly an organisation formed in July can't have participated in May elections), and really didn't tell readers anything much anyway. WP:ONUS exists for a reason. So do article talk pages. Edit summaries are not supposed to substitute for talk-page discussion. If Moguy failed to understand why multiple contributors were reverting, the solution should have been obvious - take it to the talk page. Instead, all we got was edit-warring and hostility. I can't see how differently-worded edit summaries for the reverts (or at least, ones that didn't involve mind-reading) would have avoided that. By all appearances, Moguy was primed for hostility from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People pointing out grammatical issues doesn't excuse the belligerence that Moguy has shown. They've entered into the realms of outright personal attacks with their last comment, and that's on top of casting WP:ASPERSIONS (calling others bigoted) and a general lack of good faith. — Czello ^(music) 06:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't excuse it, no. But the overall context to me is one of this user getting upset because others had been commenting on their English (rather than the material nature of the information added) and that having tainted the entire issue. If they had initially been told that the source was out of date and therefore didn't materially add anything to the article I believe there's a strong likelihood this would've been avoided.

Instead both DeFacto and Andy failed to comment on the material changes (in DeFacto's case their words suggesting they hadn't even looked into them) and instead got stuck on Moguy's use of English, which in their uncivil comments is easily identifiable as the source of their frustration/anger (i.e. the comments about bigotry and bad-faith).

It's why I don't think more than a stern warning is warranted here, because there's no established history of Moguy engaging in this sort of behaviour and because of how easily avoidable this incident could've been if two far more experienced editors (who both have long established history of aggravating easily resolvable disagreements) had better conveyed themselves to begin with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently I'm being held responsible for my lack of mind-reading powers. At least, it looks that way, since until Moguy went to the talk page, it wasn't in any way evident why they were insisting on including this content at all. If they'd done that at the start, I could have explained why policy precluded the source being used that way. Since they didn't, I was working on what I saw. Which was confusing content about hypothetical past events being shoehorned in for no obvious reason. I reverted, explaining why based on what I saw. I cannot be expected to be responsible for not knowing why Moguy was trying to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to reply once here rather than two chains.

I would suggest you re-read your longer comment above and note that in it you've raised several, far stronger and more importantly material reasons to remove their contributions compared to the initial comments about English language ability. These material reasons should've been raised far earlier, and any comment about their English language left at the wayside. The fact is their English isn't even that confusing and was readily fixable if that had been the issue that was so pressing it merited the main focus in edit summaries.

As to following ONUS and taking issues to talk pages, yes you say these are "obvious", but these things are only "obvious" when you've been made aware of them and there was nothing to stop you or others from alerting them to this. Not only would this has given them a fair chance to make their case before it spiralled, but also would've made your case here stronger because then there's evidence they were aware of the rules and had then broken them. In fact the moment you make them aware to take it to the talk page[40] they do so[41], which if anything is evidence that in fact they weren't aware of said rules, and their edit summaries show a clear intent to justify their edits in response to comments made by those reverting them.

To me it reads of good-faith, unintentional rule-breaking rather than belligerent edit-warring.

I cannot be expected to be responsible for not knowing why Moguy was trying to include it.

But neither can they be responsible for knowing there were material reasons to revert their contributions if the only thing you and someone else is commenting on is their English. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, since I didn't know why they were insistent on including the content, I was in no position to explain to them why this was inappropriate. And if you don't consider "Don't revert this edit" as belligerent I'd like to know why. Moguy was already being hostile before I got involved at all. Somehow though, this hostility is my fault? Clearly not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They mentioned "don't revert this edit" after DeFacto had reverted them while making comments about their English rather than the actual material nature of the edits, and having clearly attempted to resolve the issues raised in the reversion. Again, I don't see that as edit-warring belligerence but good-faith attempts to contribute by someone who from all demonstrated evidence wasn't aware of rules on reversion.

And no, I never said it was all "your fault", but if you want to take my rather nuanced comments as to how your edit summaries likely didn't help matters as such then that's your decision and probably if anything emphasises just why I believe this avoidable situation occurred. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nobody else participating in this thread seems to agree with you, I see no particular reason to discuss this further: We have a well-documented instance of an experienced contributor (4,500+ edits) attempting to assert control over article content, while handing out abuse to those who disagree. That, in my opinion, is what we should be discussing here. An actual behavioural issue. Without further rambling discourse on the optimal use of edit summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only people who have participated are yourself, an involved editor who you specifically notified of this, and myself. Hardly an instance of "well everyone agrees with me" but ok.

I have no problem with ending things here. Quite frankly all I believe this discussion has done is less reveal any chronic or repeated behavioural problems on the part of Moguy, given this is the only demonstrated instance of misbehaviour and I believe has clear contextual reasons for why it happened and could've been avoided, but has highlighted that far more experienced editors could be mindful of how edit summaries needlessly raising English language ability could needlessly enflame issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For personal reasons, I will give my full answer sometime tomorrow. Until then, I want to thank Rambling Rambler for supporting me. I agree with his arguments. Also, you can use he/him pronouns while talking about me. If you have any questions about the incident, I can also answer them when I write my full response too. Moguy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's over 48H since the above was posted, and it looks like we aren't going to see any response. At this point a block seems unlikely, but it seems to me that it would be advisable for someone to make it absolutely clear to Moguy that his behaviour was unacceptable, and that the appropriate way to deal with a revert (and in particular multiple reverts by different contributors) you don't understand is to discuss it, rather than assuming it is 'bad faith' or worse. And that more broadly speaking, communicating with other contributors is a necessary part of participation in the project - which incidentally would include the use of edit summaries as a matter of course. As I noted in the first post, Moguy rarely gives edit summaries, contrary to established practice. I'd post the above advice myself on his talk page, but it might be more effective coming from someone less involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. It was a busy week. Here is a short version of my points. I follow Wikipedia's rules. After AndyTheGrump warned me about Edit War, I gave up editing the Your Party page. Then I came to the talk page and wrote my arguments. Nonetheless, AndyTheGrump didn't give any answer then or now. Somehow, I became the one who doesn't understand Wikipedia's collaborative nature. Yes, I saw people who opposed my edits in other pages. However, no one has entered an edit war against me until last week. Unlike AndyTheGrump, other people who opposed me understood the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. They didn't revert my contributions; instead, they changed some parts of my contribution and left other parts of it. This is the reason why I assumed AndyTheGrump was a bad-faith actor, and none of the actions that you've made changed my mind. Yes, I rarely give summaries because I made more overall changes, which are hard to summarise. But alright, I will give more summaries in the future. Moguy (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:OCDD has received many warnings for many different reasons. Recently moved a page and provided no evidence it was the WP:PRIMARYNAME, have persistently failed to comply with copyright policy, and have created a bunch of redirects that are being disruptive (Basically ones that get deleted speedily or via discussion shortly after). After reverting TBD medals on Cricketers which violated WP:CRYSTAL, they immediately reverted and kept edit warring. Very important to bring up that they have also persistently uploaded non free files (Which violate United States copyright law which applies to all Wikipedia editors regardless of location) and refused to comply with Wikipedia Policies like they believe they are immune from these policies. They also have a history of removal of content (Like shortening from X National Team to simply National Team. X represents whatever national team it is), and recently removed at fair amount of content on Anahat Singh without a providing valid reason for removal. You can look at their page talk history. A lot is from me, but a lot is also from other editors regarding many non free files. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Servite et contribuere. Please provide diffs that demonstrate the problems that you say exist. Don't expect other editors to go looking for evidence to support your claims. This is part of your job, opening this complaint, and laying out a compelling case that is understandable to other editors if you want action to be taken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Oh. Thanks for that notice! Here are some: [42] (Basically the ones that I reverted). I should provide more. Sorry! Understood! Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to apologize to me, I hope you understand that posting insufficient information means that it is unlikely that other editors will respond. If a lack of response doesn't bother you, then it doesn't make any difference. But if you want action to be taken, you should make it easy for other editors to follow your line of argument. So, this really falls on you and how urgent you think this isssue is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz The current talk page has a lot of notifications of copyright. To prior revisions, there are so many issues. Here are just some of them: [43], [44],[45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] (I went to the version before archive because I accidentally gave a notice to the wrong user), [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. I went to a lot of effort to provide all this evidence. It doesn't have to be a block now, but whatever the next block is, I think it should be indefinite. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell this took a substantial amount of time and effort on your part. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to mention that this user has been creepily stalking me for weeks. Reverting EVERY edit I make even about topics they know nothing about. They deleted pages claiming they were season 2 pages when they were about a reboot show and not about the second season of a show. They list redirects for deletion without checking and use false reasons for it. It's like a routine: open up my edits and go about reverting them using random excuses and keep reverting them. The obsession is sickly. They revert page moves without checking that they were correct. The sources are all over the page but they don't do the job of checking them but of course the wrong revert has to be made because this is specifically targeted behavior. OCDD (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They listed a redirect for deletion claiming it was not at the source page even though it was. This was nothing new. They have done such mistakes many times in the past. Reverted things without checking, making false assumptions and making mistakes because they simply wanted to revert EVERYTHING instead of checking. And then they removed my comment from the archive. This is blatant envy and targeting. OCDD (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OCDD But I corrected my mistake on that redirect. And the mistakes you think I have made have only been from your experiences. If you look at my history, you will see I have a long history of discussion which you seem to have a problem with. I have told you if you don't want me looking at your contributions, you should probably change the way you edit and stop edit warring. Looking back, I have not reverted every single one of your edits. Most I have not reverted recently. You need to stop your unexplained removal. Unfortunately, I think it is too late. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment both the users have been blocked for edit warring (Servite for 1 day, OCDD for 2 weeks)- so I don't think this requires any further action at this time? If OCDD does continue with this behaviour, then this can be reported again in future. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever the content issues, repeatedly calling other editors creeps is not on. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Marc87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user appears to have a history of unsourced and unexplained changes. They appear to have an interest in ice hockey. They have made multiple changes to a number of ice hockey player bios, related to birth dates, death dates, birth places, and hand they shoot with, notably to subjects born in the early 1900s. Many of the articles they edit lack depth and sources.

• Moved Jack Riley (ice hockey, born 1910) without explanation or a corresponding source
• Changed shot hand at Billy Coutu
• Changed shot hand at Art Alexandre
• Unsourced birth date change at Art Gauthier
• Unsourced death date change at Sprague Cleghorn
• Unsourced birth date change at Howard McNamara
• Unsourced birth date change at Tommy Smith (ice hockey)

They have made a similar move at Jack Riley (ice hockey, born 1910) before back in 2013 [66]. They have also made unsourced changes to the article's birth place as recent as 2022 [67].

They don't appear to engage much with their talk page despite multiple notices. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marc87 has in the past cite "SIHR" [68], which I gather to be sihrhockey.org. User:Djsasso noted in 2017 that "SIHR is user contributed" [69]. User:Djsasso subsequently removed info attributed to SIHR at Jack Riley (ice hockey, born 1910) [70]. The SIHR website appears to be mostly behind a membership and login, so it's not easily accessible and is therefore not a source that is readily verifiable. It may also be unacceptable per WP:USERGENERATED. Perhaps User:Marc87 uses sihrhockey.org, is affiliated with the website, or makes contributions at the website. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although SIHR website is user contributed, only handful of members have authorization to make edits. Assuming they have reliable disclosed sources and connections to SIHR executives. Marc87 (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that is not good enough and does not satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing standards or verifiability requirements. It's basically its own ice hockey wiki. It should not be used as a source of information here. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. If my edits are not satisfied, I would allow Wikipedia to redirect on whatever it sees fit. No problem. Marc87 (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to focus on independent reliable sources. The ice hockey subject on Wikipedia appears to be a poorly moderated project. There appears to be a lot of player bios that do not meet WP:GNG, primarily relying on primary sources or UGC sources. Not every ice hockey player born in the late 1800s or early 1900s is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Just because SIHR or justsportsstats.com (or even nhl.com) has a record of the player, doesn't mean the player meets the notability guidelines to have a Wikipedia entry. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even the NHL's direct predecessor, NHA, don't have reliable sources. It can only be found from SIHR. Marc87 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find them through libraries, archives, baptismal records, etc. Marc87 (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be WP:NOTHERE, but note that his contributions may contain correct information as supported by the sources. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user's rationale for making unsourced infobox changes is that "the infobox image of the subject shows them with the stick in their left hand" [71] [72]. Hardly a reliable source and definitely WP:OR which goes against the existing external links. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Leonard Grosvenor, he reverted your revision, stating that the profile image of Leonard Grosvenor shows he was left handed. I reverted this because this should be supported by the sources, not the profile image. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Marc87, has been editing for 17 years now so they are an experienced editor but they haven't responded to a User talk page message in 2 years. They seemed to have withdrawn from communicating with other editors around 2016-17. I have invited them to join this discussion but I'm not optimistic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is their last substantive edit to their talk page. Their last substantive edit in the Talk namespace was more than 1,000 edits to that namespace ago. They also continued editing for hours after this thread was opened without responding. I am indefinitely partially blocking Marc87 from articlespace until they respond here regarding the valid concerns about their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were based from the SIHR and it requires a membership to see its source. However, the players' information (eg. images and texts) don't have their respective URL addresses, but user-friendly tabs. So, that's why I didn't include sources in wikipedia, it would redirect to unrelated tabs. Marc87 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed why you are changing article information based on photographs of players holding a stick in one hand vs. another. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it's common sense and the letters of the hockey jersey were not mirrored. Marc87 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably original research, unless you cite a reliable source preferably not user generated 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B097:1276:3E2D:6D68 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a common sense if you're not following the attention of the sources. Your edits should not be user-generated and definitely contains original research. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, being behind a membership and login does not make a source unacceptable. Being UGC, of course, does though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather concerning, that appears to have taken a mainspace block, to get Marc87 to communicate. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, better that than none at all. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to impress me. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Pblocked from article users due to ANI will literally not make any response to that ANI 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B097:1276:3E2D:6D68 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We have to do the WP:COMMUNICATE pblock regrettably often. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:HiddenInformation appears to be an undisclosed paid editor for the news website GrowJust. The totality of their edits is adding content about the company and CEO. They also added information and created an article (now tagged for speedy deletion)about non-notable "Jeevsea Premium Water"[73], which GrowJust published a promotional article for. It is clear that GrowJust is not a legitimate, honest publication but an advertising firm.

They have also hijacked an article of the same name slowly [74], avoiding detection. This eliminated all assumption of good faith from me. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was close to an INDEF, but I've p-blocked from content creation to encourage communication in the hope of progress. No issue with someone adjusting the block Star Mississippi 14:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GrowJust is being refspammed and its founder article-spammed by several different editors. I've rooted out what I can see easily. It involves xwiki (HiddenInformation is indef'ed on commons for spam and has over 100 deleted edits on wikidata). User:Akiinaam and User:NiashiSharma are also involved (but long dormant--note, NiashiSharma added here later). There are so many small bits that I can't see myself to trace further...not sure it's worth an SPI or just periodically keeping tabs on additions of links to that family of sites. DMacks (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to blacklist the GrowJust domain? Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the first time I've ever started a discussion here, so please bear with me here. I'm bringing this issue to ANI at the suggestion of User:Nathannah, who brought it to my attention. User:Keizers has over the past several years engaged in disruptive editing regarding the inclusion of a list of Saks Fifth Avenue locations within the encyclopedia. Starting in 2020, Keizers added a list of locations to the main Saks Fifth Avenue article in [[75]]. The list was removed by User:Galatz noting WP:NOTDIR in [[76]], but was reverted by Keizers in [[77]]. Galatz again removed the offending content in [[78]], but once again Keizers reverted the deletion of the content in [[79]].

In 2021, User:JayJay removed the list of stores in [[80]] citing WP:NOTDIR. This time, Keizers chose to create the article List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations without linking to the parent Saks Fifth Avenue to avoid detection from those patrolling Saks Fifth Avenue. This article was subsequently deleted without opposition at AfD in[[81]]. Instead of respecting consensus, Keizers once again created a list of Saks Fifth Avenue stores, this time under the alternative title List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations, and again failing to link it to the parent article to try and avoid detection. I've brought the current list to AfD at [[82]], but considering the numerous times this user has continued to ignore WP:NOTDIR in an effort to include this information I think a wider discussion is warranted regarding their behavior. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed some internal links here. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the page under G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. No comment currently as to whether additional actions are indicated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've salted List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations, Timeline of Saks Fifth Avenue branches, and List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations. I really would like to hear from Keizers why (a) they believe this is important enough to need to be recreated multiple times (b) after having been deleted at AfD before (c) and in such a way as to look very much as if they were attempting to evade detection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keizers has been editing here for 18 years and has over 26,000 edits so the extended confirmed protection on these pages won't faze them. That's why it's important to engage and talk to them so they understand that the recreation of this article shouldn't be occurring. I'll invite them to come and talk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I didn't realise the default salting was ECR now - been awhile since I did that. Will up to full sysop protect, thanks Liz for catching that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Liz I accidentally replied to the notice on my talk page and not here. My answer was:

Thanks for reaching out. There are a lot of editors out there on the lookout for these lists and automatically conclude they’re directory like. I should have gone to discussion when they deleted them, yes I am guilty. I’ve been stubborn in the past, you can check my whole Israel/Palestine history, and I’ve repented and furthermore am

not active now as I have to work so much on my small business.

Now, why does the list belong in Wikipedia?

1) The list contains a lot of more detailed information about various key locations which is encyclopedic, albeit highly specialized, but not out of place.

2) the chronological information of store openings supports the detailed history in the main article, highly relevant to follow the history of the geographical presence early on, and later the expansion to major cities nationwide, which is relatively rare for department stores.

Don’t take the following as arrogance but as a simple fact.. I’m drowning in work right now and don’t have the time or mental and emotional energy to defend the article’s presence in Wikipedia.

It is such a shame that things that appear to be only directories are sort of hunted down and it’s very hard to defend them. But you know what, pick your battles, right?

thanks again for inquiring, all the best and thanks for your work and time!

Oh and the detailed information on certain location like architect expansion and remodel is arguably encyclopedic, but obviously in a micro level. These are sometimes listed as historic buildings at a local level, and things like their expansion reflect the growth of the community and of the company. Even milestones in the history of US department store retailing. Architecture and square footage ídem. This is not unusual information in Wikipedia; it’s commonly found in articles about individual buildings or companies with one major location be it a store or HQ.

I trust you'll make the right decisions. I have absolutely no intention of being an active editor in the next six months minimum, but if you think I haven't learned and recognized that I should have gone to discussion, it's perfectly fine to suspend my edit privileges, preferably for a certain topic range. Thank you! Keizers (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting here that I have sent Category:Lists of department store branches by company, which was created by Keizers, to CfD. Despite the category's name, most of the articles in that category are actual articles on department stores with lists of locations, with Keizers being the main contributor for at least a good chunk of those lists (many, but not all, of the articles, were created by him as well). While many of those articles are for defunct chains (which may or may not be a gray area with regard to NOTPRICE issues, but I may be way off base there), Beymen, El Palacio de Hierro, and Suburbia (department store) are not. (For what it's worth, the one currently-extant category entry that actually is a list article after List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations was G4'd, List of Printemps store locations, was not only created by someone else but has never even been edited by Keizers.) I note this for completeness; while not as seemingly persistent as with Saks Fifth Avenue, he has not limited his inclusion of store lists to Saks Fifth Avenue. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a problem with editor Go D. Usopp. In the past both reported to ANI by different situations, that were resolved.

My recent problem is with his latest message on the talk page topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sokoban#Reverse_mode,_question_for_newcomers_in_the_subject

It feels disruptive, and maybe a little bit uncivil.

His message ignored the question that I asked in the topic. Instead of it, it recommend the lecture of a police in impractical way: "for every edit you've made".

Maybe is poorly choose wording, but is not good, looks like an exaggeration.

This kind of message really not help to improve an article or build an encyclopedia. It distracts the topic discussed in the talk page.

I want to have the topic of talk page back on track. I'm hoping an admin could remove or collapse these comments so the discussion can refocus on improving the article.

Also, some feedback regarding this in the spirit that I can continue working in improve the article (notice is the last section that I'm working in that article, that now is class B).

The specific message is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sokoban&oldid=1304100536

Notice the big issue is that request to someone a thing that is impossible to accomplish when did more than once, is an abussive behavior. This is only a first case.

I only want to continue working peacefully and contributing, but is not good have to deal with these kind of messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carloseow (talk • contribs) 07:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember WP:AGF. I was not discouraging you from using LLM assistance in this specific case in bad faith, just reminding you to observe the specific guideline I mentioned previously (which is simply to disclose all LLM use in edit summaries). Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> just reminding you to observe the specific guideline

why did you consider it necessary? Carloseow (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Go D. Usopp Regarding your reminder of WP:AGF, I commented 'Maybe is poorly choose wording' it reveals good faith. My complaint is not about your intent, but about the result of the message: disruptive and uncollaborative, which moved the discussion away from improving the article. Carloseow (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a bit of a frivolous complaint, considering 1. It’s just one message not even a WP:PA 2. You seem the one exaggerating here a bit and thirdly LLMs can hallucinate and using it to proofread could lead to additional information you didn't add but the LLM subtly included 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:B097:1276:3E2D:6D68 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is for urgent problems, policy-violating behavior. I don't think this complaint belongs as ANI because it seems like the OP just doesn't like the "tone" of the message and there is nothing here that is contradiction to actual guidelines. Please only bring "chronic, intractable behavior issues" to ANI. Otherwise, try actually engaging with the other editor (i.e. talking to them). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the feedback. While tone plays a role, the main concern is the specific phrase: "read WP:LLM for every edit you've made with help from LLMs".

This reads as a retroactive directive and can be interpreted as either "review all your past edits" or "re-read the policy as many times as LLMs were used", which is exaggerated and, in that sense, disrespectful.

Rewording or removing that part would help. As written, it’s jarring, which is why I described it as "a little bit uncivil".

Because the article's talk page was used to give unsolicited overly personal advice (regarding "every edit you've made"), which would have been more appropriate on my user talk page, and really not answered the original question, it disrupted the discussion.

I hope the talk page topic stays focused on feedback about the text, not on broader discussions about LLM usage.

Thanks for comments. Carloseow (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your perspective, but I don't share it. I do not believe my complaint is frivolous. As for LLMs, I use them only to proofread my own text, and I am always careful to review and correct the results before posting. Write to my user page if you want to talk more about it. Carloseow (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely frivolous, especially when you claimed that the other user did not answer your question, but you both saw his response of On your question, we do not add fan-made content without sufficient significant coverage from third-party sources outside the community, even if the community seems to be really active but you also responded to it.

And discussing relevant policy with an editor is not even remotely "personal." This should be withdrawn. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd like to clarify the record.

There were two specific questions asked in the talk page topic, which was titled "Reverse mode, question for newcomers in the subject". The questions were:

"Is this text understandable for a reader unfamiliar with Sokoban, or does it leave significant unanswered questions?"

"I have a draft revision (created from scratch by me and polished with LLM and reviewed by me) and would like to ask for feedback from new readers — is it more understandable than the current version?"

The other editor's reply, "we do not add fan-made content without sufficient significant coverage", did not address these questions. While it's a good reminder that content requires a source, this was off-topic and did not provide the requested feedback.

Regarding the comment that discussing a relevant policy is not personal, I agree. However, in this specific case, the off-topic reminder was not constructive. The phrase "read WP:LLM for every edit you've made" was an impractical and overly broad directive. It was this jarring, unnecessary expression that I considered personal, as it was not related to the context of the discussion. Carloseow (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That I considered personal That you, considered personal. It wasn't. The other editor's reply did, indeed, address the issue questioned about. I'd suggest you drop the stick and move on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks. I still don't believe my question about what text was easy to understand was addressed, but I have presented my case. Thank you to all who have commented and shared their perspectives. Carloseow (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please may I ask if the off claim read WP:LLM for every edit you've made with help from LLMs falls into WP:INDCRIT in the sense of Avoid [...] making indirect criticism when you are writing in edit comments and talk pages. Write clearly, plainly, and concisely, and do so in a way that allows other editors to easily respond to you. (Edited), in my original message I mistakenly quoted from the proposal version: Out of respect for other editors, criticism of another's edit, [...] ought to be made clearly, directly, and explicitly in a manner that may be easily understood and replied to, but the current says mostly the same.

It comes across as implying a repeated failure to follow guidelines, without evidence, possibly bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS, and is phrased in a way that is difficult to understand or respond to.

Could it be possible to remove that reply and my subsequent comments to it from the talk page so the discussion can be reworded or restarted more constructively? Since the topic title says "a question for newcomers," I think it would be better to avoid such messages on the talk page. Carloseow (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got an ANI notification about this because I declined a related CSD. I'm too on vacation to dig into this, if anyone needs to undo an action of mine at any point feel free to do so without consulting me. Rusalkii (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I recently declined Draft:Shashi Kiran Shetty submitted by User:Editorrking on the basis that it contained a substantial amount of LLM-generated text with unsourced and promotional claims. Other articles created by the user including Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company, Karnataka Lokayukta, and Gruha Jyoti show similar patterns, promotional language, subjective phrasing, and content presented without citations to reliable sources.

Below are some examples from their edits

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company

The article contains massive amount of unsourced, subjective and promotional lines,

1] ''Academic analysis indicates that the creation of multiple distribution companies like GESCOM was intended to introduce competition and improve service delivery in different geographical regions"

2] "Recognizing the company as a key stakeholder in the country's power distribution landscape"

3] "Represented a shift from the centralized utility model that had dominated Karnataka's power sector since independence"

4] "Reflecting the company's emphasis on accessible leadership and customer service accountability"

Karnataka Lokayukta

1] "Recognized for his expertise in constitutional law and administrative jurisprudence"

2] "Known for his judicial acumen and commitment to upholding constitutional principles"

3] "Marked the restoration of Karnataka's apex anti-corruption institution after months of vacancy"

4] "His office has become a focal point for environmental grievances..."

5] "Pioneered direct intervention in environmental governance issues..."

And the third one I am listing is Gruha Jyoti

1] "Comprehensive welfare measure designed to address electricity affordability concerns"

2] "Part of a broader social welfare package aimed at reducing household expenditure on essential services"

3] "State-wide publicity campaigns to ensure awareness among eligible beneficiaries"

4] "Rollout was completed systematically, with priority given to districts with higher concentrations of Below Poverty Line households"

Again the same pattern of their edits can be seen over here

They lack inline citations, contain promotional and subjective lines that violate core content policies such as WP:POV, WP:V, and WP:OR

I request admins to kindly check their editing history and take appropriate action regarding the use of LLM-generated content. Thanks! Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 12:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they have received multiple talk page warnings for LLM use that they have not responded to, I've gone ahead and imposed a partial block from article space pending adequate acknowledgment of the concerns. Editorrking, you are expected to address other editors' concerns of LLM use here (and please note that the editing community has very little patience for editors who use LLMs to respond to questions from other editors). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user's articles were declined more than five times already, but some of their articles created were accepted for following the Wikipedia's guidelines in making articles. In this draft, these paragraphs need clarification, which may sound confusing to the readers. This draft may be too technical. These paragraphs requires an AI detector to check if the paragraphs were 100% AI-generated or not. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editorrking is currently partially blocked indefinitely by admin Rosguill from article namespace for disruptive editing and disruptive use of LLMs in making articles, likely failed to communicate. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, AI detectors such as GPTZero are notoriously unreliable and shouldn't be used as the only means for determining if something is AI gen or not. CoconutOctopus talk 13:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucinated citations are a definite AI hallmark though (see my comment below). Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia properly, failed to communicate again. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most (although not all) of the citations in Gruha Jyoti are hallucinated so I've moved it to draft. Also,I'd just point out that Karnataka Lokayukta has existed since 2014 and Editorking has only made one minor edit to it, so you might want to remove that. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite, should do the same thing for Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company and Karnataka Lokayukta (move to draft)? There are lots of AI-generated slop, unsourced sentences and promotional tone here in these two needs to improve. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 14:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you not read what I just said? Karnataka Lokayukta has existed for 11 years and Editorrking's only edit was a minor copyedit. Meanwhile, Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company does not appear to have the hallucinated citations. If someone else wants to send it to AfD, feel free. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A weird sort of tangent here, but user User:Dolphish who was involved in several of these articles seems to be acting very oddly for a supposed "new" user on Wikipedia. I really don't want to cast aspersions or anything but his editing behavior has been... odd. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems questionable?? User:Dolphish moved Draft:Gruha Jyoti to mainspace even though it was moved before for not being good. Should someone check this?? Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 15:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, @CoconutOctopus, @Allan Nonymous, I took a look at their talk page, and they seem to be following the same draft patterns as User:Editorrking. They've also been using promotional and subjective content in their drafts, and now they're moving those same drafts to mainspace without any real rewrites or changes!! Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 15:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wrong intention. I thought these articles were correct so I moved them, but if you think all this is wrong then I will not move them in future. Thank you Dolphish (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphish, could you clarify how you came across these articles or why you were promoting them for mainspace? It's hard to understand how you came to the conclusion that these articles were correct (as you put it) when virtually all of their references are broken, other hallmarks of LLM use are present, and a clearly explained move to draft is visible in the pages' edit histories from shortly before your decision to move them to mainspace again. Beyond that, it's pretty clear from your editing history that this is not your first account. Could you please disclose any other accounts or IP addresses that you have edited with in the past? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found these articles WP:INNEW, Where they were in draft form, i moved them to mainspace but I didn't look at the sources before moving. Dolphish (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on Google where to see newly created articles related to India, then Google brought me here. Dolphish (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense as far as finding these articles goes; I expect that you realize now that checking sources is one of the most important things that a draft needs before it is published. You haven't addressed the concern regarding prior accounts or IP addresses, however. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used to read a lot of information on Wikipedia, whenever I searched about anything on Google, Google would take me to Wikipedia, I have edited many articles before but they are all old things, yes I have edited Wikipedia many times and maybe I had created 1 or 2 IDs long ago. Dolphish (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to report persistent harassment from User:PradaSaetiew. This user has been engaging in disruptive behavior towards me, including:

Edit warring/Reverts

• [Diff link 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Restaurant_War_Thailand&action=history ]
• [Diff link 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porapat_Srikajorndecha&action=history]
• [Diff link 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanpiya_Oamsinnoppakul&action=history]
• [Diff link 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pariit_Thimthong&action=history]

I request administrator review and intervention to stop this disruptive pattern of editing.

Thank you. Tomarzig (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomarzig you need to notify them on their talk page that there is an ANI discussion about them. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PradaSaetiew deleted his talk page including the welcome wiki message. Is there any other way you can suggest? Personally, I think that even if you go to the talk page, nothing will change. Tomarzig (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified them now. Tomarzig, the series of edits here in PradaSaetiew's talk page history is problematic; please have a look at WP:UP#CMT and don't restore messages against the will of users who have removed them from their own talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a user talk page message is considered an acknowledgement of receipt so there’s nothing you need to worry here. Northern Moonlight 15:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PradaSaetiew, you seem to have followed Tomarzig around to revert their edits; is this correct and why? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like it's just separating out an automatic undo edit summary from their actual commentary. Responding to a comment that was deleted instead of stricken. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t want to followed to undo his edits, I just edit on pages that I’m interested in, and some page that I see some details without source, every edits i give a reason, so it’s him that try to followed to undo my edits on English page The Face Thailand season 6 because he’s angry me that edited on this page he was built and then followed me to undo my other edits on The Face Thailand, and then followed to undo my other edits on Thai articles for The Face Thailand and The Face Thailand season 6, Then he didn’t stop and try to harassment me on my own talk page by undo messages that i was deleted, you can check. PradaSaetiew (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tomarzig, regarding the first diff ([87]), if someone removes content as "unsourced", the burden is on you to provide a citation that directly supports the material, and such removals are not "spam", which has an entirely different meaning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomarzig it’s not harassment, every edit i give the reason, so you try to spam the colors on The Face Thailand, The Face Thailand season 6 and other seasons both in Thai and English pages many times. And you followed to undo my edits many times on both Thai and English pages too.

And on 01:20, 27 July 2025 in your edit on The Face Thailand contributions page you was said really bad words to me in Thai “สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง” it was full of Profanities and really Harassment and Bullying me and Against Wikipedia Rules, but just no one on English pages understand it because you wrote Profanities words in Thai on English pages. English Admins can ask Thai Admins what it’s means.

And you try to harassment me 3 times on my personal talk page by try to undo some of massage that I was deleted long time ago, and act like try to asked me as why I deleted it. So it’s my personal talk page and i can delete it if i want, it’s not your page or I didn’t delete messages on your talk page. I don’t have to tell you the reason or explain it to you before i delete if i want to delete any messages on my talk page, and you can’t undo messages on my own talk page by your behavior. Anyway Thai admin ever told that in personal talk page the owner can delete it if they want.

• for The Restaurant War Thailand I deleted the end date of the season because it’s Unsourced and it’s future situation not finish now yet, so if it’s finished can add the date soon with source.

• for Porapat Srikajorndecha, Wanpiya Oamsinnoppakul and Pariit Thimthong I rewrite it as “Television series” to “Television” because it’s Thai Drama on TV. not series, and i saw every Thai Actor or Actress’s English pages we use “Television” not “Television series”, so this editor trying to edit and change it to “Television series“ for some of Thai actor/actress pages. we can check other famous Thai Actor/Actress in English pages, on their pages we use “Television” for their “Drama on TV”. because it’s “Drama on TV.” not “Series on TV.”

• And for Wanpiya Oamsinnoppakul I deleted her high detail because it’s Unsourced about her high too, I still believe that good articles on Wikipedia should have reference and sources.

I know that you’re angry me that i was edited on The Face Thailand season 6 you was build, because i’m a fan of this TV. show, so it’s true that you build some of English pages but every editors on Wikipedia can edit the page that your build by yourself, not only you who can edit it and English pages that your build is not your personal page.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For anyone interested, Diff/1302696870: the edit summary "สแปมพ่อมึงสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึงเป็นไรห่าอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง", according to Google Translate and QuillBot Translate, roughly translates to "Spam your father! You use the same tone for everything. What the hell is wrong with you? Are you just self-centered?" — DVRTed (Talk) 16:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DVRTed Hi, I think this translation is not 100% correct, because this translated it’s so polite. Maybe should ask Thai Admin who’re good in English because it’s Profanities and really Harassment and Bullying word in Thai and it’s Thai Slang, so Google translate can’t correct it. Something like พ่อมึxงสิ and มึxงเป็นไรห่x. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomarzig Can you translate the words ”พ่อมึxงสิ” and ”มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร” in English for English Admins? Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PradaSaetiew I'm not an admin, but here it is: พ่อมึxงสิ means "Your father!" while มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร' means "What's wrong with you?" in English. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing the diffs and the context surrounding them, it seems like there's been some back-and-forth testiness and lack of assuming good faith. As far as I can see, the improper accusations of "spam" began with PradaSaetiew (Special:Diff/1302498373, although they've also made similar edit summaries in response to other editors in the past, e.g. Special:Diff/1300110885, so it's not strictly limited to this personalized dispute). Beyond the sub-par edit summaries, however, I'm not sure I see anything that adds up to harassment or hounding: the main crux of the dispute here seems to be a content dispute across multiple closely related articles that both editors seem to have good-faith interest in. I can't read Thai, but based on context I can certainly understand that the Thai comments were some form of personal attack, which in this context means that Tomarzig cedes the moral high ground that they otherwise may have held here. I'm not seeing a cause for immediate sanctions against either editor provided that both sides stop misusing accusations of spam and other personal attacks, and would recommend that they take steps to resolve the content disputes (largely over color-scheme and heading wording as far as I can see) either among themselves or with recourse to a WP:DR process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabvill Hi, the correct meaning of this sentence it’s not same that you’re translated. I was said already that Google Translate or an online translate can’t correct for Thai Profanity and Insult slang words.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PradaSaetiew, DVRTed was right. The correct translation for the words พ่อมึxงสิ and มึxงเป็นไรห่x according to Google Translate, Quillbot, and other translators are Your father! and What's wrong with you?. As a result, these two are generally not considered as Thai profanity and Thai insult slang words. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill He started to followed me to undo my edits after i was edited on page The Face Thailand season 6 that he built it, he was so angry that i edited on English pages that he built. And then he always followed to undo my edits on The Face Thailand and The Face Thailand season 6 both in Thai and English Wikipedia, and then he try to undo old messages on my personal talk page that i was deleted it long time ago, 3 times.

For The Face Thailand season 6, 5 and 4 page’s TV. Infobox I was deleted the color to original Infobox’s color because every season of The Face Thailand we use original Infobox’s color, didn’t decorated the Infobox with other color for the articles.

And for Praveenar Singh I deleted the result to TBA because the 2025 competition it’s not finished yet, just started yesterday, but her fan edited the result for her as the winner. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomarzig Can you translate the words ”พ่อมึxงสิ” and ”มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร” in English for English Admins please? And all Thai sentence that you said to me please, Because you’re Thai and I see you’re fluent in English, but I’m just not good in English, so I can’t explain for the real correct meaning from Thai to English.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To English Admins, I would like to explain about real correct meaning of this Thai sentence "สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง" with sources from Thai’s English teachers channels, that’s it doesn’t means “Your Father, Your Dad” and not “What wrong with you”. Because I’m just not good in English. But I can’t reply my explanation here because after I publish my reply with sources and real meaning in English here the system said that I can’t publish them.

Maybe because my reply it’s full of English Profanity, Insult and Hate speech words from the meaning, and I added some of Link from the sources that Thai English teachers who’re teaching and explain this Thai sentence, Profanity and Insult words to English from their Fackbook, Instagram, Tiktok and YouTube channels. How I can explain with Links from the Sources here. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-admin, สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง means Spam, you're all using the same color scheme. What's wrong with you? You're just being selfish. in English according to Google Translate. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: If you don't know the real meaning of these Thai words/sentences, just use Google Translate and Quillbot instead. This will help understand the speaker to avoid prior confusion. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabvill All your translated are wrong meaning, you translated Profanity, Insults and Hate speech sentence to polite sentence. I ever explained to you and other editors already that Google Translate or Quillbot can’t translate Thai Profanity and Insult Slang words correctly, why you don’t understand.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is an important tangent. I've already acknowledged that Tomarzig's comments in Thai amount to a personal attack. In English we have a very similar construction, Your mom. And I can easily imagine that what's been translated as What's wrong with you was probably more like What the fuck is wrong with you. To be honest, as a community we care less about profanity than we care about general civility, and the comment is already uncivil even if we don't consider it to include profanity. I already pointed out in my comment above that both of you need to disengage from the accusations of spam, other insults, and reverts, and proceed to resolve the content disputes through discussion on a talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aqsalsaputra (talk · contribs) - this user has a LONG history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, one previous block in 2023, and a user page littered with warnings. They have never responded and continue to make unsourced changes. I think we need a longer block. GiantSnowman 17:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page edits: none. Supporting a (possibly provisionally indefinite) block for failure to communicate and the above reason. 2600:1012:A024:21CA:4689:AE31:E7E4:87BC (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still doing it! GiantSnowman 17:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor since 2020 who has never edited a page in Talk or User talk. That's not good at all. Pblocked indef from articlespace due to consistent unreferenced additions to BLPs and failure to WP:COMMUNICATE. Once they start communicating and agree to change the problematic editing behavior, anyone can unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! GiantSnowman 20:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user has a long block log which includes an indefinite block. I do not remember all the details, but I am sure one of the reasons was that they were removing Russian names from the articles on Russian-speaking or formerly Russian-speaking localities in Ukraine. This is one of the warnings I gave to them before their indefinite block, which they reacted on defensively, and at the end of the day it contributed to the block. Recently, they resumed the disruption [88] and went on a mass-removal spray. I gave them a warning, they reacted defensively, I explained, they did not react on my explanation but stopped removals [89]. Today, they resumed the removals (from the very same articles as they did before, [90]). Courtesy ping @Mellk:. On the same day, they disruptively edited the articles on football players (see e.g. this nice edit summary), demonstrating they do not really care about WP:V. as a result, they were warned by @Anwegmann:. Courtesy ping @GiantSnowman:. My conclusion is that they user is net negative in at least two subject areas, and restoring the block would probably be the best solution. Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Russian names of Ukrainian localities is a CT topic (Eastern Europe) and also a WP:RUSUKR topic, but the football players, as far as I see, is not. Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long history of disruption, and edits like this are really concerning. Given the history and their attitude, I suggest an indef. GiantSnowman 20:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given in their unblock request they promised not to repeat those mistakes, it is clear they did not follow through with this. Mellk (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have interacted with the user in question in the past and can provide some background. He tends to be brash and not particularly polite, he has a nationalistic bent (I believe one of the blocks or warnings he got in the past was for having a "list of traitors to Ukraine" made up of sportsmen born in the territory of modern Ukraine but who had represented Russia – from what I can see he still keeps the list, but under a different name) and a tendency to get into edit wars. He also resorted to socking after being blocked for calling a Moldovan editor retarded, IIRC, during one such edit war.

I know this is not a promising resume for an editor. However, if I you'll allow me to play devil's advocate, I will dispute his characterisation of the user as a net negative in Eastern European sports, particularly football. He is knowledgeable in the area (he is in fact correct about Yurii Tlumak's team), perhaps too knowledgeable – he has created articles about obscure players from the Ukrainian lower leagues that likely are not deserving of encyclopaedic coverage, but he borderline single-handedly keeps a lot of articles about Ukrainian and Ukraine-based footballers up-to-date. This certainly does not excuse being a dick to fellow editors, but I think that this very niche topic area would suffer a big loss if the user were to be blocked. Given his repeat offender status I would not oppose such an action if there is general support for it, but I would like to recommend instead a TBan from towns and cities (an area that I believe needs less combativity, given that we have more than enough with IPs and throwaway SPAs) and some sort of 1RR restriction overall. I would be happy to try to talk to Andriyrussu in that case, to try and let him know what is expected of him. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May be this could work. Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I have seen surrounding this editor's original ban, he was already under an effective 1RR restriction—if not de jure then certainly de facto. So I'm not sure how placing him under a more "official" one now would help change his actions if it clearly hasn't already. I understand your point about his work ethic related to Ukrainian footballers. The problem is not his knowledge or his dedication. It's that he rarely sources his changes. Indeed, with the Yurii Tlumak example, the concern isn't with the possibility of him being wrong. It's with the fact that he didn't provide a source for the edit and then reverted my correction of that fact asserting that if I want to find a source, I have to find it myself. That kind of attitude, which was part of his initial ban, has shown through many times—as the discussion above has noted. It's frustrating that someone who has done so much for a specific corner of Wikipedia has repeatedly shown themselves to be prone to edit-warring, personal attacks, aggression, not citing sources, and other fundamentally problematic practices universally discouraged across Wikipedia. As much as I want to buy into your argument here, I just don't see how any of this is ever going to change. It hasn't now for years, even after a previous indef ban. He hasn't changed his ways or his approach to editing, which he promised to do when he was unbanned. I don't see how leniency here will do anything but prolong a years-long problem. Sorry for the wall of words, by the way. There's a lot to unpack with this. Anwegmann (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of attitude, which was part of his initial ban, has shown through many times—as the discussion above has noted. It's frustrating that someone who has done so much for a specific corner of Wikipedia has repeatedly shown themselves to be prone to edit-warring, personal attacks, aggression, not citing sources, and other fundamentally problematic practices universally discouraged across Wikipedia. This! It's a real pity. @Andriyrussu: Do you think you can change? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration and, again, being right does not justify him being an ass to fellow users. I repeat that I would not be opposed to stronger sanctions if there is generalised support for it, but I would still prefer it if something could be worked out. At any rate, I have reverted one of his, so to speak, controversial edits and left a summary inviting him to come here. Hopefully he will understand that his behaviour is well below par and we can see if we can work something out from there. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will depend on whether they decide to respond here or not. Mellk (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for what I did, but considering my contributions (for free by the way) to Wikipedia, you shouldn't focus on just this occasion. I hope you praise the contributors, who sacrifice their free time for Wikipedia, in the same you persecute them for any minor mistake. Andriyrussu (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I only put dog poop in one brownie. You should be thanking me for all the rest of the brownies I made for you" is how this comes across. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t tell me that’s actually a commonly-used English phrase. Seriously though, a wrongdoing can automatically overwrite some of the good things you’ve done; contributors with over 1 million edits have been blocked before. ^EF⁵ 01:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is exactly zero contrition in this "apology," which shows that there is no hope for a change in behavior and makes rather clear that the promises this editor made in his unblock request were not honest either. Anwegmann (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, at least I don't think so, but it's paraphrasing something my mom often said, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your mum put dog poop on brownies? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the language of the settlement name, I don't see the creator putting any source to the Russian name of it when he created the page, so he also edit-warred with me. Without providing any Wikipedia policy he is following, he is following his logic that if Russian is the second most spoken language in Ukraine, all settlements pages should have the Russian name version of it. Is there any consensus on this?

Regarding the lack of source when i updated the player's match stats, why should i put source to every match he plays? The stats are already available in the UAF external link, so it has source always. If a player plays 1000 matches during their career, should the page have 1000 sources?

I respect the role admins play in protecting Wikipedia, and I'm proud of the many positive contributions I've made to the project over time. Everyone makes mistakes - that's how people learn and improve. Comparing one honest mistake to "putting dog poop in a brownie" is unfair and disproportionate, especially given my consistent track record. If mistakes were grounds for bans, many long-term editors would be gone by now. I'm here to build, not break, and I'm committed to following Wikipedia's rules moving forward. I ask for fair treatment that acknowledges both my contributions and my willingness to correct errors - not a permanent ban that discards all of that. Wikipedia thrives on collaboration and second chances. Let's keep it that way. Andriyrussu (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this response puts me back to my opinion that the user is not capable of editing constructively and needs an indef block or a community ban. Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You edit-warred with me, so I don't think you can make a decision here. Your opinion is biased. Andriyrussu (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The decision will be taken by an uninvolved administrator, we are all giving our opinions. Mine can be found above. Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srich32977 is modifying ISBN formats again, despite years of requests not to do so. The editor was asked to stop yet again, responded with the same "consistency" justification, and then immediately went to another article to make the objectionable changes. The editor has been asked to desist from undesirable ISBN editing behavior in:

• December 2016
• March 2019
• January 2020
• November 2020
• November 2022
• June 2023
• November 2024

Those were just the ones that I could find. I expect that there are more. I hate going to ANI for resolution, but this editor keeps returning to the same objectionable behavior, despite warnings, blocks, and requests. I apologize to the administrators who will have to deal with this, but I don't know where else to turn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's compare:

A WP article has some references posted. Some of them are styled as