Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I've just reverted an edit by citation bot to Retrograde and prograde motion. The bot appears to be malfunctioning. It replaced the title of a book with an unrelated journal article. Fdfexoex (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several of us have reported similar bugs at User talk:Citation bot#ArXiv references getting completely messed up, the bot is being run on the draft namespace with no one checking the changes, it is difficult to spot as well because at least for my case, it is merging and mixing up information from other references. I have blocked it from making changes on my pages, but I worry about all the other pages not being scrutinized as much. Ajheindel (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now the bot has reverted me and reintroduced the incorrect edit. Fdfexoex (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi Smith609. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see stopping the bot from editing a specific citation. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For months now the bot's maintenance has fallen to someone with little coding experience who can only change small things, and not fix any serious malfunctions; see User talk:Citation bot#Is anyone actually maintaining this bot?. So when the bot repeatedly introduces serious errors to citations with little hope of fixing it, I think stopping the bot from editing altogether should come into consideration, rather than playing whack-a-mole with the same error on all the articles where it recurs. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has been reverted at List of largest exoplanets for once again replacing titles with other random titles. How do we shut this bot down for good? Fdfexoex (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has also just been blocked from editing Union-closed sets conjecture for similar misbehavior. I suggest that it be blocked until its maintainers convincingly claim that these bugs have been fixed. (I wouldn't want to block it permanently if it is properly maintained; on the whole it does much more good than harm.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time to hit the funny red button? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need to be reported somewhere else or can it be resolved here? Not sure what the procedure for something like this would be. Ajheindel (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the maintainers were maintaining the bot the reporting mechanism would be to go to User talk:Citation bot and follow the instructions at the top of the page (click a button and fill out a form, starting a new bug report). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked As there have been repeated concerns raised about the bot introducing errors, and the lack of avaibility of experienced developers, I have blocked the bot for 72 hours. As well as stopping any other errors from occurring, it may also bring attention to this thread from other editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For context, the phrase Feedback [required] from maintainers appears 100 times on that page—as noted above, going back over a year *minor facepalm* —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather unfortunate. If there is anything I can do to help (experienced professional software engineer) I would. Andre🚐 18:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd contribute too if it weren't written in PHP. — DVRTed (Talk) 19:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the code is at https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot, and AManWithNoPlan, while mostly inactive on-wiki, still appears to be reviewing PRs there. So I suspect code contributions would be welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been programming PHP for years (random example), but I don't think I can help as I don't know how Citation Bot is supposed to work. The last project I had a go at writing was an open-source replacement for SineBot and that stalled when the "real" bot came back online. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's ping the other maintainers: @Kaldari and AManWithNoPlan:. I'll also leave a block notice at User talk:Citation bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've opened an issue on github (https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/issues/4823) to help alert the maintainers as well. Redalert2fan (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So far the only action has been a small update to the "bot is blocked" error message. The current 72-hour block may not be enough, especially if the goal is to get the current significant problems fixed before unblocking and not merely to trigger someone to start paying attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've lengthened the block to a indefinite block for now. Even optimistically speaking I don't think 72 hours was (or is) sufficient to address the concerns but given the inactivity of the maintainers, the chances of everything being fixed approach zero unless folks step up (I personally haven't looked deeply at the code, but might do so later) Sohom (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is unfortunate that citation bot has to be blocked. But I agree these problems need to be resolved before removing the block. Also, I didn't realize that problems have been manifesting for awhile without any response. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  72 hours was a starting point; enough time to add discussion to either decide the bot could be unblocked, or should remain so - the latter has now happened. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The same problem with {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} has been going on for months... since February, at least. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot is an important bot. I hope we don't loose its knowledge and solutions. Certain features could be disabled as being too ambitious and half-baked. But most of it is fine and mostly bug free (I think). Would like to see AI produce a spec of the features it contains. Then determine which ones are causing bug reports. Then ask AI to disable those features. -- GreenC 04:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that it can be done as reductionistically as that, especially by an AI. I'm unfamiliar with the code, but it is uncommon for big pieces of code to be as modular as you suggest. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it won't be as simple as flipping a switch somewhere, and will require testing, but disabling features is often easy relative to adding/repairing them. I've written two large bots like this and you are almost forced to modularize to maintain control of the code. If it's so bad where everything is a global variable and not isolated from everything else, it's probably not worth the time, but when I checked the code a while ago it didn't seem that way. Sometimes you get a clue by the length of the functions. Shorter the better. -- GreenC 16:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping this bot blocked is disruptive. So it should be unblocked soon, possibly with some extra guidance for users on how to check for incorrect results. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Graeme Bartlett, You are free to use the citation expander gadget to run the bot manually through your own account. The block does not block editors from using it with proper oversight. Sohom (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sohom Datta, unfortunately the gadget doesn't work (except on really small articles) and hasn't for quite some time, so the bot is the only way to use it reliably. Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It just uses Citation Bot which is blocked. Actually it does work to some extent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did some exploration of the gadget just now. Looks like the gadget calls either https://citations.toolforge.org/process_page.php or https://citations.toolforge.org/gadgetapi.php depending on what you click. So it is likely that whatever is wrong with the gadget is actually a bug in the bot's PHP code (rather than a bug in MediaWiki:Gadget-citations.js). –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After consultation with Anne drew, I am reporting Badakhshan ziba for multiple ongoing misconducts. These include personal attacks, accusations of dishonesty, assertions that I fabricate arguments using generative AI, and additional behaviour that violates WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:DISRUPTIVE. This pattern has continued over 3 months, despite multiple warnings from uninvolved editors. The repeated personal attacks and bad-faith accusations make constructive content discussion nearly impossible. Below is an extensive, but by no means complete list of all misconducts I could reconstruct of the most serious instances, since I lost count at how many different pages we discussed already.

Given Badakhshan ziba's ongoing pattern and failure to respond to warnings, I believe administrative action such as (at least a temporary) topic ban, interaction ban, or other appropriate measures is long overdue. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SdHb: ANI Stalker here. Please make your report more succinct. With the length it currently stands at, it is completely impossible to reasonably evaluate. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some broken telephone happening here regarding an arbcom case - I surely said (or meant) that you could bring the matter to WP:AE, since you're working in a WP:CTOP. There's certainly no need to go to arbcom with this since I think it can easily be settled here. But it's also fine to bring it here. I disagree with @GoatLordServant that this needs cutting down - it's quite clear enough, and there really is this much volume. It's unending. @Xan747 tried, I tried, @Robert McClenon tried, evidently others have tried: nothing has worked. This editor is not able to contribute collaboratively with others.

I cannot take administrative action here because I became editorially involved trying to help unstick the dispute at Ethnic groups of Afghanistan after Xan747 struck out. Someone else will have to evaluate this and set a tban from Afghanistan, SA social groups, or maybe more narrowly "ethnic groups in Afghanistan" (the topic, not the article). Or just indef. This isn't going anywhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Was looking at all the diffs and this report's liberal use of bolding, and immediately questioned what volunteers would really absorb it all. After some time looking through all these though, the throughline is there; I agree. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've alerted him to the contentious topic, so if he doesn't get indeffed now, the CTOPS options are in play. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan, they're aware, just not with the fancy banner. A very quick skim for likely diffs above got me [1], which isn't as clear as I'd like, but I find it hard to believe we got through a 3O, a 4O, and some dozen rounds of DRN without the CTOP ever being mentioned. -- asilvering (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's aware, then there's WP:AWARE. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Not sure why I didn't hand out a /first when I showed up to the first edit war report, since I normally hand them out like candy. Perhaps it was just that distractingly bad already. -- asilvering (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Asilvering; I closed this discussion, which seems one of the loci of the dispute, and while I merely weighed the arguments, the behaviour highlighted by the OP was very apparent. (Specifically, the unholy trinity of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WPBLUDGEON and WP:IDHT) —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Below is an extensive, but by no means complete list of all misconducts"

Given how excessively long this list already is, I'm very concerned as to what ISN'T on this list. GarethBaloney (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef/CBAN If they cannot collaborate with others to this extent it's gone beyond a TBAN, and I can see barely any edits outside the problematic areas.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to CBAN - see here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked them indefinitely as a response to the incessant personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, without having fully tabulated every other offence included here. No prejudice to the community deciding to further consider at WP:CBAN. SdHb, for reference, at WP:AE word limits for case filings are 500 words and 20 diffs, to give you a rough sense of the level of documentation normally needed for the adjudication of conduct issues, in case you ever have cause to file another report. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They are now appealing the block on their talk page with a statement that is contrite. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first half is probably AI but the last paragraph seems genuine enough - they probably only used AI to get their thoughts together. I'm happy with TBAN on that basis. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  „please excuse me, I was wrongly thought that my behavior was probably normal.“ After over 3 months and literally dozens upon dozens of suggestions, askings, call-outs, and warnings, IMHO this one statement can‘t possibly be taken seriously, and at least shouldn’t be enough to justify mitigating circumstances when he had the chance to better himself every single time during the whole period. SdHb (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am inclined to agree with this assessment. The turnaround time for this apology following the block is rather surreal considering the prior history and staggering amount of examples of both problematic behavior by them and attempts by others to warn them. To be honest, I'm not sure I've ever reviewed a behavioral conduct case with this much evidence available. My inclination is that we're in WP:SO territory as far as paths back to editing go, although I don't think it's out of the question to consider converting the indef block into an indef tban from Afghanistan. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. Saying „I […] sincerely apologize for my recent behavior“ also doesn‘t help their case since it makes it seem like they haven‘t even recognized or acknowledged the misdemeanor they’ve shown the whole time since August. SdHb (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh. I really wanted to believe they were taking this seriously but my AGF glasses are obviously too rose-tinted today. Perhaps a CBAN is justified after all, then they would need a full assessment of any appeals by the community following SO. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just adding a bit of information here. Although it definitely doesn't excuse the behavior, I think there's a bit of a language barrier here, so the content that seems like AI might actually be the result of a translation app/algorithm. This did make it difficult to follow some of the discussion, but it's still very clear that the user has become very hostile and making really strange, inappropriate accusations. This seems to be a very personal/triggering issue for them, and I do sympathize. But their accusations here are inappropriate. If anything, their dispute is with the authors of an article/report -- from a reliable source, i.e. the ABC News report they've mentioned (which is actually an ABC/BBC collaboration). The authors presented the data in a perfectly acceptable manner, but either way, they're the publishers of the data in question. BetsyRogers (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN in order to require an appeal to the community. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support CBAN per @Blue-Sonnet and @Fortuna imperatrix mundi shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their cban !vote (which I interpret to mean a site ban), but I would like to remind everyone that the community can set a topic ban here, and since the editor is already indef'd, they will have to get through an unblocks admin to return to editing in any case. Unless I'm much mistaken, we don't presently have any evidence that they would be disruptive outside of this topic area yet - it's all they've ever edited about - so a community-applied tban of some kind would likely be enough to stop the disruption. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they would. But the whole point of the C[ommunity]Ban is that it isn't within the remit of a single "unblocks admin" to unblock; it would have to come back to the community. And if the result of a tban is the same as a cban—because of their narrow editing are—then there's no real reason to go with a lesser sanction that would allow for similar behavior in a different topic area. (A Tban does not speak to the above-mentioned unholy trinity, for ex). Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, my mind keeps changing! My original concern was that they seem to be almost an SPA, it's hard to judge a TBAN because I have no idea whether they'd continue their disruption elsewhere - they say they enjoy mountains, so would they have the same problems if someone pushed the right buttons on an edit about mountains?

The fact that they wouldn't listen to so many other people is definitely concerning, so they apparently have difficulty in editing objectively if they feel passionately about a subject. It'd be easier if we had more to go off, but we don't.

Yes, we have an indef, but are we voting to downgrade that to a TBAN or TBAN only after a successful indef appeal? Or CBAN with subsequent TBAN?

I ask because the whole "TBAN on appeal" part feels moot since that's what would probably happen on appeal anyway - I'm a bit worried that it'll get confusing if we're not clear on the suggested options.

Should we add separate proposals so it's clear, or am I thinking about this too much? We don't even know if they'll appeal or if it'll be successful yet.

If we ignore the possibilities of any theoretical successful appeals, then the options would be:

1. Keep indef
2. Upgrade to CBAN
3. Downgrade to TBAN

Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A TBAN based on community consensus here wouldn't be quite the same as a TBAN upon appeal from an indef. I believe the difference is the level needed to repeal; a TBAN as part of a conditional unblock could be repealed by a singular administrator (per WP:CONDUNBLOCK), though it would have to be from the unblocking admin. A TBAN imposed here could only be appealed to ARBCOM or the community. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it, thank you! Unfortunately it turns out their appeal isn't very good. I wanted to AGF but it is pretty basic considering their overall behaviour & I can see why everyone's concerned still. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN - with the indef, a CBAN is unnecessary. A TBAN as well, will give them the chance if they appeal the indef to contribute in other areas without diving straight back into the CTOP. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN.There is clear evidence they are disruptive in this topic area so a TBAN is needed to prevent disruption and give them some time outside the topic area to show they can edit productively if they appeal their indef. I do not support a CBAN as it is unnecessary as they are already indef'd.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN ABAN at least to begin with). Full disclosure, I've never voted on an issue of banning before because I really try to Assume Good Faith, except in blatant vandalism. In reality, "good faith" is in the eye of the beholder, and I try to be sympathetic to anyone who appears to be going through some emotional stuff. But whatever this is that I've recently witnessed, I don't think it will resolve itself or fizzle out. For the sake of those being attacked (and for the sake of the attacker who probably would benefit from some time-off from this triggering topic), I would 100% support an ABAN TBAN, then see how that goes.

BetsyRogers (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this should be an ABAN instead of a TBAN? An ABAN would only prevent them from editing the article (and maybe the talk page). They could still disrupt the project outside of that scope. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you could clarify, in what other ways could they disrupt it? (Serious question, trying to make sure I understand correctly what an ABAN does and doesn't do.) BetsyRogers (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BetsyRogers, an article ban would stop them from editing a specific article or set of articles, say, Ethnic groups in Afghanistan. But they'd still be able to talk about the same concepts elsewhere. I expect that ban would be far too narrow. The dispute would just end up recurring somewhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most simple ABAN is one that solely blocks an editor from editing a page; it is akin to a partial block on singular page, just that it requires consensus to be undone. It does not stop the editor from being disruptive on the talk, or their user talk, or other pages. Most of the disruption in the report appears to relates to the talk page, and the No original research noticeboard, which aren't covered by the most basic ABAN. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ asilvering 45dogs. OK, thanks for the clarification. Maybe then a TBAN ban is better. Separately, I'm remembering now that the user said they planned to follow up with a new RfC on reliable sources (I guess trying to dispute ABC News as a reliable source?). I don't know if there's a term for "disruptive RfC's", but is there any sort of ban/warning that could address that? BetsyRogers (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would classify disruptive RfCs as just simply being disruptive. I would image doing such a thing, at least soon after being unblocked, would cause them to be reblocked as simply WP:NOTHERE. Depending on the contents of the RFC, it could violate a TBAN as well since TBANs are (to my knowledge) generally classified as broadly construed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN. Badakhshan ziba may be editing in good faith, but at a certain point competence is required. They've shown a distinct inability to listen to and comprehend points raised by other editors. There may be a language barrier at play here, but their personal attacks against other contributors are also unacceptable. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the links! That clears up a few things. BetsyRogers (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: - I have declined a request to unblock (although they have already filed another), based in part on the fact that it is clear to me that the community wants to make the decision as to the outcome of this particular situation, rather than have an admin singularly decide. I won't opine of the merits here, as I've already handled the unblock request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CBAN I always try to assume good faith to the final, tiniest shred, and I take the arguments presented for a TBAN instead very seriously. However, the poor conduct here is so extensive, beyond simply poor edits in a specific topic area, that I see this editor's approach to be fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project such as this one. Their ethnic WP:RGW is extremely troubling, but I have zero confidence that this editor will react well to any kind of disagreement on any topic. While I have a great deal of confidence in admins, my personal belief is that with behavior this poor and with so many editors involved, the community has a responsibility to deal with it, and make it our problem; too often we outsource our headaches to admins. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CBAN: Yes, that's a massive wall of OP text. But it's also a massive tally of violations; we'd CBAN someone for a tenth as many of them and not even blink. It's a good indef, but I just don't see a way clear to ever trust this editor again. Dennis Brown called it in the first sentence of the first decline: "This seems too convenient, just 4.5 hours after you are blocked, you have an epiphany regarding a few months of abusive behavior." The fulsome apologies also just seem like snake oil to me: this degree of egregious behavior isn't a momentary spasm, or a "I was wrongly thought that my behavior was probably normal" (what, did this bloke not notice that no one else talks this way here??), or "I recognize that my strong personal connection to this sensitive topic caused me to communicate inappropriately?" No. Doing this for months is strong evidence that this is who this editor is. Ravenswing 09:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Non-administrator comment) Thank you for your comment, I completely agree. If anyone here has still doubts that the "epiphany" the user suddenly had just might be real and they really want to change their behaviour all of a sudden, I want to pick apart the content of this comment and their second asking to unblock to show what their real intent might be IMHO.

  But I have greatly improved the content of Wikipedia on the page related to the ethnicities of Afghanistan. Don't you consider this? Just compare the content of the article 6 months ago with the current article in the ethnic composition table

  Let alone the fact that considering that would in no way excuse their overall behaviour...

  This is so incredibly out of touch with reality and a straight punch to my face that it's hard to comprehend. Firstly, because all of their already discussed destructive behavior in all of the months. But secondly and more importantly, they completely undermine my contributions to the content of the article. I by no means want to give the impression that I created the live page all by myself, I certainly didn't, but them to say they "have greatly improved the content [...] on the page" while it was me who sat on the page for months [2][3][4][5][6][7][8], trying to improve the whole content with the intent to bring it to WP:GOODARTICLE status [9][10] (which BTW was also honored and acknowledged by other users [11][12]), while all they actually did was complaining about the content or straightup reverting everything [13][14][15]. Even the current ethnic percentage table was mostly done by me and Xan747 [16][17]. And now, they are claiming all the improvements made by me for themselves? That just shows how incredibly self-centered, ignorant, and righteous they really are (keyword: WP:ICHY), and how they want to make this discussion about them.

  I believe I have fallen into a big trap to be permanently banned from participating in Ethnic groups in Afghanistan.

  The same person who has just filed a complaint against me threatened me a few days ago and say ( I will try to find a way to leave you out of the discussion completely )

  Now I just realize that he was gathering evidence against me. this is just one example from several case.

  They don't really feel sorry for their behavior at all, they just think I and all of the other users who warned them for months made a plot against them. This may fall in the psychological realm of siege mentality (or "me against the world") and is totally inappropriate for serious discussions. Edit: Conveniently for them, they left out that part of the "threat" (inflammatory rhetoric!) where I said:

  ... unless you change your way of cooperativness dramatically.

  I'm pretty sure this is called framing, WP:GASLIGHTING, or playing the victim card. SdHb (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't really know three months ago that I was violating Wikipedia's rules of conduct.

  me and other editor who were involved in the discussion, both some times had an unfriendly tone. So I thought this was probably normal behavior and there was nothing wrong with it.

  More examples of being just blatantly oblivious to all the warnings that were presented to them for months and months.

  Is it justice that I can't even speak?

  The next example of inflammatory rhetoric/emotionalization of the discussion.

  This all shows that their responses are still framed by the same unproductive conflict patterns as before, rather than by a genuine understanding of the concerns that multiple editors have raised and tried to sympathize with. But as @Asilvering already said:

  It's unending. @Xan747 tried, I tried, @Robert McClenon tried, evidently others have tried: nothing has worked. This editor is not able to contribute collaboratively with others.

  I'll leave it at that. SdHb (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You were gathering evidence against them. Very comprehensively. Quite persuasively. Part of my support for CBAN comes from that they seem considerably more indignant that they're being brought to book than contrite about their appalling behavior. Ravenswing 11:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. There's no actual remorse about their behavior against me and others. Just this notion of having been wronged, of being the victim of some coordinated effort against them, rather than someone who has repeatedly and consistently violated core conduct WP policies. Their entire "apology" reframes the situation as a plot to silence them, not as the natural consequence of months of personal attacks, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and refusal to collaborate. SdHb (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN: If only administrators are allowed to vote, disregard this since I'm not one. I periodically weigh in on the OR Noticeboard where I encountered Badakhshan ziba. I don't know about all the other issues SdHb but based solely on the OR conversation, I felt like Badakhshan ziba, while seemingly well-meaning, just doesn't have the temperament or basic capabilities to carry on conversations to get to a reasonable conclusion (and was far from that) and that this was leading to many editors spending many hours of fruitless time. Banning this user would allow these many other editors to get on with their work. Novellasyes (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Admins are not the only editors allowed to !vote non admins can too and several already have(including me.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community sanctions they still don't get it, despite extensive coaching and advice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They've now stated that they are willing to volunteer for a TBAN, although they prefer to request a TBAN that allows them to edit Afghanistan geography and climate. Pinging editors who have supported more severe sanctions in case this affects their opinions: Novellasyes, ortuna imperatrix mundi, EditorShane3456, Anne drew, CoffeeCrumbs, Ravenswing _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the pings didn't work so I will add the ping @Fortuna imperatrix mundi. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think in this case, I'm going to stand by my original opinion. Their conduct has been so poor over such a long period that I have zero confidence in their ability to collaborate effectively on any topic, the second they run into a disagreement with another editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I initially yo-yo'd between CBAN & TBAN following indef appeal (it's waaaay up the page).

  I realise I wasn't pinged here, but for the sake of clarity I will confirm I am going with CBAN - this was going on for literal months and they're now trying to argue that an editor who was understandably frustrated by their actions should also be sanctioned. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. My objections are to this editor's conduct and attitude, and I doubt their being unleashed on other topic areas will improve it. My statement calling for CBAN stands. Ravenswing 23:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Has the scope of any potential TBAN been defined here/elsewhere? I assumed it would cover a broad range of topics. If it would only be specific to the general topic of the article, I don't think that would be enough. BetsyRogers (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BetsyRogers, GothicGolem29 and Cdjp1: what is the scope of the TBAN you are supporting? For instance, is it just ethnic groups in Afghanistan, broadly construed, or something like Afghanistan, broadly construed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My preference, as has been the case in other bans, is to keep it as narrow and specific as is necessary. So "ethnic groups in Afghanistan" seems good enough to me, based on what was seen as at my last comment. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I support the TBAN including ethnic groups in Afghanistan broadly construed as that is where the disruption has taken place so that is the necessary topic area to cover Afghanistan as a topic broadly construed per their request for a voluntary TBAN in that area. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if this is possible, but I would support a TBAN that includes the topic of the article AND anything in the realm of contentious topics related to Afghanistan (ethnic groups, cultural debates, politics, etc.). But that might leave too much up to interpretation.

  The main reason I'm not voting for CBAN right now is that although the user did get warnings, the conduct was still allowed to occur for several months with no resulting blocks/bans as far as I know. This isn't a criticism, and it's nobody's fault in particular, but it's still the case. If warnings aren't followed up with consequences, then they're not sending a clear message.

  Also, I looked through the user's edit/contributions history, and it seems the problem behavior only started when they began editing the article in question. Before that, they had been editing for a couple of years, and their contributions were mostly about geography & topography of Afghanistan, and they were not at all disruptive. BetsyRogers (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with some of your reasoning. This is a community project run by volunteers, it's not our responsibility to correct or manage one editor's behaviour - that's their own responsibility.

  Blocks and bans should be a last resort and they're intended to prevent disruption, not to punish misbehaviour.

  I don't really agree with the idea that it's not the editor's fault because no-one disciplined them until now - multiple editors spent literal months trying to educate them, but it didn't work. They were blocked as a last resort.

  CBAN's aren't permanent, the Standard offer exists so an editor can work on another project for six months or so, then return with proof that they can edit productively and won't cause further disruption if they are unblocked.

  A CBAN means they the community as a whole can then review that history (or even a well-written appeal on its own) and decide whether that editor has demonstrated the competency needed to return to this community-driven project. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am still in favor of a CBAN. The determining factor for me is "ratio of massive amount of time-consuming coaching to any observed changes or uptake". It has taken a lot of people a lot of time to offer a very significant amount of coaching spread out over multiple places, and this does not appear to have resulted in uptake. I don't want to waste the future time of other editors. Novellasyes (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed support to CBAN (with the standard offer).

@Blue-Sonnet, I didn't mean to seem like I was saying that their behavior wasn't their fault. But you (and @Novellasyes & others) are right that this has taken up too much volunteer time/effort already. And a TBAN leaves room for further disruption, which is really unfair to other volunteers. I'd like to think this editor would be able/willing to get back to their nondistruptive editing style of the past (e.g., when they were making helpful contributions in geography and topography). But I guess the best place for them to demonstrate that is in a separate space. Like you said, there are other projects where this can happen.

- Giving more weight to the degree & duration of disruption that has happened (which has had a big impact on other volunteers), *and* the current uncertainty that a TBAN would actually prevent a similar scenario (which is again unfair to volunteers) , I wouldn't be opposed to a CBAN. BetsyRogers (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I just wanted to present my viewpoint to see if that might help put things into perspective, if that makes sense? It's difficult to gauge intent when you only have the written word to go from anyway!

They've added a new Talk post that I think they want carrying over to ANI - I'm not 100% sure so I'm double-checking with them first.

A few people (myself included) have recommended that they drop the stick, wait for a decision and/or work on editing elsewhere to prep for a standard offer appeal, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen for the moment.

That said, they're entitled to give us a response so I'll transfer it over when I get confirmation. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding other ways to participate, personally I've started dabbling in uploading cc0/open-access images to Wikimedia Commons. (Articles need photos or nobody will read them!). :-) BetsyRogers (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw This reply from earlier. If this type of reply had happened days ago (instead of the denials and refusals to take feedback), I'd probably still support a TBAN alone. The best advice they got was to step away for a few days, and they ignored it.  :( BetsyRogers (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• One look at the user's talk page says it all. Will an admin please close this, imho, it's gone on long enough. I can't since I declined the unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copied over from user Talk page

"Last words. Hello everyone.

@Blue-Sonnet, @Rosguill , @Cdjp1 , @GothicGolem29 , @Dennis Brown , @BetsyRogers , @45dogs , @asilvering, @SarekOfVulcan , @Anne drew , @ClaudineChionh

I request a final vote. C-Ben. T-Ben. No comments. 11 person.

I have to say that I see ANI as a courtroom. And this reminds me of the famous movie 12 Angry Men.

I ask the Wikipedia community why you think I am going to do something destructive again? I am human. I have brain. I understand that if I do something disruptive again, I will be punished more severely. For this simple reason, I will do my best not to commit another wrongdoing. why you dont believe me?

Why are you going to punish me in the harshest way? Is it fair that the harshest punishment should be given to me , while the first time I get blocked?

To be honest, being banned is very, very unfair and harsh for anyone who is the first time blocked and has little experience.

To gain the trust of the Wikipedia community,

1- I pledge to voluntarily implement a ban on topics related to Afghanistan. 2- I pledge not to engage in disruptive behavior because I am human and understand that if I make a mistake, the greatest punishment awaits me. 3- I pledge to consult Teahouse whenever I encounter a problem or have a question so that I do not cause problems again. 4- please Tell me, what other commitment should I make?

I ask the Wikipedia community to pay attention to my useful and non-disruptive history before entering into the discussion of Afghan ethnicities.

And I like to say again that this situation reminds me of the famous movie 12 Angry Men. The decision is yours. There is nothing more I can do for now."

Copied by Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, my heart isn't made of stone. I've struck my CBAN vote. Please don't make me regret it. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As others have stated before I will reiterate that a sanction is not a punishment it is about preventing disruption. As for my !vote I will amend to Afghanistan broadly construed as that is what they have volunteered to do. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually officially voted, and I don't particularly have the time to review right now. I do believe either sanction would prevent disruption though. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no change in how I feel about this situation. This isn't a trial, and the analogy to 12 Angry Men is inapt and raises questions about what this editor thinks their responsibility in this situation truly is (though not why I haven't changed how I feel). This editor was continually abusive to a fair number of editors over multiple months, and had no trouble ignoring a parade of increasingly stern warnings and pleas from other editors to edit collaboratively. The sudden toneshift from hostility to contrition only came with the realization that there would be consequences for their actions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy to 12 Angry Men is very inapt. In that movie, a jury originally voted 11-1 to convict but after their own examination of the evidence returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. I fail to see the relevance. Narky Blert (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I said there were 11 people voting for indef/CBAN and one unblock with TBAN at one point, plus they really want us to reconsider and change our decision - that's all I can think off the top of my head. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The latest [18] makes me feel stronger that a community ban is for the best. @Badakhshan ziba, you're not on trial and you're not being sentenced to death; you're being restricted from editing on a website.

You keep talking about Wikipedia rules needing to be spelled out for you, but you're not currently blocked because you ran afoul of some obscure Wikipedia rule or because you made some accidental mistake. You're here because for months, you didn't follow basic human interaction rules that apply to any collaborative project, not just Wikipedia. Nobody is happy having to have this conversation, but you're the one who brought us here as a result of your actions. I don't think I have anything else to say. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned that they could easily fall into bad habits if met with opposition over something they're passionate about - during their appeal they wanted (or strongly inferred that they wanted) sanctions against one of their opponents (the OP)[19], who had understandably become frustrated with their behaviour over the past 2-3 months.

They're active on Persian Wikipedia [20] (and Commons [21]) so I've suggested they edit over there for a while to demonstrate a long-term change in behaviour. They seem happy to do this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this user understood what the problem is, they wouldn't characterize the potential ban as "very, very unfair and harsh". It isn't. It's an action taken to protect the time and headspace of WP volunteers. As @CoffeeCrumbs: says, up until now, you "had no trouble ignoring a parade of increasingly stern warnings and pleas from other editors to edit collaboratively". If you're not blocked now, then this whole exchange will be just another in a series of increasingly stern warnings that won't achieve the intended result (protecting WP volunteers). Novellasyes (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm addressing this directly to Badakhshan ziba if that's okay:

Regarding "please Tell me, what other commitment should I make?" Some suggestions that I hope you'll take seriously:

1. Follow through on your commitment to consult the Teahouse FIRST, rather than escalating to a formal dispute.

2. Pay attention to the good advice you're given. So many people DID take the time to give you feedback, and they DID warn you that your hostile and rude behavior could result in a block/ban, and you ignored it.

3.  Several times after the block was in place, you said you weren't familiar with the guidelines for expected/prohibited conduct. But there are numerous pages of help articles to assist you with this! It's your responsibly to educate yourself on this. If you haven't read through the introductory pages yet, you should. Here are a few you can start with:

• Help:Introduction to Wikipedia
• Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines (see Conduct)
• Civility; WP:AGF; WP:NPA; WP:OWN

4. When in doubt, ask yourself how you would want to be treated or spoken to. Would you like to be repeatedly accused of the things you have accused others of? (especially SdHb). I assume you wouldn't. So please don't do it to others.

5. I looked through your contributions from when you first started editing here, and you made some very helpful contributions on a topic you clearly like. My suggestion would be to focus your efforts on topics that bring you enjoyment. Avoid topics that are emotional or stressful. It's not worth your time, energy, and emotional health to get caught up in a lengthy dispute, especially on an article that anyone else could come along and edit later anyway. (See WP:OWN)

- Changing my vote back to TBAN, but I'm not sure it will help. Your comparison to "12 Angry Men" is implying that not everyone here is acting in good faith. That was not a good choice. You might have swayed a few more votes from CBAN to TBAN if you had kept that to yourself.

... I think I'm done commenting here. I know everyone here has thought about this carefully and honestly. As a more-or-less newcomer to this process, I'm incredibly impressed by all of the effort you all put into this. BetsyRogers (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Tban from Afghani politics/culture/ethnicity. Oppose CBAN.

I don't think a CBAN is the right answer. This seems like ignorance, possibly someone who should have been pblocked from Ethnic groups in Afghanistan months ago, as what I feel like I'm seeing in the fast about face is not necessarily disingenuousness but possibly a failure to have read the room followed by the horrified realization that "Oh, shit, they're serious".

Yes, they ignored multiple warnings, but again that could be ignorance since apparently nothing ever happened? They're in a dispute with people with whom they profoundly disagree, they think this is how things are done here -- people trade insults and warnings and pound their chests, but it's all just posturing -- because nothing has ever actually come of it.

So now we're looking at the accumulation of stuff no one did anything about and we're talking about a Cban? Feels like overcorrecting. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that something should have been done way earlier than this. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not opposed to a tban solution, but I do think this read skips over some concerning elements displayed here: there’s the ABF responses to editors uninvolved with the dispute and their advice, and there’s also the responses to me in their attempts to appeal the block, where they seem to repeatedly misunderstand my suggestions. Even when they’re clearly trying to comply with my recommendations, they ended up missing what I’m actually asking of them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN with the standard offer. I think this editor has been warned many times about possible editing restrictions if they do not stop with the continuous disruptions, which have gone unheeded. A CBAN, in this instance, is to protect the community and maintain our collaborative editing and collegial atmosphere. They do not seem capable of relating to this type of editing. This is not about punishment. If they become serious about editing on Wikipedia they can contact an administrator or experienced editor after six months per the Standard offer.---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[33] and [34] say it all. It seems unlikely that Byron Comp 3 (talk · contribs) is aware of talk pages, and if they are, then they refuse to communicate. I'd suggest pblocking from mainspace in the hope they start communicating. lp0 on fire () 19:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting they have two sleepers at Byron Comp II and Byron Comp III, all created within the same week. Anyway, they have made 401 edits, none of which include sources, and most of them have been reverted. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to communicate with them through edit summaries, since talk page messages have proven ineffective. Their edits thus far appear to either have been MOS violating or copyright violations. Maybe a partial block from article space would be effective until they communicate (and obviously understand copyright, reliable sourcing, etc)? Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something is very...not right with those edits. I went with a layered block approach here; a 72-hour article space block to draw Byron Comp 3's attention to their talk page and this report. I also partial blocked them from creating pages for one month as they're edit warring and creating way too much work for others. Either of these blocks can be lifted if progress is made in communicating and they demonstrate an understanding of how article creation works. Note that if they start using a new account a site-wide block would be more applicable.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Priyankaarya2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

The user has been observed replacing dead links/pages, however, the majority of the substitute links provided/replaced appear to at fault. The edits suggest that the user is selecting the nearest available link rather than conducting adequate research to ensure the validity and relevance of the replacement URLs/article before insertion into the articles.

[87] Original article is about Croatian military 5th Guards Brigade (Croatia) -> 5th Guards Tank Brigade Russian military unit

[88] Original article is about Australia military Southern Command (Australia)| -> Southern Command (India)| India military unit

[89] Original article is about Australia military 6th Field Regiment (Australia) -> 6th Field Artillery Regiment USA military unit

[90] Added link directly onto articles

[91] Music Society of Victoria -> Music Victoria

[92] Salaam Network -> website linked directly onto Salaam Network

The disruptive editing pattern persists across most articles user has contributed. I hope that the user will engage in discussion on this noticeboard to resolve the issue collaboratively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GZhong (talk • contribs) 17:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown FG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Disclaimer: I did post on their talk page on the 25th with a suggestion to withdraw from the upcoming admin election in December. Other than that, I have had no prior interaction with this editor before.

It is unfortunate I find myself posting here regarding this editor, especially when have recently nominated themself for the upcoming admin elections in December. I understand the precariousness of reporting a fellow editor to AN/I when they are a nominee for admin, however I believe it is necessary due to ongoing disruptive editing on the project.

WP:BLP violations: @Unknown FG added content that violated WP:BLP to Sumit Hridayesh, which was reverted in full by @Iiii I I I. The various violations were outlined here on the article talk page. They consist mostly of unsourced text, WP:NOTNEWS, unreliable sources and WP:OR. The content added by @Unknown FG can be viewed over numerous edits made on the 6 September 2025 here. They were warned on their talk page.

Unsourced content: An unsubstantiated link was added to Nagaland by @Unknown FG. Less than 3 hours later, the article was set to WP:ECP by admin @Yamaguchi先生 and another editor then had to locate a source which @Unknown FG failed to provide. They were given a notice on their talk page.

WP:EDITCON: @Unknown FG has been warned multiple times for their lack of edit summary use. 30 October 2025 by @Kautilya3. 9 November 2025 by @THEZDRX. As can be seen here, they have only used edit summaries in mainspace 1.3% of the time. That's over 6200 edits without a summary in a 12+ month editing period. This is a violation of WP:EDITCON which makes clear that 'all edits should be explained'.

Undisclosed multiple accounts: In December 2024, CU admin @Izno left a notice on their talk page regarding multiple accounts being used. @Unknown FG responded using the other account saying they had disclosed it. However, this is not evident as the user pages of both @Unknown FG and @Dr Hachi have not been created. I don't know how this was followed up unfortunately.

LLM generated text: The recently promoted guideline, WP:NEWLLM, along with the advice written at WP:AISIGNS, makes quite clear that AI should not be used to generate text for comments and definitely not for article text.

Unfortunately, @Unknown FG generated their entire Admin election nomination page using an LLM. Despite receiving multiple warnings about this on their talk page (1, 2, 3). They decided to ignore the advice given and respond using LLM.

On Wikipedia, competence is required to contribute in a positive way to the project and @Unknown FG has shown many times in a short period that they are unable to do this, despite many warnings and notices from fellow editors/admins. Some of the violations border on disruptive editing, however there is a definite CIR issue here. As the warnings and notices have not provoked any change in behaviour, I believe a short time block from article space may be required here. I would definitely encourage @Unknown FG to respond here without using an LLM at the very least. Thank you.

I will notify @Unknown FG about this AN/I discussion on their talk page immediately after posting this. 11WB (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, did you intend to ping here? Doesn't seem like the pings went through. Z E T A^C 01:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't ping at AN/I due to the canvassing rule. 11WB (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Why wait for a response? This editor is obviously a CIR case -- the evidence being that they actually think AI-generated comments are going to fool anyone here -- and on that basis should be immediately indef'd. Zero tolerance. This will no only save unnecessary discussion here at ANI, but as a bonus will save further waste of time at the admin election. EEng 05:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, however I try to assume good faith for as long as possible. If they respond without using an LLM, maybe an indef can be avoided. 11WB (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good faith has nothing to do with it. Incompetents are often here with good intentions. And it really doesn't matter if they manage to answer without using AI -- the fact that they ever though AI could gererate useful content or comments shows they lack the skills to edit here, period. In summary, AI on WP must be destroyed. EEng 05:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't argue against what you are saying and I am definitely not defending this editor in any way. Based on my time editing, from what I've observed, an indef block is usually used when there is no hope, right? 11WB (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reluctantly, +1 to this Z E T A^C 13:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the fact they attempted to remove this AN/I thread, I will also support an indef block at this time. 11WB (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 aesurias (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's obviously difficult to get through to this editor as the AI is almost acting like a wall between us and getting through to them. We're never speaking to them, we're speaking to ChatGPT and I don't want that to be an admin.

  So we've got an editor & prospective admin who isn't listening to community concerns.

  They've added fake and inadequate sources to BLP whilst also including completely unsourced information. This could also be due to using AI (not a justification, only an explanation since the end result is disruption).

  Not using an edit summary isn't great, but the fact that so many people have warned them indicates that there's confusion over the reason for their edits.

  Then we also have the undisclosed second account.

  You could possibly argue that each issue taken in isolation wouldn't be sanctionable, but taken together I've got serious concerns that we have an editor who is causing disruption and we can't communicate with them properly to try to resolve it.

  ChatGPT says it's taking our concerns seriously, but I'm not sure that the editor is. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering all your concerns, I apologise to each one of you. I have no intention to vandalize Wikipedia, rather I wanted to benefit it. I am withdrawing from the election.Unknown FG (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While withdrawing from the election was something that needed to be done, you need to directly address the specific issues raised in this thread, because they would be highly concerning for any editor, not just an administrator. That includes your attempt to remove a discussion about you from an administrative page, which is blatantly inappropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your concerns, actually I was scared after I saw the misunderstood intvestigation against me. Unfortunately, I am still learning. Unknown FG (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unknown FG, if the reason you entered the election was to receive feedback on how to improve as an editor, a better thing to do would be to ask a friendly-looking experienced editor or admin. One thing they'd certainly say is stop using LLMs. If the reason you're using LLMs is because your English isn't quite good enough, it'd probably be better to edit Wikipedia in your native language (see List of Wikipedias) Kowal2701 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Unknown FG I realise this must feel awful, you were excited for the election and got carried away, then realised you bit off much more than you could chew and now everyone's attention is on you.

  Admin elections are a big thing, there are notices to let everyone know that candidates are up for election and to go and take a look.

  It's actually good that this has come up now, you've got all these experienced editors and admins who can help you. The problems that have been raised are best sorted out here - it would have been awful to see dozens of people oppose your nomination publicly because these issues hadn't been fixed.

  I get the feeling you tried to delete this section because you panicked. Just make sure you don't do anything like that again - talk pages and noticeboards are where we express ourselves to others, so changing or deleting someone else's comments is like putting words in their mouth, or even taking them away completely.

  Look at this as a positive thing. @11WB has taken the time to look through your history and found areas where you need to improve. If you need help doing that, it's available - no-one would begrudge an editor who's genuinely wanting and trying to improve.

  How about you stay by looking at the problems in 11WB's original post at the top. Try to understand why there was a problem in the way you approached that situation, then learn how to do better next time.

  Honestly look at the concerns everyone has and try to explain what you'll do differently.

  Be open and honest about the problems and work hard at fixing them - that's all anyone can ask of you, ok? Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for your comment. Unknown FG (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for admins: I did post an AN/I notice to @Unknown FG's talk page, however they have now removed it. 11WB (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears they also attempted to blank this very AN/I discussion but were reverted. That is a major WP:TPO violation. 11WB (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, I lost my mind and thought I would be banned from Wikipedia. Unknown FG (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I can see User:Unknown FG's refusal to WP:LISTEN to advice—however civily and repeatedly offered—is not limited to admin elections. I also note that, far from heralding the beginning of a new career in the administration, their removal of legitimate comments in their entirety, combined with a refusal to communicate—except through an LLM—might go someway towards bringing said career to a premature, if by now not unexpected, close. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For God's sake, please will some admin put this thread out of its misery with an indef? Far too much time has already been wasted on a completely obvious situation. EEng 21:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  EEng, you should be familiar with the concept of Bridger's First Law of Wikipedia by now: that the more obvious an outcome the more discussion is needed before it is carried out. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In all seriousness, there's probably something to that -- something like bikeshedding. EEng 21:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Phil Bridger, whilst I'm not as direct as @EEng, I agree with them that this AN/I can probably be closed now. 11WB (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11WB EEng did ask for this to be closed; but with a resolution, not without. Indef now.—Fortuna, imperatrix 21:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)°[reply]

I supported that already. 11WB (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will reluctantly !vote for indef - user needs to show that they won't use AI/LLMs and will take advice (as well as the other violations, such as WP:TPO) to be able to competently edit on Wikipedia. Z E T A^C 22:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC) Switched to oppose per below comment. I still stand by what I said, that this user has to show that they won't use LLMs, won't violate TPO, and will take advice. Z E T A^C 22:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this should be closed with an indef. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking an oath that I will never edit in Wikipedia without giving a reliable source. Unknown FG (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Unknown FG - right after you made this comment, you made this edit adding an uncited sentence. I'm not sure if you've really learned or if you intend to uphold what you've said here. Z E T A^C 14:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I truly promise to uphold now. Unknown FG (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While that was in the lede section, this is in the body and also uncited. I'm not intending to pressure you on anything, but this behavior immediately after making these comments is concerning. Z E T A^C 14:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just completed a reversion of unsourced content recently added by @Unknown FG. This is disappointing. 11WB (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is appalling and we shouldn't give this person any more of our time. Clearly they just don't care about Wikipedia. aesurias (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would an indef here count as a CBAN? I think a CBAN might be too harsh. Z E T A^C 22:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin at this point takes unilateral action in the face of obvious discontent, no. If this keeps racking up "this should be an indef" comments, that could be interpreted as a CBAN. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would, since it would be an assessment of community consensus and not a unilateral admin action, meaning a single admin won't be able to reverse it. For the record, I will oppose an indef by virtue of avoiding the chilling effect in administrator elections, as this issue came to light following Unknown FG's candidacy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have withdrawn. 11WB (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be a CBAN, I've struck my !vote and oppose per that. We've been a bit too harsh on handing out CBANS as of late. Z E T A^C 22:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby, I am slightly perplexed by your comment. No one in this discussion has explicitly mentioned a community ban until 20 minutes ago. I personally gave @Unknown FG the opportunity to respond without using an LLM before supporting an indef, however they unfortunately attempted to wipe the entire thread instead. 11WB (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wipe isn't the best thing that they could have done, but I have to agree that this whole ordeal might scare others from running for AELECT or RfA, even if they are truly qualified. A CBAN would be too harsh for this purpose - I don't think the AI usage is as widespread as previous users who have ended up here, and they do seem to have some good contributions and some intention of bettering the encyclopedia, even if misguided. Z E T A^C 23:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances surrounding this I am not quite sure this will scare other qualified candidates away but I do agree a c ban is too harsh and given this would be considered a C BAN not an indef I will strike my comment like you did. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CBAN (following this 2017 RfC):

Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I brought it up since I saw another CBAN proposal earlier where the user was CBANned despite that word never coming up in the proposal. Z E T A^C 23:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An indef before the 24 hour mark (at the time of your comments) and without a formal close of the discussion cannot be a CBAN, it's plainly against the letter of the policy. Any doubt would be cleared up by a note saying "Indef'd as an individual admin action". REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta, I agree. CBANS seem to be used as a cop-out for admins to avoid taking unilateral action. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Enby, wouldn't your approach amount to immunity from blocking for admin candidates? I don't think we should give anyone such immunity. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, and, if their conduct had proved to be problematic (to the point of justifying an indef) beyond the admin candidacy, I would have supported blocking them. I don't think that this is the case, as they were already warned for the previous issues, and the new material presented here specifically relates to their candidacy (which they have since withdrawn). Given how RfA or AELECT can be a very uncertain (and stressful) experience for the candidate, I am willing to give them more latitude there, though not an unlimited amount. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to withdraw my support for an indef and I will return to the original proposal in my opening message: 'As the warnings and notices have not provoked any change in behaviour, I believe a short time block from article space may be required here.' 11WB (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a bit more lenient - I would support for a month or so, weak support for longer. Z E T A^C 00:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that as well to hopefully change the disruptive behaviour. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to above and below, I am fine with a period of one month. 11WB (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have been problematic beyond their admin candidacy. Some diffs were provided in the original message and their talk page is full of various warnings for NPOV language and unverified additions to articles, including BLPs. They also tried to remove this entire ANI discussion! If this editor knows/cares so little about Wikipedia guidelines to use AI to write their candidacy statement (and use AI to reply to concerns about AI usage), who knows what horrors will be found when examining their 6,500 edits?

I think removing their permission to edit mainspace articles is a good alternative that addresses your concerns. aesurias (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the issues mainly affect article space, this seems reasonable, with the condition that they improve the way they communicate (no more LLM use), providing reliable sources and working to improve competence generally. This is a good suggestion. 11WB (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be a perma-pblock though, just enough to ensure that they will communicate and avoid LLM use in the future. The LLM usage in this case isn't as severe as some other cases I've seen on this noticeboard and AINB. Z E T A^C 00:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose either an indef or CBAN. I hate LLMs as much as the next person but this is extremely harsh for no reason. ^EF⁵ 23:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Thank you @Chaotic Enby for the clarification. I am very confused as to how to assess this discussion now. I think I will take a step back for the moment and use this as a learning opportunity. 11WB (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef. Unfortunately they've shown that they're simply not competent enough to continue editing. DoubleCross (‡) 07:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet a mere 20 minutes after you made this promise, you broke rules 1 and 2 here! aesurias (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stupidly long comment Taking the AGF view (and offer a defence for them in their absence), my instinct is that we've got an editor who got themselves all excited over possibly (yeah, I know) becoming an admin, learned about AI around the same time, and jumped in far, far too deep. They then panicked when they realised this was an incredibly bad idea and made things worse by trying to delete everything.

The issues raised outside this might not warrant an indef or other sanction, so do we look at the admin incident as a one-off? If I'm right and this is what happened, I'd imagine that the shock of seeing this all play out so publicly would be deterrent enough. I think we've all done something spectacularly stupid in the past and watched it snowball down the hill into a crowd of people.

They've only made one edit since and I'd be surprised if we see them again (although I hope we do, stuff still needs sorting out).

Honestly, I just want them to come back and discuss the other issues (and promise not to use AI). The question is what we do if they don't? Does their editing to date justify an indef or is that too harsh and we should see how they respond?

Time-limited indef I'm not so sure on. I get the feeling they're going to contract ANI-flu, which is time away from Wikipedia anyway. It wouldn't be unexpected to have them stay away until the heat has died down.

If they don't respond, do we indef until they do respond to our concerns, or just wait and see & hope they've learned their lesson? I wonder if we've got a bit of a lack of maturity, considering the way this has all played out. I hate AI almost as much as EEng, but it feels like a smaller piece of the puzzle here.

I know I'm making massive presumptions about some of what's happened, but I wanted to present this as a possibility. I haven't voted on an outcome because I'm genuinely not sure what the best outcome would be.

EDIT- Ok I've written all of this out and my brain has just veered towards the "indef until they respond" option. They have caused a lot of disruption by virtue of how much time we've all spent on this. There are long-running CIR issues and you could easily argue that this, even ignoring the adminship part for the possible chilling effect, definitely needs addressing. We can't do that if they don't respond. That said, it's been less than a day since they last edited so I'm not sure I'll vote for this yet. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some supported my proposal for a short-term partial block from editing mainspace. Whilst others are still supporting a full indef, which would be a community ban. Only one of these outcomes allows for quicker rehabilitation back into the project. 11WB (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An indef is not a community ban. Indefinite is not infinite. Temporary blocks do not usually lead to rehabilitation. Only an indef allows for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation will be as quick as it needs to be. —Alalch E. 11:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That contradicts this if that is the case. 11WB (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how an admin executes the block, i.e., whose decision it is. If the admin closes this discussion as having created a consensus decision to indefinitely block, that would count as equivalent to a cban, but it is still very much possible for an admin to block as an individual action, by their own decision. —Alalch E. 11:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's an important distinction. Based on what was said yesterday I assumed an indef would be a community ban under any application. For this editor, an indef block, whilst "indefinite" doesn't actually mean forever to my knowledge. If they begin to attempt to change how they edit, then maybe some good can come from this discussion. 11WB (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Alalch E., an indef does not have to last more than 5 minutes. I would go further and say that all blocks (apart from cool-down blocks which we are not supposed to do anyway) should be indefinite. There's no reason to remove a block if the editor has not learnt anything, and there's no need to leave someone blocked if they have. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is why I'm steadily leaning towards an indef until we get a good explanation. I want to make sure I'm objective in my decision - for some reason I feel pretty strongly about this case, probably because I've done some stupid stuff in my time then dug myself into an even deeper hole (complete with an audience).

I'm going to give it a few more hours - if they've been offline for a full 24hrs without a response, I think that's a good time for me to reevaluate & I'll probably go with indef.

Everyone screws up, it's what you do next that's important. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a shame. I believe an indef/CBAN is too heavy, so I am going to oppose. 11WB (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well they've responded, so I'm reconsidering :) Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a new section for this underneath the discussion. I believe AN/I discussions like this are kept open for 72 hours, so that gives everybody a day to formalise a decision and leave it below. 11WB (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns, actually I could not see your messages as I am busy in real life.

Unknown FG (talk) Unknown FG (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with indef till response. "Assuming" they have learnt their lesson is only an incentive for them (and others) to continue such behaviour because they don't fear reprehension or consequence for being disruptive. They have clearly seen this conversation (as evidenced by their removal of the ANI notif from their talk page) but are now as silent as a mouse! If they don't want to explain themselves, so be it. I support an indef or article space block, both essentially do the same thing which is trying to get them to talk and explain. aesurias (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think a thread needs to be opened to look at this persons 6,500+ edits, especially created articles. If the OP comment has found multiple issues just from a quick look at contribution history, I think we can expect to find a few more issues that need to be rectified. aesurias (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about all of this user's edits, as changes were clearly made to articles by someone who did not understand what changes they are making. —Alalch E. 11:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CIR indef for accumulating this many edits and not knowing not to remove the ANI topic about them, which, combined with the misuse of so-called AI, means that all this time, this user lacked awareness of what they were doing, and has not been learning in the process. Strongly oppose on principle that we should fear a chilling effect regarding the admin elections.—Alalch E. 10:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant support. I am not happy to cast this vote, but this is someone who is just not willing to listen. The AI-generated RFA was bad enough (and, as stated earlier, an insult to anyone willing to ask questions and to the community at large who expects a person to be running, not ChatGPT), then you add the removal of this thread to which someone who has been around long enough should know better, I just do not see this person as fit for Wikipedia at this time. Also, the fact that they have been receiving BLP and disruptive editing warnings as recently as this month just adds to the number of issues. Lynch44 13:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your concerns, if you want me to be thrown out of Wikipedia, there is nothing I object. I guess I deserve it. Unknown FG (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Unknown FG, this is the moment you need to write a response and tell us how you are going to improve on the project. No AI, in your own words. This really is the time to do it whilst editors are still discussing this in a public venue. 11WB (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly this - a lot of people just want to see you address the concerns raised and only wanted a block to be in place until you responded.

  Since you're responding here, it's recently the right time for you to talk about what happened and what you've learned.

  People who've already voted can change their decision if they feel you've responded well enough, nothing is set in stone. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When I restored this thread from Davy Jones' Locker after Unknown had blanked it, I thought it'll only be a moment or two until an indef is imposed. Yet here we are !! - Walter Ego 13:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Unknown FG, I can see you've gone back to general editing in mainspace (without providing reliable sources I might add). I would seriously recommend directing your attention to this AN/I. 11WB (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am really sorry. From now, I promise to cite reliable sources. Unknown FG (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Unknown FG How will you keep your promise "not to make foolish decisions"? Presumably you didn't think blanking this discussion was foolish when you decided to do it.[93] NebY (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This made me do a double-take, I could have sworn I replied but I've just seen this is a double-post! Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I promise from now on to

  1)Fully cite my news

  2)Not to make foolish decisions

  3)Not use external help Unknown FG (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Unknown FG Please, in your own words and without external help, explain what "fully cite my news is". As part of your explanation, explain also what "news" means. —Alalch E. 14:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Unknown FG It'll be much easier if you look through your own Talk page and find the warnings you've been given. Click on every blue-linked page to see what they say you should have done instead, then come back here and answer this question, ok?

  We just need to see that you understand what the problem is and know exactly what to do next time. The answer is definitely linked on your Talk page so you just need to find it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Unknown FG You just said that you would cite the source, but some of your edits has already been reverted because you didn't cite any source there.

  It is important to always provide a citation when making such edits otherwise it could be called as original research. Additionally also when editing, it is advisable to give at least a brief edit summary describing what changes were made. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been almost 48 hours since this AN/I was opened and editors are supporting either an indefinite block which would be a CBAN or a short-term block from editing article space (a 1 month PBLOCK).

@Unknown FG has responded here and has said, however briefly, they will cite reliable sources. They have also apologised for causing trouble.

For the benefit of the administrators, I believe it is now the appropriate time to ascertain exactly what the outcome of this should be and whether UFG will be able to stick to their commitments for the long-term. Are we in support of a CBAN (indef) or a short-term PBLOCK from article space or no further action? 11WB (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• PBLOCK: I support the latter despite my reservations. If UFG can take some time to assess the way they edit and return with a clear focus then I believe they should be given the chance to do that. 11WB (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I held out hope that they would take note, however they continue to make edits even now without providing a reliable source. Due to this, I am switching my support to an indef PBLOCK from editing article space. 11WB (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• PBLOCK for 1-3 months per what I said above in my original indef !vote and the following comments. Z E T A^C 22:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, per 11WB's comment, they're still continuing to add unsourced information. After reading the previous !votes as well, I would support an indef PBLOCK from mainspace or a unilateral indef that may be lifted by any uninvolved administrator. Z E T A^C 01:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• PBLOCK for 1 month for the reasons I mentioned in my comments above and below. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly,per 11WB's comment, I am changing my !vote to an Indef PBLOCK as despite this ANI thread and multiple concerns raised to them they are still continuing to add unsourced content to articles. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• INDEF Despite the editors assurances that they would use reliable sources, their edit history shows they have continued to add unsourced information to Indian political articles. I have zero confidence in their ability to listen and abide by Wikipedia guidelines and I don't think a 1-month PBLOCK would be effective. They'll just go offline for 1 month before resuming the same disruptive editing patterns. aesurias (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Indef (same as my recommendation above). I still strongly suggest an indefinite block, because I am not satisfied with the assurances given, particularly the one worded as I promise from now on to ... Fully cite my news. You see, the starter of this section stated that Unknown FG committed ... to providing reliable sources, but Uknown FG only said that they would cite "their news". Immediately after making this assurance, Unknown FG went on to make further unsourced edits. You can't pull their incomprehensible statement through the filter of Wikipedia jargon to cause it to become a legitimate assurance that relevantly attaches to Wikipedia policies. We need to be open to the probable reality that Unknown FG does not understand anything about Wikipedia and does not know what sources are, let alone reliable sources. Unknown FG does not have the faintest notion of any Wikipedia policy. They don't know what they are doing at all. They are using AI and don't understand the text the AI gives them to put in the articles. They should be blocked until they are able to deeply reflect on their past period of editing and explain how absurd it has been.—Alalch E. 09:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Indef I hate doing this, but we've asked them to provide a decent explanation and I've gone into detail about how to do that.

Despite this, as Alalch E. has pointed out, they're continuing to make problematic edits that had to be reverted and did not respond to our further questions and concerns.

A time-limited block won't fix that, they need to be stopped because they won't stop themselves.

They should be unblocked only when they can adequately prove that they won't cause further disruption. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not voting for CBAN because that would be excessive - just an indef until a proper appeal/explanation is given & they can show they understand sourcing etc.

An indef block from article space, where they have to submit edit requests through Talk pages is my second choice.

Definite no to timed blocks, I don't think that would be helpful in this case. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it's been over 24 hours, an indef would be considered a CBAN as discussed above. Pinging @Chaotic_Enby to confirm. 11WB (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit fast-and-loose in my earlier assessment, assuming that "an indef" referred to the discussion being closed as a consensus for "indef" rather than an admin preempting it before the time limit for discussion closure. However, unlike with other sanctions, the limit for CBAN discussions is 72 hours, not 24 hours (except if there has been no meaningful opposition, which isn't the case here).

As there have been !votes for sanctions before a separate proposal section was created, I am not sure which one should be counted as the start of the 72 hours, and I will defer to editors more experienced with that matter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, a sanction which (I believe) hasn't been explored yet would be an indef by community consensus, but where the consensus is also that an uninvolved administrator can lift the block after a proper appeal. I don't think we have any formal procedures for that, but it makes sense as a concept, and, of course, we're not a bureaucracy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TBH That's what was in my mind when I originally voted Indef - I got a bit confused over what we're voting for after things got shuffled around! Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indef pblock at least, no objection to more. Their assurances aren't meaningful and show they don't understand the nature of the encylopedia ("Fully cite my news"?), and then they've edited in contravention of their own commitment. A time-limited block's no good; there's no reason to think their approach will have improved in that time. A pblock to allow for talk-page edit requests might let them learn but they'd need to be told from the start, very firmly, that if they waste any more of the community's time, they're out. NebY (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite PBLOCK. Oppose timed PBLOCK block or CBAN. I think a CBAN is a bit too far at this juncture. I also don't think a timed partial block is appropriate because the conduct has been severe enough, and goes much farther than an extremely poorly considered admin election issue, that just letting this editor take a couple months off without demonstrating knowledge of how sourcing works is unacceptable in my view. If this editor can demonstrate an understanding of sourcing with their edit requests over the next six months or a year, only then would full removal of their restriction be appropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose pblock of any duration, as much of their problenatic behavior wasn't confined to article space. In any case, editng articles is literally what we're here for; an ediotor ubale to be trusted to do so is unlikely to be helpful elsewhere. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef Let this editor go back to editing when and only when they've demonstrated that they've actually learned from their mistakes. There's absolutely no point in enacting a timed block on somebody with this level of WP:ICANTHEARYOU because you're then just hoping they'll learn during the block time but not requiring them to prove anything. Athanelar (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef block that an uninvolved administrator may lift after a proper appeal that addresses the identified shortcomings in Unknown FG's edits. CBAN seems unnecessarily harsh. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I could get behind this if it isn't a CBAN Z E T A^C 19:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite PBLOCK. Oppose timed PBLOCK block or CBAN. As soon as they made that comment, they immediately made some unsourced edits. Despite having so many warn templates on their talk page, they kept making edits without edit summaries and citations. A PBlock seems appropriate because a Cban would be a bit too harsh. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 01:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef PBlock as per ZDRX. UFG's disruptive behavior on the articles they edit is very concerning. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef/CBAN trying to bludgeon other users with their 3-step boilerplate promises then proceeding to break them is just plain trolling. Borgenland (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to use this unusual survey format (at ANI, usually one subheading = one sanction, so you would want to have a subheading for PBLOCK and a subheading for CBAN), there also needs to be an Option C - no sanction. And also, anybody !voting for CBAN may also want to say that they would also support a PBLOCK if the CBAN doesn't pass, since I think most CBAN folks would intend this, but not saying it might confuse the closer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Novem Linguae. I'll make those edits! 11WB (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Novem Linguae, is this acceptable? (This is my first time formatting something like this, so I appreciate the help a lot!) 11WB (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The wording of your opening statement in the section you've created is poor, because you misstated what Unknown FG wrote. You only highlighted their assurance and also changed its language to make it more appealing to editors commenting here. You pulled it through your own filter and prettified it. You link to Unknown FG saying "my news" and translate that to "reliable sources". And then: you did not say that the editor immediately after making the assurance made further unsourced edits. By reengineering their case for them in the opening statement of the section where a decision may be made you have introduced a lot of bias. —Alalch E. 09:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They have littered a lot of comments in the discussion. The effort on their part is weak, but I'm happy to either strike through, reword or remove that part entirely. They did mention citing reliable sources here. I understand it reads as biased, but we both know I did not intend it to be biased. 11WB (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have reworded the new section statement and changed the link to the correct message. The original AN/I opening message stands and I have not defended their behaviour in any way. I disagree with your perception of bias but I'm willing to edit the new message accordingly, @Alalch E.. 11WB (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, I don't think you intended it to be biased. Also, it might be best not to change anything now. But in the future, you might be careful not to paraphrase important statements where the devil may be in the details. You have now linked to their reply containing "reliable sources", but that was a reply to you who effectively signalled to them to use this term, as you had included this term in your reply, whereas they had originally, writing in their own words, not been showing any cognizance, let alone comprehension, of the reliable source standards on Wikipedia, and have only referred to "my news". —Alalch E. 09:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I can't argue with that, you are absolutely right. I realise I've essentially helped them by how I paraphrased it, which is the opposite of what I should be doing... I apologise. 11WB (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't worry about it. —Alalch E. 09:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I messed up the formatting for this section. I give consent to any editors who are regulars at AN/I to edit these into the correct format. 11WB (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy ping to @EEng, @Alalch E., @Lynch44, @Chaotic Enby, @Blue-Sonnet, @Fortuna imperatrix mundi to leave their support for one of the options above. (I've only pinged those who've already participated in the discussion and expressed support for either an indef or CBAN.) 11WB (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would suggest pinging all !voters. For example EF5 who !voted oppose. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a way to do it en masse? 11WB (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @EF5, @DoubleCross per above. 11WB (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 185.231.238.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-31176-11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-36451-70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-36513-34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was initially going to report ~2025-36451-70 for edit-warring, but they seem to be editing at ~2025-36513-34 now (see Hussein Dey example below). It seems that they've IP-hopped at least one more time before that, editing as 185.231.238.75 and ~2025-31176-11 in early November (straddling the transition to the new temp account name system), got blocked then ([94]), before returning with ~2025-36451-70 this week. Throughout that time, they have received numeros warnings from multiple editors about non-constructive editing at each temp/IP account (see each user talk page) for making unsourced or poorly-sourced edits, engaging in long-term edit-warring, and rarely/never using the talk page in multiple articles (all around topics of Algerian history/ethnicity, Greek or other European diaspora communities in Algeria and France, etc). Here are some examples of the edit-warring via various temp/IP accounts:

• Hussein Dey, edit-warring via 185.231.238.75, ~2025-36451-70, and ~2025-36513-34 up to today:
  [95], [96], [97], [98]
• Pieds-noirs, early November edit via 185.231.238.75 followed by recent edit-warring via ~2025-36451-70:
  [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]
• French Algeria, edit-warring up to one or two days ago via ~2025-36451-70:
  [104], [105], [106], [107]
• Odjak of Algiers, early November edit-warring via 185.231.238.75 and ~2025-31176-11:
  [108], [109], [110]
• Turks in Algeria, also early November edit-warring via 185.231.238.75 and ~2025-31176-11:
  [111], [112], [113], [114], [115]
• Plus similar examples to be found at Greeks in France, European settlement of Algeria (including a personal attack [116]), and maybe others.

The number of articles concerned seems to make requesting semi-protection too onerous, so I'm hoping we can block an IP range that can stop them from just returning with another temp account(?), but any solution that works is fine by me.

PS: I wasn't sure if this should go to WP:SPI, but as far as I can tell the IPs/temps do not overlap and I'm not aware of any evidence of block evasion, so I assume that the scope fits this ANI rather than SPI. Please direct me elsewhere if not. R Prazeres (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to M.Bitton, who is one of the editors that has dealt with them recently the most, I believe. R Prazeres (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-31176-11 and ~2025-36451-70 are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to be the same person, though ~2025-36451-70 is on proxies. ~2025-36513-34 is entirely  Unrelated, and is an LTA. No comment with respect to the connection between these TAs and the IP. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do we stop (ideally prevent) their disruptiveness? M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@45dogs: please do not use the checkuser finding templates if you are not a checkuser. There is more to a checkuser investigation than comparing IP addresses, and you do not have access to the checkuser tool. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to quickly remind everyone that a temporary account's IP address is private information. If you are a temporary account viewer, you are not permitted to disclose the IP address of any temporary account that you discover through use of your userright. Non-admin TAIVs may have their privilege revoked for misuse of the tool, and my understanding that this is a bright-line desysop offence for admins. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, ~2025-36513-34 (talk · contribs) is indeed  Unrelated to the other temporary accounts, although they had more temporary accounts of their own. They're an old LTA I'm familiar with who messes around with climate templates, and happened to be screwing around with one where the others were editing.

~2025-36451-70 (talk · contribs) is a user who was blocked on their legacy IP right around the time of the temporary account transition, close enough that they may not have seen the block message. They are using a different device than ~2025-31176-11 (talk · contribs) but that's to be expected for temporary accounts; they're also both editing from the same country but not near each other in that country, and that country is known for unreliable geolocation. At best I would call them  Unlikely. 31176-11 also hasn't edited at all in three weeks.

IMO this should be handled as a complaint about disruptive editing by ~2025-36451-70 alone, without regard for the other accounts and the legacy IP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since ~2025-36451-70 disruptiveness shows no sign of abating, can they be blocked until they start communicating? M.Bitton (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the temp account for suddenly going on a personal attack spree. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, they definitely communicated... It didn't go well so TPA got yoinked.

Mathglot and I tried to reach out in the spirit of AGF, but they're clearly not interested. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]