The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Part of this was written while replying tothis misappropriation of an RfC (The RfC linked to the wrong thread as "RFCBEFORE" - which I believe was meant to link tothis discussion instead, but they didn't give editorsany time to actually respond to the discussion and created the RfC just two hours later and raised the RFC to avoid a 3RR timeout). The RfC was withdrawn prior to me hitting publish and on re-reading my response during the(edit conflict), most of the response was a conduct issue and the user having requested I do not post on their talk page again (while insulting me) unless it's about an article, I respect their request and following theWP:DEALWITHINCIVIL guidelines thusly take the conduct issue to the next appropriate venue instead (other than having to post the ANI notice to their page as required):
The user created the RfC for aWP:SYNTH of connecting two separate statements from a book 5 pages apart that has been reverted twice (revert 1 by@LogicalLens: andrevert 2 by myself) when the edit failed our policies to try to get around running afoul ofWP:3RR. Particularly they did so after the editor went and ignored the explanation of why the statement was removed and going andinsult me in their edit summary removing the note for pointing out the Wikipedia policy of why the content was reverted and then going even further andfurther insulting and accusing me of vandalism and calling me pathetic instead of engaging with the policy that their edit failed on. After I saw their conduct against me, I noticedtheir history of incivility and particularlythis notice by@Anastrophe: in which Anastrophe pointed out the failure to stay civil inthis edit summary and which theysimilarly just ignored/removed with another offensive edit summary.Some other offensive edit summary[1] from the past few days.
It looks like the user has a protracted pattern ofWP:UNCIVIL behavior towards other editors and appears to just ignore or attack people when they point out policy violations, so I request an admin take a look and remind them of our policies since the user doesn't appear to want to listen to other users when they point out policy issued. Thanks for your consideration.Raladic (talk)19:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
You really wrte this seconds after I agreed with your views on the article and with your supposed truce. This is saddening, actually. Especially considering I acknowledged I was angry (and have been for days) and thus retracted my statement with "It is not worth it". I also had 2 reverts, not 3. What is the purpose of this exactly? I violated nothing and it has been hours since that interaction. I have also agreed to withdraw from the Neurodiversity article. What do you want me to do? I am open to discussion, and been open since I began to edit here.Plasticwonder (talk)19:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
You do realize thatWP:CIVIL is a policy and your comments and edit summaries show a pattern of violating said policy with
belittling editors calling their edit shitty (the irony of this being on an article onBullying notwithholding), literally checking 4/4 ofWP:IUC of direct civility violations over the course of 5 days?
I wasn't attacking the editors (which I have never done a day as an editor), but the tone. I agree that it was wrong. I will even get an oversighter to blank the edit sum out, even though I think it was innocent. I am also well over 18, I didn't know swearing was a bad thing.
Especially considering I acknowledged I was angry (and have been for days)....What do you want me to do? I am open to discussion, and been open since I began to edit here. - I did not see you acknowledging you were angry somewhere? In any case, I recommend in that case, if you know you are angry (for whatever reason), it might be best if you take aWP:WIKIBREAK and resume editing once you have control of your emotions again in the future to interact civily with other editors.
Unloading on editors is not okay, whether it's in edit summaries, comments or otherwise and being in a heightened state of emotions can make our editing on Wikipedia ineffective, so it's best to just hit the Pause button for a bit in such moments.Raladic (talk)20:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Unloading on editors is not okay, whether it's in edit summaries, comments or otherwise and being in a heightened state of emotions can make our editing on Wikipedia ineffective, so it's best to just hit the Pause button for a bit in such moments.
Thanks for your apology. Yes, words can hurt, so please be more careful and considerate with them in the future.
Inassuming good faith I do hope you take this notice andthat of other editors to heart and ensure you maintain civility in your editing going forward to avoid similar such outbursts. I'll leave it up to an admin to decide to close this discussion as they see fit.Raladic (talk)20:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
I do hope you take this notice and that of other editors to heart and ensure you maintain civility in your editing going forward
I'm not interested in an apology (re the earlier commentary), but I would request that editor Plasticwonder revert their removal of the 'overly detailed' tag in the articleNepotism, for the reasons I detailed in the deleted comment on editor Plasticwonder's talk page. cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.21:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, I just got notification that editorUser:Plasticwonder blanked his talk page. That's absolutely fine, I do it routinely to archive and keep things neat. However, his edit summary was "discussion over, user's beef with me squashed, can [[gfy|WP:BLANK]] this now."
From my perspective, 'gfy' is short for 'go fuck yourself'. Perhaps I'm missing some opaque nuance. However, this strongly suggests that the editor's interactions here were less than genuine. In reponse toUser:Raladic's hope that he would"take this notice and that of other editors to heart and ensure you maintain civility in your editing going forward", Plasticwonder wrote"I will definitely heed this advice.". And yet their very first edit after the closure of this discussion was to immediately engage in precisely the same pattern of incivility that generated this incident report. I wonder if this incident should be reopened. cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.21:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently I made some edits toChris Ofili. My edits were undone in their entirety by User:Augmented Seventh, who left a frankly ridiculous note on my talk page ([3]). When I expressed my disbelief that they would trash an edit for no good reason and then post a message about that, they responded with an even more ridiculous message ([4]). The most charitable possible explanation would be that this user did not realise that there is a bot that retrieves lost reference information, and was not able to work out how to simply restore that information themselves. But that doesn't explain the messages they posted, which were obviously intended to be annoying. Looking at the history of the messages they post to others, they seem mostly to be templates, but where they are not, they also seem to be deliberately irritating.
That might have been the end of it but for User:Glman, who, six hours after the troll lost interest, decided to trash my edits for no reason once again. ([5])
Next, User:InklingF made anentirely fictitious report, falsely alleging vandalism. ([6]) They have made no edits ever to the article, and did not interact with me in any way. So why did a completely unconnected user decide to invent a false claim like that?
Unfortunately, User:Daniel Quinlan took that false report at face value, and blocked me.
IP addresses routinely experience aggression and attacks. Trying to do anything about this typically only results in more attacks. This one is perhaps the worst I've encountered, though, so I am reporting it. The trolling, followed up by completely unnecessary attacks, turned a really trivial edit to improve an article into a really unpleasant situation. If you wonder why the number of regular editors to Wikipedia is dropping and has been for years, look at situations like this.167.98.155.186 (talk)11:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Not surprised in any way that the first comment is an attack on me. The user explicitly stated that they had undone improvements. What do you call someone who deliberately harms articles?167.98.155.186 (talk)12:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk beingblocked or evenbanned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. (WP:Edit warring) Looking at the IP's history (see edit and block history at87.44.37.8(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log)), the block was for edit warring, withpersonal attacks added as an aggravating factor.
I suppose the question is, what is the IP here to do now? Are they engaging in discussion atTalk:Chris Ofili to collaboratively buildconsensus on possible changes to the article? Or are they just lashing out for what they perceive as slights against them? This administrator is willing to see what their edits arefrom this point forward before making any judgement. —C.Fred (talk)12:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
It is absurd that you wish to characterise my detailed description of problematic behaviour as "just lashing out". Did you read the edit summaries of the editor who triggered the situation? What do you think of the editor who reverted for no reason several hours after the initial stupidity had settled down? Do you think it is absolutely fine for someone to make a completely fictitious report of vandalism? Do you think it's fine for an administrator to block based on a completely dishonest report?185.104.138.93 (talk)20:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I was an IP address editor for quite some time before making an account, so I can sympathise with the difficulties you can face. However your edits as87.44.37.8(talk·contribs·IP contribs·WHOIS) resulted in a block for edit warring and personal attacks not vandalism, and you were editing warring and calling other editors "incompetent vandal(s)".WP:Being right isn't enough - other editors being wrong isn't an exception toedit warring or make those editorsvandals. Of course that goes for the other editors involved as well. If other editors are wrong discussion is the best way forward, trying to force your edits (whether they are right or wrong) rarely ends well. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
greetings,
I noticed poor grammar on an article about a notable dung painter. I went to edit for prose, and noticed I was in the middle of the article being already corrected.
I noticed that during the edits, the collaborator removed the phrase "best known for". i attempted to keep that phrase in the lead as being factual.
It didn't go over well, as evidenced by the response, and I may have in re-introduced previous grammar errors in the cross editing.
I'm going to go back to the article in question and re-analyze the sources, edits, page creation, and do a bit of learning.
This is obviously nonsense. The user shows no interest in either artists or grammar in their editing, and plainly had no interest in the article content. The rate of edits to the article make it vanishingly unlikely that an edit conflict could have occurred. If it did, the user would not have been able to trash my edits. They had to consciously do that. They did do that entirely deliberately, then left the stupid messages I linked to, as an act of trolling. They will continue to behave in this pathetic and disruptive way, because they've been amply rewarded here for their attitude.185.104.138.93 (talk)20:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
87.44.37.8(talk·contribs·IP contribs·WHOIS) edit warred and inappropriately used edit summaries in violation ofWP:EW,WP:NPA, andWP:CIVIL. They repeatedly engaged in this behavior instead of discussing disagreements on talk pages. Some examples of what they have written:
If you think that "according to the owner of a New York cafe" is a reliable source, you're insane.
your revert, made *purely for the sake of reverting*, six hours after the last edit, when the situation was created by someone who didn't understand that bots fix referencing issues and explicitly stated that they restored errors on purpose, is preposterous
rv incompetent vandal
I have told you to go away. you are trolling, and vandalising
You should block the person who started reverting for utterly nonsensical reasons.
some of the most odious trolling I've ever seen on Wikipedia
The user was warned for edit warring ([7],[8],[9]), removal of content ([10],[11]), and using inappropriate edit summaries ([12]) prior to the block. After being blocked (assuming the above user is the same person), they have repeatedly claimed that Isimply took that completely fictitious report at face value,acted on [the claim] without any check, andtook that false report at face value. While a vandalism report was filed (WP:ANI orWP:ANEW would have been better), the block was based on my independent review of the history. In addition, the block was reviewed after it was appealed and the block was upheld. Now, 11 days later, they have resumed the incivility in this report (e.g.,troll).Daniel Quinlan (talk)21:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
you are deliberately conflating criticism with incivility. And yes, you took a fictitious report at face value and acted totally inappropriately. Any administrator behaving correctly would have told the user posting fictitious vandalism reports that that is not acceptable. Another user behaving outrageously has been amply rewarded.185.104.138.93 (talk)20:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
So we have an editor here who made a mess of an article, left the mess for someone else to fix, and when someone fixed it in a way they didn't like they lashed out at that person and edit-warred their mess back into the article, stopping only when they were blocked. They're upset at having been reported for vandalism, which maybe is fair, but on the other hand theywere disrupting the article and attacking everyone who tried to help. Okay, that's not our textbook definition of vandalism, but it sure did take admin intervention to get them to stop. Right, I'll play along: hey@InklingF: don't report users to AIV unless they're really vandals, okay? Okay. Moving on then.
Oh, but we can't move on yet, because our IP frienddemands their pound of flesh, and also wants something done about the blocking administrator. Well, as much as it may seem like it at times, Wikipedia is in factnot a Shakespearean drama, and isnot a battle to be won. I have blocked the IP for the new round of personal attacks, this time for a month.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)20:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I maybe should have been more clear but I believe that all three of the IPs mentioned here (along with 87.44.37.8) are BKFIP, and as far as I know they don't re-use an IP once they've moved on from it (unless by random coincidence), so no point blocking any but the currently active one.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)22:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing on Norman Vincent Peale article
Since March 2022, I have attempted to improve the article onNorman Vincent Peale by removing some unsourced content and placing citation requests for other unsourced content. My edits have always been reverted by the editorMelcsw, who has accused me of vandalism, which is certainly uncivil.
In March 2025, I explained in one of my edit summaries, "This is not vandalism. This is removing unsourced content which has had citation requests since 2022. The content remains unsourced without citations provided. Please seeWP:VERIFY, please discuss on the talk page and please do not restore unsourced content and claim that the removal of unsourced content is vandalism."[1]
In June 2025, this edit was reverted by Melcsw, who again accused me of vandalism.[2]
Please see the edit history of the Norman Vincent Peale article for other instances of this and false accusations of vandalism by Melcsw.
On other occasions, citation requests and other templates have been removed by Melcsw, leaving either unsourced or poorly sourced content or other issues in the article.
Melcsw appears to be aWP:SPA with virtually all of his or her edits since 2006 on Norman Vincent Peale.
Melcsw's continual accusations against me of vandalism, when I've merely attempted to try to improve the article and remove unsourced and poorly sourced content, is in my view disruptive editing.Kind Tennis Fan (talk)00:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I posted a notice on their User talk page and hopefully, then will come and discuss the situation here. I did notice from their edit summaries that the two of you are sort of in an adversary situation. Have you thought about going to one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes?LizRead!Talk!01:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Melcsw is indeed a SPA, since joining in 2006, they have a total of 97 edits, of which 96 have been to Norman Vincent Peale and/or the talk page. It also appears they do not know that vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and can be considered a personal attack. Here is a sampling going back to March 2022 of edits they have characterized as vandalism by Kind Tennis Fan -March 2022,March 2022,March 2022,November 2024,November 2024,March 2025,March 2025,June 2025,June 2025. None of these edits by Kind Tennis Fans are vandalism. In my view, Kind Tennis Fan is an editor in good standing, with a clean block log, and has over 100,000 edits to the project, and based on what I know of their editing the project, I havenever known Kind Tennis Fan to be a vandal. Besides calling Kind Tennis Fan a vandal, a examination of Melcsw's contribution history shows they have used the terms vandal/vandalism at least 30+ times when reverting edits on Norman Vincent Peale. I also agree this is a pattern of disruptive editing, and it needs to stop.Isaidnoway(talk)05:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Melcsw has engaged in disruptive, uncollaborative editing for almost twenty years atNorman Vincent Peale. Specifically, the editor has repeatedly made false accusations ofvandalism against good faith editors who are not vandals. They have failed to discuss disagreements on the article talk page. Their behavior shows clear evidence of article"ownership" which is contrary to policy. Accordingly, I have pageblocked Melcsw from that article. They are free to make well-referenced, neutral, formaledit requests atTalk:Norman Vincent Peale. I have warned them that further false accusations of vandalism may lead to a sitewide block.Cullen328 (talk)05:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Editor ignoring copyright policy, not responding to talk page
This discussion concerns a number of images that meet enwp copyright policy, but not the commons copyright policy as they are believed to be public domain in the United States but not the source country of the image. The images, for examplethis one andthis one, wereclearly tagged not to transfer to Commons prior to Absolutiva's edits. In the edits, Absolutiva added a copyright tag that does not apply (the copyright tag depends on publication a certain number of years ago, but I could not find evidence of such publication and Absolutiva did not mention any). Then they removed the tag saying to keep local on enwp and transferred the file to commons. This is concerning because it has resulted in incorrect licencsing and transferring the files to another wiki where theyviolate policy.Here I notified them of the issue, and they have not responded despitecontinuing to edit. Unfortunately I have no choice but to bring this matter up on a noticeboard as the editor is not responding. (t ·c)buidhe03:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello,Buidhe, without looking at all of the diffs, could you identify what editor you are talking about? I assume you have notified them about this discussion. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!03:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Absolutiva If you have identified a death date for the author it should be listed in the photo description before you add the licensing tag. The other images you claimed were published over 70 years ago according to the{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Publication is not the same as creation, you have to identify a specific published work from at least 70 years ago where the image appears and provide the information in the image description. You've made some changes that are difficult for other editors to reverse and apparently without fully understanding the copyright rules, which is a problem. (t ·c)buidhe03:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
While it's nice thatAbsolutiva did actually respond here, it seems that they are going back to ignoring the mess they made. It would be amazing if some action could be taken when editors put up false copyright information on images and refuse to fix it. (t ·c)buidhe04:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
PrezDough began editing on 23 September 2023. I came across them when doing NPP and nominated the first creation ofEulalia Bravo Bravo for speedy deletion, as a copyright violation. PrezDough currently has 11 sections on their talk page, three of which (four now) address copyright violation issues. That article was deleted. They have today re-created the article, which CopyPatrol registers as a68% copy of theoriginal source. They are, at this stage, well aware of our policies on copyright.BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!14:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
It's interesting to see discussions from 2018 about a subject but can you provide diffs to edits that are being made now that have you concerned? Action won't be taken on disruption that occurred 8 years ago but on any current disruptive editing. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!19:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
@Rhinocrat, sorry for the late response, but I doubt it. A short title to a bill generally doesn't affect its legal ramifications. A law remains a law. Even then, of the nine sections that specifically reference a "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", lack of an official short title section notwithstanding, none seem that they would have an interest to the professional work of an American expatriate attorney/CPA living in Japan. I mean, I don't really see how a section on "expensing of certain costs of replanting citrus plants lost by reason of casualty" would be relevant to them. Pleasant editing,Irruptive Creditor (talk)02:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm seeing a willingness on the part of both parties to engage in edit warring as a means to an end. See[15]. Irruptive Creditor, for your part you are engaging in this but not attempting discussion atTalk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, instead accusing Hoofin of vandalism and reporting them as such. I see a content dispute, not disruption at present. If I'm missing something, I'd be glad to hear of it. --Hammersoft (talk)00:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
@The Bushranger, fair enough block, although being right about the short title to theTax Cuts and Jobs Act is of little concern to me; rather, it is that Hoofin, who has dedicated a third of their editing career (over 30 out of 108 edits) to a single point (that some name isn't a common name for a particular bill), will continue, what appears at least to me, a habit of pushing a preferred view, whether wrong or right, simply through being more persistently assertive and not backing down. As Hoofin states themself, they don't really care about substance, whether a bill is titled right or wrong, but that: "Wikipedia is endorsing a partisan agenda." Pleasant editing,Irruptive Creditor (talk)02:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello. Let me add my piece to this. I am a Pennsylvania and New Jersey licensed lawyer, and a Certified Public Accountant in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Hawai'i (inactive in Hawai'i, active elsewhere.) As a tax practitioner for well over a decade, I am familiar with Public Law 115-97, which is generally nicknamed "Tax Cuts and Jobs" Act, or goes by the acronym TCJA. We in the lawyer community also know that the Short Title was stricken from the bill. It is one of those facts that you need to know where to go to look it up.
I don't understand where Irruptive Creditor shows up seven years after an act passes Congress, and, at the time it did pass, Senator Sanders purposely had the Short Title stricken, and then want to inform us that, "no, this IS the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act!", when the reality is that the bill was promoted or marketed under that phrase.But the Short Title exists nowhere in the final document.
It is Public Law 115-97. Or, you can reference the Long Title officially.
Sometimes bills are passed, where one Division in the bill has a specific Short Title for that part. The recently passed 2025 budget bill (which, in pattern, is NOT the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" because, on filibuster-rule motion of Senator Schumer, the Senate did not have 60 votes to keep the Short Title) is a more current example.
This is fresh news. Fox News, among others,reported it. It shouldn't take Wikipedia editors a lot of time and effort to find it.
This is not a matter of a "partisan agenda". In my younger days, these tax laws were simply called "Revenue Acts", like theRevenue Act of 1978. Some senators want the marketing out of the bill.
This is fact. It's the history of how the bill passed. This isn't even Gulf of Mexico / Gulf of America league, a style issue with a strong minority contingent.
This noticeboard is not a place for attempting to come to consensus about what to do in the article. This noticeboard is to request potential admin intervention to stop disruptive behavior from happening. Everything you've posted above is irrelevant to the nature of this board. --Hammersoft (talk)23:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring at post-punk by User:Woovee
EditorUser:Woovee has removed several band names from the "Influences" section in multiple edits (example:[16]), stating in summaries that they should be mentioned later instead.
However, these bands are:- Cited with reliable sources- Relevant to the context
User is alsoWP:WAR rather than engaging inWP:CONSENSUS. I've alerted him of hisWP:OWN andWP:JUST previously, and asked to resolve these issues atTalk:Post-punk on his talk page, but he ignored it and kept removing context and information frompost-punk. Bare with me that I'm not an old user so I don't know how to really go about these reports, but I do know that users should refer toWP:CONSENSUS before going back and forth in reverting information, or unwilling to resolve this by opening aWP:DR
This editor doesn't respond to queries on their User talk page so this might require a namespace block from Article space in order to hear from them.LizRead!Talk!04:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
First of all, theown label is againstwp:good faith : this is serious business. That kind of accusation alone resting on nothing, should be enough to sanction the other user.
Secundo, there isn't any edit war as the part about Mark Fisher is still included in the article. Anything else was explained in edit summaries. Liz, your threat is not what is expected from an administrator. If an user doesn't want to answer at a noticeboard because they consider this is about editorial choices and nothing more, it is their right. They shouldn't get forced to be dragged at ANI by an administrator. This is offensive.Woovee (talk)04:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
My words were not a "threat". We regularly block editors who are noncommunicative from article space so they will respond to complaints. I looked over your User talk page and it looked like it had been years since you responded to a message to you. But since you came to participate in this discussion after I invited you to, no block will be necessary which is good. Please continue to discuss this situation with the other editor, maybe on your User talk page where they tried to reach you or here on ANI.LizRead!Talk!06:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
then communicate the editorial choice in the Talk pages instead of insisting your way but edit warring. Wikipedia is a project rests on collaboration, and one is expected to communicate and work with others.– robertsky (talk)11:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Strong oppose - He crossed 3RR rule once. That alone is not enough for a ban. Secondly, ANI is the last resort. This is still an escalating situation and this is ridiculously overzealously an attempt to kick an editor out. This is offensive.ThailomideArticles (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC) (sock strike.LizRead!Talk!06:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC))
<Oppose - Per Woovee and Thailomide. Also a lie at deleting Mark Fisher from the post punk page "multiple times" when it was twice.RFPO2222 (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC) (sock strikeLizRead!Talk!06:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC))
Aradicus77, where do you stand on this discussion now? I've asked Woovee to return so this dispute can be resolved but I doubt they will come back. Are there still matters that need to be discussed?LizRead!Talk!22:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Was he blocked as a sockpuppet? Not sure what happened in that conversation. I was willing to have a discussion with him about how to change thepost-punk page since I did add a lot of information, and the page was in heavy need of trimming. I thanked some of his trimming edits like removing excess band mentions and all kind of stuff that was bordering on original research, but then some of his edits I had an issue with and I opened up a chance to discuss so we can reach a compromise (I would have probably let him do it anyway if I got to hear his point of view). But he seemed to just keep editing without answering me back and not using the talk pageAradicus77 (talk)23:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh opened up the sock thing and seems there was a discussion there too. Nah this wasn't me trying to get this person blocked, not sure if that's what ANI is specifically for, is dispute resolution the right place to dispute un-cooperative edits? I wasn't suspecting the individual of being a sockpuppet or anything like that.Aradicus77 (talk)23:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Historical revisionism on the article Persecution of Christians
IP complainant warned for history of incivility and personal attacks, otherwise this is a content dispute which the complainant has made no effort to discuss on the article's talk page.Civil discussion should continue there.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)13:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone wrote "Christians genocided by Ottoman Empire and its successor state, Republic of Turkey" in the articlePersecution of Christians. This is both historically wrong and revisionism. Turkey founded in 1923 and armenian, greek and assyrian genocides ended before 1923. How Turkey "committed" these genocides? Don't you think this is historical revisionism? I do not accept this, this serves historical revisionism and an agenda. No reliable source says that Türkiye was the perpetrator of these genocides. If so, then the perpetrator of the Nanjing massacre is not the Japanese Empire but modern Japan, and the perpetrator of the Katyn massacre was not the Soviet Union but the modern Russian Federation, and the perpetrator of the holocaust was not Nazi Germany but the modern German state, and the perpetrator of the menemen massacre against Turkish civilians was not the Kingdom of Greece but the modern Greek Republic. How does this sound? This is exactly how absurd and meaningless the writings about Turkey in this article are. These sentences must be removed and must be written with more neutral and historically true way. I also want to hear what other veteran users think about it. @Aintabli@Bogazicili@Beshogur176.220.252.152 (talk)12:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything here that justifies an ANI report, this is - at best - a content dispute. I'd suggest taking this to the article's talk page.TomStar81 (Talk)12:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
well maybe you are right but the problem is that when I start a discussion on the talk page, some users claim that I am doing "vandalism" and removes what I wrote. In the past I tried that. But some users, and they are not admins of course, do not allow me to start a discussion despite I am not "vandalising" and just trying to start a discussion on a just and civil way. Seems like some users have an agenda here.176.220.252.152 (talk)12:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I happen to agree with your statement above on the content, but the way to find out what veteran users think is not to ping three editors who are Turkish.Phil Bridger (talk)13:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Are you the same IP user who has edited a couple times there from the same mobile ISP in the same city recently that made the same argument? If so, edit summaries such asI thought westerners know how to read. I bet you are voting far-right extremist and christian-white supremacist parties in ur country[17] are absolutely inexcusable.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Ad hominem. What are you doing is ad hominem. does this justify the false claim that Turkey was the "perpetrator" of the genocides? TURKEY WAS FOUNDED IN 1923 and all these genocides against armenians, greeks and assyrians ended before 1923. How Turkey is responsible can you tell me please? We are all living in the same universe right? Not in a parallel universe. And 1922 comes before 1923. So how can Turkey is "responsible" for genocides ended in 1922? Does modern day Germany is the perpetrator of the holocaust?176.220.236.28 (talk)16:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so you have to be able to collaborate in acivil manner in order to participate. Regardless of the strength of your arguments, if you can't deliver them in a civil way you'd cost us more good editors than you're worth. --Aquillion (talk)16:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Speaking of collaboration, there appears to have been no attempt at all to discuss this on the talk page, the only place I see any admin action might conceivably be needed is the user making personal attacks.
Also, the user's question about why Turkey is mentioned is answered in the article already. Suggest closing discussion with a redirect to Talk.MilesVorkosigan (talk)20:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting a block forXxFNaF fan32 who has repeatedly added an obviously altered image of the principal ofBacchus Marsh Grammar School, most recentlyhere despite multiple warnings. The image has been AI-generated or otherwise altered to show her with an elongated forehead and violates our BLP and image policies. I nominated the offensive image for deletion on Commons andit was deleted but is back somehow on the page for the school. Please also consider page protection so this vandalism doesn't continue.BBQboffingrill me03:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
It looks like XxFNaF fan32 last edited on 7/7 and the file was deleted on 7/8. So, this shouldn't be an issue unless the file is reuploaded. As the editor has only made 4 edits, all involving this image and article, I'm not sure if they will return now that the image has been deleted.LizRead!Talk!04:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Liz, I can assue you that I'm very much so a legitimate wikipedian simply looking to expand the site's knowledgebase and information density. With that said, I'm quite disappointed that I've been accused of altering a photo to elongate the principal's forehead. This is simply not true, and she got forehead augmentation surgery quite recently, I was simply given the task of updating the photos of her to match this.
As for BBQboffin, I'd like to request a permenant ban on his account, as since our back and fourth arguments about whether or not the photo should be added to the article,(Redacted).XxFNaF fan32 (talk)08:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Logged in just now to find anice threat fromAlpha-Thinker because I deletedOne-Shot Elites perWP:A7 on 23 May. Now, if you send me a message, it does say "Did I delete an article you were working on? If appropriate, read my Plain and simple guide, and provided it's not a copyright violation or libellous, I can restore it to a draft - just ask!" but if you threaten to crack my account in retaliation, then I think that's worth a block. Anyone agree?Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah that is definitely a threat.Would support a block perWP:NLT. I am not so sure if I would support a block now given what The-Plague-Docter said below.Gommeh🎮13:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Theiruser page on the One-Shot Elites Fandom suggests that they're an admin on that wiki, and also 16 years old. The-Piague-Docter seems to be that group's leader, and a "recruitment" page on their wiki suggests their floor age for group membership is 12. The eccentric hyphenation pattern tipped me off that these may be socks but checkuser wasInconclusive; I would consider them to be meatpuppets for enforcement purposes, but I think the username pattern is more like sovereign citizen cosplay than anything else. I will send a note to Trust & Safety anyway, and Ritchie I presume you're up to speed on good account security practices already.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)14:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that. He's been going through a lot lately, and I think he made it pretty clear it wasn't him that was going to hack you. We do not have any intent to hack your account, and as Alpha-Thinker has always been unique, it's his way of backing an request, because he knows what we can do. And he didn't say anything about him actually doing it. And he wasn't talking about your account, we can get your IP, legal full name, passport, and loads of other stuff. But as I mentioned, we have no intent of doing that. Have a good day, you'll be fine.The-PIague-Docter (talk)22:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"we can get your IP, legal full name, passport, and loads of other stuff" Admitting to criminal activities that can result you being thrown in jail is not a particularly smart thing to publicly admit.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Veiled threats don't stop being threats just by a person saying they're not threats. ("Pretty nice house you got there... Would be a shame if somethin' was to happen to it. Just hypothetically of course.") And, while I'm sure no small number of our editors have the ability to doxx or harass people if they want, bragging about that ability, especially in the context of a specific other editor, creates an unsafe editing environment and creates an imbalance in who people feel they can safely criticize. (Compare: Plenty of our editors are expert marksmen or martial-arts black belts, but if you go mentioning that in a dispute there's obviously going to be an issue.) I've blocked both Alpha-Thinker and The-PIague-Docter forWP:NOTHERE+threats. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)11:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I understand there is slightly more leeway in editing a personal TP, but I find it quite odd thatAustralian TV Fan (talk·contribs) is turning theirs into an attack page after being told off on what NOT to do here by multiple editors[19] and in the process demonstrating that they are outrightWP:NOTHERE to work constructively in this project.Borgenland (talk)09:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
In this edit ([20]), they said that they are gonna block someone. They are not admin, so how they do that? Are they pretent to be admin?Mehedi Abedin18:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 217.14.217.190
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Klokov98 has persistently been changing the height ofMike Tyson for no apparent reason and without citing reliable sources. After warning him on his user talk page, he did it again. User also has a history of being warned for unconstructive edits and attacking other editors.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)14:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I looked through their contributions and didn't find any constructive edits. Their single non-article edit wasthis distasteful comment. So, 49 useless edits and a personal attack.WP:NOTHERE.Schazjmd(talk)14:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
It looks like Klokov was never properly informed of this discussion. I've left the mandatory notice on their talk page.Weirdguyz (talk)15:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Blocked and userpage deleted. I appreciate you leaving the notice, but I feel it's better for Wikipedia if we never hear from this person again.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)16:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh absolutely, I was considering making a remark along the lines of "Though I doubt it will do any good" above, but decided against it. Regardless, the notice is indeed mandatory, even if fruitless.Weirdguyz (talk)16:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please don't change your username, especially if it's written in the script you usually use. Everyone (except Nazis and vandals) should feel welcome here.Phil Bridger (talk)20:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
OnUser:Phil Bridger talk page he was warned very recently not to make personal attacks against a WMF staff member. Heres that comment for reference:[21] Above that thread, a user made a grievance on his talk page such as and asked for an apology, to no avail. And just now he has gone against the WMF's stated policy of making content free for everyone by saying "nazis are not accepted". Further up his talk pageUser:Matrix warned him of the NPA policy where he said to another user quote "If your mission is to make Andrew Tite an unemployable laughing stock then you're doing a very good job at it.". This could also be constituted as aWP:BLP violation. Finally, the last part I want to bring up is a comment made 2 years agohere. Although it was made 2 years ago, the very recent actions combined with historical actions made by Phil Bridger warrant an AN/I thread. If a new user did this, I would have no doubt they would be blocked, perhaps indefinitely but Phil Bridger has gotten away with sticking small jabs, violating BLP policy, and more because he's an experienced editor.86.49.236.22 (talk)21:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
[24]. Same logic applies to Nazis. Now yes, in your mind it may be justified because they are bigots but they are still human beings and the Wikipedia policies applies to everyone.86.49.236.22 (talk)21:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive user
Both the named editor and the IP have been blocked for DE/edit warring. No further action needed unless behavior resumes when the block expiresStarMississippi18:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lopezsuarez(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has removed a discussion about itself on the administrator's noticeboard, keeps mass reverting articles without any explanation whatsoever (examples were mentioned on the administrators noticeboard before he reverted them), something has to be done about this behaviour
Original posting at AN:User:Lopezsuarez keeps mass reverting changes on articles about semi-autonomous regions of Spain such asCeuta,Aragon,Flag of Ceuta among others without giving any reason whatsoever, he's been warned of that behaviour in it's talk page, however, the user removed that warning.176.223.62.174 (talk)11:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I'll refrain from making any further editions on any of those articles since the user keeps reverting them without giving any reason.176.223.62.174 (talk)11:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
That is anawful lot of reverting by both Lopezsuarez and the IP with no explanation at all. I would block both for 72 hours for edit warring. Anyone disagree?Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)11:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Here's what I'm seeing: between 20:54 and 21:05 UTC yesterday,the IP made three edits which were all unexplained reverts of edits Lopezsuarez made two days earlier, plus one more edit changing the coat of arms onProvince of Cádiz with a reference in their edit summary. Lopezsuarez reverted all of these four minutes later, using the undo function and without explaining any of them. IP subsequently made three more edits as x.x.x.78 which seem to have missed Lopezsuarez's revert spree. The IP then rotated to x.x.x.174, and between 9:15 and 9:17 today they re-reverted three of the edits Lopezsuarez had reverted, with an explanation in each one. Then between 9:22 and 10:04 they updated a few more articles. Lopezsuarez came back at 10:45 and started indiscriminately reverting again, and then the two reverted each other 42 times over the next 30 minutes across many articles. The IP tried to explain several of their reverts; Lopezsuarez didn't leave an edit summary for a single one.
It seems rather obvious to me that Lopezsuarez was sitting on the IP's contribs page and reverting every one of their edits, as evidenced by the handful of edits they didn't revert from the original IP and that they reverted the original post at AN. That is unacceptable behaviour and I am blocking for 72 hours. The IP is also not innocent here and I was going to propose blocking from article space for 72 hours to give them space to discuss their proposed edits, but I seeScottishFinnishRadish has already blocked one of their addresses. Good enough I guess.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)11:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent addition of unsourced content/unexplained removal of content by 78.135.245.226
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well, in case it’s unclear, I dropped it. I’m not the one who opened a discussion on another user’s page to spew hate speech and personal attacks. ~IvanScrooge98 (talk)01:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Yagiv has apologized but put conditions on leaving you alone, and I'd tell Yagiv that actually it's best if the loaded language questions are left unanswered and retracted. I'm trying to find a reason not to block, that'd be the best way to convince me.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)02:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I accept to lift the conditions away and for the questions to be left unanswered and retracted to move on, and again, I truly apologize for my erratic bipolar behavior, I had been recently ordered by my psychiatrist to start taking medicine for to start to control myself.Yagiv (talk)02:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
And I had been recently considering leave Wikipedia for good to fully take care of my mental health.Yagiv (talk)02:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Yagiv, you can come back six months after you posted a reply. Currently, the mental status may show that leaving is a good choice.Ahri Boy (talk)02:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks, I’m retiring maybe for a long time, I just (after those horrible deaths) this idea that redhead people were being erased by the media and becoming extint.Yagiv (talk)03:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Uhh two bits from Yagiv that probably need some form of admin attention:the inhuman and bloodthirsty darkskinned Palestinians and in that same diffit is totally indefendible to defend the right to exits to literally inhuman monsters[25]CambrianCrab (talk)pleaseping me in replies!02:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
And the back-and-forth after that OP meant I overlooked that. Yeah, that is absolutely beyond the pale. Blocked. - 05:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Just because someone else makes a racist and/or xenophobic statement doesn't mean you should join them tomake a point. And even so, the first quote was prior to most of your dispute, and is also highly inappropriate.FortunateSons (talk)09:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." – Mark Twain(Apparentlynot a Mark Twain quote)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing in motorsports articles
SOCK BLOCKED
SteeledDock541 chose to evade scruitiny by creating a sockpuppet account and is now indef'd. A topic ban upon a successful unblock request has been imposed. Believe that's all folks. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SD541 has unfortunately given up on consensus-building processes withinWikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing. They have resorted to editing sprees whereupon they make changes of things which a consensus is forming against their position.
Incident 2 which brings me to seek admin intervention is regarding infoboxes on racing driver articles. SD541'sattempt to seek consensus regarding using a new template did not go his way with several other users opposing, some questioning what is wrong with the first infobox[26].
On June 8, SD "flipped the table" and made unilateral changes, replacing entire infoboxes[27], leading toRegalZ8790 to say,Your decision not to complete theconsensus-building process you initiated is discouraging.[28] SD did not respond after this, however, today, SD541 has made more changes that go against the consensus[29][30][31], changing the entire infobox for his preferred infobox.
Incident 1 which makes this a pattern is regarding the use of {{flagicon}} in articles. I and other users opposed what I felt was excessive use of flags at2025 IndyCar Series that went againstWP:FLAGCRUFT's wordingplacing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. In the middle ofthe discussion on this,in which SD541 says,let just end the conversation here and agree not to add them....,[32] SD541 unilaterally not only added flagicons article for previous IndyCar seasons[33], but also did so to individual race team articles[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] that they ought to have know I'd have opposed for the same reason.
Hello,GhostOfDanGurney. Can you link to any discussions you have had with SteeledDock541 about your disagreements? It looks like you haven't posted to their User talk page since last November and back then you were getting along. What kind of dispute resolution have you tried before coming here? I'm not talking about edit summaries, I'm talking about talk page discussions between the two of you. The discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing about some of these issues is all from today. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!22:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I attempted to link to a discussion atTalk:2025 IndyCar Series#FLAGCRUFT so apologies if that wasn't clear enough. SD541 went to DRN after I had initiated that discussion on article talk, but I declined to participate at DRN for feeling such action was premature. Subsequently, discussion at Talk picked up and SD541 conceded toagree not to add [flagicons], only to immediatelyadd flagicons to other articles in the wikiproject. I am at work on break so cannot link a diff to DRN right now
Also a talk page message from SD to me in late May:[42]
The infobox issue and the flagicon issue are two seperate issues that show a pattern of conduct. Both issues saw consensus form against SD, only for SD to make unilateral changes afterward. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)23:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I am also supportive of an intervention. Please note that I am on vacation through July 8. This is my first time being involved in an incident, and I would like to let people know that I am not able to participate further until after that date.
Anyways, @GhostOfDanGurney quoted a comment I had made to SD541, in which I expressed some frustration with SD's behavior. Looking at SD's editing activities, one can see they are an active creator of new articles. This is a good thing!
However, I have observed for some time SD's attempts - when things are not what they prefer - to surreptitiously enact changes by waiting for periods of time, then restoring their preferred content with edits lacking a summary and which abuseWP:MINOR. An example is a long running series of edits which culminated February 1st[43]. SD attempts to insert incorrect/improper information regarding the flags and nationality of a driver. These were significant edits marked as minor, made with no summary. I reverted them, leaving detailed summaries explaining why the edits were improper[44][45].
Such activity took place after earlier attempts by SD to enact their desired changes. This happened June 20, 2024[46][47], where SD attempted to revert another editor[48][49]. Previously, on June 19, 2024, SD tried to pass the edit off as minor[50]. They had even earlier tried to sneak it in on August 7, 2023[51], after which I added cited content to the page explaining the driver's heritage[52]. I also started a discussion on the driver's talk page[53], which received no participation/acknowledgement from SD541.
The reason I used the word "discouraging" is because I was initially encouraged to see SD541 become more involved with the community by beginning discussions and seeking consensus. As mentioned previously, content creators are valuable community members. However, as Dan Gurney has pointed out, SD has returned to their familiar patterns of attempting to shape Wikipedia to their own preferred image, independently of communities at large.
I would also like to point out that SD's July 1 series of driver infobox edits[54], which Dan Gurney pointed out, have all taken place to articles where the driver is no longer actively competing in theIndyCar Series. My personal opinion is that this is another attempt by SD541 to play "the long game" - if they can't make the changes they prefer when people are paying attention, they wait until they believe the focus of the community has shifted elsewhere.
While I believe content creation is admirable, SteeledDeck541's other patterns are disruptive. I have lost confidence that this editor can participate productively inWP:AOWR.
What Regal articulates here is a long-term pattern ofWP:GAMING that is much worse than I had first thought; I was hesitant to cite GAME at first, but Regal shows that this behaviour extends into the BLP articles in the WikiProject as well as being of a much longer duration than 6 weeks.
Notifying everyone that I edited my previous comment after realizing I had linked incorrect edits within the sequence. I've struck through those edits and added the correct ones.
BrankEditor andVreObservation, first, I don't know what you are voting on and secondly, you just created your accounts. Do you have any connection to the editor who is being discussed? What prompted you to create your account today?LizRead!Talk!04:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Topic ban from motorsports, broadly construed
TOPIC BAN IMPOSED
There has been limited discussion below, but as this is kind of a niche topic by ANI standards I suppose that is to be expected, and the discussion there has been is unanimous. Therefore, by the consensus of the Wikipedia community,SteeledDock541 istopic-banned from motorsports topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months following any successful unblock request. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should SD541 someday wish to return to editing and successfully appeal their block for SOCKing, I am proposing that they be subject to anindefinite topic ban from motorsports, broadly construed given what is now rampant GAMING conduct in a topic area full of inexperienced editors who either avoid or are unaware of Wikipedia's overwhelming backend, which the SOCKing is yet another example of. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)05:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Support - I would like to see at least a six-month topic ban. Perhaps with some time to reflect they will be willing to collaborate and participate effectively.RegalZ8790 (talk)18:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, and only if they can show that they are willing to collaborate with other editors and participate in a positive manner.Assadzadeh (talk)13:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Admin note - while SmokeyBandit512 was confirmed to be SteeledDock541's sock, the other socks blocked in the discussion above are unrelated: it's one of our ANI joe-jobbing trolls. In case it impacts anyone's opinion here.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)21:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last month, there wasa discussion here that timed out after I blocked Onemillionthtree forpersonal attacks. Part of that discussion was about his tendency to post walls of text. Well, he just managed topost a wall of text in an edit summary, invoking Alexander the Great in a dissertation about why "more than" was better than "greater" in this case. He has alsoobjected to the thought of an artist executing a commission because that's too violent, and the thought of acomet being an interloper, because dictionary.com says so. Between these recent edits and the ones previously discussed, I'm really not sure he's able to abide by the community editing norms here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)22:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Simply: isn't a wall. I cant' provide a defence against an incorrect criticism: is a reason again - is in the summary - the summary allows for that number of letters and spaces - you're stating I cannot use the summary allowance made by wikipedia? I'm forbidden is that what you're stating? I made an argument about "executed (the painting)" yes - if you make a contrary argument I don't have a right to enforce my preference for "produced" instead of "executed" atThe Blue Rider (Kandinsky) - I used reason to argue -if you could find contrary reason that is a reason to change my change. Your complaint3I/ATLAS#Trajectory "interlopers" the leading editors didn't change my edit - they had the choice: they are scientifically interested / involved in the subject.(𒌋*𓆏)𓆭22:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I believe that Sarek is trying to suggest that your edit summaries should relate to the edit you're making and not include long digressions about completely unrelated topics like Alexander the Great or Latin. Try to focus on what you're actually doing.
I think if you look at the edit summary you'll see you didn't really explain why you wanted to make the change. Instead you started talking about Alexander the Great and Latin(?). He wasn't Latin, and 'the Great' has nothing at all to do with "greater than."
So it was a really long edit summary that didn't actually give other editors any useful information. And that translate link has nothing to do with anything and shouldn't be there, nor should the link to POV, also irrelevant. Try to stay focused on the actual edits. If you want to start talking about unrelated topics, that might fit better on your own user or your own talk page.MilesVorkosigan (talk)00:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I think the claim is that by using "greater than" I added POV language, which I interpreted as peacock words, and this lead to them making that extremely long talk message that went into tangents about Alexander and cheese graters.Sesquilinear (talk)03:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Apart from this argument - what of the current problem:you returned an error (as I indicated at 21:51) into "Hypersonic" which I corrected - re-included false information without reviewing the source. I don't see you notice my value - only a possible angle of attack on my activity here.(𒌋*𓆏)𓆭22:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
At both articles (your complaint) I made neglibigle to no difference to the factual information - only changing the wordingyour complaint. My criticism - you re-included false information into the encyclopedia while stopping my changes in the article - which was: the art. is "Hypersonic" so I deleted speeds which showed less than Hypersonic; I followed sourcing/reference information - so that the article shows the current sourcing at that time. I haven't proceeded to conflict with you now on your subsequent change against my change and have accepted your version of the art. which I now activelly work on not you and also I look through your edit list - you don't have any obvs. physics art. listed.(𒌋*𓆏)𓆭23:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
No dog in this particular fight, but I believe that the rather incomprehensible statements above might indicate aWP:CIR issue. A quick perusal of the user's talk page seems to support this as well.nf utvol (talk)00:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked Onemillionthtree for disruptive editing. After reading the previous ANI thread and their user talk page in addition to their input here, I believe that this editor is not compatible with a collaborative project.Cullen328 (talk)03:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2603:7000:1700:42E8:ECDC:49B9:E565:44D2 and CIR, lack of communication
This user is going to the pages of various television episodes and adding episode ages and changing dates of templates against Wikipedia guidelines, which I have urged them to stop doing to no avail. While this is not vandalism, it is seriously disruptive and I am looking for some administrative action whether through a stern warning from someone who is uninvolved, all the way up to an outright block.JeffSpaceman (talk)17:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Personally I never really agreed with the guideline that said not to change the dates on maintenance templates such as{{Use American English}}. Although I don't do it, I'm not really sure if it fits my definition of "disruptive" either, as to me it's a minor nuisance at worst. That being said, I'd have liked to see some communication from the IP about the reasons why they made the edits they did. Your concerns especially about episode ages are valid though, and I agree with you 100% on those.Gommeh🎮11:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
This is a repeat ofthis report on the same user, who has continued making the same sorts of poorly written and otherwise disruptive edits on film/tv related articles across a /40 range.[59][60] Older examples to show it's the same user[61][62] Since the user appears undeterred by their repeated blocks on /64 ranges (at least one of which is still activehere), I'm bringing this here as I think a wider block seems warranted.Taffer😊💬(she/they)15:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, a wider block is warranted here since the last one went in one ear and out the other. Tagging @NinjaRobotPirate as the admin who made the original block.Gommeh🎮15:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Since I encountered this user last year, I've seen them blocked at least 3 times on various ranges, and have seen zero change in behaviour after any of them. Always the same pattern of unsourced claims, poor grammar,WP:EASTEREGG links, edit warring and personal attacks in summaries, no communication, etc. If this behaviour has been occurring for years as NRP noted in the last report, I struggle to think of anything that could change it at this point.Taffer😊💬(she/they)16:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, nothing probably will change that. But just because someone is being a minor pain doesn't mean that you can range block a major ISP in a huge city. Just report the newest /64 every few months, and I'll block it. If there's a major problem, like a neo-Nazi, I'd be willing to talk about what counts as acceptable collateral damage, like we're a bunch of assholes standing over a war map.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)17:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely fair, my lack of technical knowledge about IPs rears its head again. Will do, and thank you NinjaRobotPirateTaffer😊💬(she/they)17:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support indef block Sorry, but as I saidat the WP:AN thread, this editor either lacks WP:CLUE and sufficientcompetence to edit here, or, frankly we're being trolled. Either way, they've become an absolute timesink. First, they're clerking at WP:UAA, which wasted several editors' time and bought them a pblock, then the appeals, thenlaunching an RfA which if it's allowed to run will waste a lot more editors' time... all of which have done nothing except waste several editors' time and energies over a period of days. See alsoths thread. The fact that at RfA their answer to the question, "What are your best contributions?" was answered with, effectively, "The thing that got me blocked", says everything.—Fortuna,imperatrix15:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
@SarekOfVulcan: So you want me to discusschronic, intractable behavioral problems at a noticeboard that explicitly requests thatFor urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Right.—Fortuna,imperatrix15:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When I suggested they drop the stick, I receivedthis in response, with such gems asso utterly desperate;total nonsense;I'm not going anywhere, and I've never shut my mouth just because someone with opinions like yours tells me to.;you better believe me when I say you will not succeed if your aim is to shut me up;Start by rethinking what you just said, etc. - all, horrifyingly, more offensive in context.
I left a reply just now reminding them of CIVIL, but then I read other more recent comments Morgajon has made to others who were also recommending they drop the stick, and the user seems to be far more personal and uncivil to people who aren't straight-up arguing with them - so trying to moderate with reasonable discussion is impossible. Inone comment, Morgajon referred to everyone trying to reason with them aspeople who can parrot phrases and even articulate basic concepts, but when you step back, clearly don't really understand what they are all about. Morgajon also brings up@Masem: a lot - to attack/insult Masem - in replies to other users, and I find this targeting to be particularly uncivil. It needs to be dealt with at a higher level.
It looks like most of these diffs are from several days ago, maybe during the last time they were brought to ANI on the weekend. I'd be interested in seeing if discussion here led to any changes. I'm disappointed that they still seem fixated on that Oasis concert, fans have to know when to let their enthusiasm for one subject die down and get back to the regular, boring job of daily editing tasks that keeps this project going day after day.LizRead!Talk!01:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Is it civil to tell someone to "grow up" when you're literally reporting them for incivility? I'll admit and apologise for being rude, but horrifyingly offensive and insulting? Not sure about that.
I'm annoyed due to the sheer amount of falsehoods on display. Twice now it has been claimed I am seeking an "exception" to the norm, I suspect both times by Kingsif. But as we have now seen as more sources have been brought to the discussion, anyone who suggested there was nothing to show this reunion/tour was something significant, as Kingsif seems to think, certainly worth more than the lazy dismissal it got, is clearly lying. Or is otherwise as I dascribed - capable of repeating phrases, but not understanding what they mean.
I keep mentioning Masem as he seems particularly adept at this, and it surprises me he is allowed to continually and repeatedly behave that way. It is highly rude and disrespectful to keep repeating points already addressed, as if you think the other person is genuinely thick.
I am a professional journalist. I studied this matter in detail, so it is highly offensive to me, having imho demonstrated I have an exceptional grasp of things like ITNSIGNIF, NPOV and how Wikipedia prefers sources over personal opinion, to then be treated as if all I am is some deluded fan who just wanted to nominate his favourite band.
I nominated it because it is easily one of the most significant events in British music history, certainly in the time period Wikipedia has existed. The sources prove it. Therefore it is quite obviously a current event of wide interest. Suitable for ITN nomination and ultimately acceptance, on the facts. Subjectivity is fine, denying observable reality as reflected by the sources, is not. That is beyond rude.
I genuinely believe Kingsif wants me to shut up not because the stick needs dropped, but because he's afraid this is eventually going to be realised. People are eventually going to sensibly engage with posts like Black Kite's, and if not, when the tour does smash records, as reliable sources reliable predict it will, a heck of a lot of people are going to have egg on their faces for having offered some pretty ill-informed snap judgements about something they had done little or indeed zero research into.
As it turns out, it wasn't even true that ITN never posts concerts. Kingsif dismissed a highly respected journalist at a source Wikipedia considers the gold standard for reflecting general UK opinion, as a peddler of promotional marketing fluff.
That's the kind of thing that's got me angry, stuff like that happening on a supposedly serious project. And nobody but the man who had already put many hours into this issue just to nominate it, catching it. Stuff like that needs to be called out. It is embarrassing. And as a factual statement, saying that should not be considered rude, much less offensive. But you can understand why the person it is directed at would feel differently.Morgajon (talk)06:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The walls of bludgeoning text from you are just massive. You throw a lot of insulting language out there directed at people, personalizing the dispute at every opportunity, including here. Even if one thinks they're correct, there's no right to "win" a dispute on Wikipedia. You made your case and the other editors disagreed with you, brush yourself off and move on. Or, dare I say, don't look back in anger.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)07:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Or should that be Slide Away, and forget everything you thought you knew about Wikipedia, because it was a total lie? Facts, sources, logic and reason are meaningless here. Unfortunately for those who would like to me to just shut up and go away, I can and often do Look Back In Anger. And much like the famously antagonistic (in thier heyday if not their reunion) band they call Oasis, I can and I will use my platform to Bring It On Down if needs be. If there is lots of money in it for me.Morgajon (talk)09:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I have been following these developments quietly until now. However, I consider this particular posting to be absolutely striking in the threat that it contains. This requires admin attention sooner rather than later.GenevieveDEon (talk)10:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Who are you saying I have threatened, and what is the specific nature of that supposed threat? Or are you referring to some generic threat against Wikipedia, a website. Are you trying to get me banned for having a dim view of how Wikipedia apparently works in practice, or is it the fact I have the means to write about my experience in a reliable source that you find so threatening?Morgajon (talk)11:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
You threatened to “Look Back in Anger,” and to “Bring it On Down,” which apparently means you will summon your favorite band Oasis to take down Wikipedia.Celjski Grad (talk)12:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
If Kingsif hadn't made the report here, I probably was about to be making one here anyways instead too. The editor has participated in extensive bludgeoning and has consistently violatedWP:CIVIL andWP:NPA despite being requested or notified not to. I will note that thelast discussion was closed early, so all diffs linked in the report here are recent and were made after the previous discussion was closed. They also seem to be a potentialWP:SPA account, only having edited the ITN discussions and the Oasis Live tour article.Happily888 (talk)08:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
This is what I'm talking about. Unless you're going to repeat the false allegation that I am a paid editor, or you can otherwise show I've edited to skew the article in some way, then SPA is quite clear - I have done nothing wrong. It isn't a crime to be interested in only one topic, especially when you've only been editing Wikipedia for a week. But here you are, trying to suggest the exact opposite. I'm not being paid to put up with this, so when it happens over and over, it's unreasonable to expect me not to get a little cross given the palpable feeling that I am being disrespected. You perhaps think you can get away with it because I am new here, and might not know any better. Well I do, I read the pages I am referred to, such as SPA. I wouldn't get paid for my actual job if I didn't have that basic skill. Sorry for the length, but it's pretty hard to convey even a simple thing like this, in just a few characters. I should not have to say these things at all, it's so basic (or so it seems to me), is the worrying part.Morgajon (talk)09:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that being a SPA is wrong, it is just a warning sign.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd hate to see such a new editor get anWP:INDEF without something more egregious like vandalism or spam, but I think it's clear from the discussion here that Morgajon has little interest in dropping the stick. To forestall more significant sanctions, I propose a topic ban to get this editor out of what appears to be a subject too high stakes for them for the time being. This is a time sink for the community. Naturally, Isupport as proposer.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)10:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
You cannot be serious. I'm literally the only editor here who seems interested in editing the the Wikipedia article for the Oasis tour in any substantial way. And yet just because I won't shut up in the face of blatant lies (I am not and never have requested an "exception" at ITN, either as a giddy fanboy or paid editor, and I have done absolutely nothing wrong in choosing to only edit that article and about its ITN nomination), you're going to tell me I can't edit not juat that Oasis article, but any artice related to them. You do realise how that looks, right?Morgajon (talk)11:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have to agree here; Morgajon's contributions are a net positive, but perhaps if they can't control their temper then it may be helpful totake a voluntary break from Wikipedia. I myself have done that in the past when I was too angry at another editor to think straight, and it's worked wonders. That way, you have a clear head when you decide to return to editing later and your emotions won't get in the way of becoming a productive editor. I remainopposed to a topic ban however, and my existing vote still stands.Gommeh🎮19:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say that my anger has been due to the wide disconnect between what my calm, focused, analytical brain has told me should be happening, becuase I have read (and surely understood) the (various) manual(s) here, and what's actually happened.Morgajon (talk)20:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not a big fan of topic bans when an editor is a SPA, because theyare just effectively an indefat this point. I would however, suggest that (a) the discussion atWT:ITN is shut down, it's serving little purpose now and it's the main cause of the dispute (I would close it myself but I have commented there), and (b) Morgajon considers alittle more restraint in how they address other editors.Black Kite (talk)12:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per BK, and hopefully when that bloody thread is closed (for the love of God, someone, please) it will lower the temperature and remove the locus of the dispute. If Morgajon is indeed an SPA for this tour, then they'll either expand their areas of interest—in which case we gain a productive editor―or they have nothing to do, in which case they stop editing (on their own accord; obviously if they begin disrupting elsewhere then their ceasing to edit willnot be on their own accord). And yeah, they should also make a helluva lot more effort to check the belligerenceand the walls-of-text at the door (although I'm mildly sympathetic to the frustrations of a new editor who finds themself faced with the near-Byzantine ITN predisposition for whatNatg 19 has described as "unspoken rules and precedents... [where] ITNSIGNIF is just a hand waving guide with no clear meaning".)—Fortuna,imperatrix12:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - the main cause of the drama is the thread at ITN, closing it (which I have now done) should do the trick. I don't see any good reason for issuing a topic ban to someone who I think would otherwise be a constructive editor.Gommeh🎮13:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Regardless of their behavior at ITN, I see nothing that is disruptive in the area of editing Oasis related articles. Thus is the wrong approach to correct the ITN disruption.Masem (t)13:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as excessive. Their mainspace contributions toOasis Live '25 Tour seem like a net positive. If their ITN-related discussions around the topic are really that disruptive, then page-blocks fromWT:ITN and/orWP:ITNC (or an ITN topic ban) may be more appropriate.Left guide (talk)14:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose a topic-ban from all of Oasis at this time, but wouldsupport a narrower topic-ban from Oasis on ITN which is where the problem has been, unless Morgajon agrees to step away from there voluntarily.Newyorkbrad (talk)17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Weak Instead Support:but believe thata ban from ITN (and a warning on personal attacks) might be sufficient and preferable, most of the disruption appears to be there.MilesVorkosigan (talk)18:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Support ITN ban but oppose topic ban. If they want to improve the tour article (and they have, using reliable sources), that's great- banning them from Oasis seems wholly unnecessary when the problem is their discourse, not their article editing. With that said, I do think the user is of the opinion that people are out to get them, which (I would hope) others are not, and a stern warning that a continued lack of civility will lead to an indef ban is certainly warranted. --Kicking222 (talk)18:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
So far I've been falsely accused of being a paid editor (COI/PROMO), falsely accused of seeking an "exception" at ITN, falsely accused of having an improper focus on one subject (SPA), falsely accused of being a fanboy (POV), and now been threatened with a total ban from Oasis "broadly construed" for having been overly emotional in precisely one, internal, debate, for less than a week. Persecution could be one way to describe it. So maybe I am not getting enough credit for actually knowing when keep my mouth shut when I'm really annoyed? Not that I do think this is persecution. It's more like a basic lack of respect.Morgajon (talk)19:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose any action now that the WT:ITN thread is closed, but a formal warning against what to me seems to be obvious bludgeoning/WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA nonsense does appear to be in order. I'd support sanctions if the thread is re-opened or disruption otherwise continues at ITN; maintaining myoppose on a topic ban from Oasis per others.Departure– (talk)19:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you are refusing to show an appropriate level of respect for other editors while continuing the same behavior here after being reported.
From what you've said, it sounds like you will continue to be unable or unwilling to control your language, so a ban from the ITN page seems the best way forward for everyone.MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC) -my mistake, thought that was a reply to meMilesVorkosigan (talk)19:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose, a forgivable reaction for a new editor who is the latest to discover the stunning incompetence we see at ITN on a daily basis.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸19:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd go one further. Some of it is definitely deliberate. Assorted people involved in that debate really cannot deny knowing they have said blatantly incorrect things. Asburd claims about policy or blatantly incorrect statements of fact. But rather than admit it, they just ignore it and move on. Or worse, file a complaint about my behaviour. It gives the impression that being INCIVIL is worse than being a deliberate liar (which is also INCIVIL, no?). And there has been zero sign anyone wants to do anything about it.Morgajon (talk)19:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: The extent of the reaction is far from acceptable, even being frustrated at discovering a system prioritises discussion so they can’t do anything about people disagreeing with them. Especially directed at users who are not devaluing their opinion or saying the system is infallible. I am surprised at this apparent legitimising of abuse-as-bludgeoning (especially when so chronic it is surely an MO, not a reaction) - and I fear your replies (regardless of any intention) may even be encouraging of the attitude that has led to this.Kingsif (talk)20:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, my concern was that you are teaching them to ABF(their response to you being a ‘yay someone agrees people are maliciously dishonest I can keep saying it’) rather than try to work with others, regardless of your good intentions.Kingsif (talk)20:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose even though getting bent out of shape over Oasis is silly, butSupport pblocking everyone from ITN and every new editor the minute they open an account too.NebY (talk)21:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Are you implying ITN should only be for "experienced" editors? Perhaps that is good but not sure if we need to be that drastic.Natg 19 (talk)21:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
No! pBlock the experienced editors first. Then everyone else. Then anyone new. Oh, and all IPs too.NebY (talk)21:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi. Morgajon here. In case anyone hasn't been paying full attention to the backstory (and I'll take the fair share of the blame for that due to the word count), one of the main themes has been whether ITN should consider subjective or objective meassure when assessing importance.
Long story short, that means I am extremely interested to know what would happen if this reliable sourced prediction: "[The Oasis Live '25 Tour is] expected to be the most popular, and profitable, run of gigs in British history", comes true, and the tour is presented to ITN for consideration in a second nomination.
But I am getting the distinct sense that if I am not allowed to nominate it at ITN when that happens, it will conveniently not happen at all. If that's the intention of this proposal, I'd like that to be made clear.Morgajon (talk)20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
If you are topic-banned from Oasis in ITN then you would not be permitted to nominate anything related to Oasis at ITN, whether or not that prediction comes to fruition. Since you seem to believe this subject is objectively really important, then surely you also must believe that you are not the only person who would consider making such a nomination, so there should be nothing to worry about.173.79.19.248 (talk)20:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I seriously doubt it, based on the very simple fact that if it wasn't for me, the only thing Wikipedia would have documented about this tour once it had started, was the set list. Step 1 at ITN of course being to have updated the article with prose. I guess I could be nice and update the article, and then let someone else nominate it. But maybe I'm not a nice guy. So I might leave it all alone, not documenting this feat, just to spite the Wikipedia editors who in my view barely even considered the merits of the nomination when it was merely a matter of subjectivity (if we also ignore the objectivity of "the biggest concert launch ever seen in the UK and Ireland".) Especially those who accused me of being a paid editor or giddy fan boy, rather than someone who had read and surely understood ITNSITNSIGNIF.Morgajon (talk)20:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"Eventually' isn't much use when the part of Wikipedia we are discussing is the part that deals with "current events". As in, if the article hasn't been updated within days, probably hours if there's then going to days of debate regarding the significance of the update, that's not quick enough. And so by definition, Wikipedia isn't meeting the goal of informing readers of current events of wide interest (ITN). That it will survive anyway, amd someone will "eventually" edit the article to reflect an event of the merely recent, perhaps even distant, event, was really rather obvious. Or so I would have thought.Morgajon (talk)13:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
SeeWP:NOTNEWS, specifically,[W]hile including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. may be of interest. Trying to have an always up-to-date source of information is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I recall a similar point being made when folks were trying to push unreliable sources for weather-related articles, claiming readers needed it to be up-to-date. The consensus was that "timeliness" was not one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.EducatedRedneck (talk)13:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
SeeWP:ITN. For that part of Wikipedia, the purpose is *precisely* to have accurate up to date information on recent developments. It's literally made very clear that this is all about showcasing the benefits of Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.Morgajon (talk)17:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Besides that you continue to assume bad faith, attack others, and bludgeon the conversation, which makes me think the encyclopedia might be better off if you simply were not involved with it, I would like for you to ponder the crux of your argument. OK, sure, it's the biggest concert launch ever in the UK and Ireland. As far as ITN is concerned, so what? Unless they were also worldwide leaders, we wouldn't even think about posting the biggest movie launch in Bangladesh or the biggest video game launch in Russia or the biggest album launch in Nigeria, all of which are countries with over twice the population of the UK. It's cool trivia with no lasting effect.
If you want to make the argument that we SHOULD be posting stuff like that, fine with me (though I'd probably disagree), but currently, your argument seems to simply be "everyone is against me and I'm correct". I've had your back on a lot of this- I don't think you're a paid editor and I do think you've made good contributions to the article- but enough is enough.Kicking222 (talk)22:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
ITN guidance says do not oppose due to significance to only one country (although Oasis pretty clearly has a far wider fan base than just UK & Ireland, which are of course two separate sovereign countries also). Probably becuase ignoring what's big in Nigeria is a manifestation of systemic bias.Morgajon (talk)06:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Completely off topic but this is more evidence we need to rewrite that guideline; it’s clear Kicking’s point was that being top X in 2 out of 200 countries cannot in itself be criteria for posting, for hopefully obvious reasons.Kingsif (talk)10:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
But it's not off topic is it? It's yet more proof I know what the guidelines say, but I'm getting major flak from people who apparently don't, but want to take me to task for getting testy when it seems like this is actually the normal way of discussing things. Much of my "bludgeoning" has literally been correcting people when they're clealry not accurately reflecting the guidance.Morgajon (talk)13:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Theactual effect would be next-to-nothing. The article for the band has received more than 15 million views and been edited by nearly 1,500 different editors over the last decade. Over that same timeframe, Noel Gallagher's article has been viewed nearly 11 million times and Liam Gallagher's more than 14 million times. The Be Here Now Tour, a tour from nearly 30 years ago, has been viewed about 150,000 times over the last decade and is linked to from 142 different Wikipedia articles.
Somehow, Wikipedia has been able to provide extensive coverage of Oasis and other topics related to the band over the last two decades despite the band originally splitting up 16 years ago and your arrival not being until five days ago. If this tour/event has even 10% of the historical importance that you assign to it, there's not a chance in the universe that this article will lie fallow.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)22:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
An apparent superiority complex(I can find no other way to describe the contemptuous and demeaning language shown to people who were even trying to help them, not to mention in their first rant above they act like they are the only one who knows guidelines and deserve a medal for 'catching' other people they think know less) has contributed to Morgajon getting into this, and yet they seem to think it will get them out of it. We can refer toWP:WPDNNY and be done with this part here.Kingsif (talk)23:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
And yet it did "lie fallow" (unless you think Wikipedia's only purpose is to his set lists). That's just a basic fact. Sorry.Morgajon (talk)06:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
What are you even talking about? This article was being edited extensively before you arrived, and was certainly far more than a setlist.[69]CoffeeCrumbs (talk)12:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I am talking about what happened between the first actual concert date taking place, and me updating the article with everything you'd expect to see in a tour article once the tour has actually begun. Namely critical reception. In fact, now I think back, I was also the first person to start the Set List section. It was only after that, that someone else did the really rather trivial work of copying the literal set list of songs from the source I'd already added, into Wikipedia.Morgajon (talk)13:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a dynamic resource capable of updating encyclopedia articles as fast as reliable sources become available to editors to read, digest, and summarize. In other words, as soon as the concert wss over. In some cases, such as the set list, it was during the performance. I remain baffled as to why people are assuming I didn’t read the manual before I became a Wikipedia editor.Morgajon (talk)13:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
There's a difference between reading a manual and absorbing what it has to say. Your "bull in a china shop" approach has been done before, and it has a rather poor success rate.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
My absorption of the manual in this context is clearly correct. For the purposes of ITN, there *is* a deadline and Wikipedia *is* serving news. If it's rubbing people like you up the wrong way to realise I'm not even remotely as thick as you seem to think I am, sorry, not sorry.Morgajon (talk)17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Am I alone in thinking that the title of this subsection betrays more than a little narcissism? There is no room for that here.Phil Bridger (talk)18:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Honestly, this is as much as/more for Morgajon's own sake as it is for the project. At the talk thread, I didn't even express an opinion on whether the item should have been posted, instead trying to explain some ITN philosophy, and received abusive replies. It's clear that the ITN process and Morgajon do not get on, to the point that just telling them about aspects of ITN they don't like is cause to receive abuse. The emotions that lead them to do this cannot be good for their mindset, and while the comments above suggest they may self-exile from ITN, it's also not good for the minds of anyone on the receiving end - of abuse or even just badgering about why people are allowed to disagree. There are ways to conduct oneself in 1 versus many debates at ITN, which is collaborative and focusing on the content. This is why I propose a temporary ban, perhaps six months, as I feel Morgajon should certainly be given the opportunity to have such kinds of discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia (in a space that does not operate in a way that they do not like), and then return if they so wish.Kingsif (talk)23:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
You entered at a late stage, and claimed there had been no proof presented this tour was ITN level significant. I corrected you, pointing out the already presented evidence and argument. Perhaps rudely, but by then I was getting pretty sick of people doing things like that. That is my objection to the nature of how this process apparently works.Morgajon (talk)06:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
This hostile response was made in reply to someone who thought that you might be able to learn how to control your emotions and contribute to the site.
@Morgajon FWIW, I didn’t actually (intend to) say that, my comment you’re referring to was about how, with a lack of ITN/R, any sources being used to determine “exceptional” can all be interpreted subjectively (and that this is how it should be or we’d be getting pushed to post unimportant events just because someone said X). Now, your reply here is more civil and I appreciate that, but if you’re saying you get rude to everyone indiscriminately once you’re past a point of frustration, is it possible you can start recognising that point and taking a break or using moderation (e.g. ask someone to represent your position for you, useWP:DR, etc)? It’ll be more frustrating if you start finding you can’t get anything collaborative done.Kingsif (talk)10:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd rather you'd have simply said that's not what you intended to say at the first opportunity, namely when I replied to what you literally said. Instead, you gave a frankly not very intelligible reply about me having got my answers.Morgajon (talk)13:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Support until there is a commitment from Morgajon that they are willing tocompletely disengage from this incessant badgering.Duly signed,⛵WaltClipper-(talk)14:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Support per Kingsif's arguments and Walt. Sigh - this whole discussion here (following the walls of text on the ITN discussion page) do signal a lack of self-reflection. Hope that's not a broader trait that ends up extending to any Oasis-related article once someone dares to disagree with them.Khuft (talk)18:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Don't worry, I now know to use short sentences, and not even bother taking issue with what other people say here. Even if it appears manifestly incorrect. Because I know nothing. My employer is a fool for trusting me to know how to research a topic, assess sources, correct for bias, work with others and follow the company's many editorial policies. If only he had access to the excellently detailed and thoroughly well evidenced criticisms of my skills here. What a fool he's been. He should probably return his Knighthood.Morgajon (talk)20:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Note: I haveblocked Morgajon for 31hours for the above response, but also because their conduct toward other editors since creating this account has been combative and disruptive. I have no objection to this being adjusted in either direction if another admin sees fit, as this was to stop the immediate disruption present now.StarMississippi20:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Support - There's clearly no consensus for a topic ban, but slowing down this editor's battle against everyone they come in contact with can only be beneficial to the project, the editors, and themself.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone remember to get in touch with Morgajon's employer to pass on Morgajon's suggestion that the employer return his knighthood.EEng04:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, that's disappointing. I was hoping a limited topic ban would be sufficient. I saw promise in them if they could find a way to get along with others.LizRead!Talk!04:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Reading their latest, I've rarely encountered someone who feels such a need to announce how smart and/or competent they are in every other sentence. They may get their chance to edit again, despite their best efforts to the contrary, but I'm quite bearish on the prospect of them going beyond seeing editing Wikipedia as an adversarial exercise.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)— Precedingundated comment added 08:10, July 11, 2025 (UTC)
Yes but to reiterate, the behavior is continuing as outlined above and may be doubled down once the short block is lifted.Borgenland (talk)08:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Leaving aside their multiple aspersions and personal attacks in that screed,the function of Wikipedia is very similar to a newspaper illustrates that they are not getting it. Deliberately, I'm pretty sure. -The BushrangerOne ping only09:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Ah, that explains a lot. The "I'm a new user but I read all the manuals" story did raise my eyebrows (though I assumed good faith).Khuft (talk)17:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I really hate to be like this but I have this notice to report. The user Bgsu98 has repeatedly reverted my edits and other users edits on the articleBig Brother 27 (American season) after I asked for reasoning and to talk it out on a talk page. They decided to keep reverting my edits and I left it there as I did not want to start an edit war. I am a hard worker in everything I do so when I come to wikipedia to take my mind off of life I just want a calm time where I can edit the topic(s) I love and help out the community. Of course there will be mistakes but those are supposed to happen. In terms of the reverts being made, I don't need my helpful edits to be kept, I just want to know why it shouldn't be there in the form of on a talk page, where it could be talked out, then deleted. I am not going to interact with this user again, but once a result has been decided upon, I would like a notice. Thank you very much for the help and cooperation.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBooklet10 (talk •contribs)02:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Did you read and follow the instructions at the top of this page? Did you post a notification for Bgsu98 on their User talk page? You didn't supply any diffs of what kind of edits you consider disruptive. You can't just open a complaint, you have to provide an argument with evidence or nothing will happen here.LizRead!Talk!04:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
This is absurdly preliminary. ANI is for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems," not for minor content disputes. In any case, Bgsu98 provided an explanation of the removal that their position was that your note was better used in the episode summary rather than a footnote for the voting table. If you're introducing content, theWP:ONUS is on you; you didn't start a talk page discussion either. Telling people to not delete your edit as an edit summary is not helpful.
In any case, after looking at it now, I think Bgsu98 has the rights of it, but ANI isn't for settling content disputes. This filing should be closed.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)04:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Hhqrhh adding China-related original research "controversies" sections to articles
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has repeatedly failed to discuss their additions with the community, reverting reversions with no edit summaries despite invitations to discuss on talk pages.
5 July 2025: addeda list of people accused of crimes to a hospital article. I think some (most?) of these are convictions, so it isn'twholesale a BLP violation; however, given their edit history regarding Chinese topics I think it's intriguing how Hhqrhh describes one of the people as35-year-old Chinese male and includes their name in Chinese characters.
With regards to the edits they made atHenan I think that at the very least they shouldn't have added "state backed" without a citation backing it up. Doing so is definitelyWP:OR. I think that the very least that should happen is we remove the word "state-backed" from that section. The rest of it from what I can tell looks decent and may just need some polishing.
With regards to their edits toNewYork-Presbyterian Hospital my first issue is that they added the doctor's Chinese name where it wasn't needed. Pretty sure that's against the MOS, but I doubt inexperienced editors would know that. That can easily be fixed. There are someWP:SPS that they cited in that same edit too, such asLinkedIn. However, a lot of the information in that edit seems to be backed up by reliable sources as well ([71],[72],[73],[74],[75]).
Based on this, I think Hhqrhh is makinggood faith contributions and may just need to be pointed in the right direction. I'd suggest we particularly make sure they're aware of our OR and SYNTH guidelines.Gommeh🎮17:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I've definitely tried to work with them (see my discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights § Inclusion of forced labor claims in articles on products and companies), but it just ends with reversions without edit summaries and no talk page participation so I'm not sure if they're understanding the guidelines.I also disagree on including any of that in theHenan article: it's a province of 100 million people, there's absolutely no relevance for a top-level section to be about individual journalists being harassed by small crowds or a single event of harassment in a public park. But that might be a DRN issue rather than AN/I.Dan Leonard (talk •contribs)17:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
'Nationalistic outbursts against Western media in China are not uncommon. ....However, in recent years this foreign media bashing has received direct encouragement from the Chinese Communist Party.'[76]
‘Western journalists reporting on a natural disaster met with public hostility in person and online that the Chinese state media openly encouraged.’[77]
Noting that the user is blocked on zh Wikipedia due to sockpuppetery:zh:维基百科:傀儡調查/案件/Hskphs/存檔, but I haven't seen any blatant abuse on EN side. Looking at their POV stance in their edits I feel like the OR & sourcing failures are mainly due to their efforts toWP:POVPUSH.JumpytooTalk04:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the unblock & SPI it seems there was also off-wiki evidence that raised flags; which may be why the user did not reply. From what I can see in the off-wiki evidence my belief is that having this user comply withWP:NPOV/WP:SYNTH in Chine related topics will be difficult. The user has stopped editing for now; but if the user starts exhibiting the same behavior on this or any of their other accounts aWP:NOTHERE could be appropriate.JumpytooTalk05:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
And yeah, they edited again today and their most recent mainspaceedit is chock full of BLP crime allegations that are fully unsourced or only sourced to theWP:BLPPRIMARY indictment. Combined with their response here I don't think they are willing to comply with the policies.JumpytooTalk17:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Given their response above doesn't address the concerns about their editing at all, and that edit linked by Jumpytoo that does, indeed, include multiple BLP violations with unsourced allegations, I've indef'd. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
V138565954 recently became active again, following a nine year break, to editThe Age of Disclosure. They have been very communicative and responsive on both their Talk page,and the article's Talk page, however, their responses alternate between being entirely AI-generated or composed with heavy AI assistance (e.g.[78],[79], etc.). While we have no proscription against using AI, we do expect editors to assume responsibility for the comments the AI is composing on their behalf prior to posting them. In this case, the comments in question are oftenWP:WALLOFTEXTs of such verbosity or nonsensicality as to be almost incomprehensible. As their edits are in a contentious topic, I have requested V138565954 to tone-down the use of AI[80]. This was, itself, met with an AI-generated response seemingly assuring me their future responses would not appear AI generated[81]. Because the editor appears — for reasons about which I won't speculate — incapable of editing absent AI, I hesitatingly and regretfully feel there may be a question ofWP:CIR that precludes their ability to contribute at this time. I raise this for awareness but not to suggest anything as draconian as a ban or block either of which would be entirely unwarranted, but rather to suggest the community might consider asking the editor to complete theWP:ADVENTURE before continuing to edit. As I'm conflicted on this topic such a request would not likely be well-received coming from me.Chetsford (talk)02:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll go in and complete WP:ADVENTURE per your recommendation. I've been very receptive to your comments and my contributions have been good-faith discussions based on Wikipedia policy.The response that you claim was generated with AI is 4 sentences that were neither generated by AI nor formatted with AI assistance.V138565954 (talk)03:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Given the preceding comment, there seems no reason to keep this thread open and I'd be content to see it closed.Chetsford (talk)03:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
UNI ASIA TENGGARA is continuously adding aself-made image toSoutheast Asia, and has also added it toHistory of Southeast Asia and their userpage. The image makes little sense, consisting of a screenshot of the map already in the infobox, alongside some flag that I cannot identify and the text "PETA". Their only edits have been to add this image to the articles and their user page here on EN as well as on ID. As the content of their user page on IDwp google translates toSoutheast Asian Union an inter-governmental organization in Southeast Asia, which is also the translation of their username as far as I can tell, I presume that this account is solely for the purpose of promoting this apparent union (which I cannot find any details about) with this image. User has not responded on talk page to either of my comments.Weirdguyz (talk)08:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
The Final Bringer of Truth was indeffed on May 31 for disruptive editing, and a one-month block was placed onthis IPv6 range as their logged-out editing consistently falls within this range (and they admitted as muchon this noticeboard, so there isn't any need for a CheckUser).
Given the /64 is apparently very stable, and they resumed the exact same behavior that resulted in their being blocked before the moment the IP block expired, blocked the range for a year. -The BushrangerOne ping only20:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I widened that range block for you. Feel free to ping me any time this person pops up again (or email me if you'd rather do it privately).Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)13:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I had also reported the editor for persistently inserting unsourced content and they have continued the conduct (diff 1 anddiff 2), even after I tried to discuss the content with them (diff). Since they are uncooperative, I think some sort of sanction is necessary.StephenMacky1 (talk)13:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
On a quick glance through this user's edits I can see about 1000 edits but not one to a talk or user talk page. Maybe a pblock from mainspace would be in order until Marcin starts communicating, particularly as he seems to specialise in organised crime, which is a BLP minefield?Phil Bridger (talk)13:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
In the previous report that rsjaffe linked, they continued reverting to their preferred version immediately after that protection expired, and are still doing it today. I have blocked 72 hours for edit warring, and indefinitely part-blocked from article space until they commit to communicating.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)16:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
WP:OWN and Disruptive Editing onIrene Craigmile Bolam Article
Summary of issue: Over a sustained period, User:Alex V Mandel has exhibited behavior consistent withWP:OWN, including:
Repeatedly reverting good-faith edits without consensus
Treating theIrene Craigmile Bolam article as a personal platform for his own opinions and conclusions
Citing his own self-published report (hosted on Wikisource) as justification for edits
Personalizing disputes and dismissing neutral edits as “conspiracy fantasies” or “vandalism”
Intentionally and willfully misidentifying me on multiple occasions as Tod Swindell, thereby derailing good-faith discussion and making constructive editing impossible
When the editor opens Talk page comments with formal proclamations (e.g., “Ladies and gentlemen…”) and signs off with “Respectfully submitted – Alex V. Mandel, PhD,” it may appear formal, polite, or merely theatrical. However, this rhetorical style appears designed to create an atmosphere of performative authority, discouraging disagreement and assigning undue weight to personal opinion over collaborative policy.
The editor also claims academic credentials and presents himself as an historian, yet provides no verifiable evidence of these qualifications. These credentials are invoked as authority in disputes, in lieu of citations to independent, reliable sources.
In a Talk page comment dated 24 June 2025, addressed to Mr Swindell, Mr Mandel wrote:“I plan to continue to do this. As you fairly said, our discussion about this topic is already 20+ years old. I am ready to continue it for the next 20+ years, if necessary (and of course if I will be still alive and well by then).” (permalink)
On 26 June 2025, again replying to Mr Swindell, he wrote:
“I can do this all and every day. As many days, as necessary. I have time.”
These exchanges, directed toward a longtime adversary in this topic space, reinforce a pattern of entrenched editorial control. The editor casts himself not as collaborator but as gatekeeper, prepared to oppose any challenge—no matter how policy-aligned.
In a June 20, 2025 Talk page comment directed to me, Mr. Mandel accused me of “abusing Wikipedia” and “promoting a false conspiracy fantasy,” while purposely misidentifying me as Tod Swindell. He offered no policy citations, but framed himself as defending Wikipedia from misuse. This early exchange also illustrates a deeper pattern: despite Mr Mandel’s claims to the contrary, I have not introduced new content or sources and made no changes to the infobox.
* Mr. Mandel’s 2005 report,Amelia Earhart’s Survival and Repatriation: Myth or Reality?, appears in the article’s External Links and is cited on the Talk page to justify edits. The report is self-authored, not peer-reviewed, and lacks publication by any independent reliable source.
Why this matters: This behavior derails collaboration and makes it difficult for others to contribute in line withWP:NPOV,WP:V, andWP:RS. Factual, neutrally-worded edits are reverted without cause, while Talk page dialogue is replaced with rhetorical proclamations and accusations of bad faith.
While the editor may not have violated the letter of theThree-Revert Rule (3RR), this is only because his pattern of swiftly undoing any substantive edits discourages further attempts to improve the article. The result is a de facto ownership of the page, enforced not through consensus but through attrition.
I have taken no position on whether or not Earhart was Bolam. I have simply removed material that was unverified, duplicative, or presented personal conclusions as fact, consistent with Wikipedia's core content policies.
Request: I ask that administrators review this pattern of disruption and consider appropriate action, including:
Just noting that until their recent editing stint onTalk:Irene Craigmile Bolam, it had been three years since Alex V Mandel had done any editing on the project. They haven't edited in a week and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a large gap of time before they returned to a regular editing schedule (seeSpecial:Contributions/Alex V Mandel for a look at their past editing schedule). I'm not saying this to bring an end to this discussion, it's just to put their recent edits into the context of their pattern of irregular editing on this article.LizRead!Talk!21:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Glm1, AI/LLM is heavily discouraged on Wikipedia so it wasn't meant as a compliment. They are considered error-prone, inaccurate and robotic.08:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
...and very polite and just as formal as the behaviour you are complaining about. Just like your (Glm1's) edit, in fact. There is nothing wrong with a rational fighter against conspiracy theories being as tenacious as the conspiracy theorists.Phil Bridger (talk)09:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Why does someone who doesn't like conspiracy theories edit in support of one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I can see no more evidence for this theory than that 60 years ago someone thought they looked a bit similar.Phil Bridger (talk)12:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I am not furthering any theory one way or the other. My goal was to rectify the page by removing anything that was in dispute in either direction.Glm1 (talk)00:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
in either direction meaning you would like WP to treat a ridiculous conspiracy theory with no evidence as equivalent to the rejection of that theory, and to sanction an editor who has done good work keeping the conspiracy nuts away from the article. The correct course of action at this point is probably to offer an apology to Alex V Mandel for inappropriately starting a thread about them, offer an apology to everyone else who has wasted their time responding to you here, and to withdraw from the article (to ensure that it is not necessary to enforce that by sanction).173.79.19.248 (talk)15:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I withdrew from the article some time ago. If you like what Mr Mandel has done with it, so be it.Glm1 (talk)16:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I've been called most things, but never robotic. Of course, it's only Monday.
When I was at Cleveland-Marshall for two years (1991-93), we often used outlines. Sorry if you don't like the format.Glm1 (talk)11:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
They are just asking if you used an LLM and pointing out some of the issues with using it. Nobody said this particular post was robotic. I think one of the bigger signs are the weirdly broken links (two cases ofhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=XXXXXXX), which is what LLMs will generally do in my experience. Of course, it could also just be a placeholder written by yourself. Anyway, if you did use an LLM, you can just say you didn’t know it was policy not to use them and say you will avoid doing so in the future. If you didn’t, you can just say you didn’t.LordDiscord (talk)12:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Theoriginal double-heading and double-signature, including an em-dash, is also a giveaway. I think that means so far we have (1) conspiracy-pushing, (2) LLM-use on noticeboards, and (3) lying about the same; very charming all.173.79.19.248 (talk)13:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
As I just mentioned in another reply, the words are my own. I used AI for the citations -- I was not aware that this was an issue -- and the title was my error, because I didn't know if it should be italicized or not, I decided it should not, but apparently I failed to remove it. (Yesterday on BlueSky, I posted the same message twice in under a minute. I deleted the second one.) As to conspiracy pushing, I have no interest in pushing any conspiracy. I don't recall putting anything on the Bolam page that would do that. I simply reduced it to facts which are not in dispute. I don't see Wikipedia as a forum to discuss whether Bolam was Earhart or not; that can be done elsewhere.Glm1 (talk)00:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I was not aware that this was an issue Oh so in other words you were evasive and dishonest over five or six different responses here, but once it became completely impossible to maintain the dishonesty, you are now changing tack and you would like everyone to forget about that and instead take your obviously dishonest and evasive comments about the conspiricism at face-value. Love it, excited to see how that works out for you!173.79.19.248 (talk)15:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I have not been evasive and I don't appreciate your tone. My initial draft of the ANI was in the form of a letter, which was too wordy. I was about halfway through editing it when I thought it would be better to reduce it to bullet points. In the end, I settled on the outline because I liked the heading 'Why It Matters' (a working title I have for an unrelated project), which did not receive the same emphasis in the letter. Rather than attacking me personally, I suggest you check your spelling.Glm1 (talk)16:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster defines dishonesty, n: lack of honesty or integrity; disposition to defraud or deceive. Everything about all of Glm1's comments here is dishonest (transparently so), whether or not their comments consist of lies (in the sense of assertions known or believed by the writer to be untrue with intent to deceive) specifically.173.79.19.248 (talk)20:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
You have yet to say exactly what I added to the article that furthered any conspiracy theory. Beyond that, I won't have any further back-and-forth with you. You have repeatedly called me a liar, which I am not, and I don't need to be here. No one is paying me to put up with your verbal abuse; in fact, I'm paying Wikipedia. I reported what I see as gatekeeping, and as far as I'm concerned, that's an end to it. If my ANI is inadequate, that's on me, and my own ignorance and incompetence. (I would much rather say that all this is down to an AI program, because I wouldn't have spent a weekend working on it, the mistakes would not be mine, and the rejections of the writing of it could be blamed on AI.) My own view, which does not belong on Wikipedia, has always been that Earhart went down with the plane in 1937, but there is nothing in my life that requires me to have a stake in the subject. If you want to say what I put into the article that you take issue with, do so. If not, I have better things to do.Glm1 (talk)01:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I used AI for the citation links, because I don't know any other way to do that. That has been the case in any instance where I have cited anything. For that reason, I seldom do citations. My edits are generally to improve the writing on a page. The words in the ANI, for better or worse, are my own.Glm1 (talk)00:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, that seems plausible to me. Unfortunately, citations seem to be one of the things AI is worst at, due to hallucinations and putting in generic links (as above). For very simple linking, just put “url|text” in double brackets: [[ ]]. I’ve fixed up many like this, it is much better than broken or no citations in my opinion. And then for best practice see:WP:CITELordDiscord (talk)14:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I am grateful. This will be of great help to me in the event that I have to do any more citations. I am still coming to grips with how things are done here. Thank you again.Glm1 (talk)15:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
ANI reports aren't school essays with minimum word/page count requirements and indeed it's preferred to be more concise and focus on diffs instead of editorializing.Sesquilinear (talk)22:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I will bear that in mind. Hopefully, I will not have any further involvement with the ANI board after this. I started as an editor here (not so many months ago) because of a false claim about Gordon Lightfoot (that he set track-and-field records in school). I confirmed that this was not so and removed it from his page. Most of what I have done since has been to improve clarity on pages and to remove redundant passages.Glm1 (talk)00:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive behaviour and failure to engage in discussion
Greetings admins and non-admin ANI participants,
Been dealing with an issue over at2025 in South Korean music for some time now with an editor that frequently engages in disruptive activity and doesn't engage with anybody's attempt to talk it out.
@AndyFung98 has built up quite a history of the following:
Adding information to the list without reliable sources
Modifying information in the list with information that isn’t included in the source. This means that, to anybody scrolling by, it looks like the information is cited, but it isn’t.
Replacing known reliable English-language sources with Korean ones (WP:NONENG)
Replacing known reliable Korean sources that are fully populated with information (ie. translated title, author name, etc.) with citations linking to theNaver news aggregator.
Looking at the history of theirtalk page, it seems they have quite a history of disruptive behaviour in the“XXXX in South Korean music” articles, going back to at least 2022. They’ve been blocked in the past for failing to engage in discussion, and I believe they’ve been blocked from editing one of the year-lists in the past.
Several editors have attempted to engage on their talk page, including my attempthere, @Randompersonediting attempthere, and @Orangesclub attempthere. In addition, a conversation was started on the article’s talk page by @D.18thhere. I personally notified Andy of the article talk page discussionhere.
Despite all our attempts to engage, the activity is still happening (seehere today, andhere yesterday.)
The article is in good shape and is well cited, but becomes difficult to maintain when another frequent contributor often makes changes that require somebody to come through to cleanup after, and they seem to refuse to make an effort to adjust their habits.
I have indefinitely part-blocked them from editing articles, and noted in their block log that this time they should not be unblocked until they actually constructively respond to feedback, not simply commit to it. They committed to communicating the last time they were blocked for this, but still in four years have never edited an article talk page.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)17:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Ivan, I appreciate it. AndyFung's efforts in keeping the list up-to-date are greatly appreciated so hopefully this can some to a satisfactory conclusion that involves them still being able to edit, while kicking the bad referencing habits and understanding that communication is necessary.RachelTensions (talk)18:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm mistaken - theydidn't commit to communicating last time, they only committed to stop adding and replacing content with all caps in articles. And it took alot of handholding to get them there. This user maylack the necessary competence, but we'll start with just responding to feedback.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)17:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Single-purpose account that has been adding and remove content for years regarding the topic of Koreans' status during the Yuan dynasty with a focus on sex slavery to prove that Koreans were not hierarchically inferior to any other people while the opposite was true for Chinese people.
In recent edits they've resorted to falsifying sources andfalse edit summaries. I searched for the titles, authors, publishing dates, and isbn of all the sources they added in thisedit and none of them exist. They all have broad page numbers as well which probably implies they're made up.Qiushufang (talk)09:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I've just checked, and confirmed what Qiushufang writes above: that none of the three 'sources' cited by AstanHun in this edit exist. Falsification of sources (or citing false sources generated by an LLM) is totally unacceptable under any circumstances - it is a gross breach of even the minimal trust a reader might expect of a Wikipedia article. Even ignoring the other issues discussed in the previous ANI thread, I'd say this was grounds for an immediate, indefinite block.AndyTheGrump (talk)10:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Support indef: I don't know how they didn't get one last time, given the evidence which was presented. Adding the falsification of sources to that, whether intentional or by use of a LLM, and it appears to me that they areWP:NOTHERE.TarnishedPathtalk11:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:煖蠓喙煖ネオ writing opinions about Japanese baseball in edit summaries
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I didn't know where to report this. If someone knows a better venue for such cases, please let me know. While not harmful, it does seem like a misuse of Wikipedia. The edit summaries are in Japanese and seem to be the editor's opinion on the Japanese baseball team (The Carps) and how well they're doing currently. Some diffs:[86][87][88][89] Not sure if it is a language issue or a competence issue.TurboSuperA+(connect)05:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User is stalking me from site to site over copyright disputes
All of the reported activity is on Commons, and not on the English Wikipedia. Admins here cannot take any action on Commons.Whpq (talk)01:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This feud when i uploaded this commercial,File:(appsgolem.com)(360p)(00-06-07)(00-06-37) WHO-TV NBC commercials Septem.webm - Wikipedia. This commercial is mostly disputed to be public domain and while i'm not a copyright expert it was released without a notice and has not been registered. However from a disagreement on reddit he comes to me showing "proof" it was still copyrighted but most of it has been false or just misread. Even though there was a code of federation from December 1981 that does make sense if the notice is only on the master tape and not the aired version. We don't have proof it was on that and i tried telling him i disagree and that we can't assume it's still copyrighted without proof but he said rude things about me.
The commercial is copyrighted. There is no evidence of stalking or harassment. This complaint is baseless. An administrator should close this.Bgsu98(Talk)00:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
However mestizos also carry African ancestry sometimes even 1/3 but the history of social hierarchy, colorism, classism, and racism has made the majority of people in Latin America want to identify as Mestizo instead of things likePardo which means a mix of European, Indigenous, and African ancestry.
The IP has been blocked 3 times, warned a dozen times, and continues to revert several editors to disrupt several articles about Central American ethnic groups, genetics, and demographics. This needs attention with a longerWP:CIR block or sanction. —MarkH21talk19:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An ISPN (2601:8c1:8200:2151:c307:afb3:af1b:3a48) is threatening to continue to be disruptive if their WP:SYNTH edits are not left in. Can we have someone with more technical knowledge than I have fix the formatting as well? The ISP keeps breaking it.King Lobclaw (talk)14:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Both the article and talkpage need serious attention - accusations about recent aircrashes are getting into BLP territory "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime." Semi protection of the article is probably needed.Nigel Ish (talk)14:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GogoLion was recently blocked for personal attacks (e.g.diff,diff). When the block expired they started ranting on their User Talk page and, when asked to stop, became abusive (diff,diff) and have now expressed a willingness to be "banned" (diff). Whatever their original motivation when they joined Wikipedia, they are clearlyWP:NOTHERE now. --DanielRigal (talk)03:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
While they behavior has been bad, I just want to be clear here. Are the activities recounted here happen AFTER their original block expired?LizRead!Talk!05:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I think so. The short block was their opportunity to cool down and start afresh. Instead they came back to declare "I win" and responded abusively when asked what they meant. They have had enough warnings about personal attacks. An indef doesn't have to be forever. That said, a long but not indefinite block might be just as good. I don't think they care either way giventhis.
I'm generally somewhat sympathetic to editors who use use LLMs inappropriately, irksome though this is. People are being bombarded with relentless propaganda telling them that LLMs are a universal panacea that can do things that they can't. It is understandable when people believe this and somebody misuses them on Wikipedia without realising it is misuse. So long as they step away from the LLM when this is pointed out to them, that's OK. GogoLion has doubled down and resorted to personal attacks, not being stopped by a short block. That's what makes this seem to me like an intractable case worthy of an indef. --DanielRigal (talk)11:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about those diffs. The first two are examples of their behaviour before the block, provided purely for context. The latter three are their behaviour since the block. (One shows some back and forth between them and other users.) I thought it was clear but maybe I should have been clearer. It is their behaviour since the block that I am reporting. I believe that their behaviour since the block shows that they are not able or willing to contribute constructively. --DanielRigal (talk)11:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user wasrecently reported at AN/I, but no administrative action was taken, while the disruptive behavior continues. Most recent disruption is atRui Hachimura(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs), a combination of lengthening the page'sWP:SHORTDESC without consensus, and also adding the unsourced position of "small forward":
They were warned about making short descriptions too bulky on June 27,[92] when they were also informed to seek dispute resolution.[93] During the last ANI,Liz warned them:You have a choice to make, you can adopt the standard format that is agreed upon on Wikipedia or you can continue to do whatever you want and in that case, you will likely be blocked from editing[94]—Bagumba (talk)07:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support as proposer. As evidenced by Bagumba's posting, the previous ANI, and Kelpongames' talk page, the disruptive anti-consensus and uncollaborative behavior continues and won't stop despite many chances to change, so an indefinite block is needed to prevent further timesinks to the encyclopedia.(pinging the remaining participants from the last ANI@DaHuzyBru andGOAT Bones231012:)Left guide (talk)08:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Indef right off the hop? The account is 13 days old. A temporary block of days/week(s) might be a better first step. —tony12:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
The community has been discussing with the editor for a couple of weeks, but they have been dismissive. Can you identify evidence of positive contributions? They're free to request an unblock when they are ready to discuss and show they're willing to work collaboratively. —Bagumba (talk)12:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
There's not even a basic acknowledgement from them that their own edits are contested, and that they thus need to pause and seek consensus. I count a total of six different editors (including two admins) who have challenged their edits or warned them on their talk page. The response is basically just an "I believe I'm right, so nothing else matters" attitude that I'd consider to be intractableWP:CIR andWP:IDHT, as well as an example ofWP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5:
Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input:…continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
Support. The user has received multiple warnings regarding their disruptive editing but has never responded to any of them. They continue to make the same problematic edits while remaining entirely non-communicative.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)12:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Support. I fail to see what a timed block would accomplish. I'd be perfectly happy to see this editor unblocked with a change in approach that accepts that Wikipedia works by consensus, not fiat, but they certainly shouldn't be editing right now.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)10:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
specifically the threat"i hope you and hasan get your radical communism that you want so much, you two will probably be among the first ones killed cos karma is a bitch."Bluethricecreamman (talk)19:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editing issues
Like56d(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) on pages Brazilian Portuguese and Portuguese language vandalism: keep reverting all edits on those pages with fake claims of accepted revision and disruptive editing leading to edit wars. Even minor edits are being reverted with the same claims on those pages[96] and[97] apart from reporting false vandalism multiple times. Reported first on vandalism but an admin recommended using this page instead for this issue.Likebr 20 (talk)14:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
@Likebr 20 andAbsolutiva: this page is not about discussing page content disagreements, and administrators will not respond here about them, so you are wasting your time here. Absolutiva's suggesting of moving to the EW board is the right one, if edit warring is occurring or suspected. Please be careful about using the wordvandalism; it does not mean the same thing here as it does in standard English and implies a measure of intentional malice. As long as the other editor is trying to improve the article, even if they are going about it all wrong or edit-warring, it is still not vandalism. Thanks,Mathglot (talk)00:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Catalan/Spanish labels in the lead sentence of biographies of Catalan subjects
I make this incident report under the guidance of chronic and intractable problems.
Descriptive labels in biographies of Catalan subjects are repeatedly subject to low-level revert warring. In minor subjects, the change Spanish->Catalan is often made without an edit summary or mention on the articles Talk page. Better known subjects are often subject to repeated back and forth, also often without substantive edit summary. What's going on? In my view, the replacement of the "Catalan" label by "Spanish" is a systemic attempt to suppress the Catalan identity - this is a long standing controversial, hot issue in Spain; one should not underestimate it. I do not say that each and every change has this motivation, I am sure there are good faith, if uninformed, editors, but I believe the issue is wide spread and persistent enough to justify this conclusion. Edit summaries such as "Catalonia is not a country"diff rather give away the game. Spanish national politics have been exported to Wikipedia; this is not a proper forum for resolving Spanish political questions!
Examples from actual articles include:
Examples of Catalan/Spanish label changes in biographical articles with Catalan subjects
In creating this table, by no means exhaustive, I went down the list of biographies in the category Painters from Catalonia, then added Companys, Nonell, and Casas as articles for which I had recent experience, then added the short list of high profile Catalan subjects at the end that have experienced extraordinary reversion battles Catalan/Spanish. Such articles have had excessive, redundant arguments on their Talk pages. Such arguments regarding labels are similar to those regardingWikipedia:Crime_labels. Excessive, repetitive argument; a huge waste of time.
My interests in this question are that I consider the "Catalan" label, where appropriate, to be more effective writing. Ramon Casas is a Catalan artist; to describe him as "Spanish" is misleading and requires further unnecessary explanations (e.g., if he is Spanish, why does he speak Catalan?). N.B. This is not the proper forum to re-litigate the label use. Secondly, these changes are often accompanied or accomplished by bullying - often in minor biographical articles the change is made and who wants to fight it; its a minor issue. But the issue is not minor; labels are important. The word "insidious" frequently comes to mind as I think about it.
I began to deal with this issue with theRamon Casas article. After the usual Catalan/Spanish revert dance, I began the RfC. Researching the issue, I noted that there were already RfCs (noted above) and how pervasive the issue was. The result of the RfC was (not even close) in favor of using the Catalan label. More or less randomly I chose theIsidre Nonell to reassert the "Catalan" label, stating the extensive summary above onTalk:Isidre_Nonell. I view the question as a settled consensus. There was then the expected revert war involvingUser:CFA1877 andUser:Lopezsuarez, who had previously advocated for the "Spanish" label in the Casas RfC. I cite this incident only to highlight the fact that the "Catalan" question will never be settled; there are those who will object to "Catalan" irrespective of any RfC. Their objections on theTalk:Ramon Casas were not substantive, but ad hominem and personal; c.f., "bullying" above.
To address the question on the numerous Catalan biographies it would seem that every article would have to be subjected to revert warring and exhaustive, pointless, repetitive arguing on the Talk page. Or, god forbid, an RfC will be required for every article. This is Spanish politics...they are not going to give it up. In my efforts with the Isidre Nonell article, I do not consider the 3rr to apply; correct me if I am wrong on that.
So I post this incident report - perhaps you all can reaffirm the approach I've been taking, or suggest other strategies for tamping down the endless back and forth on the issue. It is a huge waste of time. At the very least I would like the issue to be more broadly recognized.Bdushaw (talk)17:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts: you may want to strike your comment as it's clear from the responses below that you don't speak for all moderators. Feel free to ignore the topic though if you don't have time to read it.24.97.73.220 (talk)20:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Footballers who identify as Catalan usually take this format;X is a Spanish footballer from Catalonia... i.e.Alexia_Putellas. I can't find the discussion but I believe this was agreed (for these articles) a while back.Black Kite (talk)18:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I recall this was the agreed compromise format because if they play for Spain it could be confusing to not put that first. I’ll try to find the discussion and add it to the essay.
Note that the essay is not intended to be (nor would it be effective as) a “solution” to the issue Bdushaw outlines, it is intended to be a quick reference (when upholding consensus) for what has and has not got consensus, and may expand to include argumentation and a list of things previous RfC’s have decided are/n’t useful points.Kingsif (talk)18:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't claim to have any particular understanding of the issues surrounding Spanish/Catalan national identity, but this is all very reminiscent of the issues one has regarding British bios, for which we have some guidance atWP:UKNATIONALS. Perhaps some similar guidance might help guide discussions in this subject area? (Not that it has entirely fixed the problem in the British context...).GirthSummit (blether)18:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
The topic area is one of perennial nationalist disputesyes perennial it goes all the way back to 2001, there was even an ARB case at some point. Unsurprisingly there has never been a firm consensus for consistent biographical leads one way or the other, but in addition to the RfCs mentioned above a few points are worth discussing.
In general perMOS:ETHNICITY context is limited to country of citizenship or permanent residency. However when identification is relevant to an individual's notability inclusion is allowed. Furthermore guidelines are just that. They should be followed the majority of the time, but they need to be treated with common sense and occasional exceptions will applyseeWP:PAG#Role. So a strong local consensus is almost always going to override one. As always the key is going to be sources. So in making a particularized decision for a biography there should be an assessment of how RS characterize the individual and what information they relay about self-identification.
The most important thing is getting disputes resolved on talk pages. There is no excuse for knowingly edit-warring in violation of an RfC consensus and people who do so are being disruptive. If individual editors are persistently doing this they should be blocked, if there is more generalized nationalist disruption on a page then it can be protected. In certain cases a combination of the two may be needed.184.152.65.118 (talk)18:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
One thing that would be helpful/constructive is a better description of such labels on the MoS/Biography guidance. It is rather vague/unhelpful/counterproductive on the subject of nationalities. Is a nationality something of loose definition, such that Catalonia can be considered a nation, or is it a formally recognized nationality, of the passport-carrying kind? A frequent argument for "Spanish" is that "Spain is a country, Catalonia is not"; often repeated in the RfCs, but not the compelling or consensus notion. (The issue is not unrelated to the label for first nation peoples vs. their formal country...is an aboriginal of his tribe or of his formal country (that he may not acknowledge)?)Bdushaw (talk)19:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Catalonia is a region of Spain, not a "nation" (it never has been). However, in the sense of a minority, it is a nationality. In any case, Wikipedia cannot accept minority nationalist sentiments. The only reality is that Spain is a country and a nation, and Catalonia is a region of Spain. All these people should be referred to as Spaniards.Lopezsuarez (talk)19:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the broader point, as to a significant extent it is a situation similar to what happens in my area of interest (Eastern Europe), where someone comes to an article about some figure from the past and automatically labels them Ukrainian/Belarusian/Polish (instead of Russian, Polish, Austro-Hungarian) on the basis of their place of birth or ethnic background even if those countries did not exist at the time and the figure in question was a loyal servant of their country of birth.
This is where nuance comes into play, however. In other cases it is very clear that the subject expressed views at odds with the state they lived in. Take, for example,Taras Shevchenko. Shevchenko was a Russian subject, a member of theImperial Academy of Arts, and some of his works were written in Russian. However, to label him Russian would be to deny the most important side to Shevchenko's activity: the promotion of Ukrainian culture and language and, in a way, of the Ukrainian nation (note that in English "nation", a term you object to, can mean not only a state but also a nationality). To label him something other than Ukrainian would be wrong. To bring it closer to your interests, do you not think that describing, say,Lluís Companys as Spanish (!) instead of as a Catalan nationalist politician would be misleading? I think that you need to allow for some flexibility for cases where an individual's notability is inextricably linked to belonging to a nation[ality] or having an ethnicity other than that of the state he is a subject of. Cheers.Ostalgia (talk)20:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Your explanation is a very good one, I fear it may be fruitless in the face of people who would rather label Companys as a 'Spanish traitor' so they can ignore Catalonia's nationhood.Kingsif (talk)20:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Riiiight. So it's illegitimate to view me as a "Yankee" because I'm from New England, is that what you're pushing? That you can't refer to "Welsh" or "Scots" or "Walloons" or "Bavarians" or "Sicilians" because they don't come from currently recognized nation-states? Ravenswing10:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I see the political edit warrers under the guise of 'pedantic about Spain is the UN state' have shown up. Whatever you think (and remember Catalonia existed before Spain was unified, natch), it is Wikipedia's job to be informative. If being Catalan is significant in someone's identity, career, and/or notability, then excluding it makes absolutely no sense - and thus would be for nothing but suppression of information. It's also worth noting that even if we were to bow to 'regardless of how contextually inappropriate we only use nationalities of UN states', it would still be valid to use Catalan as ethnicity, and consensus on this subject has already agreed it would be appropriate to use Catalan as an ethnicity in the first sentence. This discussion here has not been opened to relitigate the question for which consensus is strong, it's about how to enforce that. If you don't have an opinion on that and just want to expose yourselves as people who like to use Wikipedia to suppress information, it's probably wise to say nothing at all.Kingsif (talk)20:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Agree with all of this. For someone whonotably identifies as Catalan this needs to go in the first sentence.This RfC is relevant, and I note that the only editor opposing it wasUser:Lopezsuarez, whose opinion above isAll these people should be referred to as Spaniards.Black Kite (talk)20:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
It shouldalways be 'X is a Spanish Y' - whether the lede also then mentions Catalonia is a matter of individual article talk page discussion.GiantSnowman20:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)2
Strongly as some editors believe this, I don't think this is the result that flows from the dispassionate application of enwiki's policies, guidelines, and sourcing requirements. Biographical subjects that are referred to by the BESTSOURCES prinarily in terms of their Catalan nationality - in wikispeak, where the primary context of their notability is "Catalan" - should be refered to as "a Catalan Y", not "a Spanish Y". Sources should decide what nationality is relevant; the strongly-held opinions of editors should not be allowed to override the sources.Newimpartial (talk)20:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
While I strongly disagree with the point raised by Giant Snowman (following his logic, we should label someone like Carles Puigdemont a "Spanish Catalan nationalist", which sounds pretty silly, or something overly convolutedand silly such as "Spanish politician who is a Catalan nationalist"), your position is also not without danger. Some sources could very well refer to someone on account of their ethnicity or even belonging to a region, province or state without overriding their primary belonging to the state. In Spain, and particularly in Spanish, you will often find descriptions of people as Basque, Galician, Andalusian, Catalan, Valencian, Asturian, etc. withoutnecessarily arguing that this is the "primary" nationality of these individuals. It is up to editors to find consensus in this regard while using our guidelines as, well, guidelines. Cheers.Ostalgia (talk)20:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
To be clear, editorial judgement will always be required in assessing sourced attributions of nationality - not all identities are national identities. But the idea that onlyFIFA federations are recognized nationalities, or that "real" nations consist of theWestphalian system plus theHome nations, has no basis in Wikipedia policy nor in empirical reality, as far as I can see. Catalonia is a nation in precisely the same sense as Wales.Newimpartial (talk)21:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Agree with this, and it's why a one-size-fits-all rule to determine nationality is pretty inappropriate. If you have a regional newspaper reporting on someone famous who's from there, you can bet the newspaper is going to use every chance to point that out for clout. Even national news does it for variety when they don't want to write names over and over. I think humans can be pretty good at judging when a source is doing either of the former, and also when a source is highlighting a real identity - and I think this is what Newimpartial is discussing, in general.Kingsif (talk)21:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
This also reminds me, a mass category change to ‘only UN states’ happened a while back and included in the mix were Catalan ones, so we got “Spanish exiled politicians from Catalonia” instead of “Catalan exiled politicians” and that needs changing if it hasn’t already.Kingsif (talk)11:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, but not only is the name “Spanish exiled politicians from Catalonia" such suppression, it also defies the point of it being a category (Catalan being the reason for exile); it is more unnecessarily loquacious than others; and, whatever one’s opinion on Spanish/Catalan, it reads like a poorly written way of meaning any Spanish politicians that aren’t allowed in Catalonia, a bizarre factual inaccuracy. For readerly reasons that one, at least, needs a change.Kingsif (talk)03:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
That link is incredibly useful and that RfC itself points to two 2018 RfCs that together provide cast iron consensus for the position thatX is a Catalan Y from Spain is an appropriate descriptor. Is there something that can be done to support maintaining that position against the constant pressure of nationalistically inspired reverters? Designating anyone Catalan as CTOP strikes me as something of a lead pipe, but anyone with an interest in Catalan figures having to constantly 'fight the good fight' is also a wearying task, I would imagine. BestAlexandermcnabb (talk)04:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't believe that whether or not the label "Catalan" should be used is the subject of this incident report - that question is a distraction! It is a settled issue, as decided by the multiple RfCs and extensive discussions already. The question is how to enforce the existing consensus. The objections above ("Catalonia is not a nation"!) only serve to illustrate the difficulty of the enforcement. Chronic and intractable, as I say.Bdushaw (talk)21:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
If you all want to see the problem in action, I could (or someone else could) attempt to change the lead sentence label in another article. I am looking at the article for the Catalan artistJoan Miró, history shown in the table above; the article content itself supports the Catalan label. Change the lead label to "Catalan" and watch the fireworks; a day or two of reversions would illustrate the problem in real time. (It may be better for me to stand down from the issue now?)Bdushaw (talk)17:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
FYI, the articlePau Casals recently had the label change in the lead sentence to "Catalan" from Spanishdiff. I have pasted the above boilerplate summary of the several RfC/Discussions to add to the editor's Talk entry; the first for the article. Per the above description, the article has undergone a multitude of Catalan/Spanish reversions. Those following this Incident Report can note the response to these changes.Bdushaw (talk)22:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Also, I wanted to add, or emphasize, that per the above summary of RfCs/Discussions, I do view the issue as having a broad consensus for the "Catalan" label. You all may decide that is not correct, and establish a broader precedent/consensus by some other means. But a consensus has to mean something.Bdushaw (talk)22:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
It's strange how some editor's opinion that someone's country of citizenship is the most important factor is allowed to override the fact that it is not always the most salient means of identification in reliable sources. Why not just follow the same standards as with all other content? (t ·c)buidhe13:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
User has been genre warring across multiple articles without sources or discussion, even after receiving multiple warnings about this that go back to last year. Here are some more recent diffshere andhere. Considering how far back the notices on their talk page go, I think it's safe to say they believe that genre-warring is more important to them than giving other editors a chance to participate in discussion.Magatta (talk)19:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
This user keeps adding unsourced additions with no explanations. When attempting to revert their edits, they keep adding them once again. You can check here:[98]. I also opened a discussion on the talk page ofLord Edward's crusade but they never responded.عبدالرحمن4132 (talk)16:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Valkazman is a new mobile editor who may not even know about talk pages yet (has never used one). Might need a gentle article-space block to get them to communicate.Schazjmd(talk)16:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if someone could do that because I even notified them in the talk page but still received no response from them. The user keeps adding unsourced additions, ignoring messages and notifications.عبدالرحمن4132 (talk)20:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I've warned both editors. I don't think action is necessary unless edit-warring continues. عبدالرحمن4132 did start this discussion and also one on the article talk page. Valkazman hasn't been very communicative as an editor but they also have limited editing experience.LizRead!Talk!05:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Draft rejection due to mistaken AI flag – need admin review
Assistance with recurring draft rejection due to mistaken LLM flag:
Hello admins,
I’m reaching out for help regarding a draft that I believe is being repeatedly flagged by filters as AI-generated, despite being written manually. The draft in question is:Draft:Biography of Yousseif A
I understand Wikipedia's concerns about LLM-generated content, but I want to clarify that this version was written entirely by me, based on published, verifiable sources. I’ve tried to follow all the guidelines related to neutrality and sourcing.
Unfortunately, my IP or previous drafts may have triggered flags, and I’m worried that the current manual draft is not being reviewed fairly.
Would an admin be willing to look at the situation, or advise on how I can proceed correctly?
Please do not keep creating new drafts. That is disruptive because it wastes the time of the new reviewers having to redo some of the work that was done in the previous review, and it loses track of the history of everyone who is working on the topic (you, other editors, reviewers) rather than working with collaboaration. Instead, work on the first existing draft.DMacks (talk)01:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with the statement that administrator participation is not required. I think that this is a case for aboomerang. This unregistered editor has created at least three different versions of biographies of the subject and is spamming theTeahouse, theAFC Help Desk, and nowWP:ANI with requests for help. I think that a block is necessary.Robert McClenon (talk)02:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm just going to request that any blocking admin, blocks the following obvious socks to shut out further stealth spamming:
I nuked all, including one that wasn't tagged, except for the originalDraft:Yousseif Abdellatif. Waiting for one more input on whether we should keep this single around as basis for possible conversion to an acceptable draft vs nuke as a hopelessly diruptive mess.DMacks (talk)05:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm deleting several dozen new U5s this morning, each with some general paragraph about technology and safety issues
Just FYI, it's clear there's an effort to create new user accounts with some repetitive material on their userpage. Not asking for help so much as getting eyes on this suspicious phenomenon.BusterD (talk)12:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I left acomment on BusterD's talk page upon seeing this thread, but he encouraged me to respond here so that others can easily see it. I'm also being careful on what I say as there are some privacy concerns involved, however I was able to put together that this is being done as part of a school curriculum. I have contacted Oversight, who took action on one specific instance, but otherwise said that they honestly aren't sure of what else they can do.
And to any admin reading this, absolutely redact any parts of this you think should be removed. I am still quite new to Wikipedia, and this is a complex situation, so I'm trying to do my best and not screw anything up or say something I shouldn't .-.Weirdguyz (talk)13:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It looks like in their 5 months on the project, they have used a talk page or noticeboard once (here). I have a preference that I don't like imposing a block without hearing from the editor but in this situation they might need to be encouraged to come to ANI.LizRead!Talk!07:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed - they demonstrated they know how to use a talk page when they asked their mentor a question. In my opinion, that means there's a decent chance that they've chosen to ignore their warnings.Gommeh🎮15:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I gave some advice to the editor in March, some more in April, & more in June. It all seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as do messages from other editors. It looks as though there are problems with understanding, which unfortunately may lead to a block from editing, but I agree with whatLiz has said, & I hope the editor will come to this discussion and answer the concerns which have been raised, both here & on their talk page.JBW (talk)20:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
i'm really sorry and sorry again for the inconvenient those mistakes of mine might cause ,I promise to change and contribute some positive impact to this encyclopedia of knowledge. I'm pleased you to give me some mentors to guide me through some edit as I'm just a beginner here. If you agree with me you can mail or chat me(Redacted)197.211.63.45 (talk)15:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Assuming this is actually you posting while logged out, I don't think anyone has questioned your good faith and your desire to improve the encyclopedia. The underlying problem is that nearlyall of your edits have serious issues. I don't think simply being sorry or having a mentor can suddenly make you better able to write an encyclopedia in English. Your most valuable contributions may be to the Wikipedia edition in your native language.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)02:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Competence in English is required to contribute to the English-language Wikipedia. That response above clearly demonstrates that they do not have a sufficient grasp of the English language to productively contribute here.Bgsu98(Talk)03:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I just blocked them from article space until they establish they can contribute usefully, either by submitting requests on Talk or contributing on another English-language wiki. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting protection for multiple pages due to repeated vandalism
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The pages have been repeatedly vandalized over the past few years by users with a conflict of interest. Multiple instances of adding promotional content, adding external links to the primary sources, adding "press" and other unconstructive sections, and more. They override the work put in by other editors every few months, replacing the existing text with promotional text that does not follow the Manual style.[[99]][[100]][[101]][[102]][[103]][[104]][[105]]
With some of the users, whose usernames are their real names, you can further establish COI.[[106]][[107]][[108]] Most of the users have been warned and made aware of the unconstructive edits, and yet every few months, a new user with COI pops in on one of the pages to continue the vandalism.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBaberoothless (talk •contribs)07:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your response! I considered posting onWP:Rfpp, but I can only request one page at a time. Unfortunately, we are dealing with multiple, recurring vandalism incidents on these pages with a common theme (i.e. people affiliated with the Gallery that represents these artists creating new accounts every few months for the sole purpose of vandalism with no response to warnings). I'm happy to submit individual pages onWP:Rfpp as a last resort, but I'd really appreciate if we can consider the common thread running through these vandalism incidents.Baberoothless (talk)10:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Wiscomiller potentially LLM-generated articles, refusing to engage
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wiscomiller is a prolific creator of (more often than not poorly sourced)WP:BLP articles. But a number of their recent articles have been tagged by me and another user as being potentially AI-generated.
Kim Jung-kwan (tagged byme; 2 reasons. 1. the quote"As we prepare for the era of artificial intelligence (AI), if the brain is the semiconductor and data center, the heart is energy. Just as the heart and brain cannot be separated, I will do my best to ensure integration." is stitched together from two quotes in the source article[109]. 2. Stiff and a little flowery prose; the prose seems different in character to this user's other articles)
Whether or not these are LLM-generated is probably debatable, but imo the major issue is multiple people have been giving this person feedback over the years, and I think they've only ever responded to feedback once:in January 2025.
Since then, multiple people made posts, warnings, copyvio notices, deletion nominations, and they've not significantly engaged with (or even seemed to have learned from) the feedback. Recently, I made a post on their talk page and tagged them multiple times; they've continued editing while never responding to my talk page posts and pings.User talk:Wiscomiller#June 2025.
Proposal: If Wiscomiller refuses to engage with even this thread, ban them from editing until they show willingness to engage with others. There are too many concerns that need addressing, and their refusal to work with others, or seemingly to listen to feedback at all, is not good for the project.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)00:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
If the post is true I agree with a ban. We are not quick enough to show the door to people whose "content" contributions are a net negative. (t ·c)buidhe01:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I first noticed Wiscomiller's contributions from the pageJatuporn Buruspat, thefirst version of which began with, "Here's the properly formatted Wikipedia page for **Jatuporn Buruspat**." They did attempt to fix some of the LLM's most egregious mistakes, such aslisting the wrong person as prime minister, but that was not nearly enough, and a whole lot of it was a bunch of junk and blatantly false information thathad to be removed. Among many other things, the AI hallucinated a false birth year, false degrees, false party membership, false name spelling, and a wholly messed up career section. It's very difficult for editors without local knowledge to sift through these AI articles and catch the errors, and Wiscomiller is clearly not doing that and probably isn't capable even if they tried. I tagged the most obvious cases where the LLM wrongly dated maintenance tags, though many other contributions of theirs seem likely to be AI-generated as well. --Paul_012 (talk)05:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Support. Adding large amounts of erroneous material to Wikipedia without comment is definitely grounds for a ban.Altoids0 (talk)06:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Support. Any content which is AI-generated which contains erroneous materials should be removed immediately. Additionally, poorly sourced should be removed and the user should be banned indefinitely.Fabvill (Talk to me!)06:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Note that Wiscomiller has continued creating new pages even after this ANI thread went up.[110] Doesn't seem like they're interested in engaging with others. Mostly unsourced BLP again.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)19:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
This is an exaggeration, Grapesurgeon. They have only made 2 edits since this complaint was posted on ANI which was one page, not " creating new pages". But I'll ask them to join this discussion if I haven't done this already.LizRead!Talk!00:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
This was just a mistake with grammar; I wrote quickly. I even linked the one page in question. Clearly wasn't an intentional bit of exaggeration. I'm not even sure the distinction is all that important even thengrapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)00:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
They have created six more badly sourced BLPs since the last comment on this discussion so I have indefinitely pblocked them from article space until they communicate (and I have moved a dozen badly sourced BLPs to Draft space).Black Kite (talk)12:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User @Interstellarity
User:Tamzin has partially blocked Sys64 from project space. Also, a note to the ANI Peanut Gallery, just because an editor is behaving poorly doesn't mean that CIVIL no longer applies to them. Don't make the mistake of assuming that it's okay to attack or belittle editors who've been sanctioned. CIVIL applies to everyone.LizRead!Talk!03:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are you reporting a user for making edits...? Admittedly, I don't know fully what the contents page is (never seen it before, actually), but you can clearly see that Interstellarity was asking why their edits were getting revertedhere. So immediately reporting them to ANI for allegedly wrongdoing when they tried to talk about it is bizarre.λNegativeMP101:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Per the red notice at the top, you need to notify Interstellarity of this discussion on his talk page (not simply a ping); I have done so for you.OutsideNormality (talk)01:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
First off, I think this problem can be solved without a trip to this noticeboard. Rather than coming here and reporting me, why not open up a discussion on theWT:Contents page and I am happy to discuss it with you? Let's move on from here and I'll see you there. Also, administrators do not have the ability to block whoever they want, whenever they want. They need supporting evidence that what I did was blockable. I believe I did not do anything that would warrant a block. They usually block after extensive attempts to educate an individual to better contribute failed.Interstellarity (talk)01:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh sorry I didn't notified him, extremely sorry. @NegativeMP1, looking at his overwhelming edits (which made me worried ) on page I had no other option but to bring him here so that administrators can solve this issue. My only issue is 'discussion before major edits', which he definitely did not attempted. Also his Teahouse comments was helpful because it triggered us to know what he is doing. Thanks, let me know if I made any mistake. Sys64 message this user01:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Boomerang of some sort - Unrelated to the report in itself, this user has been disruptive at multiple help pages (particularly theWP:Teahouse byWP:BITING new editors asking genuine questions), something which several others have told them not to do. I was contemplating bringing here, but why not propose since they've brought themselves here. — EF501:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Well,However, from what I see in your article, you have demonstrated an inability to write an article even about yourself, which is, as guessed, filled with promotion, bias and unnecessary flattery proses to a user with seven editsyesterday (diff), andDid you have any idea that this is a most gibberish article I have seen, as demonstrated here. You have used it as a blogging site while thinking it would 0.00001% chance of appearing on main page (also yesterday) (diff). I don't know what your goal is, but you're being disruptive to the project. I'll dig further if time allows, although my internet is utterly horrendous right now so it may take a bit. — EF502:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Noting that this user was previously blocked a few months back for unhelpful Teahouse/Help Desk comments.Sarsenet•he/they•(talk)02:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes thats a normal process on Wikipedia, nobody is perfect in one place at time relative to the other. And I don't think message prior to block are relevant here except this is something to direct at me. Sys64 message this user02:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
It isn't normal at all to be blocked on Wikipedia, that's a sign that there may be an issue (especially if it continues after the block). — EF502:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
there are multiple administrators who were blocked on Wikipedia prior to their administration, its not abnormal to have a block and being pure from it. The reasons for blocks varies and if you could understand why I was blocked that may help you. Also sometimes block is best way to stop and be more attentive to Wikipedia guidelines. I hope you understand. Sys64 message this user02:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes and multiple editors remain indefinitely blocked after they were blocked for a short time and then continued with the behaviour that got them blocked the first time after their block expired or was lifted. Your continued misbehaviour at the Teahouse means you're far closer to falling into this category than admins who were blocked.Nil Einne (talk)05:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes butonly if they continue to apply the behaviour that led to the block. @Nil Einne, I am open to criticism, but vaguely directing a comment on me is not good enough. A proper snapshots of the "misbehaviour" from me (without cutting any part and with explanation on why it is not appropriate) would be more welcomed, not just "you made a bad comment in Teahouse", and please dont copy paste year old comment, its irrelevant here. Sys64 message this user11:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Sys64, the normal expectation is for you to start a discussion on the talk page of the relevant page. You did not attempt to do so, and went straight to ANI. That's not proper procedure. You're also assuming bad faith of Interstellarity; you accuse them of being unhelpful but are unspecific as to why you think they are unhelpful. If anything, this reflects worse on you than it does on Interstellarity. Granted, idk what Interstellarity changed. Even if they are being disruptive, you (Sys64) went about this the wrong waygrapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)02:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
okay, I think ignoring my point of view is not a good discussion eitherl. I think i explained that I was not ready to engage with any user directly without an administrator involved in the discussion, and so ANI was my only way. However I see the anonymity towards me and lot of people are here now "digging" my edit history to take out those specific comments on which was quite naive and should have been pateint. I don't understand their problems or their possible reason as to why they are doing this but i think we could get any fruitful conclusion as to what should be done about User:Interstellarity? And let me please copy paste my those Teahouse comments on which I was more fruitful than necessary. Just to counteract these comments. Sys64 message this user02:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Social Media is not a reliable in most cases, but sometimes it could be used as a primary source, depending on context. However, in most of the article, the reason we don't use social media is because they are filled with bias, misinformation and individual's creation. According to our core policies, WP: Guidelines, sources must be independent, published, and subject to editorial oversight. But that doesn't mean they are completely unreliable, you can use YouTube link to indicate the existence of a channel or a specific video, you can use reddit to indicate a thread dicussion that is important for the article, let's say you want to indicate that Brian Cox said X in his reddit discussion about Black Hole. It is when we talk about actual and proved facts, we need certain amount of secondary sources (non-social media) for the authenticity and only sources that are reliable. See WP: Reliable sources if you want to learn more. Cheers! Sys64 message this user
From my evaluation, writing about yourself is discouraged in Wikipedia, and it passes basic WP:COI, check WP:Autobiography. However, from what I see in your article, you have demonstrated an inability to write an article even about yourself, which is, as guessed, filled with promotion, bias and unnecessary flattery proses. How about you take a time learning here and here. Please read this and this too. Sys64 message this user
{{tq| I think administrators are trustworthy in certain manner or they won't be admin at all. And they are the one supposed to show maturity before than any other general editors, so the situation of block rarely comes forward but that doesn't mean they are invincible. [[User:Sys64wiki|Sys64]}} Sys64 message this user02:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
i explained that I was not ready to engage with any user directly without an administrator involved in the discussion, and so ANI was my only way.. Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works.Communication is required. Involving admins is thelast resort, youmust attempt to communicate and resolve disputes at lower levels before coming to ANI. -The BushrangerOne ping only02:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
This poorly formatted, rambling wall of text above isn't really encouraging. Feel like behavior is erratic.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)03:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment. The editor doesn't have an archive, but one can seewhat had been deleted from their Talk page. It is full of warnings/notices: copyvio, OWN, edit warring, linking from mainspace to draftspace, blanking mainspace articles to then redirect to articles they have written. Responses that stood out to me:Just wanted to know how to get a complete ban than a simple ban? Like if i harmed Jimmy Wales account? Why I want to ban mt account? I just don't think I wish to contribute to wiki anymore.diff andI might suggest to delete it and block me permanently but stop messaging me.diff andI am amazed I am banned and blocked and destroyed and still facing irrelevant email. At least after good faith contributions i faced this thing, leave me to still use wiki as a learning platform. Stop messaging me, delete it stop it or whatever you do with whatever i contributed to wiki. STOP MESSAGING ME!!!!diff.
These kinds of responses to concerns about editing and deletion of articles show a lack of maturity and an inability to take criticism. I suggest Sys64 be limited to editing in Article space without the ability to create new articles. They should be given a warning telling them that they have to show they can edit articles without using LLMs, copyvio or resorting to edit warring.TurboSuperA+(connect)07:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Support. I get that Sys64 is wanting to be helpful, but their comments are often unclear, misleading, and unhelpful.
Sys64wiki looks to me like a young non-native speaker. He would probably have an easier time communicating and understanding rules in his native language. I don't know about anyone else, but I struggle to understand what is meant by phrases like "making blatant edits", "he seems to do it itself", "nobody is perfect in one place at time relative to the other", "its not abnormal to have a block and being pure from it".NinjaRobotPirate (talk)16:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I wish we had a New Editor's Welcome Packet where there was a flier that said "Opening a complaint on AN or ANI will put your own conduct under review by your fellow editors". Of course, so many editors never read the information or warning notices that are given to them so it might not help. It seems like we have so many eager young editors that get distracted from solid work improving articles by coming to the drama boards over minor issues and they find themselves blocked either from a namespace or site-wide.LizRead!Talk!19:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
That’s not a quality, @Liz, I’m sorry. Putting an editor who is genuinely concerned about something "on the radar" isn’t a positive quality—it’s simply an action that shows a lack of basic logic in handling situations. Behaviors like this have reduced this website to the level of sites like 4chan, and I need no proof to prove my claim you already know this, where mobs often try to impose their opinions. This is not the hallmark of a good collaborative project. It isn’t“drama,” as you might think, and I’m not trying to create drama anymore. This is a global project, and English Wikipedia is the most visited wiki site in the world. It’s not just an American website—it affects people everywhere. That means there are many perspectives, not just American ones, and we don’t all share the same views on every subject regardless of our background. There are always multiple, diverse opinions. Simply insisting "I am right" won’t work here. Let me ask: Have you achieved anything fruitful by engaging in this kind of drama, such as in my case bringig my 3 months old comment? I don’t think so.
There are many groups—please don’t block me for calling them “mobs”—who first take my claims as offensive, then some start digging deeper. Then another person comes along and brings up a comment I made three or four months ago to show how “nonsense” it was. Why not address something I said recently? I think it’s because of this mob-like behavior, and I know enough about the internet to recognize when it’s happening. Sometimes someone even sends a link to a nonsensical article on my talk page, which genuinely makes no sense to me.
No, just because I dont agree with you on matter such as if this particular article, whose meaning I still dont understand, is in my interest does not mean I am not capable to contribute. I find no logic behind this idea, can you please explain why you said that? Also you cant just say I dont like you. Sys64 message this user05:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
There seems no connection between WP:AfC and WP:NOTDICT and someone calling an article "nonsense" just because they niether understood the article content nor appreciated what was written, because they may not like humor as much, more specifically when they are askedwhat they think about it?, I think that part have been ommited. Sys64 message this user05:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
There seems no connection between WP:AfC and WP:NOTDICT
Then you're incorrect to say WP:NOTDICT has nothing to do with WP:AfD as it is directly related to discussions on whether an article should be kept or deleted. WP:NOTDICT is part of theWP:NOT policy.TurboSuperA+(connect)06:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I’m sorry, if I’m unable to explain it properly, and I find myself becoming increasingly confused. I’m not a good explainer and I didn’t attempt to not establish a meaningful connection between the setAfD andNOTDICT. Had I tried, it would have resulted in a non-injective (non one-to-one) mapping, which is inaccurate—because bothAfD andNOTDICT are related through certain shared elements. However, my mind attempted to connect those internal elements (in combination) to a different set: the statement“I feel like the ‘Law of Holes’ article is nonsense,” as said bySys64wiki. In response, my reasoning—shaped by the logical architectures of Kant and Aurelius—concluded that all three (AfD, NOTDICT, and the opinion on the article) are fundamentally unrelated. This is because labeling something as "nonsense" doesn’t simply reject it; rather, it often implicitly means:"Your approach failed—try again." I tried my best I dont know if it was perfect. Sys64 message this user06:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Some unrelated user, I do not have any idea who they are or what their take toward me pasted in my tp:It's a "mainspace" article that has existed since March 2012.Have you read it? What do you think about it?Peter in Australia aka. Can anybody explain me (i dont think any policy is reuqired becuase this is simple logic) that if I said I feel nonsense about is why it became wrong to say? Sys64 message this user05:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
@Sys64wiki, youfeel[ing] nonsense about that article isn'twrong in and of itself, but those responses suggest that you're in a hole, refusing the ladder, and annoyed that everyone's looking at you. —DVRTed (Talk)06:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
There is no hole, no ladder and I am completely relaxed and calm about it, not annoyed. Criticism is welcomed, until is irrelevent, unjustified or personal. You are welcome. Sys64 message this user12:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
This is a wall of text that basically does not address anything anyone else in this thread said. At what point doesWP:CIR come into play? Feel like this user won't be able to effectively communicate and work with other users.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)03:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
@Grapesurgeon, if someone's explanation over the matter does appear as wall of text to someone then it is someone else who's having difficulty over collaborating. I explained myself quite clearly, and I am always ready for contribution, but if in your terms it is just wall of text then I am unable to do anything, I am sorry. I am wondering where doesWP:CIR comes from since as far as I can see it is me who is being scrutinized by at least dozens of editor while I am defending my right all alone? Sys64 message this user05:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
My opinion (yes, an opinion), is that editors are too eager to shout BOOMERANG when they just disagree with an OP. Sys64wiki, I can see by your long comment to me that you objected to my remarks but I don't see a connection between my off-topic comment about editors, in general, and the frustration you are expressing. I will admit that there have been times when ANI was beset by mobs of regular editors but that was many years ago. ANI is much less frantic and busy than, say, what it was like ten years ago in 2015. Participants are much less likely to clamour for editors to be site-banned or blocked than ten years ago. Just the fact that we are still talking and this discussion hasn't been closed is an indication of how things have changed over the years.
But I can say all of this and admit that Wikipedia is not a perfect community and has it's own blindspots and biases and still decide to spend my time here. I don't think anyone is arguing that Wikipedia is perfect.LizRead!Talk!05:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Liz for your reply, its been time since I saw a mature editor who can handle a discussion. And you are right Wikipedia is not perfect but that because we are trying to make it perfect when at the same time we know its not going to be. Sys64 message this user05:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Of course, that should never be a case, because it helps nothing. Niether your own mental health nor that of Wikipedia. However if I was somehow doing something wrong please recognise it as part of my mistake, I had to explain myself and make it clear that some part of some people's opinion towards me is not whooly right. So that editor who mistakenly treat Wikipedia like places as discord or other social media should understand that it is NOT. And if this matter is resolved I can take a fresh air outside? Sys64 message this user06:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
And if this matter is resolved I can take a fresh air outside?
I'vepartially blocked Sys64wiki from projectspace indefinitely and have encouraged them to focus on content for now. I would suggest this can be closed. Also just as a general note, I'd remind people that speaking in adages and in-group references is not a great way to get a point across to someone already clearly struggling with communication. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)12:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin,Sys64wiki is requesting that his partial block should be reviewed. The reason provided is:
I dont want to be unblocked or blocked, it entirely up to who blocked me, but just want an simple explanation on why I am blocked, just need a knowledge to fill the glap, as a human "its more threatening to know while not knowing than being complete ignorant. Thank you!
Meh. Try getting blocked, even partially, and see how grateful you feel. He's avoiding actual personal attacks, which is better than a lot of experienced editors do. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)13:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I said this before, but this user's behavior has been so erratic (and frankly a little incoherent) I'm not really sure there's all that much room for improvement. They're basically not really made any productive content edits either. I'm not sure why we're even being so forgiving in this thread; we have more important and promising things we could be spending time on.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)20:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:WhoIsCentreLeft - Action/intervention needed for WP:DISRUPTIVE, including serious and repeated WP:COPYVIO (EDIT: Request URGENT block under WP:CVREPEAT)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Drawing attention toWP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour ofWhoIsCentreLeft(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), a fairly new account that has rapidly amassed nearly 3,500 edits and created a number of articles in the last four months. Rather than improving wikipedia they instead look to be causing notable disruption by flagrantly ignoring policies & guidelines while refusing to engage collaboratively when questioned.
Initially interacted with them atCollective (organisation), an article they created with numerous policy issues, in particularWP:ABOUTSELF breaches such as sourcing from self-published blogs(e.g.[112][113]) and appearing to invent claims in others. Attempts to discuss and resolve these issues were met with belligerent refusals to engage, with said user repeatedly just ignoring guidelines/policy by insisting they don't exist or apply[114][115][116][117], even admitting they think it's fine to use inappropriate sources if reliable ones don't exist.[118][119]
These issues are consistently appearing across their edits. An example is a series of contributions to the articleBlanche Monnier, where they introduced large swathes of material largely sourced from extremely low-quality blog/photo restoration sites[120][121][122][123]. On another article they introduced a large amount ofWP:BLP violating content from a blog called "Fame Revealed"[124].
Attempts to remove this material myself given attempts to discuss were non-conductive were immediately resisted as "revenge"[125], "bad faith"[126], and that I was "hounding" them[127].
Raising at ANI as I don't believe their conduct is acceptable and their edits, while good faith, lack competency and are in fact breaking core policies.Rambling Rambler (talk)19:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
You checking my edit history and reverting my edits in uninvolved articles over a disagreement in the discussion here seems pretty much likeWP:HOUNDING to me. Your mass removal of sources and content is also pretty concerning, looking at your edit history, you have redirected a lot of articles without discussion and removed tens of thousands of bytes from various articles without consensus. Also, you made it seem like my entire history on Wikipedia was known for causing disruption, this is a giant exaggeration. I was never involved in anything like that till this day and never broke any rules, i also never had significant problems with my edits. Your edits in Blanche Monnier had deleted alot of unrelated edits like grammar/source fixes, a lot of non-blog sources likeNew York Times andLa Republica were also deleted. This, in my opinion, significantly worsened the article, so i reverted the edit and asked you to only remove blogs and stop restoring revision before my edits.
I checked all of two articles that you pinned to your user page and immediately found problems in both that breached policy and I rectified them accordingly, something that I only decided to check given your stubborn refusal to accept you were in breach of policy at Collective where you were repeatedly reverted anyone who disagreed with you as being "invalid"[128][129][130] and as cited above in the talk page you openly admit to not following core policy on sources.
The fact you instead view correcting your mistakes as some kind of vendetta speaks to why I felt the need to file a report here.
Frankly, just to demonstrate my point, here's a third article you've made sizeable contributions to of inappropriate sources, namely TLDR News. Here you are citing completely unreliable sources such as a blog selling NordVPN[131][132], a random marketing firm[133], some random site saying which youtubers to follow[134],and multiple blogs about video thumbnails[135][136]. Every single one of these sources is clearly an unreliable source yet you've shoved them all in there because you quite clearly google the article subject and decide everything is a reliable source.
Your edits in Blanche Monnier had deleted alot of unrelated edits like grammar/source fixes, a lot of non-blog sources likeNew York Times andLa Republica were also deleted.
It didn't remove "a lot of non-blogs", those were the only reliable sources but you'd mixed them all in with the avalanche of unreliable sources that I couldn't easily remove them so had no choice but to revert it before you introduced all your policy-violations.
Also, you made it seem like my entire history on Wikipedia was known for causing disruption, this is a giant exaggeration. I was never involved in anything like that till this day and never broke any rules, i also never had significant problems with my edits.
The fact it hadn't been picked up on until now doesn't mean it hasn't been happening, and the fact you immediately responded the way you did with accusations of "revenge" is why your behaviour is a problem.Rambling Rambler (talk)21:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Also, and to put this as nicely as I can, it's quite clear that your English language skills are causing problems as well. For instance in this diff[[137]] you incorrectly refer to the source multiple times such as saying that 'all of the staff are in their twenties' (rather than nearly all as stated in the source) and that it makes 55% of revenue through ads (the source says 40%), and you also refer to British currency as "sterlings".
Oh and in another diff you are obviously copy and pasting text straight from the source without quote marks[138], which is something you've been warned about before where you responded in a manner where you claimed the warning was "unnecessary" in part because it was only a small amount of copyrighted material you'd reused[139].Rambling Rambler (talk)21:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, i've been on Wikipedia for like 4 months so i obviously can make mistakes, im not native English speaking person so of course i can make grammar mistakes from time to time, every human inevitably makes mistakes. The two "blogs" in TLDR News article looked like average news organizations to me so i added them, sorry, I will try to be more vigilant next time. Me "copy and pasting text straight from the source without quote marks" is again, exaggeration, the text is significantly different from the source, only like 6 words sounded the same. You, again, instead of rewriting the problem, deleted a chunk of text which decreased the quality of the article, so i obviously have negative opinions about your changes.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)10:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Here's the source sentence:
"In TLDR News videos, hosts sit behind a desk and deliver a well-planned, opinion-free, teleprompted monologue to camera"[140]
Here's what you claim to have written:
"In most of the videos, hosts of TLDR News will sit behind a desk and say a well-planned, opinion-free, teleprompted monologue on camera"[141]
That is obviously a copy and paste job, just changing the order of a couple of words doesn't suddenly not make it an obvious copyright violation.
The two "blogs" in TLDR News article looked like average news organizations to me so i added them, sorry, I will try to be more vigilant next time.
If you think any of those blogs look like a reputable news organisation to you, then that's a serious problem. And this is the crux of it, you are frankly not able to identify good sources and instead just chuck in anything that you find on google, and when anyone tries to fix it you throw your toys out of the pram, demand we "prove it's unreliable" and mass-revert attempts to fix your mistakeswhich is a problem.
Can't help but note you've changed your tone from yesterday were suddenly you're attempting to sound more apologetic and admitting to mistakes when yesterday you just responded "ok lol"[142] before making false accusations of hounding.Rambling Rambler (talk)11:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of anything, i just said that your behavior looks like hounding. Also, i didn't revert your edits in TLDR News, my reverts were limited to Collective, i stopped doing them hours ago. My reverts in Blanche Monnier were due to your accidental removal of non-blog sources.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)11:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
You literally wrote "I hope you know whatWP:HOUND is and what happens to users who violate this policy"[143], that's an accusation. In this edit summary you asserted that I only removed sources out of "revenge" and that they weren't low-quality at all (again, you've changed your tune on that)[144].
Also as a further example of your blatantWP:COPYVIO, here's an edit you just made:[145]
As i said, they are not copy-pasted, i wrore them from my memories. Paragraphs using words present in articles is not copyvio at all, by that logic, every edit on Wikipedia will be copyvio. Seriously, how you expect me to write that Arkansas Department of Corrections made changes after Hardin's escape? This is getting absurd. Give me an example.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)14:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
"Following the incident, the state corrections body announced there would be changes to both policy and staff, with director Dexter Payne announcing a "critical incident review" into the matter."(cites)
This is not relevant to the OP's concern, but is relevant to the subject editor's reply. I think that we need a guideline or essay onWP:NOTHOUND,WP:What is not hounding. Bothhounding andvandalism are serious conduct offenses, but it is common for editors to wrongly claim accuse editors of either of them. The OP's report was not hounding, and I have seen numerous wrongful claims of both vandalism and hounding.Robert McClenon (talk)02:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
This is different than what brought up the report, but I'm concerned about the editor's behavior at AFD. On WhoIsCentreLeft's userpace, they write "I love deleting stuff". They regularly make AFDs despite being relatively new, and of over 100 AFDs they've made, less than50% have actually beensuccessful, with many being very poor noms.BeanieFan11 (talk)03:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
45.5% delete rate looks pretty normal to me and is not cause of concern. I checked a few random users with this tool and many of them had lower percentages. Also, my nominations are not "poor quality", they are all based on guidelines of Wikipedia.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)10:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
They've also been spoken to about this exact issue.[146] They claim they followWP:BEFORE but given they also claim to followWP:ONUS[147] yet repeatedly re-insert material without discussion I seriously doubt that claim.[148][149][150][151][152]
I get the feeling they check before AfD the same way as when sourcing articles, they just google search for the name of the article and that's it (which isn't really good enough).Rambling Rambler (talk)11:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Mmm, I don't actually think 45% (plus a few "Userfy" and "Merge" outcomes) is that bad, especially as they made some mistakes when they started nominating. Obviously I'd suggest that they are far more thorough with their BEFORE, but I don't see this as a reason to sanction.Black Kite (talk)11:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
@Black Kite alone I'd agree, but the reason I think it's relevant is that in combination with the misuse of sources, the blatant disregard for policy on reliable sources, what I now believe to be frequentWP:COPYVIO (see here[153]), and just general attitude issues of refusing to engage collaboratively and refusing to acknowledge they're in the wrong at the end of the day amounts to a case of someone who may be trying to edit in good-faith but is actively damaging the project by doing it.Rambling Rambler (talk)12:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I did not copy paste anything, you are falsely accusing of things i didnt do. Copyvio is known to falsely flag words/sentences as copyright violations.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)12:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The concept of copyright violations does not "flag" anything. Automated tools can have false positives, butclose paraphrasing is not that, it is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. I see you tried to argue this same point toDiannaa back in May, and judging from Copypatrol's logs those were textbook close paraphasing.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk14:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, if i unintentionally did paraphrasing, then im sorry, i am a new user after all. However, im not feeling comfortable with him scanning my user page and doing mass removals of content everywhere without at least trying to rewrite them. I don't want my articles which i wrote for hours to be damaged.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)14:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
"I don't want my articles which i wrote for hours to be damaged"
Im not claiming that I own them, im simply saying that 95% of the content in them was written by me, without me they wouldn't exist. I dont like my work being deleted by you.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)14:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
They are not required to rewrite text when removing it as a copyright violation, the onus is on you to reword it properly in the first place.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk15:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I did not copy any sentences, i looked at a source and written its information. They are not copied just because they are written in the same order.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)12:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I did not copy any sentences, i looked at a source and written its information.
@LilianaUwU I have no issues with these revisions being struck from the record after this, but I think the scale needs to be demonstrated in black and white that they're building what seems to be large sections of articles from copy and pasting effectively word for word from articles.Rambling Rambler (talk)12:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I literally did not copy and paste anything, everything was literally written by my hands. You accusing me of building "large sections of articles from copy and pasting effectively word for word from articles" is an enormous border-line false exaggeration.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)12:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
An entire article coming up as a false positive COPYVIO because it has dozens of sources makes sense.
You entering an entire paragraph with a single source and that paragraph matches the source almost exactly is not a false positive, you're committing blatant copyright theft.Rambling Rambler (talk)12:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Wait, what? Yes, using the same words in the same order is absolutely an example of a copywriter violation. Pretending otherwise isn’t going to help.MilesVorkosigan (talk)22:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not using the tool, I'm manually checking your edits against the sources you cite and finding they're copied exactly from it. That's is COPYVIO and you repeatedly saying that's not the case is a lie.Rambling Rambler (talk)12:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, your checks are pretty bad then. I simply wrote what this source reported using my own words, there may be some overlaps but I DID NOT COPYPASTE ANYTHING , i wrote them only using my hands.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)12:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Just comparing the last sentence from your paragraph as quoted above, let's compare it to what's written in the NYT source which states:"Mr. Hardin then walked out of the prison after a guard in a tower opened a gate for him...As Mr. Hardin walked through the gate, he was wheeling a cart that was holding a ladder made from wooden pallets and a box that concealed a bag with peanut-butter sandwiches and extra clothes"[157]
Listen, i wrote this paragraph by myself, i looked at NYT source, remembered the information and typed everything i knew. Yes it looks a little similar but i can't fully avoid overlapping, probably nobody really can, almost every paragraph on Wikipedia has overlaps with cited sources, this does not mean they are copyright violations.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)12:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Another example, the section about the fake uniform. Compare again this section from the NYT source which states:"Once on the loading dock, Mr. Hardin changed into a fake law enforcement uniform, which he had assembled from everyday prison supplies and had stashed in a storage area... It included a badge made from the top of a soup can and the cover of a Bible, a white T-shirt and pants that had been dyed with a black marker and a vest with a white patch on the back that had been fashioned from an old kitchen apron.[158]
Okay? My paragraph is way shorter and written very differently. How am i supposed to write it without using the words "Bible", "old kitchen apron", "badge", "white patch", "supplies" and "soup can"? These words are essential for information and account for like 90% of my so called "copyvio". Your examples are ridiculous.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)13:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok, who are you to check edit history and revert my paragraphs for "copyvio" without showing serious evidence? Seriously, who are you? Are you some kind of an expert in this field or are you an administrator? How do i know that your copivio checks are valid and not made up bad-faith fluff made with an intention to take revenge on me and damage my articles over a disagreement? Who are you buddy?WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)13:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
It's completely normal behaviour to look at edits by other users and correct them for errors, it's required byWP:COPYVIO and even mentioned inWP:HOUND which you linked yesterday so must've read. The fact you view this action as "revenge" and refuse to accept that copy and pasting from articles (whether lines at a time or just typing it out yourself), a behaviour that has been demonstrated multiple times now, is against our rules says a lot about why I don't think you are a helpful presence on this project and frankly should be blocked.Rambling Rambler (talk)13:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
You didnt "correct" anything, you just blindly reverted all my edits without offering a good explanation, your checks for copyright are also pretty concerning, as I don't know what you use to decide what is a copyrighted text and what is not. I think you are the one who should be blocked here for mass removal of content, edit warring, mass redirect of articles without discussion and WP:HOUND-like behavior.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)13:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't know what you use to decide what is a copyrighted text and what is not
News articles are copyrighted works. You copy and pasting them for whole paragraphs is infringement of that copyright.
I'm not going to bother with any of your claims about my conduct given you haven't presented a single diff of any that have broken our rules. No doubt this is because you can't.Rambling Rambler (talk)13:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I dont know who you are or your true intentions behind your actions, im not obliged to agree with you on everything, i have my own opinions.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)14:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I am following policies, i try to. I'm not obligated to follow YOU as i dont know who you are and have concerns on what you are trying to do.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)14:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I know that already, they are not mine... that didn't stop you from clicking on them and deleting thousands of bytes of text for alleged copyvio violations which have a chance of being made up by you... You most likely did it simply because they are listed on my user page.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)13:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
You most likely did it simply because they are listed on my user page.
I literally said this yesterday. I looked at a couple of random other articles you linked as having been "written by me" or you "significantly contributed to" (your words) because your edits and attitude when discussing them with you at Collective gave me reason to see if this inappropriate sourcing was common. Funnily enough not only did I find that to be the case but also massive COPYVIO.
that didn't stop you from clicking on them and deleting thousands of bytes of text for alleged copyvio violations which have a chance of being made up by you
Keep shouting "you're making it up", doesn't change the fact the diffs I've provided of your claimed wording basically matching that in articles exist.Rambling Rambler (talk)13:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok, you just admitted to deliberately clicking on articles listed on my talk because of a disagreement and deleting things from them, great!WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)14:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. PerWP:HOUND
I only looked because you were edit-warring and refusing to edit according to policy at Collective and thought there was a likelihood of it happening elsewhere, and instead I've found worse conduct and removed those policy violations.Rambling Rambler (talk)14:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
No strong evidence was given on how my additions in Grant Hardin were copyright violations. All of them are based on assumptions and lies.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)14:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I've literally cited the text itself that you've copiedeffectively word for word. All you keep going is "it's not" when it clearly is.Rambling Rambler (talk)14:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
If you want a serious answer to how else you are supposed to write it, I would have written something much closer to:
"It was later revealed that Hardin had been allowed to access the loading dock under false pretenses, where he then changed into a fake law enforcement uniform he had crafted from materials such as soup cans, aprons and a Bible."
I wanted to write a detailed paragraph, not one short sentence. Unfortunately, such paragraph would include a lot of words used in the NYT source and would most likely fail Rambling Rambler's copyvio "check".WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)13:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
They are not "close paraphrasing", i literally just wrote what these sources were reporting about Grant Hardin after looking at them once.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)14:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
If 45% isn't "bad" (and several of the "successful" noms were only soft-deletes), then what is? Its not that there's been a few poor noms and since then they've been good. Throughout the user's entire AFD history have been very poor noms. I don't think its appropriate for editors to display "I love deleting stuff" on their userpage.BeanieFan11 (talk)17:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Third evidenced instance of sizeable COPYVIO
Have now looked at another article they claim to have "written themselves",Murder of Justin Hare, where in this Diff they added a sizeable amount of text[160] which is almost word for word copied from the source it cites apart from the fact they've changed it from 1pm to 1am.[161]
Barely a dozen words difference across that whole paragraph.WhoIsCentreLeft is correct that it looks nothing like the source, because the source in that diff is a different Alburquerque Journal article which does not verify that paragraph at all. Maybe this was a mistake, but at some point AGF runs out and you start to see it as intentional obfuscation. (struck per reply)REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk14:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok, an electrical substation just caught fire near my apartment and cut my power so im not going to respond for a few hours as im taking care of the situation..WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)15:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Another article they claim to have written themselves isTyler Edmonds, which has already had several revisions removed for COPYVIO, which WhoIsCentreLeft was informed about in May[169]. However it still contains significant COPYVIO such as the following paragraph.[170][171], which once again, this is content WhoIsCentreLeft inserted that is almost a word for word copy of the cited source.[172]Rambling Rambler (talk)15:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
At this point I'm going to assume every single one of their articles is likely to be filled with COPYVIO material and believe therefore this user needs to beblocked immediately underWP:CVREPEATRambling Rambler (talk)15:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I have checked five of their articles and all five have contained substantial copyright violations of copying text from sources almost verbatim. I really don't see how it's "overblown".Rambling Rambler (talk)16:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
It's a bit of a Catch-22 that though isn't it? If I want to demonstrate a user is repeatedly violating copyright (and at this point I believe it is endemic across all their articles and contributions) how else am I meant to demonstrate that without providing diffs and examples of said violations which a report to ANI requires?
I've tried to limit the amount of evidence I've used for that reason, with each of those articles having far more examples than just the ones I've used. If there's a better forum/format to use for this issue I'd be really grateful to have that provided.Rambling Rambler (talk)17:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
If you truly think something is a copyvio, then you shouldn't copy/paste the infriging text, because you yourself are making copyvios in the event it is copyvio.LilianaUwU(talk /contributions)17:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I asked if there was a better place to go and you haven't really helped, just gone "well you're just as bad then" for trying to resolve the problem.Rambling Rambler (talk)17:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The "better place to go" is to post a diff link along with a link to the original source it's copied from. If you copy copyvioyou, too, are committing copyvio. -The BushrangerOne ping only20:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I was unaware of that at the time but have now placed reports about this in the correct format at the locations I've been pointed to by Real Mouse IRL below.Rambling Rambler (talk)20:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
In addition I've tagged and blanked the articles, and reported them to the Copyright board as I believe is the correct thing to do, but I'm not exactly sure where the best place to deal with chronic editor issues is. Haven't had to to deal with a situation this bad before and I've sort of stumbled into it as the day's gone on.Rambling Rambler (talk)17:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
WP:CCI for repeated violations, no need to paste the text in there, just make a request and provide links to diffs + sources. 5 or 6 instances should be enough.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk17:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, im back, i do admit, i messed up, i wrote these articles when i was just few months into Wikipedia so i didn't fully understand what close paraphrasing is, I'm still kinda new. I thought that writing like that didn't break any guideline. Tyler Edmond article was rewritten by me and administrator Dianna after a discussion with her that you can find in her talk page archives. It was no longer considered copyright violation by her so i just moved on and started writing more articles. She said that current version of the article is fine and thanked me for rewriting it, she had no issues with me.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)18:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to add that none of my articles were copypasted "word for word" or are blatant copyright violations as he is implying, it's just an exaggeration. The articles are pretty much unrecognizable if compared to cited sources, earwig copyvio showed below 50% chance of violation on all of them. I never copypasted at all as i dont like copying stuff, I just write everything by my fingers using my memory is i previously stated below.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)18:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The fact I can keep finding paragraph after paragraph of nearly identically word for word text in every article of yours I look at demonstrates otherwise. Once would be a coincidence, but across what is now six is a pattern of routine behaviour.
The fact that an article doesn't 100% match a singular source doesn't change the fact multiple paragraphs within each article are identical to whichever source they're put up against.Rambling Rambler (talk)18:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Almost every article has some sort of paraphrasing in them and lots of users engage in copying/paraphrasing without any punishments, i can show examples. I thought that writing in a style similar to the source is not copyright violation at the time and saw users doing the same. Also, they are not word for word copypastes nor are they "nearly identical", they are all very different.WhoIsCentreLeft (talk)19:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Also, they are not word for word copypastes nor are they "nearly identical", they are all very different.
Funny how an hour ago you tried the tactic of admitting you "messed up" and that you'd been committing COPYVIO. Now you're back to denying any similarity even though several people in this thread have all noticed that you are doing just that.Rambling Rambler (talk)20:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Also I've genuinely lost count now of the amount of times you've thrown out claims that other people are breaking the rules while still not providing a single piece of evidence of that.Rambling Rambler (talk)20:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Your claim that other people do it too does not mean that you can ignore the policies.
And please stop claiming that you aren't doing (at best) excessively close paraphrasing, everyone can see the diffs. Just flat out denying it isn't helpful.MilesVorkosigan (talk)20:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Copyright admin here.Blanche Monnier had a sentence from[173] copied, so they're translating sources word for word.Jewish Voice for Peace has blatant copyvio, and more than that, I'm concerned about theirediting in aWP:CTOP which they've already received an alert for. I investigated this at CCI independently of this ANI listing so you can see more evidence of copying there. I found the ANI after reviewing their talk page. I have indeffed WhoIsCentreLeft accordingly until they show understanding with the copyright and close paraphrasing policies.
@Rambling Rambler, as a word of advice, I would be really careful about how zealous you try to pursue copyright violations; there's a really long history of that being taken poorly. I found much more success with clearly showing how and where they copied. You can see how it's typically done with cases at CCI. I was in your shoes really not that long ago and I don't want you making the same mistakes that I once did.Sennecaster (Chat)02:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Karabawan is a new account edit-warring against multiple editors at multiple pages. Therefore, I have blocked them indefinitely and they can explain their issues in an unblock request. If any other editor wishes to unblock in case I have missed anything, please feel free to do so.Black Kite (talk)15:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:1009:A004:E16C:0:0:0:0/64
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Interesting. I haven't seen someone stay allocated to the same Verizon Wireless /64 that long before. Well, I blocked it for a week. Should give you a respite. If not, I can do a wider range block.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)18:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User conduct report: User:Some1
Closing this before the OP talks themself into sanctions. If you need to discuss a move, do it throughWP:RM and on the article talkpage, not at ANI.Acroterion(talk)14:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Summary: On 13 July 2025 at 19:14 UTC−4, User:Some1 moved the article “University of Idaho student murders” to a new title despite a clear preceding consensus not to move it. This appears to be an intentional override of community decision-making.
Evidence
Below is an excerpt from the article’s talk page, with timestamps, plus links to the move diff and the earlier consensus discussion:
;Dahawk04 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC−4):I am trying to understand your reasoning for moving the page when there was a clear vote above that resulted in the consensus of not moving the page which you participated in, so clearly you were aware. I have reverted your move since it was clearly in violation of the discussion above. Could you please explain your thought process here?;Some1 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC−4):The RM above, which you also participated in (Talk:University_of_Idaho_student_murders#Proposed_move_to_2022_Moscow,_Idaho_killings) proposed moving the article to 2022 Moscow, Idaho killings, which failed. I did not move the article to that page, but "University of Idaho student murders", which is more accurate because the murders did not take place on campus. Do you have a problem with that new page title?;Dahawk04 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC−4):The consensus of the discussion was not to move at all. You suggested that in the discussion, which failed. I have a problem with you going against clear consensus.;Some1 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC−4):I mean, I would support moving this article to Murders of University of Idaho students (without the year).;Dahawk04 (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC−4):If you want to move it then you need to follow the instructions that you gave to another user here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Idaho_student_murders#Proposed_move_to_2022_Moscow,_Idaho_killings. You still have not justified why you moved it against the consensus.
I'm not seeing anything in what you've provided that indicates this user violatedWP:CIVIL. Could you please provide some diffs that demonstrate this? On the move; at first pass, I agree it appears to be incorrect, but I haven't dug deeply. Lastly, pulling up blocks from more than ten years ago is seriously digging waaaay into the past and has little or no relevance here. --Hammersoft (talk)00:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Though the main violation would be of WP:BRD. WP:CIVIL would apply due to failure to answer repeated good-faith questions. Despite two polite requests for justification, Some1 pivots without explanation:
“I mean, I would support moving this article to Murders of University of Idaho students (without the year).”
This ignores the specific question of why they overrode consensus, rather than engaging with it.
Under WP:CIVIL:
“Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors.”
“Editors are expected … to be responsive to good-faith questions.”
Although there are no insults, the repeated evasion of direct questions constitute uncivil behavior by these standards. Regarding the historical blocks, while they’re over ten years old, they demonstrate a longer-term pattern of noncooperative editing—which may be relevant context for assessing whether this is a one-off or part of a broader tendency. Let me know if you’d like any further details!Dahawk04Talk 💬00:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
No, they really don't. You can just as readily look at that block log and conclude that the editor has had a clean sheet for over thirteen years. There is a big difference between "This move was against consensus, so it ought to be changed back," and calling for the editor to be blocked over it. Is that the hill you're choosing to die on? Ravenswing00:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi Ravenswing,
Thanks for weighing in. I noted above that the main violation was BRD, but I included all areas I thought were relevant. In my response above, when I mentioned the decade-old blocks, I prefaced with “may be relevant” to emphasize that they serve only as contextual background and not as a call for action based solely on those incidents. Similarly, my phrasing “warning or block” was intended to reflect the full spectrum of potential responses an administrator might consider under WP:BRD, rather than a specific demand for a block. I’m not looking to die on any hill here rather my goal is simply to flag the policy breach (BRD) and provide context. Whether the administrator issues a friendly reminder, a formal warning, or something more is entirely up to their judgment.Dahawk04Talk 💬00:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Per the banner above, ANI is "for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." You reverted the move, so it's not urgent. No evidence that it's happened before has been presented, so it's not chronic or intractable. I doubt this will get to the level of aWP:BOOMERANG, but aWP:TROUT may be in order.
Note that Some1did answer your good faith question. You didn't think the answer was sufficient, but they aren't required toWP:SATISFY you. Finally, it was 14 minutes between the initiation of the discussion and you bringing it to ANI. That doesn't come off as a good-faith attempt to resolve a content dispute. In the future, I think you would do better to try to talk things out for a while before jumping to ANI.EducatedRedneck (talk)03:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
There’s no policy against using AI to rephrase for clarity or civility. What matters at ANI is accurate evidence, neutral tone, and proper citations and not how the wording was drafted.Dahawk04Talk 💬02:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Using AI-generated blather to defend your earlier AI-generated blather isn't helping your case.EEng04:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
That might be your opinion but it is not shared by others who don't believe AI should be used for discussion comments. And digging up decades old blocks seems like an attempt to bias other editors against this editor since they are completely unrelated to an article move. You should have just focused on the undiscussed article move and not try to smear the editor through unsupported allegations of not being CIVIL.LizRead!Talk!02:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Those are your opinions, Liz. The administrators will determine whether the evidence I’ve presented supports the policy violations I’ve cited. I documented factual history and policy breaches - that’s not a smear, it’s providing relevant context for administrative review.Dahawk04Talk 💬03:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Liz is an administrator. Using LLM and ancient block history to try to settle what amounts to a content dispute (titles are content too) via ANI is a bad look.Acroterion(talk)03:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Beyond the fact that Liz is one of the most active and respected administrators on this board, look around you, Dahawk04. With six other editors besides Some1 chiming in, are you getting any sense thatanyone is agreeing with you here? Ravenswing04:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
And let me just point out: being active on this board while still staying respected is no easy trick.EEng23:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
BTW you only moved back the article and not its associated talk page. Unless that requires a separate consensus and a clean block log (?). —DVRTed (Talk)03:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Suggest this be closed before a boomerang hits the OP for wasting our time with multi-subsection machine-generated walls of text complaining of trivia.EEng04:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
You’re welcome to close it if you feel it’s appropriate, but to be clear, I have not seen a single substantive response refuting the fact that the move in question violated WP:BRD. The issue raised was not “trivia” but a policy-based concern about overriding clear consensus without proper discussion. Also, for the record, none of my comments have been AI-generated.Dahawk04Talk 💬12:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
That's strange, because earlier you were defending the use of AI for discussion comments and doubling down on it when admins said it was not OK. Why didn't you just say so back then?--Atlan (talk)12:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Your responses are replete with transparently LLM generated language, formatting, and punctuation (LLM red flag: listing items in threes).WP:BRD is not a policy or a guideline, but an essay – one which repeatedly, explicitly states that it is optional – and thus 'violating it' is not cause for sanction.Mr rnddude (talk)13:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PawWiki(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)User PawWiki has repeatedly violated Wikipedia's policy against casting aspersions by inappropriately labeling my edits and another user edits as "vandalism".[183][184] This constitutes a personal attack and violates the fundamental principle of assuming good faith. I have warned them firstly not to assume any other editors edits as "vandalism" and is a violation.[185] but they replied with this revert[186] They claim sources such as Washington Post, Reuters as unreliable sources and they keep adding an unreliable source regarding the result of the battle. Isn't that also a POV pushing as well? as well as they keep reverting my edits although I warned them of edit warring inthis page here.R3YBOl(🌲)13:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
If you look at my edits, from before the violation occurred, you will see that i added almost all of the reliable sources. R3YBOl and other trolls changed the whole article without using new sources but instead using mine, which in turn dont even back up the newly written things.PawWiki (talk)14:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
i added almost all of the reliable sources.... R3YBOl and other trolls changed the whole article without using new sources PawWiki continues to cast aspersions by calling me a "troll" - exactly the problematic behavior I reported. To clarify: I made reverts to remove content sourced to unreliable outlets like ARK News. Other editors previously added the reliable sources regarding the battle's result (Washington Post, Reuters, RFE/RL) then later PawWiki appeared, they removed all of these sources and re-added "Ark news", accusing others (including me) as vandalists.The fact that PawWiki is still using personal attacks like "troll" in their ANI response proves my point about their inability to assume good faith or engage constructively.R3YBOl(🌲)14:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
R3YBOl and other trolls doubling down on the aspersions (here of all places) is a step too far. I will also note that PawWiki has violated the 3R policy (4 reverts in less than an hour).M.Bitton (talk)15:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The userUser:R3YBOI has been engaging in edit warrning
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:8806:9192:6D00:0:0:0:0/64
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The CU data is stale by now, but that's obviously still the same person evading an indefinite block. Policy prevents me from saying who it is, but it's kind of obvious once you've looked at the CU log for this IP range. Blocked again, for a year this time.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)11:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They routinely remove vast chunks of content from pages without explaining why:[189],[190],[191],[192],[193],[194], these aren't the only cases but you get the idea.
They've never used any talk page including their own despite having been warned there around nine times at present count leading me to think they don't understand the discuss part ofWP:BRD.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user, after getting blocked for posting accusations about various WP editors in mainspace, proceeds to post the same stuff on their talk page and changes the names to whoever reverts them. I think this IP should have TPA revoked.Weeklyd3 (talk)05:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, and it looks like multiple editors are telling you your explanation is not good enough. You're getting close to anedit warring block now too. You need to stop reverting and start discussing on the talk page immediately.Sergecross73msg me15:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Also, what is the purpose listing the byte numbers? In my third edit, I removed a section consisting of synthesis and OR. Big number or not, we shouldn't keep it. I started a discussion on the TACO talk page and you have yet to answer.🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk)16:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Again, ANI is not the place to discuss content issues. That's what the the article talk page is for. Keep discussing there and stop making reverts that are clearly not supported by anyone else there until there is aWP:CONSENSUS on how to proceed.Sergecross73msg me16:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The content is being put into question. IdanST rule-breaking by adding a section consisting of WP:SYNTH should be put into question🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk)17:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Great. So, content disputes don't belong at ANI. And judging by the way you started your last comment as "The content is being put into question", you yourself have conceded this pretty clearly. So stop bring it up here, and keep discussing on the talk page. Thanks.Sergecross73msg me17:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I want to thank the editors and admins who have already commented here, because I have some serious concerns, as one of the editors who discussed these edits at the article talk page, and who did a part of the reverting. I've been seeing a lot of dubious conduct by this editor, in a way that seems to reflect a tin ear for what I would regard as common sense in dealing with contentious subjects. Please see, for example,Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Not everything Hitler does deserves an article, where a consensus was just reached to move an essay out of project space and back into user space. I was bothered enough by the edits at the Trump page, along with the shrug-like "K" that is also visible just above, that I gave a CTOP warning yesterday:[195], and I suspect that this may need to go to AE if it doesn't get resolved here. --Tryptofish (talk)19:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
What does flippant mean in this context? Also, I will try to collaborate with people more often, I have already opened dicussions on most of the edits here on the talk page of Trump Always Chickens Out.🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk)01:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
It's your prerogative to delete warnings on your own talk page. I was just making sure that Tryptofish/others saw that you received said warnings.Sergecross73msg me19:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Soomra dynasty
An editor @Maruf Sumra on theSoomra dynasty article is refusing to engage in theWP:BRD process and is repeatedly removing sourced content from the article for the past week. They have been reverted by myself and another editor on 4 occassions and I have made attempts for them to discuss this on the article talk page here:[197]
I have also warned them on their own talk page twice:[198][199]
Please can this be looked into as I know there are more than 24 hours between edits however the same mass removal of content is still being repeated.
Maruf Sumra appears to have tried to engage in discussion after this report was opened by making content arguments on their user talk page. Maruf Sumra, please note that other editors are unlikely to respond to article-specific content arguments there; the appropriate place to make suggested changes and discuss disagreements would beTalk:Soomra dynasty. If you start a discussion there and refrain from re-instating you prior edits that other editors have objected to until you reachconsensus there, I think the issue raised in this report can be considered resolved.signed,Rosguilltalk17:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I have not looked into anything else in the original post, but please note that there is nothing in itself wrong with removing sourced content. Not everything that can be reliably sourced belongs in an article. Please talk about it,Maruf Sumra, on the article talk page.Phil Bridger (talk)22:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
User:D2sk
Although there has been no discussion here, reading over the editor's talk page, it looks like they have been given stern warnings that put this issue to rest. Feel free to reopen if the edit-warring continues or go toWP:ANEW.LizRead!Talk!03:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I've been told to come here by a senior editor before we start edit-warring. I think it might be premature of me to do this since I haven't warned on their talk page but I'll leave that for you to decide.
I am writing about this user who is making large edits using ChatGPT or an equivalent AI tool. This appears to be a new user, at least I don't see any evidence of it being a sockpuppet:Special:Contributions/D2sk
These edits contain redlinks (categories and in prose, even rewording links that were previously blue so now they are red) and a shortage of bluelinks. They remove swaths of text, relevant imagery, and the AFC submission template that asks not to be removed. The edits are somewhat overcited, with certain references not supporting the arguments they are next to. The text exaggerates, e.g. claiming the Commander X16 received "widespread attention from [...] technology media" which is subjective - in my opinion, the attention was not widespread. The user does not review edits before publishing them, e.g. older edits contain Markdown and a "Let me know if you'd like..." message from the AI assistant.
Now, it's not all bad. The citations do seem to exist and there's possibly some improvement to be found in them. Some aspects of the edits are also neutral, e.g. changing the cite dates from YYYY-MM-DD to MDY, the number of spaces in infobox parameters or the order of lists. But there are so many issues that it would be easier to revert these edits and incorporate any improvements than to try and fix up what the AI has written. Unfortunately, this user does not take kindly to me reverting this, even writing "Please do not undo edits just because you don't like them," in a discussion I'm not a part of.
While their contribution history is short enough that I think you'll be able to find this for yourself, if you would like me to give more precise evidence of any of these claims then you're welcome to ask. I don't want to write too much here, nor waste too much of my own time on this.
For disclosure, my connection to the Commander X16 project is I am in its Discord/forum communities and have written some small experiments for the computer. I would like to see its draft article looked after. Compute!'s Gazette I know practically nothing about, so I have no bias in favour of or against it. Despite their edit summary, I did not revert their X16 edit for the inclusion of this, but rather everything else previously mentioned.
On that note, I have my concerns that this author doesn't have a neutral point of view. You will see all their edits revolve around Compute!'s Gazette magazine. I can't confidently say who is behind the account but I saw a Discord message last night sent shortly after the big Commander X16 page edit: "It [Commander X16] got stalled last year in being published. But someone from over with gazette community is more familiar with all that, and is offering to get it published. If anyone has time to review it, I'll let them know later tonight to go ahead"Here for the one billionth edit (talk)14:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Update: After observing the edit war going on between himself and another user on the Compute!'s Gazette page, I foundSpecial:Log/D2sk. If those are his own details he filled the user page with, that matches up with the Patrick Bass name that keeps getting put back on the article under "Regular contributors" for the magazine's revival. This supports my NPOV hunch.Here for the one billionth edit (talk)19:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Help needed with unhelpful/disruptive edits from I64 range
Over the past couple of months, the I64 range2604:3D09:182:5900:0:0:0:0/64 has made numerous problematic edits to short descriptions of astronomy-related articles. These changes are all specifically about the constellation of astronomical objects, which are considered secondary in most cases and not important enough to include them in short descriptions. In some cases, these changes are wrong, misleading, or disruptive (1, or the engagement in a slow edit war at2,3,4 and5). Many of their edits have been reverted; others have not, in some cases because nobody is watching those pages.
I don't quite know what to do. The IPs, while clearly belonging together, rarely make more than single edits individually, so warning any single IP seems pointless. While I had previously come across some of their edits (and reverted them), it actually took me from February until today to notice that these were all from the same IP range and followed the same MO.Renerpho (talk)00:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
A few observations. I left the required notification for this discussion on their most recent talk page. I do see a long history of problematic editing within the range. However only one IP has been warned. While it is possible that the warnings might not be seen, or perhaps they will be ignored, we still need to issue them because we don't know. As of right now I am not inclined to see this as actionable. However, that could change if additional warnings are issued w/o effect or response. -Ad Orientem (talk)03:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
This person has clearly used LLMs to create several articles featuring hallucinated sources, several times, without changing behavior, as evidenced bytheir talk page.
They have also used LLMs in edits, again with hallucinatory content:
This edit which tries to use a random English study guide to justify a claim about gambling law.
This edit which adds a source (the URL featuring?utm_source=chatgpt.com) discussing the death of Maurice Costa, when the previous claims are about Louis Memmi.
This edit with a (yet again ChatGPT-provided) reference to "Academic Kids," a Wikipedia clone. In fact, the reference is to a clone of the very article they are editing.
This user has on several occasions had articles rejected or drafted on the basis of using LLM content and yet continues to use LLMs, adding a significant amount of erroneous material to Wikipedia. It seems to me this may merit action by an administrator.Altoids0 (talk)05:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi! Oh, I am very sorry, I didn't realize I couldn't use AI. Also I honestly didn't know that AI makes up sources. I most definitely didn't mean to do anything that would cause harm to Wikipedia. I believe it's my lack of knowledge about both Wikipedia rues and how AI works that caused this situation. I will educate myself better and won't use AI anymore. Really sorry to have caused the trouble.Rynodex (talk)09:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for replying! Demonstrating good faith here would also require you assisting in the reversion or correction of these edits. As well, if you could state which of your edits were LLM generated, that would be helpful.Altoids0 (talk)17:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Sure! I already started going through all of my my edits and correct those that were LLM generated. Will do more. Sorry again!Rynodex (talk)18:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Handan Sultan’s birth date
MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) User has been repeatedly adding unsourced content aboutHandan's birth date as “1565” to already sources birth date “1570”, despite requests to fully cite the source before editing they state that “other historians” cite different birth years “1566/67/71” without actually naming them or having a source to support this claim. PerWP:BURDEN, the material has been removed multiple times, but user is persistent and appears to try to engage inedit war. When asked to fully cite their information they claim that “they will when they find it”, similar argument happened back in June with another user and same claim was made by the reported user.Melty love (talk)08:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I quote your recent statement regarding your motivations for deleting content: "No page given, till you find it dont add anything, thanks", which could actually be considered a warning. Since the edit way is free, and since this is a free encyclopedia, and also since I known how to edit, how to behave, I must work in the proper way I consider to be more appropriate. Deleting content based on such a motivation (not page given) is inappropriate. Accepting the work of the others is a must: since everyone has a different way in which he/she edits, we must respect how they do as such, without lack of respect or a very childish behavior. The important thing is to bring a source, and since i do this every time, I don't really understand your motivations. I don't come to know asking you to do your work in a different way 'cause I don't like it, and this must be given in exchange. Since that page is consistently vandalized by anonymous, I can't and won't tolerate such a behavior, nor to left the page in a shameful state, nor to receive instructions in how to do my edits.MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk)08:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, not all ways of editing Wikipedia are equal, and the "proper way" is to first have the source to hand (which means that you can provide the page number) and only then to add content to the article.Phil Bridger (talk)08:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Respect must be given to everyone, and being on such an encyclopedia, it must be known that unless you vandalize a page, every edits are welcomed if supported by a source, but there is no rule to order a user to do his/her job in another way. Simply check my contributions on her page, you'll se that the last thing I do is to vandalize it. And since I edit on that encyclopedia, with an account and always providing sources, I could feel a little offended by such insinuations and the freedom that one takes in explaining to the other how to do their job. Since it is not vandalism, my work must be respected like those of the others. Not giving the page at the moment means vandalize? No, and so, as a consequence, the work must be respected. There is no authority that can say "if there is no page, it cannot be here".MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk)08:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
"not all ways of editing Wikipedia are equal": you are right, and the proper is to bring a source, to not vandalize and to not accuse others if you don't like how they do their work.MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk)08:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nobody called you vandal or that you are vandalising her page, your contributions to her article are not excuses to leave unsourced information on the article which can mislead readers. You left the information unsourced for a month without attempting to add the necessary page number and with no page number its harder to verify the information, so its only appropriate to delete it until you properly soruce information.Melty love (talk)09:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, of course, but since I know that the edit way is free, for this motivation I edit in they way I feel is more appropriate and with the material I have at the moment. And also since there is no rule for declaring false a contribution only because the page is missing. I edit thinking only about the well-being of the page.MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk)09:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
From what i could find is that Necdet Sakaoğlu doesn’t appear to give birth year of “1565” on PAGE 219 he lists Handan as one of Mehmed III’s consorts as “VALIDE HANDAN SULTAN [ö. Istanbul, 12 Kasim 1605]” without giving the “1565” birth year same thing for PAGE 211 he only mentions when she died.Melty love (talk)09:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Actually it was from a PDF titled the same same, one of the authors cited was Sakaoğlu. I get your point, I'll try to find it and provide the page and reference so the warning "page needed" will be removed. Also, I'm sorry if my edits passed as vandalism, it wasn't my intention at all, cause I love Handan's historical figure. I'll try to do better.MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk)09:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the ref that you wrote "Sakaoğlu,Bu mülkün kadın sultanları" is not this book:[204]. If that is so, you should write better references, they are there to make it as easy as possible for a reader to check WP-article info, and full author name and year of publication is not too much to ask.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)17:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
From research ive done earlier Sakaoğlu doesn’t mention Handan’s birth year anywhere in his book “Bu mülkün sultanları : 36 Osmanlı padişahi (1999)” he mentions her date of death at PAGE 222, in 2008 one i stated before and for “Mulkun Kadin Sultanlari (2015)” mentions Handan only by name PAGE 190. And gives date of death without (“1565”) as birth year, PAGE 194. While doing my research earlier I couldn’t find works that cite Handan’s birth year as (“1565,1566” etc) i only found one work by independent research thats cites (“1568”) though i dont know if works by independent researchs are reliable and are they allowed to be cited as sources in Wikipedia. In my opinion since Sakaoğlu doesn’t mention the alleged birth year it’s only appropriate to delete material entirely leaving the (“1570”) as it’s properly sourced.Melty love (talk)17:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, when you edit factual content without having the reliable source on hand, either digitally or on paper, you are relying on your memory. And neither your memory nor my memory is a reliable source. When I was a new editor, I once added some content that I "remembered" and later found out I had confused two well-known authors. That was so embarrassing that I still think about it 16 years later. You wrotethe edit way is free, and since this is a free encyclopedia which is true but it is also true that this encyclopedia hasPolicies and guidelines, and among them isVerifiability. So, if you are asked to provide a page number, then please do so on a timely basis and do not argue with the editor who made a reasonable request for the page number. OK?Cullen328 (talk)16:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Especially when they have this prominently displayed at the top of their user page "Please note: Before you come to discuss with me, prepare an argument well. I will not listen to any personal opinions not supported by sources, in general."Canterbury Tailtalk18:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
@Cullen328 I understand your point. At the moment I can't really find the work I'm talking about. As you say, it's better not to go on by memory. I'll check and if I find the work, I'll add it. If I can't, I'll delete the year. Actually I added the reference quickly, really not providing the year, nor the link; now at the moment I haven't saved it, and I'll try to find it again.
@Canterbury Tail Yeah. That's a sort of motto I base myself on. And I try to behave based on it, but sometimes it is difficult. I always bring sources, but I recognise that maybe sometimes I should check them well with all the informations regarding them.
@Melty love As I said before, I will check for the right source, and If I can find it again, I'll add it. If not, I'll delete the birth date. As I told you, I'm sorry.
User:Dustfreeworld is continuing toWP:LOUTSOCK after their 2-week block a few months ago. An IP geolocating to the same location as before, is reinserting individual air pollutants into the first paragraph of the leadnew IP,similar edit from account,old IP evading tban. Just discovered that the old IP has been following me offwiki, and edited the articleDWARS, an organisation I was involved in years ago, and ME-related articles I've been working on after the block. A bit creepy if I may say so. Time for an indef?—Femke 🐦 (talk)08:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I find that unlikely for both IPs, as the old one edited last September on topics around dust and health[208], when DFW wasalready topic banned from medical content. The new one is able to edit rapidly in air pollution, showing high familiarity with the article and sources. Also behavioural matches, such as copying a lot from public domain sourcing[209],[210]. Behaviour, content and geolocation match: that quacks like aWP:DUCK.—Femke 🐦 (talk)09:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Based on interests, edit summaries, and geolocation (to a place DFW has long edited about), I'm convinced to a sufficient degree to block. I will block DFW for a month, which is what I usually go for on first-offense socking + TBAN violation. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)10:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Update: I had overlooked the previous 2-week block for TBANvio. I went back and forth between a 1mo sockblock and an indef-with-first-year-AE, but I couldn't convince myself that any of the IP's edits wereclear-cut TBAN violations. Very much nibbling around the edges, but not directly talking about medicine. Still, it was clearly avoidance of scrutiny, so I went with the 1mo sockblock. I have no objection to any other admin converting that to indef, and would probably support a CBAN at this point. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)10:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Afrika1997
The editorUser:Afrika1997 is a disruptive editor who changes the ethnicities of biographical pages and towns without providing reliable sources. Hisfirst edit included changing content with no explanation. I left messages on his talk page beginning on28 April 2025 about the importance of adding sources for making changes on an article but he hasn't been cooperative. On 29 June, he made unsourced changeshere andhere which I reverted. On 6 July, he made a change with no source to back it up, onthis page. OnVice President of Ghana, he added a disputed tag to asource and prompted adiscussion on the talk page. His argument is that former Vice President Kow Nkensen Arkaah, listed in the article is of Guan ethnicity, which goes contrary to what the given published book source states.
I engaged with him to provide reliable sources if he wants to make changes but he shared sources on the talk which have nothing to do with the former Vice President. He gathered random sources to make his own conclusion and I informed him that is original research and WP:SYNTH. Examples of his WP:SYNTH arguments arehere,here as well ashere. After back and forth, I came to an agreement that Iwould add a "Qualify evidence" tag to the source he is challenging in the article. But if he plans to change content, then he must provide sources that explicitly say what he wants to change. This has been ignored. Now he adds "false citations" for his edits on the page as these sources he provided fail verification. This has turned into disruptive editing and I don't want to engage in it. On the most recent edit history of the page, hechanged content and provided sources that do not say anything about the content he added.Kwesi Yema (talk)15:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:LVLewitinn I recently placed a COI template onUser:LVLewitinn's user page. In response, they posted a message on my talk page containing personal attacks and insinuations regarding my mental health, motivations, and location. This is clearly in violation ofWP:CIVIL,WP:NPA, andWP:HARASS. The message can be found here:[217]. I am requesting administrator intervention.LegalTech (talk)22:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Please note that posting at ANIrequires you to also notify the editor complained of, using the template noted at the top of this page. I've since done this for you.Andy Dingley (talk)22:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP editor on Talk:Kayli Mills
This complaint was painful to read, just constant bickering and for those of us not involved with the subject, it seemed completely childish and pointless. If a stray IP account pops up to stir things up, tell The Bushranger and I'm sure they can play whack-a-mole.LizRead!Talk!06:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the event you are not Seanlaraway,WP:MEATPUPPET is relevant, such as the part that saysA new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.Link20XX (talk)04:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
As much as I love the cute names you give out (I would buy a meat puppet if they had one for sale somewhere), I don’t really have the motivation or care to edit anything on this website. I pretty much got all the info I needed to come to the conclusion that I can’t really trust this site.2605:8D80:6C28:3A04:CD9D:214D:98EE:9909 (talk)04:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
From my knowledge, the IP user is referring toSeanlaraway, who has been identified with a conflict of interest. From what was mentioned onTalk:Kayli Mills, a right-wing grifter against the2024–2025 SAG-AFTRA video game strike made a video on YouTube covering Laraway's involvement on the Wikipedia page.
I personally have never interacted with the YouTuber or the video game / voice acting community in any manner. Honestly, I feel like the blame is misdirected. If anything, the editors and I have agreed to remove information regarding Kayli Mills' involvement in the strike due to lack of reliable sources and I also pitched out solutions for the IP user on how Mr. Laraway could get his information to a reliable source, but the IP user has continued to attack us.lullabying (talk)01:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Please stop spreading misinformation. Several times, I tried to clear the air with you. You not only dodged the issue, but several times went over my head and posted on other places with misinformation. Not only that, accusing me of being Sean themselves, making the real Sean have to come and clear the misconception.2605:8D80:6C22:CA07:20A8:3937:2EB5:86E5 (talk)02:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I kind of find it hard to believe that you were clearing the air with me when almost all our interactions were just you accusing me of having a bias, even though I was offering you venues of getting the information you want onto the page. I'm happy that the real Sean Laraway allegedly came out to clear the misconception, but you are not doing him any favors by repeatedly attacking the editors.lullabying (talk)03:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
What other misinformation was there, then? You certainly aren't clearing the air, and all you've been doing ishounding my edits just to argue with me. This does not help the conversation at all. I've given you options on how you can get what you want to communicate onto the articles. Like I said, I am open to helping you get the information you want on the article, but I cannot do so if you're going to behave like this.lullabying (talk)03:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Please reviewWP:HARASSMENT. When someone is in violation of that policy it is not improper to say so directly, though admittedly other approaches are sometimes advised. You are well aware that what you are doing is uncollegial. If you persist you will be blocked simple as. Responding with assertions to the effect that everyone else is wrong and also have even worse behavior merely comes across to external observers as childish, and as a matter of logic is not really a defense at all. I invite you to reflect upon your actions thus far and recalibrate your approach.184.152.65.118 (talk)03:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
If you have some idiosyncratic desire to draw a sanction so you can go down as a matyr in your own head we can't prevent you from following through on it. Just bear in mind you aren't fooling anyone else; all on-wiki statements are publicly reviewable. However, on the off chance you actually wish to influence article content the approach is ill-advised and indeed counterproductive.184.152.65.118 (talk)03:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
If you do not intend to edit further an unambiguous statement to that effect may save some time, assuming it is indeed followed through on, but it is your call.184.152.65.118 (talk)03:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Vanishing should not be used as a means to evade scrutiny. If another COIN is needed it's really not that big a deal, but if sufficiently obvious then it can and should be treated as any other DUCK would be, and it's always possible functionary intervention saves us the bother. Range used thus far is2605:8D80:6C22:CA07:20A8:3937:2EB5:86E5/33 though the WHOIS gives the CIDR as a full /32. Since they've been adequately warned if disruption persists a p-block from the relevant pages can be employed.184.152.65.118 (talk)02:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
After the above discussion, it's clear the IP editor is not here to help improve the encyclopedia. There loooks to be some potential collateral on the IPv6 /33 range given, but that is the narrowest range that appears to cover all of the disruption here; blocked it for a week. The IPv4 address is stale. Keep an eye out for unrelated editors' unblock requests and/or resumption of disruption from outside the blocked range. -The BushrangerOne ping only04:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Correction: it's actually 6 people who have pointed out to this user that they are bludgeoning:EF5,Aydoh8,Kiril Simeonovski,The Kip,Moscow Mule and myself (courtesy pinging them all to increase engagement in this discussion). If 6 people tell someone the same thing, any collaborative editor would likely pay attention, but CFCFOUREVA has not.Joseph2302 (talk)10:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank youJoseph2302 for reporting this here. I can only add that this seems like a scrutiny-evading single-purpose account, so I agree with the proposed partial block fromWP:ITNC to see if the editor will continue contributing to Wikipedia elsewhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk)11:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Pblocked from ITNC for a week. I see this as the absolute minimum possible sanction based on evidence presented, and I don't have any objection to an admin widening or lengthening the block. The bigger misconduct claims made here and ITNC don't seem justified to me based on the evidence presented so far.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I just closed the FIFA Club World Cup final nomination, as it is clearly not going anywhere. After this user's Pblock ends, we shall see if he returns.Natg 19 (talk)17:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I like how Joseph "increased engagement" to stack the deck. His list of complainants was actually a small but vocal minority, ironically. There were far more participants than that, over 20 it seems. And they not only didn't seem to have a problem with the number/length/content of my posts, they engaged with them on the arguments. Why wasn't that taken into account? That's pretty good proof I wasn't BLUDGEONing, is it not? And that the minority who said I was, were merely the ones who saw a threat to their positions if extended back and forth was had. Look at Kiril Simeonovski for example - the longer the exhanges went on, the more exposed he became. It's clearly not an invitation-only tournament, but he clearly didn't think it was important to find that out before he dismissed it as lacking credibility. With opinions like that floating around, you need a lot of words and posts to expose it all. It isn't BLUDGEONing, and I was being as careful as I could to ensure I wasn't repeating myself.CFCFOUREVA (talk)23:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I like how yet another person (the admin that partial blocked you) has agreed that you were bludgeoning (7th person to say so), and yet you still won't listen..... perfectly acceptable for me to ping involved editors into a conversation, but then again, you clearly don't understand what is and isn't acceptable on here...Joseph2302 (talk)10:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Well that didn't smell right, so I did a little digging. It didn't take me very long to find out that no, it is totally unacceptable for you to "ping" ONLY the people you knew for sure would 100% support your claim that I was BLUDGEONING.
No worries though, I won't complain. What's done is done. If this is how Wikipedia Administrators do things, who am I to question them?
The fact remains that Chelsea are now officially the world champions of football. Both according to the only authority whose word matters, FIFA, and presumably as a result, also according to all websites devoted to football. With everyone in agreement that whatever other issues that tournament had, lack of footballing merit wasn't one of them.
But if Wikipedia wants to live in a world where that was just a bunch of meaningless friendlies, a nice summer kick about, while the World Cup of national football, and the Champions League and Copa Libertadores in club football, are supposedly the only true bastions of competitive purity, untouched by influences unrelated to footballing merit, good luck with that.
Such views do not persuade me to become an editor of a website that claims to be working against systemic biases and ensuring everyone in the world can take part in the global game.
With the decision made, I look forward to things like the NFL international games being dismissed as mere friendlies, vanity projects or money spinners, based on their location, media coverage and spectator loyalties. If there should ever come a time that there is a specific trophy tied to offshore NFL sporting success. It being recognised throughout the world that "World Champions" is a pretty odd way to described the winner of a wholly single nation league competition.CFCFOUREVA (talk)10:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,User:TheIceman8910 was previously blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing onUnited States invasion of Panama andUnited States invasion of Grenada.Since the block expired, the user has resumed the same pattern of behavior:Removing sourced or stable contentMaking POV or unsourced additionsContinuing to edit war or ignore consensusRecent diffs include:
Given the recurrence of the same editing behavior immediately after a block, I’m requesting that administrators consider whether further sanctions (e.g., a topic ban or longer block) are appropriate.
Because the information is incorrect. There was no Grenadian or Panamanian oppositions during both operations, and the Caribbean police force was after the invasion.TheIceman8910 (talk)18:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
And by the way, who are you to tell others where they can kinda edit maybe actually learning with the actual history is before you actually post something. I would also recommend the editors of this website to block or band permanently StalkerfishyTheIceman8910 (talk)18:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
TheIceman8910 is obviously not here to work in collaboration with other editors. Their call for@StalkerFishy: to be blocked or "band" exemplifies this. It makes no sense and they offer absolutely no justification for this. TheIceman8910's behavior has been incredibly poor. TheIceman8910 restored and reverted a dozen times each on multiple pages always without an edit summary and when blocked for edit warring, they immediately resorted to block evasion and reverted with their IP which led to an extended block. And once that block expired, they immediately returned to edit warring and have reverted three more times again on both articles with no edit summary. Only once they have been taken here do they even attempt to offer half an explanation for there removals but they still show no understanding what they have done wrong and no sign that they'll improve their behaviour.@NinjaRobotPirate: I think you should see this thread as the original blocking admin.86.187.163.35 (talk)17:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent COI editing by Mediascriptor, cross Wiki
I am posting here because it appearsMediascriptor has an undisclosed COI regarding media organizationAntigua.news, and/or its owners/operators. Mediascriptor has denied any connection, claiming they write about Antiguan topics more generally. Their editing history appears to indicate diffferently.
On en.wikipedia, Mediascriptor's edits appear almost entirely focused on pages they have made themselves or where where Antigua.news can be added(I find one recent exception of participating in a unrelated deletion discussion[218]). On en.wikipedia, there are180 references linking back to Antigua.news, 'of which Mediascriptor has made upwards of 160 of these in the last six months'. The linking here raises questions about the source when it comes toWP:USEBYOTHERS.
3. Making pages related to the line of work that the owner of Antigua.news is involved in[224][225]. Many of these pages have questionable notability and sourcing appears to be haphazard. Aprevious page along these lines made by Mediascriptor was redirected.
Mediascriptor has denied being paid for editing, so it may be an instace ofWP:SELFPROMOTE. When previous COI concerns were raised,they have said they are editing "generally on Antigua and Barbuda but rather than general editing. their editing appears clearly focused on promoting Antigua News and or topics related to the line of work the owner of Antigua.news is involved in.
Mediascriptor has argued that A&B's newsclimate is small thus the many refs to Antigua.news are justified. Antigua.news is notWP:USEBYOTHERS to the extent that Mediascriptor is promoting the content. It appears other editors in this topic are choosing to reference other publications, as evidenced by sources to theAntigua Observer, andAntigua News Room.
In summary, Mediascriptor's editing history appears they have an apparent COI with topics related to Antigua.news, its owner and the Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda in Madrid.They do not appear to edit on anything outside these topics, or work on other pages about Antigua not created by them. Despite their claims to edit on Antiguan topics more generally.
Proposal
I would ask Mediascriptorto respond to COI claims about their connection to the Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda in Madrid/Antigua.news/persons involved and disclose their connection to it, and
thatnew articles created by them on these topics utilize theAfC process before going to Mainspace, due to the concerns about unclear notability and their sourcing of their new articles created.
The state ofAntigua.news, which they started, prior to other editors involvement could be charitably described as "less than neutral"[226]. Additionally:
29 Dec – Mediascriptor uploads "Antigua.news.jpg" and "Antigua.news small icon.jpg" to commons[227][228] and adds them to the article[229][230].
7 Jan – both are deleted from commons[231][232] for copyvio.
I was anticipating @Mediascriptor to come up again at some point after the Dario Item discussion, I'm more surprised their sockpuppet block was lifted after only 2 weeks.
I think it's hard to conclude this account is not involved in eitherWP:COI editing orWP:UPE, despite their continued denials. As a reminder, Antigua.news was founded (and is owned?) by Antigua & Barbuda's ambassador to Spain, Dario Item.
3 of Mediascriptor's first 5 edits ever on en.wiki were to add thenow-deleted Dario Item to lists of notable alumni of various universities:[236][237][238].
Edit #7 more than 10 months later was to create theAntigua.news article; in the edit summary, they tied the site explicitly to Dario Item and mirrored the site's promotional language ("delivering comprehensive coverage of current affairs", "offers timely and relevant information, insights, and analyses").
Immediately after creating Antigua.news, they then edited a series of pages linked to the nowalso-deleted Giacomo Merello:Lord Leslie (Merello's title),Marcella Bella (Merello's mother), andGianni Bella (Merello's uncle). Why is this relevant? Because Merello is a business partner of Dario Item, and I can't think of many reasons why an uninvolved editor interested in Antigua & Barbuda should be on those pages within their first 20 edits.
They voted 'Keep' with extensive explanations about supposed notability on AfD discussions on Dario Item,Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland) (Item's title), and Giacomo Merello.
As @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four points out, the Commons upload of the logo is incredibly suspect, given what else we know about their contributions.
In several editing sprints in January, February, and June, adding links to Antigua.news constituted the majority of their edits, e.g. 7 of 12 edits on 22 January ([239],[240],[241],[242],[243],[244],[245]), or 9 of 12 edits on 30 January (I will spare you the diffs). This underlines the single-source pushing which @Nayyn points out.
While an over-reliance on one source could be written off as inexperience (in an "if all you have is a hammer" way), their editing history on Antigua News' owner and his business partner, and their Commons contributions imply otherwise. I think it's pretty clear they have direct ties to Dario Item, Giacomo Merello, Antigua News, or all three. I won't speculate what those ties are.
Within their first 500 edits, they have managed to be blocked for COI related to the same page on another Wiki, been hit with a copyright violation, been banned due to meat/sockpuppeting, and are now poorly using AI ([246] (they blanked the warning from their user page),[247]). I'd say this user isWP:NOTHERE. —Arcaist(contr—talk)19:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Children Will Listen, I see you've G5 tagged some of their articles[248][249], but they aren't currently G5 eligible. The first sentence ofWP:G5 is"This applies to pages created by banned or blocked usersin violation of their ban or block", this has not yet occurred.
ChildrenWillListen, you are actually a very new account, so please double- and triple-check policy before you take action.LizRead!Talk!03:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry I apparently I missed a few things due to @Mediascriptor's practice of blanking their talk page, which I'll include here.
In 2020, they made a Wikipage for Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Madrid[250] which was turned down at AfC. So the connection to the entity that owns Antigua.news predates the existence of Antigua.news itself.
In January of this year, @Gitz6666 first raised the question of COI with Mediascriptor on their talk page about editing related toAntigua.news, Dario Item or other subjects[251]. This was around the time their article submission for Antigua.news was denied.[252] Mediascriptor said there was no connection[253], Gitz kindly responded to share the connected contributor template[254]. Mediascriptor again denied a link[255]. Gitz followed up to explain further about the policy[256]. The following day @Mediascriptor blanked their talk page.[257]
In February, @PARAKANYAA nominated one of Mediascriptor's articles about the Stanford case for deletion.[258] The result was pretty clear about psudo-biographies/ no notability.[259] Since then, Mediascriptor went on to write 2 more psudo-biography articles about figures from the same caseGilbert Lopez andLeroy King (Antigua and Barbuda).
Five days after @Asilvering lifted Mediascriptor's block, @Jlwoodwa notified Mediascriptor about article creation with LLMs.[260]. Mediascriptor blanked his talk page right afterwards.
There is not a question that Mediascriptor is unaware of the policies at this point. It appears they are choosing to disregard them.Nayyn (talk)14:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Before discussing the specific accusations made against me by Nayyn, I want to clarify that every quotation or citation from Antigua.news in my edits is clearly relevant to the context in which it appears and is usually balanced by other reliable sources. This is an indisputable fact. Additionally, I want to emphasize that there is no evidence of paid or undisclosed conflicts of interest.
1. Open topic focus, not concealed interest
I am a declared member ofWikiProject Antigua & Barbuda. The project’s explicit aim is to "expand coverage of all Antiguan and Barbudan topics". Providing well‑sourced material on local institutions—including media outlets—is literally the task I signed up for. Topic focus, openly declared, is "not" a conflict of interest.
2. Balanced sourcing—what Nayyn leaves out
I also created pages that contain no antigua.news references at all. Nayyn omits every one of those pages, then claims I “edit only where the site can be added.” That selective framing speaks more about its objectivity than about my edits.
Take a quick tour of my recent pages and the “Mediascriptor = Antigua.news shill” storyline unravels:
Gilbert Lopez (now proposed for deletion by Nayyn !),Antigua and Barbuda Digital Assets Business Act (now speedy deleted),Mark Kuhrt (now merged to Standord Financial Group) —zero links to "Antigua.news"; sourcing is DOJ filings, Government Gazette, FATF papers, Reuters, and SEC exhibits.
Criminal Law in Antigua & Barbuda (now speedy deleted)—one citation fromAntigua.news, one fromAntigua Observer, plus Privy‑Council case law and Commonwealth sentencing data.
Antigua and Barbuda Financial Services Regulatory Commission (now speedy deleted)—again, a single line from each local outlet, padded with IMF and Commonwealth‑Secretariat documents.
3. Why only two local outlets meet WP:RS
Antiguaobserver.com andAntigua.news are theonly Antiguan publishers indexed by Google News—an essential reliability signal.
“AntiguaNewsRoom.com” lacks a physical newsroom in the country, hides ownership, with anonymous by‑lines, no masthead and re‑syndicates aggregated press releases—failing WP:RS and WP:RSLOCAL on several counts.
AntiguaObserver’s website output has shrunk as resources shift to its radio arm; multiple reporters have moved to ABS Television (seehttps://antigua.news/2025/07/02/abs-grabs-two-journalists-from-observer-media-group/). When Observer has no online article, "Antigua.news" is often theonly verifiable local source—precisely the scenario WP:RSLOCAL anticipates.
4. No undisclosed COI—record is airtight
I am not paid, hired, retained, or otherwise induced byAntigua.news, its owners, or any related entity. Level‑one policies require evidence—diffs, reliable sources, or CheckUser data—before an editor alleges undisclosed paid advocacy (seeWP:ASPERSIONS andWP:PAID)
No critic has produced a single diff showing promotional language that survived community review.
5. Detailed answers to every claim in the Nayyn’s complaint:
Embassy photo upload = affiliation? I took a snapshot of the Antiguan embassy building from a public street while travelling and donated it to Commons. Taking a photo of a façade is not an employment contract and has zero COI implications.
The photos uploaded to Common had been taken from the websites of the respective subjects and were copyright free. The relevance of this argument is therefore unclear.
Cross‑wiki creation = promotion? Each draft went through local review: accepted on EN and DE, tagged for style on FR, deleted on IT for lack ofItalian‑language sources—community scrutiny working as intended. On IT WIKI, I also rewrote part of the page on Prime Minister Gaston Browne without any criticism being made.
Italian seven‑day block proves guilt? Italian Wikipedia: article deletion was for notability, not COI, and the block was brief. TheAntigua.news page was deleted after a routine AfD in which participants found an insufficient number ofindependent sources in Italian; the closer’s rationale was “non enciclopedicità”, not COI. My concomitant seven‑day block (later narrowed to one AfD) has long since expired.
“160 of 180 links” statistic? A quick scan of the list shows that first part of antigua.news citations were added byother editors; as I already said, the outlet is one of only two Antiguan newsrooms indexed by Google News and is therefore routinely used by multiple contributors when covering local events. Furthermore, a large share of the hits comes from theAntigua.news Wikipage itself, where self‑referential citations are standard practice to document the subject’s activity. In articles created or expanded byme, every antigua.news citation is context‑relevant and is balanced by references toAntigua Observer or other regional and international sources, demonstrating no intent to overweight a single domain.
“Stuffing” the Antigua and Barbuda Hotels & Tourism Association (now speedy deleted) page? Page has 15 references, eight areAntigua.news, each supporting exclusive quotes. The rest are other media.
Murders of Yenifer Bridge and Chantel Crump (now speedy deleted) are WP:TOOSOON? Both deaths triggered national policy changes and PM statements; coverage appears in Observer, ABS TV and Barbados Today—meeting EVENTCRIME notability.
Multiple socks? SPI found onlyMediascriptor ⇄Royalorders; all other named accounts were “misses.”
“No third‑party uptake” soAntigua.news is unreliable? AntiguaObserver, ABS TV,Caribbean Journal, El Pais, Reuters, Financial Times, die Weltwoche, Insideparadeplatz, Finews etc. citeAntigua.news exclusives—precisely the independent uptake WP:USEBYOTHERS looks for.
I would like to express my sincerest apologies in advance if I inadvertently overlook any pertinent details in my forthcoming commentary.
It is with a heavy heart and deep sense of disappointment that I reflect upon the unanticipated and rapid deletion of my recent articles on the platform. Each fact presented within those articles has been diligently supported by sources that I have painstakingly researched and meticulously verified. Moreover, these sources have undergone several improvements and updates over the course of the last few days, all of which were aimed at enhancing the quality and accuracy of the content.
Furthermore, I was genuinely gratified to receive a public thanks for my efforts in creating the Antigua and Barbuda Tourism Authority page. This raises the rather perplexing question of how anyone could contend that the content of the page is promotional in nature, especially when it pertains to a public institution that plays a significant role in the region’s tourism industry.
What I find to be most astonishing, however, is the remarkably swift deletion of the pages titled "Death of Chantel Crumps," "Death of Achazia James," and "Death of Yenifer Bridge." These pages were crafted entirely by me and were not the product of any large language model or other automated system. Every single fact presented within those entries is substantiated by reputable, independent sources; I have neither imported any copyrighted text nor fabricated a single piece of information. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that these pages had already been evaluated by other editors and even by an administrator, receiving the necessary assessment that lent credibility to their existence. Thus, the decision to proceed with the speedy deletion of these pages, rather than engaging in constructive dialogue on the corresponding talk pages, completely baffles me and seems utterly nonsensical. The same applies to Nayyn's request yesterday to delete the pages of Gilbert Lopez and Leroy King (Antigua and Barbuda). No words.
Over the past two years, I have devoted considerable effort to expanding a multitude of pages concerning Antiguan politicians, notable individuals, and institutions. I have been fortunate enough to receive public thanks for my contributions. Throughout this entire process, I have always acted in good faith, driven by a genuine desire to enrich the content of the encyclopedia. Therefore, I am unable to mask my dismay at having the principle of WP:NOTHERE invoked against me.
I believe I will bring my thoughts to a close here, as I have reached a pivotal decision to cease my contributions to EN Wikipedia moving forward. Given this realization, I feel there is little merit in continuing this dialogue. Regrettably, I have come to perceive Wikipedia as an increasingly hostile environment for my endeavors, characterized by persistent personal attacks. To maintain the motivation to write, one requires both peace of mind and a minimum level of gratification, neither of which I currently find in this space. Thus, this message will serve as my final post. I extend my heartfelt thanks to all those who have engaged with me during my time here.Mediascriptor (talk)19:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Just responding to one aspect here: the it.wiki blockwas indeed for COI, andtheir request for unblock demonstrates further it.wiki community reasoning regarding the block and its appeal. My general sense of that discussion is that editors did not find Mediascriptor's explanations particularly persuasive, although editors ultimately expressed a willingness to extend good faith and allow them to return to editing following the expiry of the block provided that problems did not continue. In particular, Mediascriptor was admonished,L'utente è avvisato che l'eventuale introduzione di antigua.news come fonte in altre voci, se non appropriata, ed eventuali nuovi indizi di conflitto di interessi potrebbero inficiare la sua dichiarazione negativa e/o essere valutati come spam; è quindi invitato a rileggere le linee guida WP:COI e WP:SPAM.signed,Rosguilltalk21:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I collapsed the above comment by Mediascriptor as beingLLM-generated perWP:AITALK, they reverted this[261], I've now re-collapsed it. I have absolute confidence their reply has been model-generated, they are welcome to formulate another response in their own words. Should they revert again I will not edit war to keep it collapsed.(update 07:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC))Theyre-reverted.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)21:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
It certainly checks some boxes: the numbered sections with their neat little headings, the abrupt style changes between sections, and the dreaded em dash. AI use is not what the ANI was about, but it doesn't instill confidence that this is an editor who's here for the right reasons. —Arcaist(contr—talk)22:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
The COI seems obvious and I appreciate Nayyn for putting this report together. I support determining that Mediacriptor has a COI with Antigua.news and Dario Item. It is also highly likely that there is some kind ofUPE going on; perhaps the admins involved in the unblock process (especially those who can see the UTRS tickets) have more information on this.Toadspike[Talk]17:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't think I get to decide if things are settled, but if they refuse to communicate and thus remain blocked I don't have any further requests for admin action here. I guess that means this discussion can be closed.Toadspike[Talk]11:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike @Nayyn probably. It can be revisited when and if they file an unblock request
At this point, they've written multiple replies in discussions 100% clearly using LLMs.[263][264][265] They've continued using LLMs to write responses even after being informed that it's not allowed.
For poor sourcing, it's basically every article they've created. I've asked them before to do better with sourcing, and they said ok.User talk:Packer25#Sourcing. They then went on to functionally ignore me and continue creating poorly-sourced articles, including thisWP:BLP:Jeff Connaughton.
Even after all these issues came to light, they went on creating more poorly sourced articles:[266]. Not even slowing down and reflecting on their behavior.
At this point, it's difficult to trust this user's edits. They're delving into conduct issue territory (ignoring asks to follow Wikipedia expectations), and their contributions to Wikipedia are too difficult to trust as being accurate and helpful. Until they recognize why these conduct issues are unacceptable, think ablock is in order.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)22:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I have come here from the AFD and concur a block is the best course of action -good communication andcompetence are required here, and it is evident that this user cannot communicate sufficiently without resorting to using an LLM, even inresponse to concerns over their LLM usage.Patient Zerotalk23:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I have no intention of disrupting Wikipedia, nor of using language models irresponsibly. My contributions, such as the article on Jeff Connaughton, focus solely on subjects whose notability is unequivocal and verifiable through authoritative independent sources. Connaughton is a former senior White House aide, Senate staffer, and author of a widely cited political memoir—clearly meeting WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The accusations from grapesurgeon reflect not an impartial concern for policy, but an emotional and rigid reaction to LLMs themselves—an attitude that betrays a deeper misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s evolving editorial reality. Rejecting any LLM-assisted content outright, even when it is transparently disclosed and sourced from top-tier outlets like The New York Times, Politico, or The Washington Post, reveals an unfortunate conflation of good-faith collaboration with personal gatekeeping. If one even briefly investigates Connaughton's public record, it becomes immediately clear how misinformed and ideologically driven this deletion request is. I aim to contribute high-quality, public-interest content supported by reputable sources. To dismiss this wholesale—and to suppress any voice that deviates from entrenched editorial habits—is reminiscent of the injustices seen in the Dreyfus Affair, where institutional prejudice triumphed over fairness and truth.
I am a Korean contributor whose native language is not English, but I am doing my best to contribute meaningfully to the English Wikipedia with the assistance of an LLM. On the Korean Wikipedia, no one has ever raised an issue with my contributions. Instead of interpreting my use of LLMs as an honest effort to overcome language barriers, you have chosen to view it with suspicion—even in cases where I clearly typed and edited the content myself, with only linguistic assistance from the model (which I must rely on, as I am not a native speaker). If that’s not allowed, then what exactly am I supposed to do? While I respect your right to express concerns, attempting to block me altogether and hiding all of my contributions from public view is an extremely narrow-minded and exclusionary action.Packer25 (talk)23:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Doing a better job sourcing articles is not affected by language. You explicitly ignored me when I asked you to do that. AlsoWP:CIR; if you're not capable of editing enwiki without breaking its rules, imo it's better you make smaller edits. Only make edits you're confident you can make.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)23:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your message, and I truly appreciate your concern. I sincerely apologize if my previous actions appeared careless or dismissive—I fully understand now how important it is to follow sourcing and disclosure guidelines precisely, and I will be extremely cautious moving forward.
All I ask is that my contributions be interpreted with good faith. I am doing my best, as a non-native English speaker, to contribute positively to Wikipedia using the tools available to me, including LLM assistance for language support. Please understand that my intentions have always been aligned with the values of this community.
That said, I feel that making my comments invisible to others and initiating a block request may be disproportionate responses. Nevertheless, I will continue to listen to your feedback, and I am fully committed to respecting the community’s rules and standards. I also plan to continue working on the Jeff Connaughton article, ensuring that all content is properly sourced and aligned with Wikipedia’s policies.Packer25 (talk)23:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
It really should not have taken this long for you to admit this was seriously problematic. Instead, you lashed out at me multiple times first. I'm still highly skeptical that you'll do better, given that you're still using LLMs in discussion (not allowed) and that I've already asked you to do better before, you said ok, and then you went back on your wordgrapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)23:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I understand your concern, and I’ll work on improving my English so that I can contribute in a more effective and independent way, even in a limited scope. I’ll also be more careful about relying on translation tools. I appreciate your guidance and will take it seriously.Packer25 (talk)23:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
"More careful" would be not using at all in these conversations. LLMs have a poor record of understanding the rules of English Wikipedia properly. While we have many editors who only speak English as a second or third language, there has to be a basic ability to comprehend and express English without relying on an LLM.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)00:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
grapesurgeon, you have indiscriminately nominated for deletion articles I created on Na Jong-ho and Jeff Connaughton—as well as others whose notability is objectively clear—without even taking the time to properly review or research the available sources. Do you truly believe your actions are grounded in logic, in the public mission that Wikipedia stands for, or in the universal ethical standards we are expected to uphold? I sincerely urge you to reflect on your behavior from the perspective of a neutral third party, and to consider whether it truly serves the public good.Packer25 (talk)23:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Na Jong-ho I did a quick search and took my nom back after more searching. That's not indiscriminate. Jeff I stand by; the article is way too problematic. If we keep it, I may strip that article down to like a single sentence; basically only the sourced content.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)23:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I urge you to reflect on your actions inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na Jong-ho. Even you ultimately acknowledged the validity of my position once I presented reliable sources confirming his notability—did you not? I am confident that the same conclusion will be reached regarding the article onJeff Connaughton, which you also nominated for deletion. I never contribute to topics whose notability is uncertain. When it comes to notability, the burden of proof naturally falls on those who challenge it. So why do you continue to submit deletion requests so carelessly, without even conducting a basic Google search? Before accusing me of violating any policy, you should also recognize that your failure to perform the most minimal due diligence before initiating deletion discussions is itself a disservice to Wikipedia's public mission. Acknowledging this would be the truly ethical and universally principled thing to do.Packer25 (talk)23:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
...If I already acknowledged that deletion request was made in error, what more is there for me to acknowledge? At this point you're just trying to be mad for the sake of being madgrapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)23:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
grapesurgeon, I would like to ask you directly:why do you ignore such clear evidence and request deletion without careful consideration, when so many authoritative sources and figures—regardless of whether the rumors are true—are focusing intensely on the possibility of Xi Jinping’s removal from power? Even a quick look at the links below makes this evident. How can such an action not be seen as driven by emotion? I want to make clear that I hold you in high regard and will strive to follow your advice going forward. However, I also hope you will reflect on this deletion request, as I believe even you may have something to reconsider in this case.
Around July 2025, rumors regarding the possible removal of Xi Jinping from power began to spread rapidly, prompting coverage from major domestic and international media outlets presenting a variety of perspectives. Newsweek reported on significant changes within the Chinese military leadership, including the dismissal of Admiral Miao Hua and the unexplained disappearance of Vice Chairman He Weidong, noting that the Central Military Commission had been reduced to its smallest size since the Mao Zedong era.[267]
The Washington-based think tank Jamestown Foundation also suggested that ongoing military purges and political developments within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) might indicate a weakening of Xi’s authority.[268]
The South Korean weekly SisaIN cited multiple sources and internal reports indicating that a secret Politburo enlarged meeting was held in May 2025 to discuss Xi's political future, with deliberations over a full or partial retirement, and that Vice Chairman Zhang Youxia was leading a military reorganization possibly aimed at sidelining Xi.[269]
In early July 2025, former U.S. National Security Advisor Michael Flynn fueled speculation about Xi Jinping’s potential downfall by stating on X (formerly Twitter) that “a leadership reshuffle is clearly underway in China, with potentially enormous consequences,” implying that high-level power shifts within the Chinese Communist Party may be signaling a significant weakening of Xi’s grip on authority.[270]
In a June 2025 opinion piece published by the New York Post, former U.S. diplomat Gregory W. Slayton suggested that signs such as internal purges, the sidelining of Xi Jinping’s close allies, and the emergence of General Zhang Youxia as a central military figure point to a potential shift in power within the Chinese Communist Party, implying that Xi’s grip on leadership may be unraveling under the weight of internal resistance.[271]
The Financial Times analyzed emerging signs of delegated decision-making and proposed that Xi might be undergoing a structural redistribution of power, rather than an outright political fall.
In contrast, Chosun Ilbo, citing Taiwan’s state broadcaster RTI and comments from Tsai Wen-hsien of Academia Sinica, reported that there was no observable decline in Xi’s public exposure or status within the CCP, dismissing the rumors as speculative narratives driven by opposition media and former Western officials.[272]
These varied accounts reflect a divergence in reporting, with some media presenting indicators of political vulnerability, while others emphasize the stability and continuity of Xi’s leadership.[273]
The reasons are given in that deletion discussion. This is not the place to discuss that deletion. Frankly I'm getting tired of the continued conduct issues and LLM usage. You really shouldn't be defensive right now. If you continue posting like this I likely won't reply.
To others reading, please contribute your thoughts. This user has given a few apologies above but I don't buy them. Think a block is still appropriate.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)23:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The reason you're refusing to respond is because you've completely lost the logical basis to refute the evidence I’ve presented. Please set aside your emotions and engage in this discussion by presenting publicly verifiable and widely acceptable sources, such as the Newsweek webpage.Packer25 (talk)23:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
...No, I'm not responding because discussions should be held on the respective pages. Post that comment in that discussion andwithout using an LLM and I will respond.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)00:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Post in that deletion discussion. I will not discuss this further here.
To others reading, again, please participate. I'm about done talking with this user now, becoming a drain on timegrapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)00:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I, too, am no longer willing to engage in further discussion, as you continue to avoid constructive, logical, and public-interest-based debate. Requesting a permanent block against an editor is a very serious action that effectively strips someone of their editing rights on Wikipedia. Such a decision should be made only after carefully reviewing the person’s overall contribution history. However, you have sought to have me indefinitely blocked based on actions that are, in many cases, clearly unjustifiable. That is why I am not trying to debate with you on each individual page, but instead, I am asking you here and now to respond to the clear evidence I’ve presented. I am requesting a sincere rebuttal from you regarding the subject’s notability.Packer25 (talk)00:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I, too, am no longer willing to engage in further discussion
I am requesting a sincere rebuttal from you regarding the subject’s notability
I respectfully disagree with your assessment. I contribute to the English Wikipedia using accurate grammar and clear, well-structured English. Almost all of my edits are grounded in verifiable sources and conform to Wikipedia’s standards. If you review my edit history, you’ll see that I have made meaningful and constructive contributions in proper English. Your claim that I “cannot contribute effectively” or that my work “wastes human editors’ time” is wrong. I welcome any fair critique of specific edits, but I ask that you evaluate my work on its actual content, not assumptions.Packer25 (talk)00:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
If Jeff Connaughton, whose life has been thoroughly examined byThe Guardian,The New Yorker, andGeorge Packer(The Unwinding) himself, is deemed non-notable, then that would amount to a highly subjective interpretation of Wikipedia's notability policy. I present the following links as evidence.[277],[278],[279].
By defending grapesurgeon, who nominated the deletion of the Jeff Connaughton article without even conducting a basic web search, I am not asking you to refuse to respond to bots — I am simply asking you to respond with logic.
If yousearch "Xi Jinping ouster" on Google, or search for "시진핑 실각설"in Korean, one finds hundreds of articles focused entirely on the rumor itself, making it impossible to reasonably claim that the topic lacks notability under Wikipedia standards. The evidence is overwhelming. Even if this page is deleted, I sincerely ask that the content be merged into the main Xi Jinping article.
To others reading, I encourage you to stop replying to this user. This user has already been asked multiple times to discuss deletions on the deletion posts themselves, and they keep ignoring that. This is Wikipedia policy btw; you're supposed to keep discussions in the appropriate places.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)00:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
This highlights why you shouldn't be using an LLM; being a high-ranking aide or a staffer most certainly doesnot satisfyWP:NPOL. Grapesurgeon may be getting a little testy, but it's understandable here; he's participating in a conversation with someone else's computer.
Words from you in basic, simple English would be far more valuable here than the stilted, over-ornamented, and hallucination-laden AI slop that LLMs put out.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)00:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Your comment unfairly attacks me rather than addressing the substance of my edits. Using an LLM does not automatically invalidate contributions, especially when they are well-sourced, factual, and written in proper English. Wikipedia policy does not prohibit the use of such tools, as long as editors take responsibility for the content. Dismissing my work as "AI slop" without evaluating its actual quality is both disrespectful and unconstructive. I ask that you focus on the accuracy and reliability of what I’ve written, not on assumptions about how it was written. Thank you.Packer25 (talk)00:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
What you wrote was not, in fact, accurate. If you are unable to comprehend the English that an LLM puts out, then you are unable to stipulate to what the LLM is saying, which is necessary to use an LLM at all. I'm not dismissing your work; as far as I can tell, none of this is your work at all.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)00:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply CoffeeCrumbs. I'll note that I started off nice; my original post on this user's talk page requesting that they improve sourcing was friendly enough. My shift in tone is after this user started having continued conduct issues and actively ignoring and lashing out at me and others.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)00:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I have consistently presented reliable sources from reputable media to support the subject’s notability. Rather than engaging with these verifiable references, you seem to be avoiding a constructive discussion and instead responding in an increasingly emotional and personal manner. I would appreciate it if we could return to a fact-based conversation rooted in Wikipedia’s core principle of verifiability.Packer25 (talk)00:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
My concerns go beyond the deletion discussions. They're also about your LLM usage. Last time I'll engage with you; think there's nothing more to be said.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)00:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
And I have never seen a single case where a person photographed byPlaton (photographer)—specifically for a Time magazine cover or an in-depth media feature after 2010—was considered non-notable by Wikipedia standards. check this link[280]. Why did you request deletion onJeff Connaughton and attempt to have me indefinitely blocked without even conducting a basic search? Is this what you consider a sincere and constructive approach to discussion? Is it fair?Packer25 (talk)00:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
No, I totally agree. I think we've all had this problem when we call the cable company or the electric company and try to get a human on the line. It's extremely frustrating.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)00:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Support block. Waffle-stomp this nugget down the drain and be done with it. We have no use for AI-generated bullshit here.Bgsu98(Talk)00:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Support block. As a side note, it may be an interesting experiment to ask the foundation to host en.llm.wikipedia.org as the English Wikipedia that can only be written and administered using various large language model ai tools with minimal human interaction.104.228.232.109 (talk)01:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Support block I think it's become crystal clear from all the replies that this isn't LLM-assisted editing but LLM regurgitation. I wouldn't be against an unblock at some point if there's a good faith basis for believing that this editor would like to become a human editor.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)02:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Packer25, it is like we are having at least two different discussions here. You want to talk about notability of the subjects of your articles and and the sources you located but every other editor is not focused on article content but HOW you edit, using LLM tools. Please do not wander off into discussions of the AFDs and instead say focused on how you write and research. This is a difficult period of time on the project because the rules about AI are kind of vague. Its use is not banned but the general consensus from the community is that these tools should not be relied upon to write articles here and especially not used in discussions where we expect to here from you, not a bot. After you get back some content from these AI tools, do you review it before it's published, do you double-check all of the sources and rewrite sentences that are confusing?LizRead!Talk!01:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I sincerely understand your concerns. Regardless of the debate over whether the entries I created meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, I acknowledge that some of my editing practices may have lacked the caution and thoroughness expected here. I will take time to review my past contributions more carefully, and I’ll do my best to ensure that there are no issues with the points you’ve raised.Packer25 (talk)01:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm still skeptical of this reply. They don't really acknowledge Liz's specific concerns. Packer25 also doesn't really acknowledge or apologize for the frequent wandering off topic in this discussion by bringing up the deletion discussions over and over, despite being asked to stop multiple times.
I'm against letting this slide. This user has already been asked multiple times to fix their behavior and they've doubled down more times than not. Think these apologies are insincere; they've made insincere apologies in the past already.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)01:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Grapesurgeon, I will not reiterate the inappropriate conduct you displayed—undermining the public nature of Wikipedia, filing a deletion request without conducting even basic research, and seeking to have me indefinitely blocked simply for creating an article about a clearly notable individual—as I have already provided detailed evidence above. I must also express my skepticism regarding your commitment to public interest and objectivity.Packer25 (talk)01:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
This is what I mean about the user not understanding why they're being reported. They think I nominated them because of the articles, rather than the LLM usage and poor sourcing of articles. At this point my nom is also about their conduct issues as well. Their recent reply makes my convictions even stronger. We should block them.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)02:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Support block - from someone relatively outside this discussion looking in, their continued use of LLMs for discussion when they've been told that it's against policy clearly indicates a lack of competence. I don't see much point in continuing to argue this. It's like talking to a brick wall, but the wall is just a computer that regurgitates messages without any substance.UmbyUmbreon (talk)02:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Someone who replies with a straight face to LLM concerns withTo dismiss this wholesale—and to suppress any voice that deviates from entrenched editorial habits—is reminiscent of the injustices seen in the Dreyfus Affair, where institutional prejudice triumphed over fairness and truth is either incapable of reviewing the readout that ChatGPT gave them or just outright trolling.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)01:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
responding with "is either incapable of reviewing the readout that ChatGPT gave them or just outright trolling" without even a basic examination of the facts is either incapable of verifying factual accuracy, is driven by emotional hostility toward the use of LLMs, or is blatantly relying solely on internal authority. As a dispute unjustly targeting an individual, this bears a strong resemblance to the Dreyfus Affair.Packer25 (talk)02:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
In other words you aren't merely using an LLM to translate but are outright having it generate replies. You have really dug yourself a hole here unfortunately. A truly heartfelt apology in your own voice, however mangled the English, paired with a commitment to stop might still change the opinion of other editors, but all you are doing now is giving people reasons to support a CBAN. Please pause and consider your next edits very carefully, bearing in mind that even a whiff of LLM usage will dig the hole deeper.184.152.65.118 (talk)02:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Shame we can't complete the analogy to Dreyfuss by sending Packer and his chatbot to Devil's Island.EEng05:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Noting that after their LLM unblock request was rejected for obvious reasons, they then tampered the closed unblock request withWP:IDNHT drivel andWP:NPA on the rejecting editor[281] and even went as far as to manipulate the time stamp to make it appear their request had been prematurely rejected.Borgenland (talk)06:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd be halfway willing to accept the time stamp as not understanding how timestamps work, but only half, and the rest is just - no. Just no. TPA has been revoked. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user emailed me, but also based on their on-wiki behavior many other editors about creating articles that are not related to their existing editing. This emailing is rather suspicious, and disconnected, especially for a newer account that is not active on other wikis. Maybe needs a review by someone who can look at their logs? I blocked the IP and the User, including stopping them from emailing others,Sadads (talk)13:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
They asked me to create Wikipedia articles, after saying they had contributed to Wikipedia before but hadn't. I suspect they were trying to get me to respond to the email. If you go through their editing history (seeUser:PDoro) their primary activity on all the wikis has been to ask people to respond to emails.Sadads (talk)17:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent, undisclosed paid editing of Morris College
Since their account creation on June 10,HTemoney has only editedMorris College.Our policy against "outing" prevents me from saying exactly why I believe that they are an employee of the college but I trust that other editors can easily draw the same conclusion. They have postedone brief, incomplete statement in the article's Talk page but they have not responded to any questions on their User Talk page or adiscussion opened atthe conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). The COIN discussion has since been archived as there was no response from HTemoney or any other editor. But I'm afraid that their persistent editing in violation of our paid editing disclosure requirement and refusal to communicate means that they need to be blocked; a partial block only focused on that specific article may be the kindest approach.ElKevbo (talk)22:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree that it is very suspicious that after you and others have attempted several times to initiate discussion on their talkpage that they have failed to respond to. Additionally, while it is not necessarily against policy for someone to have an interest in a particular topic or range of pages and therefore have edits corresponding to those accordingly, this person has ONLY made edits on theMorris College page from the inception of the account until now. The edits also seem to be written in a way that an inexperienced paid editor would write them, highly partisan, lots of errors, and a chronic lack of communication. I think a partial block is probably warranted here. Perhaps they can be given the chance to appeal it in the future but I agree that this is very concerning behavior.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)23:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
OP does not want to cross this bridge, and I respect that, but given that the user in question literally put it out there, I will go ahead and say that there is an employee of Morris College whose name matches the username of this editor (I assume this is covered by exception #2,If individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums). This is a pretty clear-cut case of undisclosed CoI. I am not sure they are being paidto edit this article, but they are being paidby the subject of the article. They should be blocked from it and likely TBanned from anything relating to this institution, just in case, at the very least until they acknowledge the issue.Ostalgia (talk)10:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Is there anything that can be done about a persistent IP jumping editor of Pakistani politics? Their edits are not malicious, just consistently dreadful. I've encountered this editor a few times over the years, in batches of activity.
IP based in United Arab Emirates
Only edits infoboxes on Pakistani politicians or parties
Churns through dozens and dozens of edits at a fast pace
Never cites, never summarises
Is completely unresponsive to attempts to communicate with, little point in leaving them messages on their talk pages, because they jump to another on every session.
Incapable of understanding or remembering that there is no parameter "other party" on officeholder infoboxes
Doesn't understand you cannot repeat parameters in infoboxes
Doesn't seem to notice their edits do not work as intended
Had a fascination for adding flags to infoboxes for a while
When reverted, will just return the following day and relentlessly do it all again
Clearing up after them is a wasteful, time consuming task. Some of their edit appear to be ok, I don't know, nothing is cited. Blocking individual IPs after the fact is pointless, they always return on another.
The three given IPs could be covered by a /49 block though the available range is larger, probably a /34 judging from the existing block. Unfortunately I think we may be at the point of soft p-blocking the entire range from mainspace in addition to the one template already on the p-block list.184.152.65.118 (talk)18:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
There's multiple constructive, non-IPA-area edits on the /34, so I'm leery of pblocking that broad a range from articlespace as a whole. I've pblocked the /49 from articlespace, expiring at the same time the /34's passel of pblocks (18:54, 29 October 2025), let's see if that helps. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Eshaan the writer: AI-generation, POV-pushing, and source misrepresentation
TL;DR this editor uses LLMs to fabricate and misrepresent sources and push a non-neutral POV, and then continues to use AI to deflect and obfuscate criticism.
The lesser point in this report is the use of AIs on talk pages, which is indisputable.This conversation withCX Zoom (since removed from the talk page) clearly displays Eshaan's communication with AI ([282],[283]) and without ([284],[285],[286]). The issue has also been brought up byJonesey95 ([287]),Worldbruce ([288]), and myself ([289]). Every time, Eshaan's response has been the same: to deny, dissemble, and dismiss the legitimate criticism with AI-generated replies (!) ([290], [[291], [[292]), and then to subsequently remove the criticism from their talk page ([293],[294]). FWIW, online AI detectors show 90%+ chances of AI generation for most of Eshaan's replies, so you can check for yourself.
Far more serious, however, is the misrepresentation of sources and POV-pushing. This can be clearly seen from just one article,Draft:Motilal Mallik, which I draftified yesterday. As Worldbrucehas pointed out, AI-detector tools show thatthe original text of the page is near-completely AI-generated. To hide, Eshaan has fabricated irrelevant citations, probably with the help of AI:
This source, which claims to verify"The Bengal Volunteers (B.V.) was a clandestine revolutionary organization that rose to prominence in the anti-colonial struggle between 1930 and 1934, following its formative stage which began in 1928", despite having been published in 1920
This source, published in 1922, which claims to verify events which took place in 1934 and afterwards ("Rajkumar Mallik, father of Motilal, who was reportedly offered a sum of ten thousand rupees ...This incident has been cited in various accounts...the legal proceedings and execution in his case have been interpreted by some historians"
This source, which claims to verify"In retrospective analysis, the execution of Motilal Mallik has come to represent...", but which was actually publishedtwo months before said execution.
This andthis source claim to verify the non-neutral sentences"Motilal Mallik emerged as a prominent and unifying figure in the local community. Known for his energetic demeanour and dedication to the revolutionary cause, he played a key role in drawing several young individuals into the movement." However, neither source even mentions Motilal Mallik.
"Haripada Bhattacharya is remembered as one of the youngest and most courageous revolutionaries of the Chittagong uprising, whose assassination of Khan Bahadur Asanulla Khan on August 30, 1931, marked a bold and decisive act of resistance against British imperial repression. His daredevil action, carried out in broad daylight at the Pahartali football ground amidst a heavy security presence, demonstrated extraordinary resolve and commitment to the revolutionary cause. The operation was meticulously planned and executed by Bhattacharya, who was only sixteen years old at the time. Following the assassination, Haripada was captured and subjected to inhuman custodial torture—including beatings, electric shocks, forced starvation, and public humiliation. British forces used him as an example to terrorize the local population: he was paraded through schools and markets, his family members were beaten and tortured, and his ancestral home was burned down. Yet, he did not break under pressure. His stoic endurance in the face of brutal repression became a symbol of the unyielding spirit of India's revolutionary youth.
Source for these accolades for the action of 1931 and afterwards? Why,a book from 1922, of course!
I recommend anindefinite block for Eshaan the writer, based on the above disruptive and tendentious editing on article and talk pages. Their contributions will need careful scrutinizing and possibly a totalWP:TNT. I suspect that every citation they have added in the past few weeks is in some way fabricated. They are welcome to disprove me by pointing to a citation which verifies all the text it claims to.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)10:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay go ahead block me then. Waiting impatiently!!! Thank you for standing up a huge amount of evidence against me. You are really progressing in your objections.Eshaan the writer (talk)10:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
There's a possible defense to it? Either Eshaan the writer has been using LLM to do their edits for them -- in which case this isn't merelytrout slap country, but the need for a team of bruisers to administer seafood justice -- or they've deliberately lied about what the sources say and hoped no one would check up on them, in which case an indef sounds about right. Ravenswing11:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Even their userpage resembles the same tone of AI-generation that was used in the aforementioned conversation with CX Zoom.Sarsenet•he/they•(talk)11:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The LLM and POV issues are outside my area of expertise, but regarding this user's 30 edits ofBirendranath Dutta Gupta, afterthree previous huge additions - yes, it would take a shocking amount of cleanup, if we were to keep that content. Literally hundreds of random words are in bold text.
I understand this is not the primary issue at hand here, but I consider such MOS violations (and there are many, many more; LLM or not, it's just bad work) to be unacceptable from any user with over a thousand edits, and do not indicate someone who intends to improve the encyclopedia, nor to cooperate with others. Eshaan the writer's reply to mehere - "sure just wait i am working on it to get all the stuff fixed" indicates the same; that message is from a week ago, and in that time, the article only continued to get worse.Jessicapierce (talk)12:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
There is compelling off-wiki evidence (email me if you can't find it yourself) thatEshaan the writer edited here before asEshaanbera (indefed on 22 September 2021 byDiannaa for repeated copyright violations), making him a block-evading sockpuppet. It is likely that he also edited asEshaan2006 from 4 December 2024 to 18 March 2025, a period when Eshaan the writer was dormant. A checkuser is desirable to look for sleepers.
Support indefinite block of Eshaan the writer and Eshaan2006. Because of the severity of the POV, verifiability, and copyright problems, recommend perWP:BANREVERT that all pages created by Eshann the writer or Eshaan2006, on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, be deleted, and all their other contributions be reverted. --Worldbruce (talk)16:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
They have some positive contributions, even though authored by AI, but it will be a pain to filter them from the vast expanse of problematic contributions. I suggest draftification of their new articles, to be reviewed or rescued by others, if feasible. A block is merited due to sockpuppetry.—CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})17:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Given the behavioral evidence, it's clear that the connection established by Worldbruce is a valid one perWP:DUCK, even leaving aside any off-wiki evidence. Blocked Eshaan2006 and Eshaan the writer for block evasion. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Request I know Wikipedia and Commons are not same, I mean, what happens in Commons doesn’t matter here. But he uploaded many images for his articles and if I am not wrong, the sources for those images he cites "WB Archives". I guess WB Archive means "West Bengal Archives". But the problem is Why West Bengal Archives has a photo taken in Bangladesh? Or even we assume that WB Archives means "Warner Bros Archives", why these images has no source link? I don't have the time to investigate these. But if anyone can, please look into this (even if this matter is nothing to do with Wikipedia).Mehedi Abedin11:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
@Mehedi Abedin: Not at all suprising because the Archives of the formerBengal Presidency, which included present-day Bangladesh, atCalcutta became the West Bengal State Archives after partition.https://sadte.wb.gov.in/index.php/about states "Apart from the general record series, State Archives possesses special type of records which include old maps, glass and film negatives and photographic prints of intercepted letters, articles and photographs of the freedom fighters."—CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})12:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
@CX Zoom Does West Bengal Archives, an India-based archive, keeps photos from independent Bangladesh of modern times? I don't know,this is a photo from Dhaka, Bangladesh seems taken recently. There is a possibility that maybe even many historical photos he uploaded aren’t from WB Archives.Mehedi Abedin12:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Possibly not. Tbf, I'd think that a professional organisation would've taken a much a better picture than this. This seems like a picture taken by a civilian.—CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})22:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Catolicoantiguo: keeps adding the same information despite opposition
At the articleCarmel Henry Carfora over the last months, theWP:SPAUser:Catolicoantiguo (the user has only ever edited this single article) has kept adding the full succession list of the subject of the article, despite myWP:BRD opposition (here) and my multiple warnings attheir talk page.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have blocked based on the threat about bombs, injecting drugs, etc. I note that the user did not apologise or retract these comments, they only removed them as "You are not worth it". My block is minimal right now, no objections to any admin changing it.Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)16:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
There's a discount when the threat itself suggests you were under the influence of LSD at the time.EEng20:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
LSD? That seemsso 1960s. I was going to suggest ecstasy as a replacement, but realised that it had its heyday in the 1980s/90s. What's the hallucinogenic drug of choice for the kids these days? Ketamine?Phil Bridger (talk)20:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Having looked at this again I agree. I wasn't attempting to lessen the issue (hilarious as always, EEng), but honestly wasn't sure I was understanding the whole spiel correctly. As I noted originally, happy to change as I will now do.Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)20:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't object to the indef block, as there is a lot of disruption going on, but ... are you sure that was a threat? A "weed bomb" is not an explosive, and everything else is kind of incoherent.Floquenbeam (talk)20:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
In any case, there were certainly personal attacks and disruption. But I just would like to see us be careful about defining things as death threats, to avoid making us less sensitive to actual ones.Floquenbeam (talk)21:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure how "real" this editor's comments were. They seemed to be coming from imagination or even intoxication. That's not to say that being under the influence gives you a free pass, it's just that their remarks didn't seem grounded in reality.LizRead!Talk!22:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Championmin was blocked indefinitely from fa.wiki in June from for socking, so the disruption hasn't just been limited to here.--Ponyobons mots22:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I looked at a few of these edits and sometimes there are weeks between your edit and theirs. I'm not sure that qualifies as "following". I mean, they can't be banned from ever editing an article you have edited. If anything, considering the several other ANI complaints you have brought here, this is more likely to end in an IBan which will affect both of you.LizRead!Talk!04:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Are we ignoring this comment[313] where Nghtcmdr is making a rather blatant personal attack and casting asperations, or all the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ICANTHEARYOU(See the older ANIs) shown by them?
@Liz making blanket reverts and resuming debates across a range of articles with the same editor after a two week hiatus seems to me to be a clear-cut case ofhounding. I'm for an interaction ban if that is what will put an end to their transgressions.Nghtcmdr (talk)05:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I currently only look at those I get notifications on.
WP:HOUNDING explicitly statesMany users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor. which my previous reviews constitute under.Thehistorianisaac (talk)05:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Main issue is, the vast majority of Nghtcmdr's edits are problematic in some way or another. They refuse to actually understand the policies they cite and have shown WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, along with personal attacks.[314] Their behavior needs to be addressed immediately.Thehistorianisaac (talk)07:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Hmm... so this needs an independent review from someone not involved in this mess because those are some huge accusationRhinocrat (talk)07:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree; it's extremely questionable that no admin has made any action in regards to the very long list of rule violations by Nghtcmdr; The original ANI documents most of said[315] violations, all of which have yet to be addressed.
At this point I'm beginning to think a 2-way interaction ban is in order. Possibly topic banning both parties from those articles where they've been coming into contact regularly. Because this is at least the third AN/I thread I'm aware of regarding these two. And I haven't really been paying close attention.Simonm223 (talk)12:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The first non-personal article edit you made after your two week hiatus blanket reverted[318] edits that I made, which is a clear-cut example of an editor treating this place as abattleground.Nghtcmdr (talk)11:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Your edits were very clearly disruptive, controversial, lacked consensus, and cited completely misinterpreted policies. This is not "WP:BATTLEGROUND", this is called fixing bad edits. You have consistently attempted to "enforce" misinterpreted policies, of whichMULTIPLE people[319][320] have pointed out.Thehistorianisaac (talk)17:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't respond but I've had my fill of this dispute between the two of you. Neither of you has my sympathy any longer. You've both been told to drop this feud and you can't seem to just let the other editor edit peacefully without tracking their edits, trying to find some fault with them. I think this ANI report is your last chance to let this all go, depending on how this one closes. Neither of you is innocent and if this report is followed up by another report (and another report) where you seek to get the other editor sanctioned, I think you will both be facing long-term blocks. Enough. The community has lost its patience.LizRead!Talk!21:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I will voluntarily withdraw from this situation and no longer interact with Nghtcmdr, though I request that the content side of things also be returned to their original versions before consensus is reached.Thehistorianisaac (talk)10:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is hardly the first time the conflict between these two editors has come up. It appears they are entirely incapable of collaborating with each other. I propose they be subjected to a2-way interaction ban and that both parties also beindefinitely topic banned from articles to do with Chinese vehicles and military technology.Simonm223 (talk)14:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom they have popped up in ANI time and time again and the IBAN and the topic ban is in order to stop this becoming a perennial heat pointRhinocrat (talk)14:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom and per prior ANI discussions. I understand what Nightcmdr is saying here -- Thehistorianisaac was away for two weeks followingthe previous ANI where Isaac was told to drop the stick (At a certain point that "valid following" becomes harassment, and it really seems you've gone far beyond that line). But instead, they immediately (as in, first mainspace edits since returning)reverted Nightcmdr's edits onone page, and thenreverted Nightcmdr's edits onanother. But it takes two to tango; both of those articles have seen additional reverts back and forth today and the talk page discussionshere andhere don't exactly show good-faith efforts towards a collaborative solution. —tony15:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Has anybody even taken their time toproperly read any of the evidence I have presented?
I have attempted to explain policies in good faithmultiple times but yet they choose to doWP:ICANTHEARYOU,WP:GASLIGHTING and have frequently attempted to edit war. They have shown blatant ignorance to policy, and have made personal attacks towards me.[321]
Again, the original ANI documents most of this.[322]
It's not that I do not want to collaborate(In fact I have attempted to find middle ground in multiple debates), it is simply an obviousWP:ICANTHEARYOU situation. Nghtcmdr's edit warring goes even further back before the dispute. If you see any of the talk page discussions it becomes quite obvious they are being ignorant to policy, and have refused to listen to other editors on multiple occasions.
I genuinely don't understand why I'm receiving the blame here, when they have done indiscriminate removal of reliable sources, I'm simply the one trying to fix their bad edits.Thehistorianisaac (talk)15:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Strong Support: of iBan, neutral on topic ban. This is what, thefourth ANI filing between these two in the last fortnight? I don't give a good goddamn about the evidence one way or another, this is just what they'd call in a court "vexatious litigation." If Thehistorianisaac has made edits or otherwise acted out of line, someone other than Nghtcmdr can make that argument. If Nghtcmdr has made edits or otherwise acted out of line, someone other than Thehistorianisaac can make that argument. Ravenswing18:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The main reason I proposed a topic ban was to communicate to both of them that the disruption is their collective inability to collaborate and that neither one of them should get to "win" the dispute by crowding the other one off the pages they have been in conflict over. The important thing is for the two to stop interacting at all.Simonm223 (talk)18:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Strong Support for IBAN, no opinion about TBAN for now, as the repeated threads on ANI is clearly wasting admins' time, and to be honest pretty much anyone that routinely comes to check in on this page is tired of all this. It's obvious to anyone's eyes thatthey are entirely incapable of collaborating with each other.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)00:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
(involved?)Strong support for IBAN,weak support for TBAN. Isaac did reference one of my comments on one of the previous ANI threads which was supportive of him, but my opinion has changed since then. In the original thread, I was quite sympathetic to Isaac and critical of Nghtcmdr. However, since then, Isaac's almost incessant threads on Nghtcmdr's conduct, whether well founded or not, started to become a beating of the dead horse. I wish I had left a message on Isaac's talk page much earlier telling him to slow it down (or even, just to move on completely and walk away), because it was starting to become disruptive, but I didn't (I'm reminded of Barkeep's Friends don't let friends get sanctioned...). I do think that Isaac has a point with many of the things he has brought up, but unfortunately we are long past that, andbeing right isn't enough. As Tony said,it takes two to tango.
Regardless, I threw out an idea for a two-way IBAN in the last thread, though I didn't make it a formal proposal, so of course I'll support it now.Weirdguyz (talk)07:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Support both IBANs and TBANs. The former because it's blatantly necessary (as seen below, Thehistorianisaacstill doesn't get it) and the latter both becasue it's the root of the problem and to avoid one of them jumping on a topic to "lock the other out", which at this point I'mafraid to say I can't rule out happening. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
No, I do get it: I will end interactions with Nghtcmdr, though I don't understand why you are ignoring the rather incivil comment they made, and also why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Nghtcmdr needs to properly understand policy regarding sources before indiscrimnately removing reliable sources, something which multiple editors, including an admin, have pointed out. Yes, being right isn't everything, and I understand I stepped past the line, but that should not prevent the fact that we need to make sure they are aware of policy.Thehistorianisaac (talk)08:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The fact that nghtcmdr needs some help needing policy is not only my opinion, but something other editors(even an admin) have expressed. I don't want to engage in any more reviewing of their edits, but that does not change the fact that it's quite agreed upon that Nghtcmdr needs help understanding policy. This is not some extremely controversial statement nor is an incivil comment.
Again, just that I overstepped the line last month doesn't mean Nghtcmdr's edits are not controversial and lack consensus or that he needs help understanding policy.
I was told to drop reviewing his edits and engaging in disputes with them, however this aspect is not a personal dispute, it is something that others have already pointed out prior to the discussion, and if you see the edit summaries yourself(which is not that hard really), you can see that they have misinterpreted policy.Thehistorianisaac (talk)09:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Thehistorianisaac, if you are going to disengage,disengage. Donot go "I'm going to disegage, but," or makeany further comments of any kind about Nghtcmdr, because those come across as disenginous and, frankly, in bad faith. Disengage, drop the stick, andmove on. Voluntarily treat yourself as ibanned until the formal iban is closed. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alternate Proposal
I have voluntarily chosen to no longer review @Nghtcmdr's edits per admin instructions(though I still will respond to notifications), however I suggest an alternate proposal:Articles where there are ongoing disputes(or with similar edit summaries from said editor) are to be returned to the previous revision until proper consensus is reached. I no longer will review said edits due to the backlash, though that does not change the fact that they are controversial and require consensus, and as far as I know, are often based off misinterpreted policy. I think my voluntary withdrawal from reviewing will mostly solve most problems regarding my behavior, though in many of the disputes the edits were controversial(and borderline disruptive in my opinion) and require proper consensus first.Thehistorianisaac (talk)17:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I would also like an uninvolved admin to review these comments from Nghtcmdr, which can be interpreted as incivil or personal attacks.
I broadly agree with what appears to be your overall point which is that articles should use English whenever possible since this is the English version of Wikipedia, and would suggest that the reason why the translation issue appears haphazard (i.e. not a project-wide problem) is that a lot of it may be user-specific. The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem.[323] - Personal attacks, casting asperations, and a rather racist comment "so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy.".
You're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them.[324]Again, you're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them.[325] - Borderline incivility andWP:CANVASSING
you left out the second and more important half where the other user said "but noting that per WP:NONENG, if an English source can be used instead of a Chinese one it is preferred as it is easier to verify by other editors." You not fully agreeing with what they said is not a reason to distort what they actually said.[326] - False accusations of "distorting info"
Debate on the basis of policy, not personality. Pleases state policy-based objections to my proposals. Saying "my sources are reliable because I think they are" or "your changes are wrong because it goes against my opinion of what other people said" are not proper arguments.[327] -WP:WL, blatant ignorance of previous consensus
[328] - Use of an unfinished discussion as "consensus"
That you follow up a paragraph about how you will back off voluntarily with a bulleted list of things from your rival that you want reviewed is strong evidence that this alternative proposal isn't in the same galaxy as sufficient.Support the two-way iban above, and if one or both of this pair continue this, there should be avery short rope to prevent this from becoming a topic ban or a site ban.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)21:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
STRONG Oppose You two jackasses have been at each other’s throats for the better part of month now, and I have exactlyzero confidence whatsoever that the two of could voluntarily contribute to the site in peace, let alone edit constructively, without being all up in each other’s business. If it were up to me you’d both me blocked for 30 days so we can stop watching your he-said-she-said BS show on site, but I’ll settle for the topic ban and the interaction ban to enforce a DMZ between the two of you.TomStar81 (Talk)20:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
This "proposal" of yours reads far less like a proposal and more like you attempting to shang high the admin corps into work for you alone by rallying us against the other editor so that your position prevails by admin consensus. Thats not how this process works. We admins are not pawns to be used in a pissing match between two editors who can not get along on this site, we're community appointed liaisons entrusted with enforcing policy and guideline standards on this site so that the editors can contribute here is peace, and when that peace is disturbed we will decide for ourselves how to resolve the matter without multi-step plans from involved parties on how the situation should be resolved.TomStar81 (Talk)17:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
We admins are not pawns to be used in a pissing match between two editors who can not get along on this site, we're community appointed liaisons entrusted with enforcing policy and guideline standards on this site so that the editors can contribute here is peace, and when that peace is disturbed we will decide for ourselves how to resolve the matter without multi-step plans from involved parties on how the situation should be resolved.
Is exactly why the proposal should be made.
Disregarding the dispute, I would suggest the admins maybe do look at the justifications for some of Nghtcmdr's edits, as they are genuinely problematic as pointed out before(e.g. using invalid reasons to delete sources, claiming sources need to be "verified" on WP:RSN to be considered reliable, claiming ALL state controlled sources cannot be used etc). At the very least, I would suggest somebody outside of me try to help make sure they understand policy.
I understand my intentions could be seen as dubious due to the dispute, but even other editors in the past have pointed out this behavior, and from my own perspective the reason I got involved in this dispute in the first place was due to the content side of things. I think a voluntary withdrawal from reviewing nghtcmdr's edits and interaction(though there is a high chance we may still end up on the same article, I will avoid direct interaction) or an IBAN could solve most of the problems regarding the conduct part, though I think in the end if the content part is not discussed, evantually what is likely going to happen is that another user will point out problems with Nghtcmdr's edits in the future, and we will likely end up here again.Thehistorianisaac (talk)17:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I was under the distinct impression that you had already given your final statement on this matter at 10:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC). Since then your so-called "final statement" has evolved into more text about this issue. If your issuing a final statement then post it and leave, but since you can stop yourself from having the last word you're proving everyone here right: you need to be topic banned, I-banned, or ideally blocked to let the issue(s) go. To re-iterate what @The Bushranger said below: drop the stick NOW or you will be blocked.TomStar81 (Talk)17:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I dropped the stick long time ago regarding interactions, though I think a lot of things still need clarifications. Will stop posting on ANI itself very soon, but I would suggest actually taking the content dispute as seriously as it should be.
@The Bushranger For the first comment, I really don't understand how it can be interpreted as not being a personal attack or incivil at the very least, considering the prior context where another user asked for some consensus regarding when it is a good idea to add Chinese names to lists; on the first comment I showed, Nghtcmdr made false claims that me adding chinese names wasThe other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources(Keep in mind, most of the time state affliatted sources from china follow similar policies to WP:XINHUA, and there is mostly consensus they are ok depending on context) which is a personal attack and casting asperations and maybe alsoWP:SMEAR. Their quote, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. that "filling the article with chinese" is "trying to make the community accept chinese sources" can be seen as horrible wording at best or even slightly racist.
Their further quoteWhether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem. is also blatantly a false accusation, claiming that adding chinese names (on chinese topics by the way, keep in mind of that) has "deeper political dynamics" is a blatant lack ofWP:AGF (keep in mind, this happened around the same time as the first few ANI, where the dispute wasn't that out of hand yet) and is also a completely baseless accusation.Thehistorianisaac (talk)07:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
You are continuing tofollow my edits despite your claims that you haven't. You joinedthis discussion even though you were not notified of it by either myself or the other editor .Nghtcmdr (talk)22:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nghtcmdr, you don't seem to understand that the community has lost patience with both of you and is ready to impose a block on you two. It's not all about the other editor. It's about both of your behaviors.LizRead!Talk!22:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Equally strong Oppose: TomStar81 said it all, and in words I completely endorse. To the degree I'm willing to cut either of them slack (Not. Very. Much) at least Nghtcmdr acknowledges that they're incapable of a cease fire on their own. Ravenswing11:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Clarification:
My proposal is that all articles involved in the dispute or with similar edit summaries be returned to their previous revisions before a proper discussion is made
I have already voluntarily withdrew from actively reviewing Nghtcmdr's new edits, and will from now on also withdraw from any conversations regarding this dispute
Strong Oppose I agree with Ravenswing and TomStar81 that neither of these editors have shown inclination or even ability to disengage without assistance. I started off, when this dispute began, frustrated with Nghtcmdr's position on Chinese sources but that frustration does not excuse the unwillingness to collaborate appropriately displayed by Thehistorianisaac. It's unfortunate that it's come to this but I don't see any way to stop this stream of disputes without intervention. And this really does seem like a "two to tango" situation.Simonm223 (talk)11:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I think Nghtcmdr's position on chinese sources sort of is the exact reason for the proposal(to return to the previous revisions for disputed articles and restore info until consensus is made), as it seems many sources have been incorrectly removed. However I will not attempt to make any corrections further per admin instructions.Thehistorianisaac (talk)12:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
1 month blocks for both and 2 way iBan
From my observations as an uninvoled editor both have ended up here countless times. Both are acting like jackasses. Both seem to be edit warning, both have been told to drop it. It's clear that they can't civilly communicate with each other. There comes a point where when all you do is look at each other's edits, and get up in arms and throw mud at each other. Both of you need to cool.it, and take a break, hopefully a 1 month break for both will help you think about what happened, and curb the disruption you are causing as of right now.LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me!02:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Support Iban, oppose block: I will voluntarily withdraw from any active reviewing of nghtcmdr's edits. However I would also hope the content dispute be addressed; I will also be taking a wikibreak soon as I will have summer camp in mainland china next week anyways.
Support Block & Iban Let them realize that being at each other will cost both regardless of who was "correct" (in whatever sense of the word it should be used for such situations). The follow up Iban should resolve the remaining issues here.TomStar81 (Talk)17:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
As per my alternate proposal[330], I have already voluntarily ended reviewing Nghtcmdr's edits, and I will also end responding to notifications regarding the situation(though if I see a discussion that Nghtcmdr is involved in, I may still be involved though I will try to attempt not to be involved). I admit that during the dispute, I made not have been completely rational(partially due to lack of sleep or stress), and now that I've cooled down during my vacation I recognize the fact that some of my comments were not that great and that I also had gone too far Also as per my alternate proposal, I also really hope the content part of the dispute be looked at. I think as many editors[331][332](even an admin, @Robertsky[333]) have pointed out problems with Nghtcmdr's rationale that sources need to be "verified" first(which I believe is a misinterpretation that sources need to verify the information, not sources need to be verified), with other rationales used to remove sources such as "the source is not in english" or "the source is state affiliated" being either invalid or based off misinterpreted policy.
I have nothing personal against Nghtcmdr, though I do believe somebody(outside of me) needs to make sure they understand the policies they use to remove sources, and correct their edits when nessecary. I believe (and hope) they are acting in good faith, however it seems like they do require some proper understanding of sources.
However, like @Weirdguyz said[334], being right isn't enough and I do think I need to stop beating the dead horse(I myself have been frankly tired of this situation from the very start), which is why I will voluntarily no longer involve myself in this situation and no longer interact with Nghtcmdr(as I said, if the discussion has Nghtcmdr's comment, I still may comment though i will actively avoid interaction). I also will be taking a wikibreak anyways next week, as I will be in summer camp at mainland china for a while and won't be able to respond. In the end, I do sort of understand the backlash against me(though I question why people aren't also looking at the content disputes themselves) and that I went too far which is why I will withdraw from this situation. Additionally, per my alternate proposal, I ask that all articles involved in this dispute or with similar edits be returned to their previous version until consensus is made, and that somebody try to help Nghtcmdr understand the policies they cite when they delete sources.
I will drop the stick and avoid interaction with Nghtcmdr(however I will still respond when pinged or asked to by other editors), and I support an Iban(topic ban or 30 day ban seems to be slightly overkill) between me and Nghtcmdr. However due to the fact that we seem to have similar interests, I cannot guarantee that we may end up on the same discussion though I will attempt to avoid interactions on such discussions.Thehistorianisaac (talk)10:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Here's a simplified version:
Regarding the conduct dispute:
What I will do:
I have voluntarily withdrew from reviewing Nghtcmdr's edits, and will avoid interacting with them.(however, I will interact with other editors on discussions where nghtcmdr has made a comment, but try to avoid interaction)
What I believe the admins should do:
I am in favor of a two way IBAN
Regarding the content dispute(where there is mostly consensus that Nghtcmdr needs better understanding in regards to source related policy):
What I will do:
Due to my voluntarily withdrawal, I will not directly do anything much in regards to the content disputes
What i believe the admins should do:
Help Nghtcmdr have a better understanding of policy,especially in regards to the fact that sources do not have to be on WP:RSP to be reliable(aka the fact that most sources, particularly WP:NEWSORG are presumed reliable till a WP:RSN is made on them)
Return articles involved in the dispute(along with those with similar edit summaries that the sources should be removed because they are "unverified"(aka lack a WP:RSN discussion, which is not a valid reason to remove sources as many have pointed out), are from state affiliatted sources(also pointed out as an invalid reason to remove sources in most contexts) or are in different languages(WP:NONENG says non english sources are allowed)) to their previous revisions before valid reasons are given or consensus is made
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you look at the history of this page you will notice that a user has been using multiple bot accounts to game extended confirmed and then vandalize this page. What steps can the community take to address this problem?2A01:E0A:F07:B500:356F:4826:B046:5314 (talk)04:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
This is a known LTA who games ECR to vandalize protected articles almost every day. If you encounter something like this again, report to AIV ASAP. If filter #806 is set to block autopromote it might slow them down.🧙♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)05:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
It's clear the person behind the socks has an MO of creating accounts and doing nothing for a month and then gamingWP:EX in one day before going on to engage in vandalism. That suggests that they have more accounts waiting that they will get to EX when they get just past 30 days. Surely a CU is in order?TarnishedPathtalk06:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
They create an account, make trivial edits to their user page in quick succession to getWP:XC*, and then go on to vandalise pages. I don't think they use dormant accounts.TurboSuperA+(connect)06:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The account must be a month old for it to gain extended confirmed, so they're using sleepers. However, I assume each account is created using an individual proxy, making them difficult to find. Getting all accounts by useragent might work but I'm not sure if checkuser can do that.🧙♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)06:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm out of my depth here, but does changing theWP:XC criteria to not county edits in your user space make any sense? They are doing all the edits in their own sandbox, presumably because nobody is monitoring those.meamemg (talk)18:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Stuff to that effect has come up repeatedly going all the way back to the earliest proto-version of EC; long story short the consistent assessment has been that it's more trouble than it's worth. Also worth considering that if they are going to use fully-automated editing to game EC we would rather they do that in userspace than in main.184.152.65.118 (talk)18:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the context. I suppose “Building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice.” more or less applies at this point.meamemg (talk)19:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
These accounts are making over 60 edits per minute, allowing them to gain XC before anyone can react. We could tighten rate limits (currently at 8 edits/minute for new users and 90/minute for most others) to cover users with <500 edits, but this would require a change in MediaWiki software because theMediaWiki rate limit settings do not have the ability to check for XC status.Helpful Raccoon (talk)07:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
How about implementing a holding queue where accounts that just have met the XC criteria have to stay for a day before they gain the permission? It'll give admins time to check if they have beengaming their edit count (or are otherwise behaving in an odd manner) and revoke XC forcing them to request it manually. This will also prevent new socks making trivial edits in order to immediately jump into aCTOP from which they were presumably banned before.🧙♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)07:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Even at 50 epm they'll autopromote in 10 minutesand they are going faster so unless the filter log is being monitored continuously stuff will slip through. There are additional filter options available, but a healthy measure of circumspection is needed when deciding on them.184.152.65.118 (talk)02:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Without going into detail, while edit filters can be very useful for dealing with some LTAs they can be wasted effort or even counterproductive for others depending on the type of behavioral shifts they induce.WP:NOSALT touches on some of the issues in a different though related context. Regardless the details are best not discussed publicly.184.152.65.118 (talk)04:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, there's an IP user asking for admin attention regarding thisarticle (seetalk page), due to repeated content removals without edit summaries by multiple IP editors. I'm posting this message to help them, as they reached out to me. Thank you. -Arcrev1 (talk)11:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The IP who was removing content was removing unsourced information from aWP:BLP article. Given this I removed the same information but with a descriptive edit summary[335].
Now the IP editor who asked for help,2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D(talk·contribs·IP contribs·WHOIS), has reverted me twice[336][337] while casting aspersions on the talk page[338] and insisting there must be consensus for removal[339] which is not policy. They have also called me blind[340] and have left an aggressive message on my talk page while the talk page discussion is ongoing[341].
The IP editor who asked for help has performed eleven[342][343][344][345][346][347][348][349][350][351][352] total reverts to include this information, while in their edit summaries casting aspersions about COI and claiming it is vandalism.
I've got information that would probably be useful in sorting things out here, but posting it would be a violation ofWP:OUTING. Suggestions on what I should do? --Carnildo (talk)21:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Probably best to send your findings to the Arbitration Committee and avoid any any further discussion here of non-public information. Address isarbcom-enwikimedia.org184.152.65.118 (talk)21:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Note:User:Sportsnut24 has now made it clear that IP:2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D is them.[360] Between the IP and Sportsnut24, I have now been the target of multiple evidence-free claims of a 'COI'. All this, in order to include a vague anecdote referring to a non-notable individual who appears to have been married to the article subject for an indeterminate period before divorcing. I've no idea what external conflicts may be involved, and frankly don't care. Wikipedia biographies clearly aren't arenas for such disputes however, and simple common sense and decency, in addition to WP:BLP policy, should guide us as to whether we need to drag an otherwise entirely unreferenced individual into this mess. Following Sportsnut24's latest absurd COI allegation[361] I have warned them that unless they present evidence (rofl) or retract, I am immediately going to call for them to be blocked from editing: we clearly have multiple grounds for this, probably too many to be worth listing, but starting with editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny, repeated evidence-free COI allegations, and a general tendency to invent fictitious Wikipedia policies in order to further their obsession with inserting trivia about a non-notable individual into a biography.AndyTheGrump (talk)13:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
To add to the above, see this edit by Sportsnut24.[362] This was a restoration of material previously deleted, and possibly justified at least in part, though some is unsourced or improperly sourced, and clearly shouldn't have been restored. Note in particular though that the infobox includestwo individuals in the 'spouse' section. Neither seems to be adequately sourced, but it would appear that Sportsnut24 must have been aware that there were suggestions that article subject had married twice. This makes the insistence on including the first (divorced) spouse in the infobox even less explicable. Basic common sense dictates that even if we don't have full sourcing, we shouldn't be naming a single individual as a spouse while ignoring the later one. Probably not an ideal source (promotional), but it isn't difficult to find evidence for the second marriage: "Akshay Nanavati and his wife Melissa live in Arizona".[363]AndyTheGrump (talk)14:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Given the diff linked above by Carnildo, I'd have to suggest that atabsolute minimum a topic ban from Akshay Nanavati (including his family, ex-wife, etc) is due. Sportsnut24 has been throwing around evidence-free COI allegations with wild abandon, while clearly abusing Wikipedia to pursue some sort of off-Wikipedia dispute with a non-notable individual. And by all appearances (seeUser talk:Sportsnut24) there have been multiple other issues with this contributor, to the extent that one might ask ifWP:NOTHERE applies.AndyTheGrump (talk)21:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I think at a minimum a tban or pblock from Akshay Nanavati is warranted. Given their incivility, aspersions, andWP:CIR orWP:IDHT-driven contortions of policy, a more broad block may be reasonable also to prevent future disruption. I would really like to hear fromSportsnut24 at this ANI before asking for a broader block.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)22:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Indeffed for BLP issues, obvious loutsocking, personal attacks, and basically this whole thing. If they come back after the protection expires hit up rfpp or let me know.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)12:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Threats of being blocked
I've blocked the IP, who was clearly trying to start a talkpage argument and then found and encouraged one at ANI. It's one thing to have a complaint about how something terrible is being treated, it's another to use that as a pretext to to post generalized polemics and to attack everybody who tries to engage.Acroterion(talk)23:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He's also misquoting Wiki quidelines. I haven't been using Wikipedia as a forum. Nor suggesting any edits to the article that would be "Righting wrongs". Misquoting Wiki quidelines in an effort stop someone from discussion is by itself a violation, let alone explicit threats like this one.
Who says I'm a new user? I'm sick and tired of you disrespecting IPs. Both the reported user and you admins who always just block IPs in any opened case. Explain where is the forum like posting and I'll point the 100 users discussing the same thing few topics back89.172.69.207 (talk)23:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The IP's first post atTalk:Srebrenica massacre[365] is a clearWP:NOTFORUM violation, for a start. The rest of the thread is perhaps marginally better in places. Until the last comment in the thread: "...there is only one correct answer here. This isn't open for debate".[366] A block seems entirely justified.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
It's obvious these policies don't apply. Just few topics back, the talk page full of discussing the term "massacre" vs "genocide" with RfC and at least 20 editors discussing it. No one had ever made an accusation that that RfC is WP:FORUM or RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Not one in at least 2 months of discussion, but now all of the sudden it is.89.172.69.207 (talk)23:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump I'm allowed to put forward a thesis with only one correct answer and ask another user to test whether he agrees. This isn't problematic at all. This is common way to see whether user is objective on the topic or just avoiding the point89.172.69.207 (talk)23:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
You have already made your lack of objectivity self-evident. Projecting it on others isn't going to convince anyone of anything.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Your lack of objectivity is self-evident. Admins have made 2 personal attacks against me and you haven't reacted at all. I'm sorry to say, but the reported user was more fair to me that you here.89.172.69.207 (talk)23:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
. In no wayWP:NOTFORUM andWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS can apply here. This is ridiculous. Stating "How does thenew IP have such knowledge about Wikipedia?" is in violation of Wiki policies by itself. This personal attack isn't even made by the reported user, but I come here and admins are making personal attacks against me??? This kind of post is blatantly a personal attack made by and admin out of nowhere with absolutely no reason. Not even the reported user had made such attack.— Precedingunsigned comment added by89.172.69.207 (talk)23:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Yamla you aren't the standpoint of truth here. Something reminds you of something and it must be true. This isn't objective at all. A personal attack like you made here would be reported on the talk page , but you as admin this you are somehoe exempt from abiding Wiki policies. You think you can make such personal attacks and just state "yeah, it's obvious " where in fact it isn't obvious not correct.89.172.69.207 (talk)23:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I did not say, "yeah, it's obvious" and I'm confused why you think I did. I said your edits remind me of a user in another discussion. I even went out of my way to say I have not looked at the technical data. Perhaps you confused me with another editor who said "yeah, it's obvious", though a quick scan suggests nobody other than you (and now me, quoting you) said that in this discussion. --Yamla (talk)23:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
What you said is a personal attack. Good luck to you in real life if this little power of administrating Wikipedia had gone to your head to treat people like this.89.172.69.207 (talk)23:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes it is, but you'll never be so objective and admit that your co-admins have made personal attacks against me first. You really think you are above everyone else here. I'm reacting like this because I'm sick and tired of you admins treating IPs like this. This is explicitly against Wiki policy.89.172.69.207 (talk)23:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't need this. DeCausa, you have been disrespectful towards me and you know it. But this in no way is comparable from disrespect I'm getting from admins. They have made 2 unfounded personal attack and accused be of being unobjective in the timespan of minutes. I withdraw my report. Goodbye. Unbeliveable. Unbelieable how you think you admins think are above Wiki guidelines! Goodbye.89.172.69.207 (talk)23:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I strongly suggest the discussion continue around a block or a topic ban to 89.172.69.207. The previous discussion I linked to above didn't result in any action and I think it would be beneficial to take a specific action here. --Yamla (talk)23:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to report a pattern of disruptive editing by userVofa(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information regarding the Mongolic influence on the origins and language of the Hazara people across Wikipedia articles. These edits appear to violate multiple Wikipedia policies, includingWP:RS,WP:DE,WP:CONS, andWP:NPOV.
1. Article:Hazaras(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs).Vofaremoved referenced material discussing Mongolic origins of the Hazaras. Deleted sources include: Encyclopaedia Iranica (based on research from the Central Asian Monograph series, London), Rashid al-Din Hamadani, Orientalist Ármin Vámbéry, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations.
2. Article:Hazaragi dialect(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs).Content about the Mongolic influence on the dialect wasremoved:1,2,3. The removed sources include: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Work by Dr. Lutfi Temirkhanov, a Doctor of Sciences and leading Hazara scholar.
3. Article:Mongolic peoples(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs).Information on the Hazara as a Mongolic-influenced group wasdeleted, with the edit summary citing it as "WP:FRINGE". However, multiple peer-reviewed sources support the presence of Mongolic ancestry and linguistic heritage among the Hazaras.
4. Disputing source reliability.In a relateddiscussion, Vofa claimed that Encyclopaedia Iranica is not a reliable source - contradictingWP:RSPS and consensus, as this source is widely accepted for Iranic, Persian, and Central Asian topics.
5. Prior behavioral issues.The user has previously been blocked for violations ofWP:EW andWP:DE. These recent actions demonstrate a continued disregard for sourcing standards and consensus.
Request: I kindly request that an administrator reviews Vofa’s editing behavior across the mentioned articles and warns the user about the importance of complying with Wikipedia’s core policies, especially regarding reliable sources and neutrality. Thank you.--KoizumiBS (talk)22:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
The edits you mention -- specifically the ones onHazaragi dialect -- seem a lot like POV-pushing to remove information referencing any relationship between Hazaragi and Mongolic language or peoples.
The revision you linkedhere -- the removed statements are well-supported by (or directly quote) the sources, and theweight of the bits in the article also seem to line up roughly with that of the sourced texts.
The edit summary forthis edit on the same page notes that the sources the section uses aren't easy to find or verify, which is apparently their reasoning for selectively removingonly the parts of the section they disagree with.
Thenext edit uses a misleading edit summary ("grammar") to remove the last pieces of Mongolic mentions in the article.
Thanks a lot,tony, really appreciate your input - it helps a lot to see that others noticed the same pattern.
Since this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this kind of editing from Vofa, I’d also like to tag a few people who were involved in earlier discussion around similar issues - maybe you’d like to share your thoughts too?
Also just noticed that Vofa earlier removed reliably sourced info about the Mongolic origins of theMerkits too (1,2) - this really seems like a consistent pattern in his edits.--KoizumiBS (talk)04:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
im not going to point out the obvious. i cant type fast and i have no intention of defending my edits. i only know that when people look back at this unnecessary ANI, you will look really really bad. as for the articles—the truth will prevail.Vofa (talk)14:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
This discussion isn't about "winning" or "looking bad" – it's about upholding Wikipedia’s core policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view.
Your refusal to defend your edits, combined with the tone of your comment, only confirms what some have already observed – a pattern of disruptive editing and an unwillingness to engage in meaningful consensus-building. That’s not how collaborative editing works. If anything, your response reinforces concerns that you're editing based on personal bias rather than adherence to Wikipedia policy.
Has the disruptive editing continued? If a topic ban was imposed, what would be the subject area? Do any contentious subject areas cover these interests?LizRead!Talk!03:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Since the ANI complaint was filed, there have been no new edits from Vofa. However, I believe the pattern of past behavior justifies a topic ban related to the origins and ethnolinguistic history of the Hazaras and Mongolic peoples, broadly covering Central Asian ethnic history.
@Liz just a quick follow-up. After my last comment, Vofa has againremoved sourced mention of Mongolic ties - this time from the "Ethnic relations" section of the Merkit article.
This shows that the disruptive pattern hasn't stopped and continues to specifically target content related to Mongolic origins and influence.
Given this, I believe a topic ban covering the ethnolinguistic history and origins of the Hazaras, Mongolic peoples, and related Central Asian ethnic groups is both reasonable and necessary.KoizumiBS (talk)06:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
please reflect. feel free to start a discussion and explain your monitoring of "certain behaviours" as you see it on the relevant page. furthermore, honesty should be a top priority.Vofa (talk)06:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
@Liz another example of disruptive editing - in this edit, Vofaremoved sourced information about the Turkic version of Merkit origins. At the same time, he labeled it as "vandalism" in the edit summary.KoizumiBS (talk)07:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
@Liz If they aren't editing in a contentious topic, they are butting up againstWP:CT/EE. I'm thinking specifically of edits likethis one toCrimean Tatars, where the quoted passage is preceded by, "From a geo-strategic perspective it was certainly beneficial for Turkey to have a Turkic Muslim presence in the Crimean Peninsula to counteract the danger of Russian nationalism in this vital area." —C.Fred (talk)13:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Support some sort of topic ban per above diffs, including edits less than two days ago, showing disruption has not stopped and a block is needed perWP:BLOCKPREVENT. The above suggested scope of "Central Asian ethnic history" sounds good to me.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)10:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Vofa was previously involved in an edit dispute on the pageUralic languages trying to claim that theSamoyed languages are not Uralic, for which they were blocked from editing that page for 2 weeks. However, since then they have continued with this disruption elsewhere, see this diff:Special:Diff/1296066296. If a topic ban is agreed on, I would propose a topic ban along the lines of "Ural-Altaic peoples and languages", including their influence on other people and language groups, since this seems to be the focus of the disruption rather than specifically Central Asia. (Samoyed languages are spoken in North Asia and would be exempt from the earlier suggested ban, as would Uralic peoples of Europe which were a target in the past based on the previous ANI from January).Stockhausenfan (talk)21:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
PerWP:NOTHERE andWP:COMPETENCE, the user’s editing record shows a pattern of removing reliably sourced content, labeling it incorrectly as "fringe," and resisting consensus-based discussion. This behavior suggests they are not here to build an encyclopedia in good faith, and in practice, their edits are doing more harm than good.KoizumiBS (talk)07:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
@Liz, more examples of WP:DE from user Vofa:1,2,3. I would appreciate if administrators could take a closer look at this user's editing history.--KoizumiBS (talk)01:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Support topic ban for Central Asian ethnic history, broadly construed. Vofa is currently name dropping random policies as a way to justify their edit warring atHazaras[380][381]. Before that, they had attempted to justify their edit warring by claiming that KoizumiBS had removed loads of sources[382], which was blatantly wrong[383]. They also claimed that encyclopedias (such as Encyclopaedia Iranica) should not be used due toWP:NOTESSAY (???)[384][385]. They're currentlyWP:STONEWALLING atTalk:Hazaras. --HistoryofIran (talk)07:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Support extended or indef topic ban. Let's be clear:Vofa is editing ethnic articles in what could be considered an attempt to scrub another (related) ethnicity out of them. When presented in this very ANI with specific diffs and the problems with them, Vofa has offered only these words:
When shownthis diff where Vofa removed a source, their explanation for its removal is "never removed sources. refrain from stating false information" (here)
Vofaliterally refuses to defend. Pick any of the examples linked by any of the editors here and you will find multiple editors politely attempting to work with Vofa only for Vofa toWP:STONEWALL (likethis talk page discussion), orshove fingers in their ears (like in this ANI) while appearing to scrub any mention of a particular ethnic group (like they did againearlier today). They've been doing this for a long time -- long enough for multiple ANIs. They will continue until stopped by a topic ban or block. —tony15:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
please, assume good faith. i will defend my edits in short order;
Hazaragi edits: as outlined in the follow up summary, the Hazaragi dialect has the same amount of Turkicisms and perceived Mongolic derived words as inKabuli dialect ofDari.
Hazara edits: edits made by @Shishaz were restored for the removal of Mousavi 1998 et al., unsourced statements. follow up edits were made to polish the article to uphold Wikipedia’s standards.
i strongly disagree with your statement as to what the 'purpose' of the edits was. i did not refuse to discuss issues on relevant pages, instead—the willingness to solve the dispute was offered on two or three occasions. i want to note that pings get late to me (minutes, hours, days after).
the 'thanks!' that was given to @Beshogur was not sarcastic, it was the opposite—a sincere gratitude for a reminder of the edits made, which were not contested at any point when removed.
your last sentence, which reads: "They've been doing this for a long time -- long enough for multiple ANIs. They will continue until stopped by a topic ban or block." appears dismissive and is wrong.
i am ready to co-operate with all sides of the ANI despite hardship in responding to the many messages.
Following my initial report, I’d like to add that Vofa’s pattern of disruptive editing has continued in other related topics. Specifically, he has removed content in multiple articles related to Mongolic history and influence, including:
Removal of mention of the Baghatur title as used among the Mongols.
Deletion of a note about the Barlas tribe's original language, which was Mongolic.
Erasure of the Merkits from a list of Mongolic tribes, despite reliable sources confirming this classification.
Removal of referenced content on the Mongolic lexical component in the Hazaragi dialect article.
These actions are consistent with the editing behavior outlined in my original complaint - namely, a repeated pattern of removing well-sourced material without proper justification or consensus-building. I believe this further supports the case for administrative action, including a potential topic ban or block.--KoizumiBS (talk)05:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
i would like to state that all of the listed edits are justified. i once again ask for you to bring up latest versions of the pages you mentioned. takeMerkits as an example. i stated that i would make a follow up edit where i would restore sources and corresponding claims, and i did.Vofa (talk)11:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
i would like to state that all of the listed edits are justified. i once again ask for you to bring up latest versions of the pages you mentioned. takeMerkits as an example. i stated that i would make a follow up edit where i would restore sources and corresponding claims, and i did.Vofa (talk)11:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
there is little reason to continue this ANI, as the problem was essentially solved. i dont want it to turn into a list of my recent edits.Vofa (talk)11:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
In the Merkit article, in addition to the issues already raised, you also removed a statement noting that the Merkits became part of groups such as the Buryats, Oirats, and Khalkha.
In the Hazaragi dialect article, you deleted the term Turco-Mongolic lexicon, despite its widespread use in academic literature.
How do you justify the consistent removal of references to the Mongolic component in articles like Baghatur and Barlas, for instance?KoizumiBS (talk)07:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
@Vofa I looked at your edits, andthe net result was changing ethnicities without introducing any sources to back up the claims. At the least, I would expect some discussion then to explain what you consider to be misinterpretations of the cited sources. Otherwise, we're running out of explanations for your edits that don't point back to bad-faith edits. —C.Fred (talk)13:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Support topic ban
Ongoing issues sinceJanuary 2025, about removing sources, removing or changing sourced information without explaining the reason. Despite concerns expressed by multiple editors, Vofa refuses to acknowledge there are any issues, with responses such asi would like to state that all of the listed edits are justified. I haven't seen any acknowledgement and any concrete plans about how Vofa plans to address those concerns in about 2 weeks since this topic has been started. They had plenty of opportunities to address concerns about their user conduct.
Here are examples of a problematic edits, during this ANI topic duration
Random percentage change without explanation13 July 2025
Short description change inBarlas, which doesn't make any sense, given the opening sentence in the article10 July 2025
Another concern perWP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE is that Vofa edits pages with low number of page watchers, so mistakes do not get reverted. For example, inLezgins, they removed census sources7 June 2025 (with no explanation). These census sources still have not been restored.
I suggesta topic ban for Mongolic, Uralic, Turkic and Central Asian ethnicity and ethnic history topics. They can appeal after 6 months. Once they gain more experience in editing Wikipedia without any problems, they can get the topic ban lifted.Bogazicili (talk)20:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Support a topic ban or a block
I'm increasingly concerned about the nature of Vofa's edits, which include the removal of sources, altering the meaning of sourced statements, and changing content without providing any citations. These actions are not only disruptive, but they also open the door to long-term misinformation and distortion of historical content - especially on under-watched pages related to Central Asian topics.
Many of Vofa’s edits risk introducing factual inaccuracies or even falsifications that may go unnoticed for a long time, making future corrections difficult. Given the scope and persistence of this behavior, I believe that a topic ban (or, if necessary, a block) is justified to prevent further damage.--KoizumiBS (talk)07:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
WP:CIV violation from user Vofa. Once again, Vofa has demonstrated how difficult it is to engage in constructive discussion with him. His recent response in the currentthread is another clear instance ofWP:STONEWALLING. When I pointed out that the requested sources were already included in the article, he replied simply: "false. not what the complain was about."
This is not the first time Vofa has accused other editors of "stating false information" without engaging meaningfully in the discussion. I find this type of response unproductive and inconsistent with Wikipedia’s expectations for civil discourse. I ask administrators to review this interaction and consider whether any further steps are warranted.--KoizumiBS (talk)18:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment just jumping in to add that I just reverted significant edits made by Vofa to theMoldovan language page, which removed any mention of the connection of that language (or pseudo-language) with Romanian. Concerning to see how many other articles have been affected.Bayonet-lightbulb (talk)09:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Given these inconceivable edits toMoldovan language (both with respect to their content outright and with the fact that they occurred while this discussion was ongoing), I think that a topic ban needs to be broadened and simplifiedethnic, national, and/or linguistic history. Which begins to approach a fullWP:CBAN, but maybe it will be enough.signed,Rosguilltalk13:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Support the proposal and reasoning of Rosguill above; I didn't vote in my earlier comment, but now the fact that Vofa continues with this while the ANI is ongoing makes a topic ban unavoidable in my view.Stockhausenfan (talk)19:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
There does not appear to be anything for admins to do here, which is not the first time "reports" about M.Bitton have been closed with no action.Black Kite (talk)16:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to raise a concern regarding the persistent biased editing and source suppression by user M.Bitton on the Wikipedia article about the kaftan (to name one). This user has repeatedly removed or dismissed well-sourced Moroccan historical content such as the documented prominence of Fez as a major textile center during the Almohad and Marinid periods (and beyond) labeling it “nonsense” and claiming it's "nowhere to be found in the source" despite it being clearly supported by reliable references like L’Économiste based on academic citations. He also gives disproportionate weight to more recent and contested Algerian claims about the origin of the kaftan, while undermining or deleting content that reinforces Morocco’s earlier, well-documented connection to the garment (e.g., Almohad era depictions like those in the Cantigas de Santa Maria).
More broadly, Mr M.Bitton has consistently shown bias in topics involving Morocco, often minimizing its historical contributions or dismissing them outright even when credible sources are provided. This behavior appears to violate Wikipedia’s neutrality policy and misleads readers by promoting a one sided historical narrative. I respectfully request that his editing history be reviewed, particularly across Morocco related articles, and that appropriate action be considered to restore balance and objectivity.— Precedingunsigned comment added byZanati Mattahri (talk •contribs)05:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Zanati Mattahri, except for 2 stray edits, you only started editing today. It's unusual that you would form an opinion on a fellow editor after a dozen edits over the course of a day. What were the previous accounts you used before this one where you had an encounter with M.Bitton? If you didn't have other accounts, I don't know how you even found your way to ANI on your first day as an editor. I hope you read the instructions at the top of the page, and posted a notification of this discussion on M.Bitton's User talk page. Please present diffs/edits demonstrating the conduct you are objecting to. We need to see evidence of your claims.LizRead!Talk!06:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I understand this might seem unusual but this is not a new account just one I haven't used much. I had several older accounts that I no longer have access to or remember (it's been years).
I have a strong interest in history and used to focus on north African history with occasional edits.
I am mostly a reader so wikipedia can be confusing (as evidenced by my several failed attempts to reply to you), I'm doing my best to raise the issue in good faith.
I have seen these same editing patterns on several articles years ago and seeing them again years later on a different article by the same editor is disappointing.
I did my best to notify M.Bitton on his talk page although I'm not sure I followed the exact etiquette, I will get back to you with specific diffs to support my concerns as soon as I figure out how.Zanati Mattahri (talk)08:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
You posted onM.Bitton's talk page andTalk:Kaftan voicing your displeasure with their edits, but rather than wait for a reply, you immediately came here to file a complaint, for which you haven't notified them. This is pretty poor form. You say you raise this issue in good faith, but I'm not so sure. The timing of it just doesn't make sense. Your account was created in November 2024, which then lay basically dormant until this complaint. Futhermore, you complain onTalk:Kaftan about M.Bitton's behavior, an article they haven't edited since October 2024. None of this seems right and I believe there is some prior history here which has not been divulged.--Atlan (talk)09:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, there was/were a frivolous ANI/s targeting Bitton in the last few months that ended up in Boomerang situations.Borgenland (talk)09:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
M.Bitton is quite popular. They are targeted by a pretty diverse set of people including pro-Israel/anti-Palestine folks (choose your own pointless label adventure) and various North African interest groups. Interestingly, one person who doesn't like them claims to use the SocksEscort service that relies on compromised computers and is apparently willing to purchase "aged" Wikipedia accounts. This doesn't tell us anything about Zanati Mattahri, who may just really care about kaftans, but it is some context.Sean.hoyland (talk)11:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
First of all thanks for the feedback, I'd like to clarify a few things since it seems I might've not been clear enough in my reply to liz:
i'm mostly a reader, not an editor, therefore I don't usually find any need to log in, and I've never gotten involved in disputes and the such, I'm still learning how all of that works and I may not have followed proper procedure, and for that I apologize.
That being said, for many years, I've noticed what I believe to be an editing pattern that warrants attention, especially as someone who majored (and is interested) in north African history, and it's hard to believe that the same individuals would be involved every single time out of sheer coincidence.
I do not have a vendetta if that's what you're implying, I'm just trying to understand how things work and how concerns can be addressed properly, and as I said before i'll get back to you soon with specific diffs to support my concern.41.142.129.117 (talk)11:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
The way things work is that no one should take seriously a complaint of this sort because it is obviously dishonest and offered in bad faith. It probably will succeed in wasting a few hours of human effort from people who are interested in making Wikipedia better, though.124.36.27.39 (talk)13:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
If you do not have a vendetta, then you need to provide evidence beyond assertion. If you're experienced enough in Wikipedia to notice a particular editor's editing pattern over "many years," then you're experienced enough to be able to post links to the direct evidence documenting your case. So, please provide the diffs that document M.Bitton's alleged improper editing pattern. If you do not, then this case should be closed as frivolous, and your account blocked for casting aspersions on another editor.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
There is a persistent pattern of nationalistic edits concerning Moroccan-related subjects likeKaftan,Argan oil[386][387],argan trees[388][389][390] (yes, nationalists are trying to claim a species), which seem to involve nationalist resentments arising from theMorocco-Algeria conflict. Editors pop up who are determined to establish that a given tree, garment, food, or whatever is exclusively Moroccan - not ever Algerian. Socking is persistent in these subjects, and I note that M.Bitton has confronted some of these editors. This has been going on for years. So, yes, there is a persistent issue, but editors like M.Bitton are the ones trying to contend with it. The OP appears to be part of the problem.Acroterion(talk)13:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
This isn't the first time I've seen Bitton targeted by a relatively new editor with an extremely low edit count. I've also seen Bitton targeted in Reddit posts, where off-site collusion is occurring. I'd suggest closing this complaint.TarnishedPathtalk13:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Yep, missed that. However, given that MB's edit was a month before this account was even created, I'm going to close this, because there's literally nothing here.Black Kite (talk)16:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So this was closed without waiting for me to provide proof for my case?? It is honestly very obvious and M.Bitton is doing what you're accusing me of, Narrative pushing to the max, often favoring Algeria and downplaying Morocco, in fact that seems to be exclusively what they're on this website for, and the fact this issue is raised by many others should be taken seriously not dismissed..very disappointed.— Precedingunsigned comment added byZanati Mattahri (talk •contribs)18:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive editing and baseless accusations of vandalism by User:Vofa on Bashkir language article
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Background: User:Vofa has repeatedly removed well-sourced and factually correct information about the Bashkir language. Specifically, they removed the mention of the Northwestern dialect, reducing the number of dialects from the scientifically accepted three to only two. Here is the diff showing their removal of this key information:[391]
My Edit: I restored the scientifically accepted three-dialect system and clarified the number of speakers based on reliable sources. My edit was constructive and aimed at improving the article's accuracy. Here is the diff of my edit:[392]
Accusation of Vandalism: User:Vofa then reverted my constructive edit with the summary "Restored revision 1296342674 by Moyogo (talk): Vandalism".
My Response: I undid his revert with the summary "What vandalism, All data from the Ethnologue website", clearly stating that my edit was based on a reliable source and was not vandalism.
Accusing a good-faith editor of "vandalism" for restoring sourced, consensus information is a serious violation ofWP:AGF andWP:NPA. It is an attempt to intimidate and shut down legitimate editing. My edit was clearly not vandalism, and I explained my reasoning in the edit summary.
This behavior is disruptive and hinders the improvement of the article. This user seems to be pushing a specific, factually incorrect point of view regarding Bashkir dialectology, similar to issues seen with another user, Il Nur.
I am bringing this here because a direct accusation of vandalism is a serious incident that goes beyond a simple content dispute. I request that an administrator review User:Vofa's conduct and take appropriate action to prevent further disruption.MR973 (talk)21:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
This mostly seems like a content dispute, other than the accusation ofvandalism, which does seem to be used inappropriately by Vofa here. I'm not sure that warranted an immediate escalation toWP:ANI, however. I will note that the source you provided,[393], isdecidedly unreliable.signed,Rosguilltalk22:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
As noted by Rosguill, there's another complaint about this user further up the page. Should they be combined?Hellbus (talk)19:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
If any of the topic-ban proposals raised in the other thread pass (and it currently seems quite likely that some form of them will pass), this thread's concerns will be rendered moot, as Bashkir is a Turkic language in Eastern Europe. So I would just expect that this thread can be closed shortly once the other one has been resolved, barring any major surprises.signed,Rosguilltalk19:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I've noticed two IPs inserting links to the dubious (and AI-like) websitesbankinginsights dot blog andpeoplesnewsletter dot com into articles.
Replacing the contents of existing refs:diff,diff,diff
Unnecessarily rewriting text in the article in order to cite one of the dubious sites:diff
I left templates on both IPs' talk pages, but thought I should raise it here since there seems to be an ongoing attempt to promote these sites.Helpful Cat {talk}18:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's an IP-hopper atTalk:Iran–Israel war that is socking, vote-stacking, and edit-warring (see the history, there's a half-dozen or so reverts in the past half hour). Below are the IPs:
Note they also tried at RFP to have protection decreased for a CTOPS so that they could unilaterally move the page.Borgenland (talk)03:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lacto Pafi
Two accounts adding similar information to their sandbox (albeit differently formatted).
Just noting that these are two very, very new accounts that have only been editing for the past 5 hours. I don't know how you even came across their User pages. We usually don't police User pages unless the content violates policy (like BLP-violating content or copyright-violating content) and I don't think this does. Was this worth opening a report on ANI? They are just new editors who don't know what they are doing, experimenting. We've all been there once. You can always file an SPI report but even that seems like overkill.LizRead!Talk!05:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
We usually don't police User pages unless the content violates policy (like BLP-violating content or copyright-violating content)
If we didn't "police" User pages, then they'd become a free-for-all of advertising and self-promotion. Wikipedia policy also doesn't allow using user pages as a web host, blog, personal website, code repository, and so on. If the two usernames are indeed connected to a class, then their teacher should know better and use one of the plethora of other online platforms where the students can write and save text.
You can always file an SPI report but even that seems like overkill.
Right above your post I linked to the SPI report. A total of 5 related accounts were identified. Imagine if every school on the planet told their students to use Wikipedia for "practicing".TurboSuperA+(talk)05:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
@Weirdguyz andBusterD: I just remembered the "safe and responsible use of technology" editors/pages from a few days ago. These are very similar. I wonder if they all originate from the same school.TurboSuperA+(talk)08:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Agree withUser:Weirdguyz; this seems an unlikely match. Those pages all had one or two plain text paragraphs about internet safety. Nothing bolded; nothing formatted. I agree userspace isn't our primary concern, but I also agree that somebody should tag promotional userspace when they see it. For the record, I estimate I delete about 10-20 U5severy day (often accompanied by a G11 tag), and I'm just one admin.BusterD (talk)10:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Veritasphere conduct concern: personal attack, misrepresentation
I am raising concerns regarding the conduct of user Veritasphere, whose behaviour over multiple interactions has become increasingly frustrating, including personal attacks and gross misrepresentation of my actions.
Veritasphere initiated an edit warring report against me at WP:EW, despite my not having violated 3RR and having explained my edits on the article talk page and in the edit summaries. His edits were reverted by another editor as well, who told him to stop edit warring.[394]
The admin who closed the discussion confirmed there was no violation, and reminded the parties to discuss on the talk page instead of escalating.
Rather than acknowledging this, Veritasphere launched a series of bad-faith assumptions, even lying about me, even though I provided the diffs to refute that. They still haven't retracted it, or even showed any hint of remorse. A clear violation of WP:PERSONAL, especially as they cited my old blocks despite me not having repeated that.
Even though I believe some of his article edits are strange (mostly Persianization of nativeSindhi dynasties),[395][396] I'm only here to reportUser conduct.
Misrepresentation:
The user attempts to mislead another uninvolved editor by stating"The same user has previously reverted my sourced edits on articles like Soomra dynasty and Kalhora dynasty.[397] What he fails to mention is that it was explained to him in the edit summaries[398], as well as on the article talk page.[399][400]In one instance, he reverted my edits TWICE without providing a reason in his edit summary,[401] even though he was told to see the article talk page.[402]In another instance, he does not even respond to the article talk page topic (still no response)[403], and continues the same manner of edits (Persianization) on another article.[404]
Personal Attack:I responded to his notifying me of the EW report (concluded at the time of my response) by stating I never edit warred as stated by the Admin[405] and that he should not report in haste.[406]
In response, he attacked me by claiming I am biased in my editing and that I am 'gatekeeping historical narratives'. He also threatened to initiate a User topic ban discussion.Hefalsely claimed that I 'selectively reverted sourced content without due engagement on the talk page'.[407]I refuted his false claims by providing these diffs as evidence:[408][409]
The user has a habit of lying. In the past, he made an 'oath of God' by still went on to violate that, as can be seen in this administrative discussion.[410]
This is the diff where I clearly told him I'm reporting this asWP:PERSONAL.[411]
This is his final diff showing neither any remorse nor retracting his comments. He instead tells me "Let's not derail the discussion".[412]
At this point I got frustrated and did not want to deal with him. I asked an active administrator for advice and waited, but it seems they are busy editing. Now I've made the effort to officially report this.Edit: Signed the comment, the original time stamp was "14:41 UTC, 14 July 2025"Sir Calculus (talk)22:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
If you were truly serious, you would have responded to my most recent comment onSamma dynasty talk page.
I had reported your behaviour earlier due to this very pattern, you tend to ignore points raised in good faith. Yes, i even agreed with your latest suggestions, as can be seen onarticle talk page. I simply said that it seems you're approaching this with a particular perspective.
And by the way, just because a dynasty is Sindh-based, it doesn't necessarily mean their official language had to be Sindhi. In most historical instances, Persian was used for administrative or political purposes.[1][2]
I'm amazed at how fast this blew up. You've called me a liar and in violation ofWP:PERSONAL, yet never once did i exactly you such. I merely stated - and still believe - that your editing pattern on Sindh-related pages seemes biased to me, just as some of my own edits must have seemed strange to you. It's a difference of perception and style of editing, not a personal attack.
I completely own up to having serious errors in the past - both on English and Urdu Wikipedia. I've previously been blocked and even on Urdu Wikipedia, have been blocked at some point and then went on to prove myself and became an administrator. I have learned from my errors and have attempted to contribute constructively even since. Errors will happen- you've committed a few yourself. That's not something to weaponize.Veritasphere (talk)12:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Lets not derail the topic. I'm willing to focus solely on the article content and continue the discussion respectfully, without digging up past records or assuming bad faith. The community and administrators can ultimately judge the merits of our arguments and sourcing.Veritasphere (talk)12:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Past? You spoke false about me in thePRESENT, I've provided the diffs as evidence. I don't care about what you do on Urdu Wikipedia. I don't know the process there. Even the admin who unblocked you said 'I have no idea how their tolerances for misbehaviour align with ours' in the unblock discussion with regards to Urdu Wikipedians who supported you. I am judging your user conduct HERE in the PRESENT. With ME. The fact that you don't even feel bad about falsely accusing me even though I refuted you is exactly what makes this problematic. Don't be "amazed" at how fast this blew up. You wrongfully reported me for edit warring. Fortunately the admin saw there was no violation. Instead YOU were warned by another user for edit warring, which YOU removed in LESS than an hour.[413] After falsely accusing me of lying, you have the audacity to state "Let's not derail the discussion". Even though I strictly told you this is about your USER CONDUCT.[414].Sir Calculus (talk)15:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
That was an unintentional mistake on my part, and i restored that user's warning shortly afterward.see In fact, if you check next edit, you'll see I reinstated his revision my self.
Again, "I had reported your behaviour earlier due to this very pattern, you tend to ignore points raised in good faith."Veritasphere (talk)16:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Interesting unintentional mistake, but ok, I'll accept that explanation that you reverted it by mistake.
The warning wasn't on your present talk, that's why it seemed more odd, but now I see the bot archived that warning. So, that is an appropriate explanation. Thanks.
Well, what you reported was clearly invalid, as the admin told you. I don't have any patterns which you claim, I reverted your edits with a clear edit summary telling you what you are adding is disputed, and also posted on the talk page in detail, which you didn't pursue until later. You continued to edit war.
you tend to ignore points raised in good faith.
What point exactly? The point where you falsely claimed something about me and continued to dodge it despite it being refuted by diffs, or the point where you misrepresented me? Accusing me of having a bias, writing falsely about me, then the audacity to say "you tend to ignore points raised in good faith."? Sure. It wasn't you on the receiving end. It was me you accused. I never even said "this user has a bias", you did about me. And you continued to dodge this gross behavior by telling me "let's not derail the discussion" on my talk page, after I explicity tell you this is about User conduct? Do us both a favor and don't reply to me until an administrator reaches this discussion because clearly you're making it more heated by not owning up yourWP:PERSONAL.Sir Calculus (talk)00:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying the archive and for having accepted my explanation for the unintentional mistaken revert.
I also admit I did not use the article talk page very well earlier and went immediately to a report. That was a bad judgment, and since then, I have tried to be more constructive, as can be seen in my return to the article talk page.[415] In fact, I even acknowledged one of your points in good faith,[416] but instead of just responding there, you escalated things to a report.
It seems best at this point for us both to stop going back and forth. We will let the administrators and community assess this matter neutrally. I will not respond further unless necessary.Veritasphere (talk)03:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Alright, if anything I said upset you, I truly apologize. The thing is, when i saw you repeatedly removing content (revert, undo...), I reacted emotionally. However, content shouldn't be dismissed entirely like that. a MORE balanced approach could have included both perspectives, but it seemed you weren't open to that earlier.
In fact, you completely reverted the edit (with edit summaries)... Yes, you also wrote on the talk page, but it seemed one-sided to me. Thats just my view, not an accusation.Veritasphere (talk)05:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Alright, if anything I said upset you, I truly apologize.
The offending comments are still up there on my talk page.
Good to know you accept to reacting emotionally. Content, when disputed, is dismissed exactly in that manner. Edit summaries and talk pages. As pointed out by the uninvolved editor.Sir Calculus (talk)18:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I've struck out the comments I felt were inappropriate or too personal that was entirely my call. I didn't mean to escalate things, i'd rather focus on content.Veritasphere (talk)02:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to give my opinion on this dispute.
The false edit warring report was not okay. When multiple people have reverted your edits, that means you need to go to the talk page and see why other people disagree with your changes.
@Veritasphere The lies from you have got to stop. The reason why your edits have been reverted were explained to you numerous times, but you don't seem to be able tohear the reasons. It doesn't matter if the edits I'm seeing were from 5 months ago, but we are talking about your most recent edits, where you keep reverting to your version despite consensus against them, as well as your behavior. False reporting on the edit warring noticeboard is not going to get your edits back either. Anything you did at Urdu Wikipedia has nothing to do with this whole discussion. We're talking about your behavior in the English Wikipedia, and your user conduct is the reason why this report has been filed. Trying to state stuff likeLets not derail the topic. when you have edit warred and making offending statements is definitely not okay.
@NacreousPuma855 Let me clarify one thing: I would not knowingly have continued a edit war. The edit I made on theSamma dynasty article was the first I had made there since February, a good five months prior. I purposely stayed away from the article so that I could back up my contributions withverifiable and reliable sources, which I honestly believe I have gotten by now. I was not willing to impose a point of view regarding that article, but rather, with the best intentions, contribute to it after careful research.
As for the report, I only reported out of concern by then, given the number of reversions being carried out and the dismissive attitude I perceived. In retrospect, I see that filing the report was perhaps not the most constructive way of dealing with the situation, and I sincerely apologize for whatever disruption it may have caused.
Regarding discussion and contrary opinion, I do not intend to ignore or overrule the agreement. If there is an ongoing discussion about talk page, which I missed or probably I did not answer p roperly, that is totally a mistake on my side and I would like to reconnect with everyone there respectfully. Iknow well that my contributions on the UrduWikipedia are of no concern to this current one regarding the Englih Wikipedia. I just thought to mention them to highlight my general patterns of editing and approach rather than justifying or trying to sneak excuses. From now on, I would be more careful about using the right channels of discussion, avoiding revertions where consensus is foggy. Thank YouVeritasphere (talk)02:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The page on zionism is clearly not written in a neutral way at all. It's written with a very anti-israel slant. See just the introduction:
Despite the name, our "administrators" don't have any special control of page content. Our administrators primarily deal with user conduct management and other technical matters. As that page is protected, you will not be able to directly edit it right now, however you may usethis link to the edit request wizard to submit changes you would like to have made for review. —xaosfluxTalk14:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've filed an SPI casehere because I think there may be sleepers; the history of the article in question is pretty filled with those sorts of edits, and I worry the problem may be bigger than that article.Daedalus969 (talk)01:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Marking their sandbox page for deletion renders their gaming script ineffective, forcing them to create a new page to start their script again. If you do this quick enough you can slow them down until someone blocks them.🧙♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)07:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Long-term disruptive editing, edit warring and block evasion by IP-hopping anon
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Will not stop removing "Kurdistan" from the page aboutAdawiyya, ([422],[423]). When he realized I wasn't gonna let him remove it he started asking for a "source" or else it will be "original research",([424]) when almost every source in the page makes a reference of Kurdistan, and as if Adawiyya was founded anywhere besides Kurdistan and by anyone besides Sheikh Adi. His excuses for removing Kurdistan and Sheikh Adi from the header on Adawiyya was that "no other sect pages have them" ([425],[426]) despite me explaining that Adawiyya had a deeper connection to the land and its founder than any other sect and therefore it was relevant.([427]) It should be noted that the user has a very long history of engaging in edit conflicts against Kurds, and therefore I have the right to assume this is from a personal bias against Kurds and Kurdistan, otherwise I haven't seen anyone who goes this far to remove a word.Ilamxan (talk)14:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I removed “Kurdistan” from the lead because there are no reliable sources that explicitly stated Sheikh Adi himself founded the Sect in Kurdistan as a geographical entity. It’s documented that kurds followed his teachings, but that doesn’t automatically mean the order was founded in Kurdistan. If you have credible, verifiable sources that say otherwise, produce them. giving off a claim like this, is literally counted as an original research. Accusing me of “bias” when I’m enforcing sourcing standards is misplaced. Given your prior history of personal attacks,[428][429] I recommend you focus on providing evidence andReliable sources Backing up your claims. If bya long history of edit conflicts against Kurds you mean I’ve been actively fixing misinformation and on Kurdish-related pages with solid sources, then yes, that’s true. I’ve corrected falsehoods and improved content like theBattle of Altun Kupri (2017). In your unblock request, you accused me of pushing an “Iraqi Arabist narrative”[430] and admitted to emotional edit summaries. Those are personal accusations here to me.when almost every source in the page makes a reference of Kurdistan I couldn't find any source that straightly stated the founder found the sect in Kurdistan. What is mentioned there was that he mixed with kurdish people and not Kurdistan. You might refer toAdawiyya#Origins where it stated:
Abdul qadir Gilani had studied with Sheikh Adi in Baghdad, and helped Sheikh Adi settle in Kurdistan.[5]
This is actually not what source has stated. it didn't mention anything as "Settled in kurdistan" but that hewithdrew to kurdish mountains, Abdu Qadir al-Jilani already had many supporters among the Kurds. the source didn't mention that al-Jilani brought him to kurdistan and didn't even say that Sheikh Adi withdrew to Kurdistan itself. it stated that he withdrew to the kurdish mountains, and these kurdish mountains mean the mountains that where the kurds are inhabited the most. Also when I decided to stop make any more reverts and asked you respectively for a reliable source supporting your claim, you replied with:tell that to the admins, I'm done giving you attention.[431] and here you're telling me not to touch the article, violatingWP:OWN.[432]R3YBOl(🌲)15:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say don't touch the article, I said don't touch the edit that added Kurdistan. And you're saying "he didn't go to Kurdistan he went to the Kurdish mountains", do you know how ridiculous this sounds? The entire Sinjar region has historically been Kurdistan, and the Adawiyya only thrived in various areas of Kurdistan, never in the historic Iraq or Syria. I'm adding Kurdistan back and will make sure it stays.Ilamxan (talk)16:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
don't touch the edit that added Kurdistan is still a violation ofWP:OWN, especially when you add[I] will make sure it stays - no, you will not. I have reverted the article to the way it was at the start of the day, fully protected the article for 72 hours to force discussion on this content dispute atTalk:Adawiyya, and placed the article under "consensus required" restrictions as per its status as part of aWP:CTOP. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
When I replied to all of his "arguments", he didn't reply. 30 minutes after I made my final edit to this section, he was making edits toAbbasid conquest of Ifriqiya among other pages. I assumed he saw all of this and just left it because there was nothing to argue against. The Adawiyya thrived only among Kurds and only in Kurdistan (Sinjar, Duhok, Hasaka, and even as far as Sulaymaniyah and Diyarbakr during its peak). A simple web search will lead you to countless sources, and thats not including the ones I used on the Adawiyya page itself. There was no reason at all to remove Kurdistan from the header on the Adawiyya page, I cannot think of a reason besides politics.Ilamxan (talk)03:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
This is a discussion that should be occurring on the article talk page, not ANI. This noticeboard is not to be used to settle content disputes.LizRead!Talk!04:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user kept submitting the same *extremely extremely* promotional and AI-generated draft over and over again about a non-notable individual. Since that decline, they have resorted to being uncivil to editors on their talk page.
If they really made an article containing fabricatated quotes, then I suggest an immediate indef, just to protect the encyclopedia.Cardamon (talk)08:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Certainly not civil but I don't think it is ANI-worthy. Is it urgent, chronic and intractible behavior violations? Have you tried other ways to resolve this dispute before coming to ANI? You can't open a case on ANI everytime somone is not polite,GraziePrego. I think some editors have set the bar way too low and come to ANI with any disagreement where harsh words might be spoken.LizRead!Talk!06:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough Liz, but I would say that I didn't just open this for being impolite- it was also for submitting the same draft repeatedly despite the problems pointed out. I would like to request that they cannot recreate this same draft again though? This draft, as mentioned above, was full of completely fictional hoax information about a non-notable individual, which if it was in mainspace, would be highly disruptive and damaging. They have also not seemed to grasp that that might be a problem, and just used AI to write their replies to other editors.GraziePrego (talk)08:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
AtDraft talk:Valeri Davidiouk, they're now contesting the deletion using an AI-generated rationale, which contains assertions about the draft and its subject that are totally and completely untrue. It has no citations, yet their rationale states that the draft is supported by high quality reliable sources that establish notability! Surely this counts as disruptive behaviour.GraziePrego (talk)08:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
@Liz, this is really unfair - they have evidently tried,many times, to resolve the dispute. It's all over the reported editor's contribution history and talk page. I've indeffed forWP:TE. --asilvering (talk)17:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to actually have to disagree with the general tenor here. I donot think this was a premature filing. The editor in question is not just clearly using ChatGPT -- they accidentally copied and pasted chatgpt.com into one of their replies[433] -- but may not even be competent enough to check what ChatGPT says.
Here, in the midst of an argument in which they were arguing for inclusion, they posted a ChatGPT response asking others to determine notability or the subjectisn't notable enough for inclusion, the exact opposite of their argument.[434] Then they posted a ChatGPT block warning the thread that subject assessments of humiliation are inappopriate, when in factBard Arts was the one that made that charge that they're warning others to not do.[435]
If an editor can't respond to an issue in a manner consistent with a good faith effort, and none of their edits after the obvious ChatGPT ones are the least bit constructive. If an editor either can not or will not communicate effectively with other editors, I think thatis an intractable problem, because communication is the only effective way for the other editors here to discuss Bard Arts' work and conduct.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)11:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
WP:LLMN is an appropriate noticeboard for discussing general issues related to LLM use. I'm afraid this is the right place for chronic and intractable problems that may require sanctions against specific editors.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)14:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
-astic47
The following accounts, with usernames ending in -astic47:
I've indeffed all of the accounts. IP 2600:387::/43 blocked x 2 weeks. AT&T semi protected x 1 month. Xfinity protected x 1 week. The other pages don't have enough recent disruption to justify protection for now. -Ad Orientem (talk)05:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Indeffed. It's pretty late here, so if you find anymore just drop them below and another admin will attend as soon as they can. This might be worth a look from someone with check user rights to see if there are anymore members of this sock farm. I need some sleep. -Ad Orientem (talk)05:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Going by the usernames, this is still happening despite your rangeblock. I'll file an SPI in case this is someone we already know. --asilvering (talk)17:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
User:OCDD repeatedly reverting and issuing threats – possible disruption
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I’m reportingUser:OCDD for repeated disruptive editing, mass reverts across multiple pages, and making inappropriate, uncivil threats.
I had added flag icons next to coaches' names in the infoboxes of several Indian athletes (e.g., Anahat Singh, Suruchi Singh, etc), in accordance withWP:INFOBOXFLAG, which clearly allows flag icons in infoboxes where nationality is relevant (such as for coaches in international sports). These edits are consistent with many other athlete pages, including Neeraj Chopra and others.
This user has:
Reverted all of these edits across multiple pages, without any consensus or proper discussion.
Accused me of “stuffing” infoboxes with flags, a baseless claim, since all flags were nationality-appropriate and policy-compliant.
Ignored Talk page engagement and policy explanations.
Made inappropriate and borderline threatening remarks, including:
> “If you keep being disruptive don't cry foul later.”
This kind of behavior violates several Wikipedia guidelines:
WP:CIVIL – for using an aggressive, dismissive tone
WP:NPA – for implying bad faith and making personal accusations
WP:THREAT – for using language meant to intimidate
WP:EDITWAR – for repeatedly reverting without consensus or discussion
Such disruptive behaviour is unwarranted, especially from a user who is already serving (or recently served) a block for disruptive editing. Their actions continue to hinder collaborative editing and go against Wikipedia’s core values of civility and consensus-building.
I was tempted, but I looked at their talk page and found comments that I agree are pretty uncollaborative. Then there's more on OOCD's talk page, likeSure, whatever floats your boat clown. Stop wasting your time then. Nobody asked you to obsess over things. andBut your tiny ego got pricked and you had to throw a fit and call names. So we do have a chronic problem here. OOCD saysYou get the energy you give others., a lesson they should perhaps learn themselves; I'll tempblock. --asilvering (talk)16:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP conducts 100% original research needs attention
I see no changes in this user after 3 months of blocking and a further block is needed. TakeAppu for example. Oh and this edit[437], which precedesthis edit suggestssocking. Notice how theIP has no contributions on 27 February 2025 but has contributionshere. And thisedit is very similar to thisedit. (8 day India sabbatical?)
Ever since the birth of thisarticle and thisarticle, the IP usually adds these names and another name to many film articles supposedly since they both acted in many films and are missing from articles, which is fine[438].
However, this editor is adamant about adding names from the credits of actors who don't appear in the film. See[439] (the names starting with "M" and "S" that he added does not appear in the film). The credits of 2000s Tamil films were madeBEFORE the film was cut so the actorsDO NOT appear in the final cut of the film and there is no reliable source (other than the film itself, which is pointless if it isn't publicly available). The IP is pretty adamant about their way:Right now, there's only one rule: Our way... or the highway.
There is no protocol on this, but if you are not going to add aDeleted scenes section and a[citation needed] to the film's cast section, this is pointless.
As per@Kailash29792: and@Jayanthkumar123:, see the Indian cinema taskforce discussion[440]. Both of Kailash's examples aresourced.
As I said on the IP's talk page[441], I'll state it again, is my time not valued here? I am legit speed-watching each film that the IP adds to figure out which cast members are in the film and which aren't in the film.DareshMohan (talk)09:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
@The Bushranger: Here, you said[442]Went to rangeblock the /64 and noticed this range has been blocked before, for exactly the same behavior and extended the block, why can't that be done here?DareshMohan (talk)03:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Mac Manik Musical Artist has been indefinitely blocked for promotion and advertising. After the block, they have now taken to promoting and advertising themselves on their user talk page (the only page they can edit), at:User talk:Mac Manik Musical Artist. I've reverted this once, but this user continued to restore the promotional material. I attempted to report this at AIV, however the line was automatically removed due to the user being indeffed, so I arrive here instead.Utopes(talk /cont)21:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arif Faturahman - persistent addition of unsourced content and deliberately ignoring talk page messages
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I don't edit English Wikipedia often, so I'm not really sure what I should do, but I decided to let you know that one person made lots of edits in the articleEnglish modal auxiliary verbs and they seem to be vandalism for me. I insist someone should have a look at it185.18.68.210 (talk)00:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jahurz93 - unsourced editing and personal attacks
Jahurz93(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has a couple of times added unsourced information toMalaysia Airlines fleet (first time, for which I left anotice on their talk page, explaining that sources shouldn’t be in edit summaries and that the source they linked wasn’t really suitable. They have ignored this notice, and insteadrestored their version, with the rather rude edit summaryPerhaps stop being a dick when internal sources are editing here.
Quite frankly, I do not wish to continue engaging with this user after such a personal attack, so I’m asking for a third party to let them know that they cannot be writing summaries like that, and to discuss their concerns - which I am happy to do in a civil manner - on talk pages.Danners430tweaks made12:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what Jahurz93 means by "internal sources are editing here", but if it's that they work for Malaysia Airlines then they should declare the conflict of interest. Editing with such a conlict involves extra responsibilities, not extra rights.Phil Bridger (talk)13:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I didn’t want to make assumptions (I do prefer assuming good faith when I can, not that you aren’t also), but it could definitely seem that way, yes.Danners430tweaks made13:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I have to apologize for that very rude comment. As for the fleet page. Since supposedly Wikipedia prefers a supposedly more reliable fleet number source. I would stop editing fleet movement even though there active movements of aircrafts exiting and entering the company sometimes in spontaneous weeks. For now i expect fleet numbers in Malaysia Airlines to be unreliable by an average of 3-8months if we are to wait for proper source.
My term of tinkering is to add citation sources whenever one becomes available. Of course to what you guys may see the sources may be unreliable or not properly conveyed in a proper matter by the article.Jahurz93 (talk)06:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
There are actually folks from the airline and those associated from the maintenance service provider of the aircrafts leased by the airline amending the article only for it to be removed understandably due to unreliable sources. So it can get a bit frustrating towards staffs and they may lash out. Though most of them refuse to declare under company confidentiality it also opens the can of worm in terms of conflict of interest.
For now i will just avoid any editing unless proper articles are out. But do expect erroneous editing from other wiki users whenever the airline receives an aircaft or an older aircraft has been pulled out of service pending return to lessor. Cause naturally some staffs are excited.Jahurz93 (talk)16:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
If staff are editing, then it is their responsibility to disclose this on their talk page, and abide by the requirements ofWP:COI, as they have a very clear conflict of interest.Danners430tweaks made17:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I doubt they would disclose.
Anyways i just came upon this. Could this be a usable reference to update the 737-8 fleet number.
And as for disclosure… it’s mandatory if they’re editing in the areas in which they have a COI. My question is, given your edit summary - what’s your relationship to the subject matter?when internal sources are editing here suggests to me that that could include yourself…Danners430tweaks made10:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Well it came directly from the airlines official social media account. Since its a no i am not gonna update.
I don't work for the airline but i am under the a different company related towards aviation located in Malaysia and once in a while i do end up having to work with that airline. Recently some of the amendments made on that fleet article by other users i recognize some of the usernames as being directly from the airline itself and possibly from operations. As for the recent editing i was notified that they received the latest aircraft so i went to the article with the intention to update it only to see it already updated. But again reliable sources was not attainable so it was reverted by you so i went and reinstate with a source that was not usable.
Then I made that bad comment purely cause some of the staffs have been trying to update the wiki page cause the info displayed was quite outdated throughout the years. Repeatedly edits have been reverted so it can be a bit frustrating. But understandably again with the lack of impromptu proper sources it will be difficult. Plus COI if it were to be made by staffs.Jahurz93 (talk)10:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I noticed that their user page has the quoteTinkering Malaysia's aviation scene when sources and citations are available.. Note the use of "tinkering" which kinda brings into question the intentions of the user. Additionally, the last part shows they ARE aware of the WP:RS policy, which makes the whole thing more questionable.Thehistorianisaac (talk)15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I didn’t even spot that… I do hope it’s innocent in intention - “tinkering” is a word I’d personally use to describe some of my gnoming work improving citation structures…Danners430tweaks made15:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed; I think in most cases most of us(even the vandals, POV pushers, nationalist editors etc) usually prefer to say "improve coverage" or "expanding". Yes, we all joke around, but self describing as "tinkering" is, well kinda questionable at bestThehistorianisaac (talk)15:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
agreed. "To tinker" in no way universally suggests any scheme or untoward intent. "To rejigger", "to tweak", and "to fiddle with" are a few near-synonyms that come to my mind (as a native speaker of American English).Julietdeltalima(talk)07:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I want to address a concern about user's behavior in recent discussions regarding footballer biographies, particularly the Phil Foden article.
I have tried several times to contribute positively and provide reliable sources that follow our guidelines, including BBC Sport, The PFA, and VAVEL. However, Ser has repeatedly dismissed them without clear justification based on our policies. Additionally:
- They referenced WP:AITALK to discourage offline AI-assisted drafting, even though I reviewed and posted the comments myself.- Their tone has been dismissive and unhelpful, showing little interest in working together or reaching an agreement.- They have reverted or challenged edits without meaningful discussion on the talk page, which may go against WP:OWN and WP:DISPUTE.
I'm willing to share diffs and links to the discussions if needed. I'm looking for feedback from uninvolved editors or administrators to help maintain our editorial standards and collaborative norms.
For context; atPhil Foden, the reporting user has on five occasions in just over 24h (1,2,3,4,5) reinstated "He is regarded as the best in the world" into the lead, either unsourced or with sources that do not back it up. I haven't made an edit on the article in about 24h and as can be seen atTalk:Phil Foden (and indeed atUser talk:Indconquistador have tried to engage with the editor, but they've repeatedly continued to insert this content, in spite of being reverted twice by another user. As can also be seen here, my tone has also never been "dismissive" as they allege, and I've engaged with every link they've provided.
Their report here also appears to be AI generated; they reference a "VAVEL" source, which was never added nor referenced in any of the above five diffs. Given the filer's only edits in the last six months have been (in the last two days) to add puffery "one of the best players in the world" content to the lead of Manchester City players, and they have continued to add this non-sourced content over and over, this is becoming an issue.ser!(chat to me -see my edits)18:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Rather than saying you are willing to share diffs, it would be helpful to actually share diffs. From looking at your talk page andTalk:Phil Foden, ser!'s behaviour looks okay to me. You specifically claim thatThey have reverted or challenged edits without meaningful discussion on the talk page but a look atTalk:Phil Foden#"Best in the world"? suggests that if anybody is failing to engage meaningfully on the talkpage, it's you. I also note that ser! isnot the only person to have reverted your edits to Phil Foden. Given that two editors have reverted you, and you are the one seeking to add a contested claim to the article, theonus is on you to find consensus.Caeciliusinhorto (talk)18:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor is disrupting articles across Wikipedia and has his talk page full of warnings.[455] He is even calling people "retards" for not agreeing with him.[456]Agletarang (talk)16:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I edit conflicted with The Blade of the Northern Lights who acted slightly quicker than I did, and so now LeonePhoenix has two indefinite block notices.Cullen328 (talk)16:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a re-filing of aprevious report made on June 25, 2025, byDoc Strange. In that report, the user's continued ignorance of the encyclopedia'sManual of Style, among other issues, including ignoring every single talk page warning addressing their behaviour (as well as the previous AN/I report), and yet, since that report, the user has continued to practice the same behaviours as an ongoing process. They are clearlynot here to edit constructively to the encyclopedia, and it is becoming clear a case ofcompetency is required might be at play, as well.
In addition to the edits previously-linked in the other filing, the user has continued to add information, sans any kind ofinline citation (edit one,two, andthree), as well as violation ofMOS:THECAPS (Manual of Style). User also continues to violate the encyclopedia's policy onno original research repeatedly (example one andtwo). Additionally, they made edit(s) with no supporting sources, as well as violatingMOS:DTAB,MOS:TABLECAPTION, etc. (example) and when I fixed the edit (example), they immediately reverted (example) without an edit summmary (which none of their edits contain—another issue brought up in the previous filing).
It's beyond clear this user is not here to edit towards the betterment of the encyclopedia, and their refusal to communicate and acknowledge the warnings left for them is highly alarming.livelikemusic(TALK!)04:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
They've never used a talk page over >500 edits and multiple talk page warnings. I've blocked from mainspace for failure to communicate, if they successfully find a talk page any passing admin should feel free to unblock without consulting me.Rusalkii (talk)19:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He asked me recently about a barnstar out of the blue, and I don't recall ever even meeting this editor. I looked at his page and the only connection I can find to me is that recentlyZLEAT\C contacted me on another matter and I only a little while later I got a message fromSpectra321578.
I do not know if this would be considered bullying behavior or not, but could someone please check into this? I do not like people getting in trouble or anything like that, but I also don't wantSpectra321578 to be bullied if that's what is going on here.Historyguy1138 (talk)15:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
They just sent him denunciations and as a result I attacked him for which I am now ashamed, but I would like to be acquitted, because the persecution of me with denunciations is not nice.
Secondly, I understand that I went too far when I asked for Barnstar, well, I think it’s unfair that I’m not being rewarded and I’m ashamed of that too.
Thirdly, I regret that I started spamming, but what was I supposed to do? Sit and wait in silence until I am awarded a Barnstar, the administrator should understand that if a person asks for it, he should be given it.
And if they can’t, then at least let them give me something. I can’t sit around all the time without awards.
By the way, Wikipedians themselves can appropriate awards for their service; there is nothing shameful about that.
I can only speak for myself, but I only noticed this user when they created their RfA page (which I have set up notifications for), at which point I saw their userspace-heavy contributions. I apologize if I was too quick to take this to ANI.eviolite(talk)16:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I've seen their messages on the Discord as well. If I recall correctly, one of the messages they sent there was on the lines of "it's like I'm not recognized for my efforts" and "reward me for my personal page with this barnstar" (could easily be wrong, so take this with a grain of salt, can provide links later if needed). Though, not to be rude or anything, but with 400~ total edits, only 59 of which are in mainspace perxTools (though most of these edits aren't exactly constructive), I too am struggling to see them being here to build an encyclopedia. The RfA and request for file mover permissions this early on are also odd (and they clearly don't meet the requirements for either). But my perspective is that this is a younger editor who just needs some guidance, so even if some action would be required right now, I wouldn't really hold it against them long-term if that makes any sense. Unless their behavior continues, obviously.λNegativeMP116:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Went ahead and found the Discord message links for those who are in the server: "I ask you to reward me for my personal page with Barnstar, I will send you a link to Barnstar"[457], "It's as if I'm not visible"[458]. I was close. However, there seems to be more to this. In these messages:[459] "I demand an explanation",[460] "Why don't I have any Barnstars for my personal page?", and[461] "If I don't get a Barnstar today for my personal page I'm leaving Wikipedia". I don't really want to base this sort of thing on behavior outside of Wikipedia, but considering thiswas on theWikipedia Discord server, I feel like it could be a relevant factor. MaybeWP:NOTHERE andWP:CIR do apply.λNegativeMP116:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
This is ANI, where we look into behavioural issues regarding Wikipedia contributors. You don't get to decide who discusses what.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Can you understand me or not, everyone is given Barnstars and I am only shown one block, and why is this? Can't you just ask and give it to me or something? I understand I went too far, but is it so difficult? take and give me an award? I fought for my page many times my edits in Wikipedia are not 79 as you say but 200 I began to devote less to my page only because of the Republic of Korea, At least say thank you for this, but you just appeared on Wikipedia and with Barnstars you disappear into nowhere
Nobody is entitled to barnstars, nor is anyone entitled to give them out. When you edit Wikipedia, it is to build an encyclopedia (even if that's just the occasional talk page concern on an account mainly used for reading articles). Continuing to threaten to leave the project if you do not receive awards is very clearlyWP:NOTHERE behavior and does not help your case. You could very easily be blocked and keep in mind that I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.λNegativeMP116:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
As has already been brought up here, Spectra321578 hascome to my talk page "demand[ing] an explanation" for why I confronted them about their spam. I will not attempt to offer guidance to this user anymore. This is a clear case ofWP:NOTHERE, so let's not allow them to waste any more of our time. -ZLEAT\C16:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For obvious reasons, I believe that the creation ofSundostundBots (talk·contribs) was directly inspired by my username, and I don't like that at all. I'm never happy when someone mocks me, especially when it comes to my username, status and work here. That particularly applies to newly-created accounts, obviously used for disruptive editing only. —Sundostundmppria(talk /contribs)23:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite the large number of edits, the user still does not understand the rules of Wiki edits. He regularly violates the rules of "The Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Uncertainty and rounding" -MOS:LARGENUM and rounds the box office to the nearest million forward or the nearest million back (what is even worse and definitely incorrect information), when in the rounding rules there is a special example of how to round on the Wiki "The jury's award was $8.5 million (not $8,462,247.63)". "The Manual of Style/Film" also refers to the "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" table at the beginning.
The same is stated in theTemplate:Infobox film - "Use condensed, rounded values ($22.4 million vs $22,392,684)". Despite the many warnings on his talk pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Evope and my own undo edits with warning, he continues to ignore the rules.
If I misunderstand something, please clarify, because I and other users see this as purposeful conscious violations, since people have been writing to him about it since at least 2023.. I see no reason why the figures for the box office/budget should not correspond to theMOS:LARGENUM when all the other numeric designations on the wiki pages match them. In this regard, the films grosses are not something special from other figures.Russiaoniichan (talk)15:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd suggest point out specific diffs where they are added the excessive digits. I spotchecked their contributions and they appear to be gnoming in terms of updating box office numbers with new data, but I am only seeing the use of rounded numbers.Masem (t)17:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
For any lurkers not familiar with Wiki jargon "gnoming" refers toWikipedia:WikiGnome which is a description of editors who keep busy with minor edits"A WikiGnome is a wiki user who makes useful incremental edits without clamoring for attention." This would be an appropriate description if Evope was properly updating the gross in Infobox lead section and article body, but since Evope frequently fails to consistently update the gross figures in all sections I would call it busy work creating needless inconsistencies for other editors to fix. --109.79.161.130 (talk)12:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I have just placed a warning on their talk page about this[462], taking that as a final warning. If they continue to make changes that do not follow proper rounding and other related factors, then this should be reason to at least block them for a limited period to start, so they understand the need to avoid this type of disruption.Masem (t)20:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
@Masem: thanks, but he doesn't seem to care. It was said many times on his talk page earlier, and he claims that he is doing it correctly. He's just messing around like he doesn't see it. Today's edits[463] he updated 18.6 million to 19 million, 36.1 to 36 million,[464] 30.7 to 31 million, 18.5 to 19 million. I don't think talking works for him, he's had a long discussion before and he just doesn't care.Russiaoniichan (talk)04:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Except all those are proper numerical roundings, and unless there's specific advice as to decimal place or significant figures we should be used in a MOS, I can't see a problem with. Mathematically incorrect roundings were done by that account in the past, that's addressable, but those changes aren't.Masem (t)12:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
@Masem:MOS:LARGENUM just uses the exact example of the rounding to the nearest hundred thousand in advance. And it also says inTemplate:Infobox film. Since when is rounding several hundred thousand to the sum a normal phenomenon that does not violate the MOS? And MOS does not provide for a reduction in the amount in a smaller direction, as he do.Russiaoniichan (talk)12:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
You are pointing to examples where the rounding is to the hundred thousand, but I don't see where in the relevant pages where it says that one *must* round to the hundred thousand place, just that rounding should be used. Whether or not that is to hundred thousands or to millions seems unspecified.Masem (t)14:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Russiaoniichan, it looks to me in the examples you cited that the editor is rounding correctly. How would you do this differently? This discussion is a lot of criticism that is short of examples of what you are so upset about. Be specific, don't talk in the abstract.LizRead!Talk!04:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers:,@Ealdgyth: or@Pbsouthwood: please explain. Do I understand correctly that we can increase the amount and round it up to the nearest million in advance when it comes to millions of money, despite the fact thatMOS:LARGENUM andTemplate:Infobox film are showing about rounding to the nearest hundred thousand? And do I understand correctly that it would be incorrect to reduce 150.3 million to 150 million in the opposite direction, for example?
My problem is that in this case, it is unclear from what point this rounding to the nearest million takes place, since MOS does not provide such an example, while everything is clear with rounding to the nearest hundred thousand. It is also not clear to me what to refer to if I round to the nearest million, if my edits are undone or changed, sinceMOS:LARGENUM andTemplate:Infobox film provides a completely different situation and users are guided by them.Russiaoniichan (talk)12:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I do not know why I have been pinged and the discussion above does not provide much useful information. Please briefly explain exactly what the problem appears to be. Please quote the exact statement from the MoS that you consider has been violated. I am getting the impression that you object to rounding to the nearest million and not to the nearest 100,000. Where is it stipulated that for this application it must be to nearest 100,000? · · ·Peter Southwood(talk):15:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: I explain this by saying thatMOS:LARGENUM states that rounding should match "round to an appropriate number ofsignificant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative". Insignificant figures, the nearest rounding occurs to the nearby figures. In "Rounding to significant figures" - 1.2459 to 1.25; 1.35 to 1.4; 14.895 to 14.9.
This example fromMOS:LARGENUM - "The jury's award was $8.5 million (not $8,462,247.63)." also confirms that it is based on the article as it corresponds to the accepted abbreviations. I don't really understand how rounding can work, that 8.5 or 8.6 million can turn into 9 million based on this data, as this user does.Russiaoniichan (talk)17:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read our article onrounding, as people who are familiar with the practicedo understand why 8.5 or 8.6 million not only can, but should turn into 9 million when rounded, but 8.4 million would turn into 8 million. It is a standard practice, well defined, used routinely by scientists, engineers, economists, journalists, accountants, etc. The only debatable point in this case is the precision, the number ofsignificant digits, or the number ofdecimal places to be used in each case. I suggest you educate yourself on the topic, then decide what you perceive as the problem, then come back and describe it accurately. Then we can work out if there is a real problem, and if so, what it is. Cheers, · · ·Peter Southwood(talk):04:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
The most relevant section isRounding#Rounding half up, which is what is generally meant if not specified, particularly with money. it would appear the numbers were rounded half up to the nearest million. As long as this was done consistently, I see no obvious reason to object. Cheers, · · ·Peter Southwood(talk):06:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, that's the reason I had my doubts about rounding. If any 104.5 million looks appropriate, round it up to 105 million. 1.5 million to 2 million already look too high.Russiaoniichan (talk)09:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
The reasonable response would be to ask the editorUser:Evope, why they think it is good practice to round to one significant figure in these cases. Just in case they have a good reason, and because it will bring their attention to the actual point of the disagreement. If they do not respond appropriately, it might be necessary to take things further. Cheers, · · ·Peter Southwood(talk):05:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
If I might chime in, I have been asking user Evope to at least be consistent in his edits and follow the same rounding in the Infobox lead section and article body. He has a bad habit of updating only the Infobox(diff) sometimes remembering to udpate the article body(diff) but frequently forgets to update the lead section to match. He updated the gross from $365 million to $365.7 million in the Infobox, which is mathematically correct based on the latest gross of $365,737,913 but Evope failed to update the lead section, so it leaves the article looking like the figure has been truncated in the lead section and that this encyclopedia isunable to get basic math right. (Evope seems unwilling to follow the rounding level of other editors, which would have meant rounding up and writing $366 million.) I went ahead and update the gross in the lead section to use the same figure as the Infobox(diff). Evope is prolific but he's not the only person frequently updating the Infobox while failing to properly update other parts of the article. I had hoped by asking nicely and persistently he might be more careful but this doesn't seem to have worked.
Unfortunately the documentation does not specify or require any particular level decimal places. Theold discussion that lead to this was putting the highest priority onreadability, with secondary concerns about not misleading readers by rounding figures in certain edge cases. I generally follow the rounding the previous editor has used but if editors are failing to keep the figures consistent I sometimes round to nearest million. The point of the gross is generally to compare against the budget, (as mentioned in theold discussion) so when a film has grossed many millions and already earned multiples of its budget then I see no further need for unnecessary decimal precision. Editors are allowed to include the figures with an extra decimal place if they really want but I do not understand why they would want to, as it creates churn and needless busy work for themselves and other editors and setting up other editors to fail to properly update those figures. (Perhaps I also need to clarify for some that a number such as $366 million is already at 3 significant figures, 1 decimal place of precision $365.7 million brings it to 4 significant figures and makes the number more cumbersome for readability and reading aloud.) Claims that editors want to precise do not ring true when they are at the same failing to be precise enough to also properly update the article body. I merely ask that editors (not just Evope) try to be a bit more careful and bit more consistent so it doesn't leave this encyclopedia looking like it cannot get basic math right. --109.79.161.130 (talk)12:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I no longer believe thatEvope is editing in good faith after this edit(diff) where he leave the Infobox with the figure $365.9 million and the lead section with the text "over $365 million" claiming in his edit summary that he "made lead section and info box consistent". In 2019 I first informed him of theMOS:LARGENUM guideline which says"Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way". This is needless inconsistency. Truncating $365.9 million down to $365 million ignores normal rounding and is frankly misleading and unnecessary and I don't know why any editor would think this deliberate inconsistency was a good thing. Following bad examples is one thing but after being asked many times not to do this and then doing it anyway it no longer seems like a mistake it seems like a problem. Leaving an article with different figures in the Infobox and lead section is the exact opposite of consistent. I've asked nicely many time, I don't know what to do except to ask this person to stop updating box office gross figures entirely as he seems unable to round numbers in a consistent way. --109.76.128.37 (talk)11:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)See also these recent edits all from July 17:
[469] diff Jurassic World Rebirth deliberately choosing inconsistency
[470] diff 28 Years Later edit summary claiming consistency but using different levels of decimal places in the Infobox and lead section leaving the article with $560.3 million in the infobox and "over $560 million" in the lead section.
[471] Megan 2.0 edit claiming consistency in the edit summary but leaving the article with "$37.1 million" in the Infobox while writing "over $37 million" in the lead section.
I've asked nicely many times but Evope is unwilling or unable to understand normal rounding of numbers and consistently writing the same number in 3 different places. At some stages it seems as if he had taken my concerns onboard but he now seems have completely reverted back and is doing exactly what I first asked him not to do in 2019. --109.76.128.37 (talk)11:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Please note that "$365.9 million"is "over $365 million", It is a mathematically and logically correct statement, so what is your gripe with this? · · ·Peter Southwood(talk):14:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Can you quote the text of a consensus decision that explicitly states that the same numbermust or evenshould be represented by the same number of decimal places or significant figures in the lead and the infobox, because what I am seeing here is a reasonable rounding of a number which changes frequently in the infobox, and an easier to digest version in the lead, which I see as user friendly and adequately precise for the job. I do not edit box office figures, or anything else about movies for that matter, so there may be some project related special advice I am unfamiliar with, so I ask you to show me if there is. · · ·Peter Southwood(talk):15:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Using the figures rounded to the same number of decimal places in both places should be easier for editors and clearer for readers. If an editor really wants that extra decimal place of precision in the Infobox why wouldn't they also want it in the lead section?MOS:LARGENUM warns against using unnecessary qualifiers for numbers rounded in the normal way. It would be a very rare edge case to write "under" however many millions, it is similarly strange to write "over" when numbers could simply be rounded in the normal way instead of being truncated for no apparent reason. (This wasn't just my opinion, I brought this fordiscussion at Wikipedia Project Film and with the exception of one hostile editor most agreed this was a reasonable interpretation of existing guidelines and applied to film articles same as any other article.) Consistency is not required but why would anyone deliberately choose inconsistency which takes additional effort? --109.76.128.37 (talk)20:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Editors frequently update the box office figures. Other editors who do understand how to round numbers in the normal way will see the gross figures and properly update them in both the infobox and the lead and but they will often replace a figure that was "over" with another figure that is actually slightly under. This unnecessary use of "over" frequently trips up the next editor. Using the same figure in both cases avoids this potential trap. It is a mistake that could be avoided by simply following whatMOS:LARGENUM already recommends. --109.76.128.37 (talk)20:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
In that discussion I see almost everyonedisagreeing with you. You are also edit warring these numberswhile citing irrelevant guidelines. If you have been pushing this since 2019 (as mentioned above) and not found any consensus I think it is long past time you dropped the stick.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk20:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I have already described why someone might reasonably do this. I am giving you the opportunity do persuade me that you have a point. So far I remain unpersuaded. · · ·Peter Southwood(talk):16:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Inconclusive; I would consider them to be meatpuppets for enforcement purposes, but I think the username pattern is more like sovereign citizen cosplay than anything else. I will send a note to Trust & Safety anyway, and Ritchie I presume you're up to speed on good account security practices already.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)14:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed toFearless Speech (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki ·SI). I did not check the IP range, but if this is the same user then they should be blocked with TPA & email revoked.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)20:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time youvandalize Wikipedia. . Behavior is continuing.
Blocked x 72 hrs.This edit looks like vandalism to me. -Ad Orientem (talk)05:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aGerman_observation_post_above_Salonica%2c_1941.jpeg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d1298892581){kind=link}
![[14]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aJewish_men_forced_to_unload_a_munitions_train_in_Izbica.jpg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d1298892576){kind=link}
wikimedia.org184.152.65.118 (talk)21:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Declined. You appeared to be a sockpuppet. This discussion was had previouslyFabvill (Talk to me!)04:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
