Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

• Vofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hazaras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hazaragi dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mongolic peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to report a pattern of disruptive editing by user Vofa (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, including WP:RS, WP:DE, WP:CONS, and WP:NPOV.

1. Article: Hazaras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Vofa removed 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 was removed: 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 was deleted, 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 related discussion, Vofa claimed that Encyclopaedia Iranica is not a reliable source - contradicting WP: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 of WP:EW and WP: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)[reply]

(If it's not obvious, this ANI report is related.)

The edits you mention -- specifically the ones on Hazaragi dialect -- seem a lot like POV-pushing to remove information referencing any relationship between Hazaragi and Mongolic language or peoples.

• The revision you linked here -- the removed statements are well-supported by (or directly quote) the sources, and the weight of the bits in the article also seem to line up roughly with that of the sourced texts.
• The edit summary for this 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 removing only the parts of the section they disagree with.
• The next edit uses a misleading edit summary ("grammar") to remove the last pieces of Mongolic mentions in the article.

I'm also surprised to see this unexplained revert on Mongolic peoples to a now-banned sock's revision which, on its face, seems to remove a lot of well-sourced information and reword significant parts of the article to be less-NPOV. —tony 18:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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?

HistoryofIran, The Squirrel Conspiracy, Liz - would be great to hear what you think.

Thanks again to everyone taking a look!--KoizumiBS (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also just noticed that Vofa earlier removed reliably sourced info about the Mongolic origins of the Merkits too (1, 2) - this really seems like a consistent pattern in his edits.--KoizumiBS (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

I ask the administrators – particularly @Liz – to take note of this behavior. KoizumiBS (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is a contentious subject area, with examples including Hazaras, Hazaragi dialect, Merkits, and Mongolic peoples - where Vofa’s editing patterns have been observed. KoizumiBS (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz just a quick follow-up. After my last comment, Vofa has again removed 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Liz another example of disruptive editing - in this edit, Vofa removed 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)[reply]

never removed sources. refrain from stating false information. Vofa (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz If they aren't editing in a contentious topic, they are butting up against WP:CT/EE. I'm thinking specifically of edits like this one to Crimean 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)[reply]

Also note:

• The previous ANI topic from January 2025. This was not mentioned above.
• User_talk:Vofa#User_Conduct_Dispute
• Major change to first sentence in Bulgars (removing Turkic) with the edit summary of "cleanup" [1] Bogazicili (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Vofa (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 per WP:BLOCKPREVENT. The above suggested scope of "Central Asian ethnic history" sounds good to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Vofa was previously involved in an edit dispute on the page Uralic languages trying to claim that the Samoyed 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)[reply]
• Per WP:NOTHERE and WP: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)[reply]
• @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)[reply]
• 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 at Hazaras [2] [3]. Before that, they had attempted to justify their edit warring by claiming that KoizumiBS had removed loads of sources [4], which was blatantly wrong [5]. They also claimed that encyclopedias (such as Encyclopaedia Iranica) should not be used due to WP:NOTESSAY (???) [6] [7]. They're currently WP:STONEWALLING at Talk:Hazaras. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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:

• A refusal to discuss (here)
• A stray sarcastic "thanks!" (here)
• Vaguely accusing KoizumiBS of lying without evidence (here)
• When shown this diff where Vofa removed a source, their explanation for its removal is "never removed sources. refrain from stating false information" (here)

Vofa literally 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 to WP:STONEWALL (like this talk page discussion), or shove fingers in their ears (like in this ANI) while appearing to scrub any mention of a particular ethnic group (like they did again earlier 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. —tony 15:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 in Kabuli dialect of Dari.

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.

i urge all sides to understand opposing views. Vofa (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. take Merkits 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)[reply]

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. take Merkits 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why did you type this twice? GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for pointing that out, actually. it could be a Wikipedia issue. Vofa (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem thanks for the answer interesting never seen a wiki issue like this before. GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vofa I looked at your edits, and the 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)[reply]

Support topic ban

• Ongoing issues since January 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 as i 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 explanation 13 July 2025
  • Short description change in Barlas, which doesn't make any sense, given the opening sentence in the article 10 July 2025
• Another concern per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE is that Vofa edits pages with low number of page watchers, so mistakes do not get reverted. For example, in Lezgins, they removed census sources 7 June 2025 (with no explanation). These census sources still have not been restored.

I suggest a 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)[reply]

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

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 the Template:Infobox film - "Use condensed, rounded values ($22.4 million vs $22,392,684)". Despite the many warnings on his talk page https://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 the MOS: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)[reply]

@Peaceray:, @Masem: or @Jay: please review my post, as no one has written for two days now and I don't want the post to just go into the archive. Russiaoniichan (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For any lurkers not familiar with Wiki jargon "gnoming" refers to Wikipedia: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)[reply]

@Masem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lilo_%26_Stitch_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1298842079 - for example, he rounds the box office to 252 million, while the source shows 251.6 million. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Final_Destination_Bloodlines&diff=prev&oldid=1298535268 - he rounds the box office from 283.4 million to 284 million, at the time, the movie didn't make that amount money and was still 283.4.

He does this on a regular basis on multiple films pages. It's a little difficult to keep up with updates, as other people are correcting his edits, but he continues to do it stubbornly. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission:_Impossible_–_The_Final_Reckoning&diff=prev&oldid=1299029213 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lilo_%26_Stitch_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1299029047 he do it again today. I have already mentioned that this does not comply with the existing rounding rules. Russiaoniichan (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just placed a warning on their talk page about this [8], 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)[reply]

@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 [9] he updated 18.6 million to 19 million, 36.1 to 36 million, [10] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Masem: MOS:LARGENUM just uses the exact example of the rounding to the nearest hundred thousand in advance. And it also says in Template: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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 that MOS:LARGENUM and Template: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, since MOS:LARGENUM and Template:Infobox film provides a completely different situation and users are guided by them. Russiaoniichan (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why I was pinged and I have no input on this. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged to get a comment and an explanation from the administrators on the situation in order to quickly close the issue. Russiaoniichan (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I've been pinged. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers is not on my watchlist. ϢereSpielChequers 13:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: I explain this by saying that MOS:LARGENUM states that rounding should match "round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative". In significant 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 from MOS: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)[reply]

Perhaps you should read our article on rounding, as people who are familiar with the practice do 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 of significant digits, or the number of decimal 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)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: Oh, that's what I wanted to see! Thanks for the link, now I understand these numbers. I think my question is now closed. Russiaoniichan (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most relevant section is Rounding#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)[reply]

On the other hand, I personally would prefer to see at least two significant figures after rounding. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The reasonable response would be to ask the editor User: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)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood Can you provide a diff of where they rounded to one significant figure? —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been personally scrutinising the details, so no. I will leave it to Russiaoniichan, who made that claim, or possibly one of the others who has complained about Evope. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 is unable 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. The old discussion that lead to this was putting the highest priority on readability, 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 the old 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)[reply]

Fair comment. I would like to see a response from Evope. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting here because it appears Mediascriptor has an undisclosed COI regarding media organization Antigua.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.

Background

Antigua.news is a media organizataion founded in 2022 as the "official news channel of the Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda in Madrid". Editorial guidelines here

Evidence:

• In 2020, Mediascriptor uploaded an image of the Embassy of A&B in Madrid to Wikimedia Commons as their own work.
• Mediascriptor later uploaded content to Wikimedia commons from Antigua news and content about the publication's owner and business colleague.
• In 2025, Mediascriptor made pages for Antigua.news on English, German, French and Italian wikiprojects. Their edits to fr, de, it wikiprojects were largely confined to Antigua.news. On Italian Wiki, Mediascriptor recieved a block for suspected COI editing. The Antigua.news page on that wikiproject was deleted, and the discussion went into illluminating detail about allegations of COI editing on that Wikiproject.
• Mediascriptor's contributions on de.wiki consist of making the page for Antigua.news and adding references to Antigua.news on other pages. On fr.wikipedia, the contributions are similar. The fr.wiki page to Antigua news has a few flags by editors for neutrality, and the content used to populate the pages does not appear to give a balanced perspective.
• 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 [11]). On en.wikipedia, there are 180 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 to WP:USEBYOTHERS.
• Mediascriptor made extensive edits to the pages of Antigua.news's owner and created the page for this person's business colleague before the pages were recently deleted.
• In a sockpuppet investigation initiated by another editor related to edits on these pages, Mediascriptor admitted they supposedly live in the same house[12] as another editor who appeared to edit exclusively on topics related to Antigua.news's owner and business colleague (the two persons are involved in some business around nobility/royal titles). The editors were blocked.

Since returning from the block, Mediascriptor has resumed editing around the following pattern:

1. Creating pages which stuff Antigua.news links to the site [13][14][15][16] For example, Antigua and Barbuda Hotels and Tourism Association (8 links to Antigua news)

2. Making pages with unclear notability or WP:TOOSOON events where Antigua.news can be added ie Death of Yenifer Bridge (8 links), Death of Chantel Crump (13 links to Antigua news) or

3. Making pages related to the line of work that the owner of Antigua.news is involved in [17][18]. Many of these pages have questionable notability and sourcing appears to be haphazard. A previous page along these lines made by Mediascriptor was redirected.

• Mediascriptor has denied being paid for editing, so it may be an instace of WP: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 not WP: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 the Antigua Observer, and Antigua 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.

• I would ask Mediascriptor to 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
• that new articles created by them on these topics utilize the AfC process before going to Mainspace, due to the concerns about unclear notability and their sourcing of their new articles created.
• Should they not respond to these terms, it may be reasonable to assume that Mediascriptor is WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. Nayyn (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The state of Antigua.news, which they started, prior to other editors involvement could be charitably described as "less than neutral" [19]. Additionally:

  • 29 Dec – Mediascriptor uploads "Antigua.news.jpg" and "Antigua.news small icon.jpg" to commons [20][21] and adds them to the article [22][23].
  • 7 Jan – both are deleted from commons [24][25] for copyvio.
  • 6 hours 27 minutes later – es:User:Antigua.news is created.
  • 9 Jan – Antigua.news uploads "Antigua.news logo.jpg" and "Antigua.news icon.jpg" to commons [26][27].
  • 18 Jan – Mediascriptor adds these images to the article [28].

  fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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 either WP:COI editing or WP: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 the now-deleted Dario Item to lists of notable alumni of various universities: [29] [30] [31].
  • Edit #7 more than 10 months later was to create the Antigua.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 now also-deleted Giacomo Merello: Lord Leslie (Merello's title), Marcella Bella (Merello's mother), and Gianni 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 ( [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]), 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 ([39] (they blanked the warning from their user page), [40]). I'd say this user is WP:NOTHERE. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 19:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All the articles recently created by Mediascriptor are AI-generated and should be deleted. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Children Will Listen, I see you've G5 tagged some of their articles [41][42], but they aren't currently G5 eligible. The first sentence of WP:G5 is "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block", this has not yet occurred.

  If you've found the articles to be LLM-generated and not ready for articlespace, consider performing a descriptive draftification, tagging the page with {{ai-generated}}, and leaving a note on the talk page. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks so much for letting me know, and I'm sorry for tagging the articles without realizing that the account was p-blocked after the pages were created. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have moved most of their articles to draftspace. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChildrenWillListen, you are actually a very new account, so please double- and triple-check policy before you take action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 [43] 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 to Antigua.news, Dario Item or other subjects [44]. This was around the time their article submission for Antigua.news was denied.[45] Mediascriptor said there was no connection [46], Gitz kindly responded to share the connected contributor template [47]. Mediascriptor again denied a link [48]. Gitz followed up to explain further about the policy [49]. The following day @Mediascriptor blanked their talk page.[50]
• In February, @PARAKANYAA nominated one of Mediascriptor's articles about the Stanford case for deletion.[51] The result was pretty clear about psudo-biographies/ no notability.[52] Since then, Mediascriptor went on to write 2 more psudo-biography articles about figures from the same case Gilbert Lopez and Leroy King (Antigua and Barbuda).
• Five days after @Asilvering lifted Mediascriptor's block, @Jlwoodwa notified Mediascriptor about article creation with LLMs.[53]. 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)[reply]

• I have p-blocked from article space until concerns are addressed and resolved. Star Mississippi 14:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just responding to one aspect here: the it.wiki block was indeed for COI, and their 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, Rosguill ^talk 21:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

​I collapsed the above comment by Mediascriptor as being LLM-generated per WP:AITALK, they reverted this [54], 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)) They re-reverted. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how they said "this will be my final post" but keep reverting the collapsing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Even if we disregard their obvious COI with Antigua.news, there's still the problem with them using AI to create all their articles, and as we can see here, they refuse to communicate without resorting to LLMs. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 of UPE 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)[reply]

AI Librarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has fundamental issues with their editing. (Note: the "AI" in the username seems to be the user's initials, not LLM AI.) Their edits show a consistently poor grasp of English (ex. 1, 2, 3). Other issues include altering quotations, adding outright nonsense that appears to be copied from search results, adding obviously incorrect wikilinks, and misleading edit summaries. Every edit of theirs has basic issues; I've reverted all from the past month. A litany of talk page notices have failed to correct the issues, and they have not responded at all. I think it's time for a CIR block. Given the overlap on Chaturon Chaisang plus similar errors and edit summaries, 197.211.63.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is probably an accidental LOUTSOCK. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 what Liz 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 nearly all 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, @AI Librarian:/@197.211.63.45:, editing while logged out is not somthing that should be done when you have an account. It can be seen as being intended to mislead; while it's clear here that isn't your intention, it breaks up your edit history and exposes your IP address. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've returned to making bad grammar edits and created Ilorin Emirate Durbar in broken English. It doesn't appear they've learned anything from this thread. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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 [55] and [56] 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)[reply]

  Also for not following WP:MOS guideline, see this edit. Absolutiva 22:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Likebr 20: I would recommend proceeding to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Absolutiva 11:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI: Like56d did incoherent and duplicate messages at Talk:Brazilian Portuguese. Absolutiva 03:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Likebr 20 and Absolutiva: 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 word vandalism; 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)[reply]

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

Example Catalan subjects	Spanish/Catalan reversion diffs
Ricard Canals	diff1 diff2
Emilio Grau Sala	diff1
Joan Miró	diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 diff6 diff7 diff8 diff9 diff10, (etc.)
Albert Ràfols-Casamada	diff1 diff2 diff3
Josefa Texidor Torres	diff1
Rafel Tona	diff1
Silvia Torras	diff1
Lluís Companys	diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 diff6 diff7 diff8 diff9 diff10, (etc.)
Isidre Nonell	(not including recent revert war) diff1,diff2,diff3,diff4,diff5,diff6, (etc.)
Ramon Casas	(recent) diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 diff6 diff7 (RfC started)
Artur Mas, Antoni Gaudi	Carles Puigdemont, Josep Tarradellas, etc. Uff dah.

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 regarding Wikipedia:Crime_labels. Excessive, repetitive argument; a huge waste of time.

There have been multiple RfC's on this question: in 2018 on the Manual of Style/Biography talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2018_archive#RfC_on_use_of_Spanish_regional_identity_in_biography_leads; on the question of Carles Puigdemont being labeled a Catalan politician Talk:Carles_Puigdemont/Archive_5#RFC_on_nationality, and on Ramon Casas Talk:Ramon Casas#Request for Comment: Subject lead label Catalan or Spanish?, and in all cases the consensus was for the "Catalan" label. In addition the Talk pages for Antoni Gaudí ( Talk:Antoni_Gaudí#Gaudí's Nationality ) and Artur Mas ( Talk:Artur Mas#His nationality ) have extensive discussions on the question, with the consensus to use the "Catalan" label. All of these RfCs and Discussions have had a similar, clear resolution. I recently started yet another discussion of the issue on the MoS/Biography Talk page Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2025_archive#h-The_Catalan/Spanish_label_again_in_Catalan-related_biographies-20250430132100; it came to nothing; I have noted that on Wikipedia nothing gets resolved without an edit war, alas. User:Kingsif has started an essay on the issue: Wikipedia:Using Catalan in a biography lede.

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 the Ramon 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 the Isidre Nonell to reassert the "Catalan" label, stating the extensive summary above on Talk:Isidre_Nonell. I view the question as a settled consensus. There was then the expected revert war involving User:CFA1877 and User: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 the Talk: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)[reply]

This is way too long. If you want an administrator to do something, cut this down to 300 words at most. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be quite difficult. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some of the examples in the original post use the opposite structure: e.g. "Artur Mas is a Catalan politician from Spain", "Ramon Casas was a Catalan artist from Spain", etc. -- Oddwood (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Mas and Casas are not footballers for the Spain national team. (The essay has a bit more information on the phrasing question.) Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at WP: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...). Girth Summit _(blether) 18:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat more controversial than the UK bios; whereas someone may identify as "Scottish" but is unlikely to violently disagree with being called "British", that may not be the case with Catalonia and Spain; have a read of Catalan_independence_movement#2017_Referendum,_Declaration_of_Independence_and_new_regional_elections for an idea of the issues here. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very much like the situation in North Ireland, where identifying as British or Irish is a matter of continued violence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic area is one of perennial nationalist disputes yes 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 per MOS: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 apply see WP: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unless & until Catalonia becomes independent? Spain/Spanish should be used in those biographies. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That will never happen. Lopezsuarez (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 the Imperial 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Ravenswing 10:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Agree with all of this. For someone who notably identifies as Catalan this needs to go in the first sentence. This RfC is relevant, and I note that the only editor opposing it was User:Lopezsuarez, whose opinion above is All these people should be referred to as Spaniards. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It should always be 'X is a Spanish Y' - whether the lede also then mentions Catalonia is a matter of individual article talk page discussion. GiantSnowman 20:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)2[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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 convoluted and 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. without necessarily 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)[reply]

  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 only FIFA federations are recognized nationalities, or that "real" nations consist of the Westphalian system plus the Home 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I also noted this recent change in category labeling. For example the category above "Painters from Catalonia" was recently changed (28 May) from "Catalan Painters" diff. While I am suspicious of the motivation for the change (And the two categories seem distinctly different to me; I don't agree with the change; it is a suppression of "Catalan" as an identity), there was a substantive discussion about such changes: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 18#Category:People by autonomous community in Spain. Bdushaw (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  That link is incredibly useful and that RfC itself points to two 2018 RfCs that together provide cast iron consensus for the position that X 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. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And yes, I realise those links are in the original report. TL;DR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I admit from looking this over - not extensively, but a bit more than skimming - my takeaway is that a WP:GS might well be needed here? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the most simple enforcement would be to designate as a contentious topic and 1RR? Kingsif (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 artist Joan 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)[reply]

FYI, the article Pau Casals recently had the label change in the lead sentence to "Catalan" from Spanish diff. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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) buidhe 13:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that Lopezsuarez is currently blocked by Ivanvector for edit warring for 72 hours, of which 13 have passed. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to request protection measures for the following pages. Alwar Balasubramaniam, Alia Syed, Ranjani Shettar, Nasreen Mohamedi, Rummana Hussain, Allan deSouza, Anjum Singh, Arpita Singh, Sheila Makhijani, N. N. Rimzon, Paramjit Singh , Talwar Gallery, Valay Shende, and Nalini Malani.

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.[[60]] [[61]] [[62]][[63]][[64]] [[65]][[66]]

With some of the users, whose usernames are their real names, you can further establish COI.[[67]][[68]][[69]] 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baberoothless (talk • contribs) 07:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Rfpp. drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ _{choose only one...} 09:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response! I considered posting on WP: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 on WP: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)[reply]

• The common thread here is that all of these accounts were created by single-purpose throwaways, and all seem to be connected to the Talwar Gallery in some way. I have just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talwar108, but I have to run and will check in on this later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I really appreciate you looking into this! Thank you. Baberoothless (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor @Maruf Sumra on the Soomra dynasty article is refusing to engage in the WP: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: [70]

I have also warned them on their own talk page twice: [71] [72]

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.

Diffs of user removing sourced content: [73], [74], [75], [76] Ixudi (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 be Talk:Soomra dynasty. If you start a discussion there and refrain from re-instating you prior edits that other editors have objected to until you reach consensus there, I think the issue raised in this report can be considered resolved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 by me; 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 [77]. 2. Stiff and a little flowery prose; the prose seems different in character to this user's other articles)
• Regie Tongol (tagged by Paul 012)
• Ading Cruz (tagged by Paul 012)
• Manuel Teehankee (tagged by Paul 012)
• Raul Villanueva (tagged by Paul 012)
• Rodolfo Ordanes (tagged by Paul 012)

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)[reply]

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) buidhe 01:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I first noticed Wiscomiller's contributions from the page Jatuporn Buruspat, the first 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 as listing 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 that had 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note that Wiscomiller has continued creating new pages even after this ANI thread went up. [78] Doesn't seem like they're interested in engaging with others. Mostly unsourced BLP again. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 then grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  Good block. GiantSnowman 12:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is making blatant edits on WP:Contents without discussion or consensus. User:Interstellarity. Please do inquiry, because he seems to do it itself without having a discussion, and block them if needed. #not here to build encyclopaedia. Sys64 message this user 01:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 reverted here. So immediately reporting them to ANI for allegedly wrongdoing when they tried to talk about it is bizarre. λ NegativeMP1 01:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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 the WT: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)[reply]

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 user 01:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang of some sort - Unrelated to the report in itself, this user has been disruptive at multiple help pages (particularly the WP:Teahouse by WP: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. — ^EF⁵ 01:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course please bring those bitey comments and I am happy to deal with them. Cheers! Sys64 message this user 01:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 edits yesterday (diff), and Did 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. — ^EF⁵ 02:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think i could get similar from your account too if i waste my time on that matter, but I have more important things to do. Sys64 message this user 02:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) +1 Comments like this and this at the Teahouse are really WP:BITEy and some action is needed here. Tenshi! (Talk page) 02:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 user 02:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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). — ^EF⁵ 02:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 user 02:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes but only 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 user 11:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 way grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 user 02:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 user 02:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

its naive but interesting game to play. EF5 you can bring naive comments and I can bring better comments, sure? Sys64 message this user 02:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 the last resort, you must attempt to communicate and resolve disputes at lower levels before coming to ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This ia clearly a matter for Wikipedia_talk:Contents, and maybe User_talk:Interstellarity. It should never have been brought here. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The editor doesn't have an archive, but one can see what 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 and I might suggest to delete it and block me permanently but stop messaging me. diff and I 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)[reply]

• Support. I get that Sys64 is wanting to be helpful, but their comments are often unclear, misleading, and unhelpful.

ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sys64wiki on the law of holes - Its a very nonsense article in my opinion and makes no sense to me, if it does in your case feel free to chant its meaning.. Er, pardon? Narky Blert (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need for pardon, thats my "genuine opinion". you might like to search for Opinion on wikipedia, I am sure there is an article on the subject. Sys64 message this user 03:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary defines four meanings of the verb "chant". Which one did you have in mind? Narky Blert (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, was not impressing so impressing. Have a nice day! Sys64 message this user 11:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• not so impressing.

Sys64 message this user 11:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

P.S. I have ADHD, so sometimes I express myself in complex ways. I’m working on it. Sys64 message this user 03:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Law of holes is not a nonsensical article. If your genuine opinion is that it is, you likely are not capable of meaningfully contributing to English Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 user 05:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT applies to deletion discussions and content disputes, it isn't about not liking other editors. If one takes the time to read and understand Wikipedia policies, one is liable to find out about venues such as WP:Articles for Deletion and policies such as WP:NOTDICT. Calling articles "nonsensical" is not the way to go. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 asked what they think about it?, I think that part have been ommited. Sys64 message this user 05:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems no connection between WP:AfC and WP:NOTDICT

Good thing I didn't mention AfC then! TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can guesst that it becomes sometime harder to write C/D when you type faster and D and C are set in diagonal. I meant AfD, not AfC. Sys64 message this user 06:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 the WP:NOT policy. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 set AfD and NOTDICT. Had I tried, it would have resulted in a non-injective (non one-to-one) mapping, which is inaccurate—because both AfD and NOTDICT 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 by Sys64wiki. 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 user 06:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Your approach failed—try again."

If you see an article that needs fixing, you are encouraged to be bold and fix it. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 user 05:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sys64wiki, you feel[ing] nonsense about that article isn't wrong 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)[reply]

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 user 12:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wall of text that basically does not address anything anyone else in this thread said. At what point does WP: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)[reply]

Is a formal WP:BOOMERANG proposal of some kind required for this, or would an admin be able to take action without the need for a discussion. λ NegativeMP1 03:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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 does WP: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 user 05:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 user 05:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sys64wiki, I agree to Liz. Not everything in Wikipedia is perfect. Lots of editors are making problems because of their behavior. We should not shoot ourselves in the foot to stop making problems even worse. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 06:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 user 06:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if this matter is resolved I can take a fresh air outside?

You can (and probably should) take a fresh air outside, regardless of whether the matter is resolved or not. This goes for everyone, as we are all volounteers here. We should not become, in the words of Don Henley, "prisoners of our own device", but take a break once in a while, especially if things get too stressful. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have to admit, this was a good rock I heard for a while. Sys64 message this user 06:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've partially 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)[reply]

  @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!

  Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we've been talking both before and after they filed that. I do believe I've provided that explanation, so, ball is in the next admin's court. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Sys64wiki is so ungrateful when you blocked him partially. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Personal attack to Tamzin here lol [79] grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

Hello! Coming in from the AI cleanup team to note that Rynodex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been consistently using LLM-generated material to produce sources and article text for months.

This person has clearly used LLMs to create several articles featuring hallucinated sources, several times, without changing behavior, as evidenced by their 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)[reply]

What they need is an escort to the nearest exit. There is no place for AI-generated bullshit here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have an AI Cleanup Team here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean to say that I contribute (chiefly) to the relevant WikiProject. Having a whole A-team about it would be interesting, though! Altoids0 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The user engaged in multiple disruptive edits in Trump Always Chickens Out:

1. In this edit he deleted 1K bytes of important details, stating "we don't need this".
2. Later in this edit he deleted another 1K bytes f important information about Trump's history, claiming it was "not about tariffs"
3. Then in this edit he deleted a massive 14K bytes.

All of these edits occurred within less than 24 hours and all of them were reverted. IdanST (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's tendentious editing for you. I have warned the user. Bishonen | tålk 09:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Theres no "sustained editorial bias" in my edits. They all have seperate reasons for removing them 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I give my reasons in the third edit, no? 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it looks like multiple editors are telling you your explanation is not good enough. You're getting close to an edit warring block now too. You need to stop reverting and start discussing on the talk page immediately. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But no one give any reason when they reverted my edit. What part of my explanation wasn't good enough? 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question for the article talk page, not ANI or edit summaries. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 a WP:CONSENSUS on how to proceed. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do you understand the difference between "content dispute" and "conduct dispute"? Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: [82], 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)[reply]

Agreed, their edits are concerning, as is their flippant attitude about them. For the record, they were warned, though they removed them. I imagine they'll get blocked or locked out of articles if they don't improve their approach or learn to collaborate with others better. Sergecross73 msg me 00:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[83] 118.155.244.8 (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I removed your message and another editor's because I don't need more than one message about my editing. 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I left a comment 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)[reply]

Also here: User:Arkin Caile, I reported it as U5. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Valkazman

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: [84]. I also opened a discussion on the talk page of Lord Edward's crusade but they never responded. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Both editors have been edit warring since July 10th and both editors are at 4rr. Perhaps an Admin should step in? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.history7653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 diffs here and here. 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)[reply]

Drawing attention to WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour of WhoIsCentreLeft (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 at Collective (organisation), an article they created with numerous policy issues, in particular WP:ABOUTSELF breaches such as sourcing from self-published blogs(e.g.[85][86]) 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[87][88][89][90], even admitting they think it's fine to use inappropriate sources if reliable ones don't exist.[91][92]

These issues are consistently appearing across their edits. An example is a series of contributions to the article Blanche Monnier, where they introduced large swathes of material largely sourced from extremely low-quality blog/photo restoration sites [93][94][95][96]. On another article they introduced a large amount of WP:BLP violating content from a blog called "Fame Revealed"[97].

Attempts to remove this material myself given attempts to discuss were non-conductive were immediately resisted as "revenge"[98], "bad faith"[99], and that I was "hounding" them[100].

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)[reply]

You checking my edit history and reverting my edits in uninvolved articles over a disagreement in the discussion here seems pretty much like WP: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 like New York Times and La 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 do admit, i was wrong in some parts of the discussion in Collective (organization), but that does not justify him following and reverting me. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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"[101][102][103] 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[104][105], a random marketing firm [106], some random site saying which youtubers to follow[107],and multiple blogs about video thumbnails [108][109]. 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 like New York Times and La 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)[reply]

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[[110]] 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[111], 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[112]. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"[113]

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"[114]

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 mistakes which 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"[115] before making false accusations of hounding. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You literally wrote "I hope you know what WP:HOUND is and what happens to users who violate this policy"[116], 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)[117].

Also as a further example of your blatant WP:COPYVIO, here's an edit you just made:[118]

Almost every word looks to be directly from the sources, including just copy and pasting the headlines which is another violation of our sourcing policy/guidelines WP:HEADLINE. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)

Incredibly easy to do without matching the sources word for word. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 on WP:NOTHOUND, WP:What is not hounding. Both hounding and vandalism 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)[reply]

• 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 than 50% have actually been successful, with many being very poor noms. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  They've also been spoken to about this exact issue.[119] They claim they follow WP:BEFORE but given they also claim to follow WP:ONUS[120] yet repeatedly re-insert material without discussion I seriously doubt that claim.[121][122][123][124][125]

  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)[reply]

  You are mistaken, i do a lot more than google searching. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  @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 frequent WP:COPYVIO (see here[126]), 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)[reply]

  @Black Kite they've just done it again. This diff [127] is almost word for word from this cited source.[128], he's just changing the order of sentences at best and claiming it's their own work[129]. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  COPYVIO makes a lot of false postives. I can assure you that this text was written purely by me and you shouldn't revert it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not "false positives", you're copy and pasting entire paragraphs from articles and fraudulently claiming it's your own work. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I am accusing you of what you've done, which is word for word copy sources on a large scale. That is COPYVIO. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The concept of copyright violations does not "flag" anything. Automated tools can have false positives, but close paraphrasing is not that, it is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. I see you tried to argue this same point to Diannaa back in May, and judging from Copypatrol's logs those were textbook close paraphasing. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  "I don't want my articles which i wrote for hours to be damaged"

  Once again, referring them as your articles... Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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_IRL talk 15:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, its literally not "word for word" like you said, the words, the orders of sentences are all very different. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Copying a bunch of sentences and altering their order is still copyright theft. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I did not copy any sentences, i looked at a source and written its information.

  You typing it word for word is still COPYVIO. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not wrote it word for word, please stop lying. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've demonstrated with diffs you have. You are lying. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Close paraphrasing is still an issue regardless of whether the things you are writing are exact copies of sources. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet you yourself are presumably making copyvio by copying it here... LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not copy anything, everything was written by my fingers. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  You're lying, simple as at this point. The entire paragraph matches the source effectively word for word. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As i said, copyvio is known to make false positives, for example, it marked Murder of James Bulger as 97% copyvio despite it obviously not being one. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  My sentences used words that matched the source, this is why it marked it as copyvio despite it not being one. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Funny how they're also in the same order in each sentence too... Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Same order ≠ copyright violation WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I can show you alot of other examples, copyvio is not always reliable for finding copyright violations. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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"[130]

  Your text is shockingly similar, almost word for word isn't it. The only thing "bad" here are your excuses for blatant COPYVIO. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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.[131]

  Once again this is shockingly close what you claim is entirely your own work. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Cutting out the odd sentence and the rest of it matching is still COPYVIO. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  According to what/who? You or some kind of copyright detector? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  According to our policies established under WP:COPYVIO, which is also linked in the warning template you dismissed with "alright buddy"[132] Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  It's completely normal behaviour to look at edits by other users and correct them for errors, it's required by WP:COPYVIO and even mentioned in WP: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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I did not copy and paste them, how many times do i have to tell you buddy? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And you can say it all you like, doesn't change the fact the evidence shows you look to be doing just that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure buddy WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the exact "I don't have to listen" attitude I'm talking about. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  You are obliged to follow policy, which you are demonstrably not doing. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Also they are not your articles. I suggest you read WP:OWN. This is a collaborative project, you don't "own" articles. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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. Per WP: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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I've literally cited the text itself that you've copied effectively word for word. All you keep going is "it's not" when it clearly is. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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."

  Weirdguyz (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I highly suggest you read WP:Paraphrase. Weirdguyz (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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[133] which is almost word for word copied from the source it cites apart from the fact they've changed it from 1pm to 1am.[134]

This user is copy and pasting entire paragraphs from articles as though it was their own words. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literally looks nothing like the source's paragraph. I wrote it based on my own words. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Weirdguyz you mind taking a look? Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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_IRL talk 14:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@REAL MOUSE IRL sorry, see the next diff where they inserted the article they did completely copy and paste from[135] Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

FOURTH article with substantial COPYVIO.

Another article this user claims to have written themselves is Murders of Robin Cornell and Lisa Story. Here are some examples of entire sections that are almost word for word from the citations. Diff 1[136] source 1[137], Diff 2[138] source 2[139], Diff 3[140] source 3[141]

Once again, all three of these examples show extremely identical wording to the cited sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIFTH article with substantial COPYVIO

Another article they claim to have written themselves is Tyler Edmonds, which has already had several revisions removed for COPYVIO, which WhoIsCentreLeft was informed about in May[142]. However it still contains significant COPYVIO such as the following paragraph.[143][144], which once again, this is content WhoIsCentreLeft inserted that is almost a word for word copy of the cited source.[145] Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 be blocked immediately under WP:CVREPEAT Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is way overblown. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're no better copying those onto ANI. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 copyvio you, too, are committing copyvio. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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_IRL talk 17:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@REAL MOUSE IRL I've submitted all the examples here. Thanks for the pointer. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambling Rambler for the posts on the copyright board, you should add a source link, short explanation, and signature to each entry. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@REAL MOUSE IRL thanks for that. I misread the instructions slightly. Fixed now. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Copyright admin here. Blanche Monnier had a sentence from [146] copied, so they're translating sources word for word. Jewish Voice for Peace has blatant copyvio, and more than that, I'm concerned about their [[Special:Diff/1298634337]|editing] in a WP: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)[reply]

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?

Thank you kindly for your time and understanding.

– 156.209.52.181 (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

156.209.52.181, you should talk to the draft reviewer or go to the AFC Help Desk. This doesn't require administrator participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, please stop using AI-generated content or large language model on Wikipedia. You will be blocked from editing for this. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 02:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, if you're gonna try to say that your draft isn't AI generated, then don't AI generate an ANI post... LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the statement that administrator participation is not required. I think that this is a case for a boomerang. This unregistered editor has created at least three different versions of biographies of the subject and is spamming the Teahouse, the AFC Help Desk, and now WP:ANI with requests for help. I think that a block is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to request that any blocking admin, blocks the following obvious socks to shut out further stealth spamming:

• User:Yusseif
• User:EditorYAEgypt

AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 04:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaBetaGamma, Note: Draft:Yousseif Abdellatif and Draft:Yousseif Abdellatif2 may meet criteria for speedy deletion for G11. and this user Yusseif declared to have a conflict of interest from this draft. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 04:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did mass-CSD the set of drafts. Unfortunately it seems that the CSD backlog is growing. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 05:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to request an admin to delete these drafts for being too promotional. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 05:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I nuked all, including one that wasn't tagged, except for the original Draft: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)[reply]

@DMacks, but AlphaBetaGamma requested this orginal draft to be speedily deleted for G11. Should you remove this template in this draft? Or you will delete this original draft directyly? Fabvill (Talk to me!) 05:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this IP just registered this account, User:EditorYAEgypt which is a good thing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But they previously had registered User:Yusseif, including declaring COI. DMacks (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Update: After observing the edit war going on between himself and another user on the Compute!'s Gazette page, I found Special: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)[reply]

• Some1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.

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.

• Diff of the move action: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Idaho_student_murders&oldid=1300312844
• Link to the consensus discussion (vote failed): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Idaho_student_murders#Requested_move_30_June_2025

• 13 June 2012, 18:40 UTC: blocked by User:Toddst1 for one month (account creation blocked) for edit warring on Zoophilia.
• 11 April 2012, 19:38 UTC: blocked by User:Guerillero for one week (account creation blocked) for a 3RR violation on Zoophilia.
• 30 November 2011, 22:57 UTC: blocked by User:Guerillero for 24 hours (account creation blocked) for violation of the three-revert rule.

I request that an administrator:

• Review the above evidence for WP:CIVIL or WP:BRD violations (ignoring consensus).
• Consider whether a warning or block is warranted under WP:CIVIL policy for disregarding clear community consensus.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahawk04 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything in what you've provided that indicates this user violated WP: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)[reply]

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! Dahawk04 Talk 💬 00:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about my 19:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC−4) comment, which is in your excerpt above? Some1 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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? Ravenswing 00:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 00:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AI-generated ANI complaints should be closed on sight. EEng 02:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 02:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past couple of months, the I64 range 2604:3D09:182:5900:0:0:0:0/64 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 at 2, 3, 4 and 5). 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)[reply]

Hello, User:TheIceman8910 was previously blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing on United States invasion of Panama and United States invasion of Grenada. Since the block expired, the user has resumed the same pattern of behavior: Removing sourced or stable content Making POV or unsourced additions Continuing to edit war or ignore consensus Recent diffs include:

United States invasion of Panama – Removed multiple sourced statements and categories.

United States invasion of Grenada – Unexplained removal of categories and sourced content.

Carleton Island

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.

Thank you.

StalkerFishy (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]