Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

• 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]

@C.Fred: for example - [11] , [12] , [13], [14] Russiaoniichan (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Russiaoniichan Only one of those was rounding to one significant figure. Twice it was to two figures, and once to three figures. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 15 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 no longer believe that Evope is editing in good faith after this edit (diff) where he leave the Infobox with the figure $365.9 million and the lead section with the text "over $365 million" claiming in his edit summary that he "made lead section and info box consistent". In 2019 I first informed him of the MOS:LARGENUM guideline which says "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way". This is needless inconsistency. Truncating $365.9 million down to $365 million ignores normal rounding and is frankly misleading and unnecessary and I don't know why any editor would think this deliberate inconsistency was a good thing. Following bad examples is one thing but after being asked many times not to do this and then doing it anyway it no longer seems like a mistake it seems like a problem. Leaving an article with different figures in the Infobox and lead section is the exact opposite of consistent. I've asked nicely many time, I don't know what to do except to ask this person to stop updating box office gross figures entirely as he seems unable to round numbers in a consistent way. -- 109.76.128.37 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC) See also these recent edits all from July 17:[reply]

• [15] diff Jurassic World Rebirth deliberately choosing inconsistency
• [16] diff 28 Years Later edit summary claiming consistency but using different levels of decimal places in the Infobox and lead section leaving the article with $560.3 million in the infobox and "over $560 million" in the lead section.
• [17] Megan 2.0 edit claiming consistency in the edit summary but leaving the article with "$37.1 million" in the Infobox while writing "over $37 million" in the lead section.

I've asked nicely many times but Evope is unwilling or unable to understand normal rounding of numbers and consistently writing the same number in 3 different places. At some stages it seems as if he had taken my concerns onboard but he now seems have completely reverted back and is doing exactly what I first asked him not to do in 2019. -- 109.76.128.37 (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "$365.9 million" is "over $365 million", It is a mathematically and logically correct statement, so what is your gripe with this? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote the text of a consensus decision that explicitly states that the same number must or even should be represented by the same number of decimal places or significant figures in the lead and the infobox, because what I am seeing here is a reasonable rounding of a number which changes frequently in the infobox, and an easier to digest version in the lead, which I see as user friendly and adequately precise for the job. I do not edit box office figures, or anything else about movies for that matter, so there may be some project related special advice I am unfamiliar with, so I ask you to show me if there is. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using the figures rounded to the same number of decimal places in both places should be easier for editors and clearer for readers. If an editor really wants that extra decimal place of precision in the Infobox why wouldn't they also want it in the lead section? MOS:LARGENUM warns against using unnecessary qualifiers for numbers rounded in the normal way. It would be a very rare edge case to write "under" however many millions, it is similarly strange to write "over" when numbers could simply be rounded in the normal way instead of being truncated for no apparent reason. (This wasn't just my opinion, I brought this for discussion at Wikipedia Project Film and with the exception of one hostile editor most agreed this was a reasonable interpretation of existing guidelines and applied to film articles same as any other article.) Consistency is not required but why would anyone deliberately choose inconsistency which takes additional effort? -- 109.76.128.37 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors frequently update the box office figures. Other editors who do understand how to round numbers in the normal way will see the gross figures and properly update them in both the infobox and the lead and but they will often replace a figure that was "over" with another figure that is actually slightly under. This unnecessary use of "over" frequently trips up the next editor. Using the same figure in both cases avoids this potential trap. It is a mistake that could be avoided by simply following what MOS:LARGENUM already recommends. -- 109.76.128.37 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that discussion I see almost everyone disagreeing with you. You are also edit warring these numbers while citing irrelevant guidelines. If you have been pushing this since 2019 (as mentioned above) and not found any consensus I think it is long past time you dropped the stick. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already described why someone might reasonably do this. I am giving you the opportunity do persuade me that you have a point. So far I remain unpersuaded. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has resumed following my edits [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] after a weeks-long absence from the encyclopedia despite past calls by administrators for them to stop doing so [26] [27]. As such, I am requesting administrative action against this user. Nghtcmdr (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a few of these edits and sometimes there are weeks between your edit and theirs. I'm not sure that qualifies as "following". I mean, they can't be banned from ever editing an article you have edited. If anything, considering the several other ANI complaints you have brought here, this is more likely to end in an IBan which will affect both of you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nghtcmdr

You need to stop making disruptive edits. I no longer review your edits, though I will respond to notifications involving me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz@Nghtcmdr

Are we ignoring this comment [28] where Nghtcmdr is making a rather blatant personal attack and casting asperations, or all the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ICANTHEARYOU(See the older ANIs) shown by them?

None of this has been addressed properly yet by either nghtcmdr or any admin. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz making blanket reverts and resuming debates across a range of articles with the same editor after a two week hiatus seems to me to be a clear-cut case of hounding. I'm for an interaction ban if that is what will put an end to their transgressions. Nghtcmdr (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I currently only look at those I get notifications on.

WP:HOUNDING explicitly states Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor. which my previous reviews constitute under. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this needs an IBAN or something because otherwise y'all are gonna keep arguing and accuse each other of WP:HOUND and Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS Rhinocrat (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main issue is, the vast majority of Nghtcmdr's edits are problematic in some way or another. They refuse to actually understand the policies they cite and have shown WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, along with personal attacks. [29] Their behavior needs to be addressed immediately. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... so this needs an independent review from someone not involved in this mess because those are some huge accusation Rhinocrat (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it's extremely questionable that no admin has made any action in regards to the very long list of rule violations by Nghtcmdr; The original ANI documents most of said [30] violations, all of which have yet to be addressed.

@Weirdguyz's[31] and @Simonm223's [32] comments on ANI mostly summarizes the main problems with Nghtcmdr's editing. I really hope an uninvolved admin reviews the above links and at least says something. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm beginning to think a 2-way interaction ban is in order. Possibly topic banning both parties from those articles where they've been coming into contact regularly. Because this is at least the third AN/I thread I'm aware of regarding these two. And I haven't really been paying close attention. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first non-personal article edit you made after your two week hiatus blanket reverted [33] edits that I made, which is a clear-cut example of an editor treating this place as a battleground. Nghtcmdr (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nghtcmdr

Your edits were very clearly disruptive, controversial, lacked consensus, and cited completely misinterpreted policies. This is not "WP:BATTLEGROUND", this is called fixing bad edits. You have consistently attempted to "enforce" misinterpreted policies, of which MULTIPLE people [34][35] have pointed out. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't respond but I've had my fill of this dispute between the two of you. Neither of you has my sympathy any longer. You've both been told to drop this feud and you can't seem to just let the other editor edit peacefully without tracking their edits, trying to find some fault with them. I think this ANI report is your last chance to let this all go, depending on how this one closes. Neither of you is innocent and if this report is followed up by another report (and another report) where you seek to get the other editor sanctioned, I think you will both be facing long-term blocks. Enough. The community has lost its patience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will voluntarily withdraw from this situation and no longer interact with Nghtcmdr, though I request that the content side of things also be returned to their original versions before consensus is reached. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have voluntarily chosen to no longer review @Nghtcmdr's edits per admin instructions(though I still will respond to notifications), however I suggest an alternate proposal: Articles where there are ongoing disputes(or with similar edit summaries from said editor) are to be returned to the previous revision until proper consensus is reached. I no longer will review said edits due to the backlash, though that does not change the fact that they are controversial and require consensus, and as far as I know, are often based off misinterpreted policy.
I think my voluntary withdrawal from reviewing will mostly solve most problems regarding my behavior, though in many of the disputes the edits were controversial(and borderline disruptive in my opinion) and require proper consensus first. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like an uninvolved admin to review these comments from Nghtcmdr, which can be interpreted as incivil or personal attacks.

• I broadly agree with what appears to be your overall point which is that articles should use English whenever possible since this is the English version of Wikipedia, and would suggest that the reason why the translation issue appears haphazard (i.e. not a project-wide problem) is that a lot of it may be user-specific. The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem.[38] - Personal attacks, casting asperations, and a rather racist comment "so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy.".
• You're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them.[39] Again, you're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them.[40] - Borderline incivility and WP:CANVASSING
• you left out the second and more important half where the other user said "but noting that per WP:NONENG, if an English source can be used instead of a Chinese one it is preferred as it is easier to verify by other editors." You not fully agreeing with what they said is not a reason to distort what they actually said.[41] - False accusations of "distorting info"
• Debate on the basis of policy, not personality. Pleases state policy-based objections to my proposals. Saying "my sources are reliable because I think they are" or "your changes are wrong because it goes against my opinion of what other people said" are not proper arguments.[42] - WP:WL, blatant ignorance of previous consensus
• [43] - Use of an unfinished discussion as "consensus"

I hope this gets addressed as soon as possible, as incivility is far worse than making controversial and borderline disruptive edits Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That you follow up a paragraph about how you will back off voluntarily with a bulleted list of things from your rival that you want reviewed is strong evidence that this alternative proposal isn't in the same galaxy as sufficient. Support the two-way iban above, and if one or both of this pair continue this, there should be a very short rope to prevent this from becoming a topic ban or a site ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG Oppose You two jackasses have been at each other’s throats for the better part of month now, and I have exactly zero confidence whatsoever that the two of could voluntarily contribute to the site in peace, let alone edit constructively, without being all up in each other’s business. If it were up to me you’d both me blocked for 30 days so we can stop watching your he-said-she-said BS show on site, but I’ll settle for the topic ban and the interaction ban to enforce a DMZ between the two of you. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TomStar81

  What does this have to do with my proposal? I proposal all disputes be returned to their original versions before consensus is made Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This "proposal" of yours reads far less like a proposal and more like you attempting to shang high the admin corps into work for you alone by rallying us against the other editor so that your position prevails by admin consensus. Thats not how this process works. We admins are not pawns to be used in a pissing match between two editors who can not get along on this site, we're community appointed liaisons entrusted with enforcing policy and guideline standards on this site so that the editors can contribute here is peace, and when that peace is disturbed we will decide for ourselves how to resolve the matter without multi-step plans from involved parties on how the situation should be resolved. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TomStar81

  We admins are not pawns to be used in a pissing match between two editors who can not get along on this site, we're community appointed liaisons entrusted with enforcing policy and guideline standards on this site so that the editors can contribute here is peace, and when that peace is disturbed we will decide for ourselves how to resolve the matter without multi-step plans from involved parties on how the situation should be resolved.

  Is exactly why the proposal should be made.

  Disregarding the dispute, I would suggest the admins maybe do look at the justifications for some of Nghtcmdr's edits, as they are genuinely problematic as pointed out before(e.g. using invalid reasons to delete sources, claiming sources need to be "verified" on WP:RSN to be considered reliable, claiming ALL state controlled sources cannot be used etc). At the very least, I would suggest somebody outside of me try to help make sure they understand policy.

  I understand my intentions could be seen as dubious due to the dispute, but even other editors in the past have pointed out this behavior, and from my own perspective the reason I got involved in this dispute in the first place was due to the content side of things. I think a voluntary withdrawal from reviewing nghtcmdr's edits and interaction(though there is a high chance we may still end up on the same article, I will avoid direct interaction) or an IBAN could solve most of the problems regarding the conduct part, though I think in the end if the content part is not discussed, evantually what is likely going to happen is that another user will point out problems with Nghtcmdr's edits in the future, and we will likely end up here again. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was under the distinct impression that you had already given your final statement on this matter at 10:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC). Since then your so-called "final statement" has evolved into more text about this issue. If your issuing a final statement then post it and leave, but since you can stop yourself from having the last word you're proving everyone here right: you need to be topic banned, I-banned, or ideally blocked to let the issue(s) go. To re-iterate what @The Bushranger said below: drop the stick NOW or you will be blocked. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I dropped the stick long time ago regarding interactions, though I think a lot of things still need clarifications. Will stop posting on ANI itself very soon, but I would suggest actually taking the content dispute as seriously as it should be.

  With that, I will stop posting in regards to the ANI itself very soon. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are remotely personal attacks, and they're not even striking me as uncivil at all. @Thehistorianisaac:, the community's patience for this is exhausted. drop the stick NOW or you will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger For the first comment, I really don't understand how it can be interpreted as not being a personal attack or incivil at the very least, considering the prior context where another user asked for some consensus regarding when it is a good idea to add Chinese names to lists; on the first comment I showed, Nghtcmdr made false claims that me adding chinese names was The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources(Keep in mind, most of the time state affliatted sources from china follow similar policies to WP:XINHUA, and there is mostly consensus they are ok depending on context) which is a personal attack and casting asperations and maybe also WP:SMEAR. Their quote , so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. that "filling the article with chinese" is "trying to make the community accept chinese sources" can be seen as horrible wording at best or even slightly racist.

Their further quote Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem. is also blatantly a false accusation, claiming that adding chinese names (on chinese topics by the way, keep in mind of that) has "deeper political dynamics" is a blatant lack of WP:AGF (keep in mind, this happened around the same time as the first few ANI, where the dispute wasn't that out of hand yet) and is also a completely baseless accusation. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You are continuing to follow my edits despite your claims that you haven't. You joined this discussion even though you were not notified of it by either myself or the other editor . Nghtcmdr (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nghtcmdr, you don't seem to understand that the community has lost patience with both of you and is ready to impose a block on you two. It's not all about the other editor. It's about both of your behaviors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz like I said to you earlier [44], I'm for an interaction ban if that is what will put an end to the hostilities. Nghtcmdr (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across the discussion myself. Am I banned from discussing at all as long as you have been involved? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equally strong Oppose: TomStar81 said it all, and in words I completely endorse. To the degree I'm willing to cut either of them slack (Not. Very. Much) at least Nghtcmdr acknowledges that they're incapable of a cease fire on their own. Ravenswing 11:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification:

1. My proposal is that all articles involved in the dispute or with similar edit summaries be returned to their previous revisions before a proper discussion is made
2. I have already voluntarily withdrew from actively reviewing Nghtcmdr's new edits, and will from now on also withdraw from any conversations regarding this dispute

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose I agree with Ravenswing and TomStar81 that neither of these editors have shown inclination or even ability to disengage without assistance. I started off, when this dispute began, frustrated with Nghtcmdr's position on Chinese sources but that frustration does not excuse the unwillingness to collaborate appropriately displayed by Thehistorianisaac. It's unfortunate that it's come to this but I don't see any way to stop this stream of disputes without intervention. And this really does seem like a "two to tango" situation. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Nghtcmdr's position on chinese sources sort of is the exact reason for the proposal(to return to the previous revisions for disputed articles and restore info until consensus is made), as it seems many sources have been incorrectly removed. However I will not attempt to make any corrections further per admin instructions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my observations as an uninvoled editor both have ended up here countless times. Both are acting like jackasses. Both seem to be edit warning, both have been told to drop it. It's clear that they can't civilly communicate with each other. There comes a point where when all you do is look at each other's edits, and get up in arms and throw mud at each other. Both of you need to cool.it, and take a break, hopefully a 1 month break for both will help you think about what happened, and curb the disruption you are causing as of right now. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per myself. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Iban, oppose block: I will voluntarily withdraw from any active reviewing of nghtcmdr's edits. However I would also hope the content dispute be addressed; I will also be taking a wikibreak soon as I will have summer camp in mainland china next week anyways.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Block & Iban Let them realize that being at each other will cost both regardless of who was "correct" (in whatever sense of the word it should be used for such situations). The follow up Iban should resolve the remaining issues here. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per my alternate proposal [45], I have already voluntarily ended reviewing Nghtcmdr's edits, and I will also end responding to notifications regarding the situation(though if I see a discussion that Nghtcmdr is involved in, I may still be involved though I will try to attempt not to be involved). I admit that during the dispute, I made not have been completely rational(partially due to lack of sleep or stress), and now that I've cooled down during my vacation I recognize the fact that some of my comments were not that great and that I also had gone too far
Also as per my alternate proposal, I also really hope the content part of the dispute be looked at. I think as many editors[46][47](even an admin, @Robertsky [48]) have pointed out problems with Nghtcmdr's rationale that sources need to be "verified" first(which I believe is a misinterpretation that sources need to verify the information, not sources need to be verified), with other rationales used to remove sources such as "the source is not in english" or "the source is state affiliated" being either invalid or based off misinterpreted policy.

I have nothing personal against Nghtcmdr, though I do believe somebody(outside of me) needs to make sure they understand the policies they use to remove sources, and correct their edits when nessecary. I believe (and hope) they are acting in good faith, however it seems like they do require some proper understanding of sources.

However, like @Weirdguyz said[49], being right isn't enough and I do think I need to stop beating the dead horse(I myself have been frankly tired of this situation from the very start), which is why I will voluntarily no longer involve myself in this situation and no longer interact with Nghtcmdr(as I said, if the discussion has Nghtcmdr's comment, I still may comment though i will actively avoid interaction). I also will be taking a wikibreak anyways next week, as I will be in summer camp at mainland china for a while and won't be able to respond. In the end, I do sort of understand the backlash against me(though I question why people aren't also looking at the content disputes themselves) and that I went too far which is why I will withdraw from this situation. Additionally, per my alternate proposal, I ask that all articles involved in this dispute or with similar edits be returned to their previous version until consensus is made, and that somebody try to help Nghtcmdr understand the policies they cite when they delete sources.

I will drop the stick and avoid interaction with Nghtcmdr(however I will still respond when pinged or asked to by other editors), and I support an Iban(topic ban or 30 day ban seems to be slightly overkill) between me and Nghtcmdr. However due to the fact that we seem to have similar interests, I cannot guarantee that we may end up on the same discussion though I will attempt to avoid interactions on such discussions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a simplified version:

Regarding the conduct dispute:

What I will do:

• I have voluntarily withdrew from reviewing Nghtcmdr's edits, and will avoid interacting with them.(however, I will interact with other editors on discussions where nghtcmdr has made a comment, but try to avoid interaction)

What I believe the admins should do:

• I am in favor of a two way IBAN

Regarding the content dispute(where there is mostly consensus that Nghtcmdr needs better understanding in regards to source related policy):

What I will do:

• Due to my voluntarily withdrawal, I will not directly do anything much in regards to the content disputes

What i believe the admins should do:

• Help Nghtcmdr have a better understanding of policy, especially in regards to the fact that sources do not have to be on WP:RSP to be reliable(aka the fact that most sources, particularly WP:NEWSORG are presumed reliable till a WP:RSN is made on them)
• Return articles involved in the dispute(along with those with similar edit summaries that the sources should be removed because they are "unverified"(aka lack a WP:RSN discussion, which is not a valid reason to remove sources as many have pointed out), are from state affiliatted sources(also pointed out as an invalid reason to remove sources in most contexts) or are in different languages(WP:NONENG says non english sources are allowed)) to their previous revisions before valid reasons are given or consensus is made

I will still respond to this ANI, though I will withdraw from this dispute in other discussions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pavol Ceman is making useless edits to their user page, sample: [50] [51] All of their edits: [52]

They're obviously not here to build an encyclopaedia and they're probably gaming the permissions system by getting their edit count up artificially (they're at 459 now). They are still doing it as I write this message. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've now been blocked. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are now back as User:Theo1q and they're doing the same thing. [53] [54] They're gaming permissions so that they can vandalise protected articles.

@Lofty abyss: Pinging the Admin who blocked Pavel Ceman. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed an SPI case here because I think there may be sleepers; the history of the article in question is pretty filled with those sorts of edits, and I worry the problem may be bigger than that article. Daedalus969 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are also User:Peace_Wisdom1. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this one to the SPI case. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marking their sandbox page for deletion renders their gaming script ineffective, forcing them to create a new page to start their script again. If you do this quick enough you can slow them down until someone blocks them. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a case for some kind of edit filter or bot task to tag such gaming efforts. BD2412 T 15:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(post-closure non-admin comment) For future reference, this is Salebot1. (Thanks to robertsky for the SPI link.) Narky Blert (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am raising concerns regarding the conduct of user Veritasphere, whose behaviour over multiple interactions has become increasingly frustrating, including personal attacks and gross misrepresentation of my actions.

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

Background:

• Veritasphere initiated an edit warring report against me at WP:EW, despite my not having violated 3RR and having explained my edits on the article talk page and in the edit summaries. His edits were reverted by another editor as well, who told him to stop edit warring.[55]

• The admin who closed the discussion confirmed there was no violation, and reminded the parties to discuss on the talk page instead of escalating.

• Rather than acknowledging this, Veritasphere launched a series of bad-faith assumptions, even lying about me, even though I provided the diffs to refute that. They still haven't retracted it, or even showed any hint of remorse. A clear violation of WP:PERSONAL, especially as they cited my old blocks despite me not having repeated that.

Even though I believe some of his article edits are strange (mostly Persianization of native Sindhi dynasties),[56][57] I'm only here to report User conduct.

Misrepresentation:

The user attempts to mislead another uninvolved editor by stating "The same user has previously reverted my sourced edits on articles like Soomra dynasty and Kalhora dynasty.[58] What he fails to mention is that it was explained to him in the edit summaries[59], as well as on the article talk page.[60][61] In one instance, he reverted my edits TWICE without providing a reason in his edit summary,[62] even though he was told to see the article talk page.[63] In another instance, he does not even respond to the article talk page topic (still no response)[64], and continues the same manner of edits (Persianization) on another article.[65]

Personal Attack: I responded to his notifying me of the EW report (concluded at the time of my response) by stating I never edit warred as stated by the Admin[66] and that he should not report in haste.[67]

In response, he attacked me by claiming I am biased in my editing and that I am 'gatekeeping historical narratives'. He also threatened to initiate a User topic ban discussion. He falsely claimed that I 'selectively reverted sourced content without due engagement on the talk page'.[68] I refuted his false claims by providing these diffs as evidence: [69][70]

The user has a habit of lying. In the past, he made an 'oath of God' by still went on to violate that, as can be seen in this administrative discussion.[71]

This is the diff where I clearly told him I'm reporting this as WP:PERSONAL.[72]

This is his final diff showing neither any remorse nor retracting his comments. He instead tells me "Let's not derail the discussion".[73]

At this point I got frustrated and did not want to deal with him. I asked an active administrator for advice and waited, but it seems they are busy editing. Now I've made the effort to officially report this. Edit: Signed the comment, the original time stamp was "14:41 UTC, 14 July 2025" Sir Calculus (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you were truly serious, you would have responded to my most recent comment on Samma dynasty talk page.

I had reported your behaviour earlier due to this very pattern, you tend to ignore points raised in good faith. Yes, i even agreed with your latest suggestions, as can be seen on article talk page. I simply said that it seems you're approaching this with a particular perspective.

And by the way, just because a dynasty is Sindh-based, it doesn't necessarily mean their official language had to be Sindhi. In most historical instances, Persian was used for administrative or political purposes.^[1][2]

References

In the end, let the administrators and credible source evaluators decide. Veritasphere (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're going off-topic again. Read what the discussion is about. I am done going in circles. Waiting for an admin. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed at how fast this blew up. You've called me a liar and in violation of WP:PERSONAL, yet never once did i exactly you such. I merely stated - and still believe - that your editing pattern on Sindh-related pages seemes biased to me, just as some of my own edits must have seemed strange to you. It's a difference of perception and style of editing, not a personal attack.

I completely own up to having serious errors in the past - both on English and Urdu Wikipedia. I've previously been blocked and even on Urdu Wikipedia, have been blocked at some point and then went on to prove myself and became an administrator. I have learned from my errors and have attempted to contribute constructively even since. Errors will happen- you've committed a few yourself. That's not something to weaponize. Veritasphere (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not derail the topic. I'm willing to focus solely on the article content and continue the discussion respectfully, without digging up past records or assuming bad faith. The community and administrators can ultimately judge the merits of our arguments and sourcing. Veritasphere (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Past? You spoke false about me in the PRESENT, I've provided the diffs as evidence. I don't care about what you do on Urdu Wikipedia. I don't know the process there. Even the admin who unblocked you said 'I have no idea how their tolerances for misbehaviour align with ours' in the unblock discussion with regards to Urdu Wikipedians who supported you. I am judging your user conduct HERE in the PRESENT. With ME. The fact that you don't even feel bad about falsely accusing me even though I refuted you is exactly what makes this problematic. Don't be "amazed" at how fast this blew up. You wrongfully reported me for edit warring. Fortunately the admin saw there was no violation. Instead YOU were warned by another user for edit warring, which YOU removed in LESS than an hour.[74] After falsely accusing me of lying, you have the audacity to state "Let's not derail the discussion". Even though I strictly told you this is about your USER CONDUCT.[75]. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was an unintentional mistake on my part, and i restored that user's warning shortly afterward.see In fact, if you check next edit, you'll see I reinstated his revision my self.

Again, "I had reported your behaviour earlier due to this very pattern, you tend to ignore points raised in good faith." Veritasphere (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting unintentional mistake, but ok, I'll accept that explanation that you reverted it by mistake.

The warning wasn't on your present talk, that's why it seemed more odd, but now I see the bot archived that warning. So, that is an appropriate explanation. Thanks.

Well, what you reported was clearly invalid, as the admin told you. I don't have any patterns which you claim, I reverted your edits with a clear edit summary telling you what you are adding is disputed, and also posted on the talk page in detail, which you didn't pursue until later. You continued to edit war.

you tend to ignore points raised in good faith.

What point exactly? The point where you falsely claimed something about me and continued to dodge it despite it being refuted by diffs, or the point where you misrepresented me? Accusing me of having a bias, writing falsely about me, then the audacity to say "you tend to ignore points raised in good faith."? Sure. It wasn't you on the receiving end. It was me you accused. I never even said "this user has a bias", you did about me. And you continued to dodge this gross behavior by telling me "let's not derail the discussion" on my talk page, after I explicity tell you this is about User conduct? Do us both a favor and don't reply to me until an administrator reaches this discussion because clearly you're making it more heated by not owning up your WP:PERSONAL. Sir Calculus (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the archive and for having accepted my explanation for the unintentional mistaken revert.

I also admit I did not use the article talk page very well earlier and went immediately to a report. That was a bad judgment, and since then, I have tried to be more constructive, as can be seen in my return to the article talk page.[76] In fact, I even acknowledged one of your points in good faith,[77] but instead of just responding there, you escalated things to a report.

It seems best at this point for us both to stop going back and forth. We will let the administrators and community assess this matter neutrally. I will not respond further unless necessary. Veritasphere (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reported your personal conduct. Not anything to do with your Ref contents. Sir Calculus (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if anything I said upset you, I truly apologize. The thing is, when i saw you repeatedly removing content (revert, undo...), I reacted emotionally. However, content shouldn't be dismissed entirely like that. a MORE balanced approach could have included both perspectives, but it seemed you weren't open to that earlier.

In fact, you completely reverted the edit (with edit summaries)... Yes, you also wrote on the talk page, but it seemed one-sided to me. Thats just my view, not an accusation. Veritasphere (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if anything I said upset you, I truly apologize.

The offending comments are still up there on my talk page.

Good to know you accept to reacting emotionally. Content, when disputed, is dismissed exactly in that manner. Edit summaries and talk pages. As pointed out by the uninvolved editor. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out the comments I felt were inappropriate or too personal that was entirely my call. I didn't mean to escalate things, i'd rather focus on content. Veritasphere (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give my opinion on this dispute.

The false edit warring report was not okay. When multiple people have reverted your edits, that means you need to go to the talk page and see why other people disagree with your changes.

@Veritasphere The lies from you have got to stop. The reason why your edits have been reverted were explained to you numerous times, but you don't seem to be able to hear the reasons. It doesn't matter if the edits I'm seeing were from 5 months ago, but we are talking about your most recent edits, where you keep reverting to your version despite consensus against them, as well as your behavior. False reporting on the edit warring noticeboard is not going to get your edits back either. Anything you did at Urdu Wikipedia has nothing to do with this whole discussion. We're talking about your behavior in the English Wikipedia, and your user conduct is the reason why this report has been filed. Trying to state stuff like Lets not derail the topic. when you have edit warred and making offending statements is definitely not okay.

Oh, and @Sir Calculus, I noticed you didn't sign your report. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you letting me know. Just signed it. Thanks. Sir Calculus (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NacreousPuma855 Let me clarify one thing: I would not knowingly have continued a edit war. The edit I made on the Samma dynasty article was the first I had made there since February, a good five months prior. I purposely stayed away from the article so that I could back up my contributions with verifiable and reliable sources, which I honestly believe I have gotten by now. I was not willing to impose a point of view regarding that article, but rather, with the best intentions, contribute to it after careful research.

As for the report, I only reported out of concern by then, given the number of reversions being carried out and the dismissive attitude I perceived. In retrospect, I see that filing the report was perhaps not the most constructive way of dealing with the situation, and I sincerely apologize for whatever disruption it may have caused.

Regarding discussion and contrary opinion, I do not intend to ignore or overrule the agreement. If there is an ongoing discussion about talk page, which I missed or probably I did not answer p roperly, that is totally a mistake on my side and I would like to reconnect with everyone there respectfully. Iknow well that my contributions on the UrduWikipedia are of no concern to this current one regarding the Englih Wikipedia. I just thought to mention them to highlight my general patterns of editing and approach rather than justifying or trying to sneak excuses. From now on, I would be more careful about using the right channels of discussion, avoiding revertions where consensus is foggy. Thank You Veritasphere (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi people. It took me a few days to figure this out: New users have been adding spam links through seemingly innocuous edits in which they edit existing references, for example adding translation of the article titles. Examples:

• Ivonschitz (talk · contribs): Edit at Aliou_Cissé adds a link to achat-industriel.com, which redirects to https://packersproshop.us.com, which mentions Vietnamese betting platform New88.
• Giménaz (talk · contribs): Edits at Ansi Agolli and Mërgim Mavraj add links to tub.uk.com, which redirects to https://training.uk.net//, which mentions Vietnamese betting platform New88.
• Eloquim (talk · contribs): Edit at Demy de Zeeuw adds a link to https://e2bet.limited, which is also about a Vietnamese betting platform.

I found more achat-industriel.com spam through a source search: [78], [79], [80], [81].

Ouch, there's plenty more New88 spam to deal with: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=New88&title=Special%3ASearch. That's these accounts: Quarosme (talk · contribs), Alirezaiko (talk · contribs), Overmes (talk · contribs), Tagneuti (talk · contribs), Hooijdenk (talk · contribs), Mantazori (talk · contribs), Mantazori (talk · contribs), Carvajala (talk · contribs), Hamann211 (talk · contribs), En-Nesyra (talk · contribs), Waterris (talk · contribs), Kluiverta (talk · contribs), En-Nesyri (talk · contribs), Skácelzi (talk · contribs), Mendyladi (talk · contribs).

What measures can we take to deal with this issue? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean those domains could be added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or to Special:BlockedExternalDomains by a sysop but I don't know how well that'd work. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might unfortunately be futile if each user is adding external links to different domains that mention the betting platform; who knows how many are out there. These tools work best when users are linking to the same external domain. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah can check if there are ties to WP:JUDI? the fingerprints are though different but they are all the same type of syndicate(s) with possibly domain hijacks. – robertsky (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky - Just to clarify: Were you asking if they can check if there are ties to WP:JUDI (they, meaning MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or to Special:BlockedExternalDomains)? I wanted to make sure I understood your question before I responded to you with a bad answer. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: more of sock related. then i realised the JUDI is a passive spamming pattern, which means there's no way to link this edits to JUDI. 07:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{checkuser needed}}. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results have been posted to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simbaz12. There are some new additions of users. Izno (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can add Drobnýa and Igor Samsh to the pile, caught in the 32win cleanup. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... – robertsky (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the initial ones to the blocked list. As for the new88 set in the later part of report, I will tackle later. – robertsky (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

meta:Special:AbuseFilter/383 (I think?) catches this a lot (this is a cross-wiki issue). ClumsyOwlet (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This being hidden is a sad. Izno (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all the gunbet ones, if more domains turn up I'll try to find time to clear those later. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found a bunch more, though I'm under no illusion this is even close to being cleaned-up. The sniff is quite distinctive so long as patterns hold RCP should become better a picking up on this as knowledge spreads. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of vandalism is unfortunately too subtle for RCP to catch. There's effectively no way to stop it either. Izno (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit less pessimistic. It's true that broad spectrum first line RCP focuses primarily on the obvious, and relies on varying degrees of filtering. However the edits can be caught with just a whiff, and more focused RCP is also constantly ongoing. Though a more salient question is whether the effort is worth the outcome.

Discussing just the obvious, the modal number of edits is 1, each edit primarily alters or adds parameters within reference templates, or more rarely overlinks, and condenses the paragraphs within one (sub)section adding a spamref there. There's additional more subtle tells, but even if you just know the obvious ones it's not that hard to pick out.

Even while multitasking and distracted I was able to follow the faint but distinctive feculence to previously unidentified accounts and spam domains without devoting that much time to it and that's actually a bit trickier. Bottom line, if even this old dog can find the scent none of our active sockhunters will have any trouble. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the large-scale reference edits (I assume some script is being used) is hard to revert and makes some careless mistakes. Effective cleanup may require manually checking the whole of each edit, although generally reference urls are left in place so nothing theoretically couldn't be fixed by someone checking sources at a later time. CMD (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There I agree. These are best caught before edit-conflicts make reversion a pain. Aside from just the spamref the script being employed often causes problems with the other refs like changing indicative refnames to nonindicative ones, and the condensation of paragraphs is also undesirable. Once or twice I did manually revert while keeping later productive changes when they were small in number, however once the quantity of post-disruption edits gets large you are probably going to need 3 to 5 uninterrupted minutes to sort everything which is far from ideal. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly disputing how easy or hard it is to spot if you know what you're looking for, but most RCPers are generalist vandalism reverters and so don't know what they're looking for/at - all they see is some citation fussing and then miss the new parasitic tree in the forest. Most don't follow AN either, so educational effect of this section is minimal. The reason all these edits passed the net is that they're too subtle. NB this isn't new; though I associated them particularly to Simbaz, this kind of refspam has been ongoing for multiple years at this point. IznoPublic (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eshaan the writer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

TL;DR this editor uses LLMs to fabricate and misrepresent sources and push a non-neutral POV, and then continues to use AI to deflect and obfuscate criticism.

The lesser point in this report is the use of AIs on talk pages, which is indisputable. This conversation with CX Zoom (since removed from the talk page) clearly displays Eshaan's communication with AI ([82], [83]) and without ([84], [85], [86]). The issue has also been brought up by Jonesey95 ([87]), Worldbruce ([88]), and myself ([89]). Every time, Eshaan's response has been the same: to deny, dissemble, and dismiss the legitimate criticism with AI-generated replies (!) ([90], [[91], [[92]), and then to subsequently remove the criticism from their talk page ([93], [94]). FWIW, online AI detectors show 90%+ chances of AI generation for most of Eshaan's replies, so you can check for yourself.

Far more serious, however, is the misrepresentation of sources and POV-pushing. This can be clearly seen from just one article, Draft:Motilal Mallik, which I draftified yesterday. As Worldbruce has pointed out, AI-detector tools show that the original text of the page is near-completely AI-generated. To hide, Eshaan has fabricated irrelevant citations, probably with the help of AI:

• This source, which claims to verify "The Bengal Volunteers (B.V.) was a clandestine revolutionary organization that rose to prominence in the anti-colonial struggle between 1930 and 1934, following its formative stage which began in 1928", despite having been published in 1920
• This source, published in 1922, which claims to verify events which took place in 1934 and afterwards ("Rajkumar Mallik, father of Motilal, who was reportedly offered a sum of ten thousand rupees ...This incident has been cited in various accounts...the legal proceedings and execution in his case have been interpreted by some historians"
• This source, which claims to verify "In retrospective analysis, the execution of Motilal Mallik has come to represent...", but which was actually published two months before said execution.
• This and this source claim to verify the non-neutral sentences "Motilal Mallik emerged as a prominent and unifying figure in the local community. Known for his energetic demeanour and dedication to the revolutionary cause, he played a key role in drawing several young individuals into the movement." However, neither source even mentions Motilal Mallik.

And on, and on, and on. These issues are endemic to Eshaan's work. Jessicapierce noted the huge amount of work needed to clean up Birendranath Dutta Gupta. Nikkimaria noted their habit of removing cleanup templates to hide their fabrications. Their promotional editing extends to all areas of the Bengali revolutionary movement. Take the following from Draft:Haripada Bhattacharya:

"Haripada Bhattacharya is remembered as one of the youngest and most courageous revolutionaries of the Chittagong uprising, whose assassination of Khan Bahadur Asanulla Khan on August 30, 1931, marked a bold and decisive act of resistance against British imperial repression. His daredevil action, carried out in broad daylight at the Pahartali football ground amidst a heavy security presence, demonstrated extraordinary resolve and commitment to the revolutionary cause. The operation was meticulously planned and executed by Bhattacharya, who was only sixteen years old at the time. Following the assassination, Haripada was captured and subjected to inhuman custodial torture—including beatings, electric shocks, forced starvation, and public humiliation. British forces used him as an example to terrorize the local population: he was paraded through schools and markets, his family members were beaten and tortured, and his ancestral home was burned down. Yet, he did not break under pressure. His stoic endurance in the face of brutal repression became a symbol of the unyielding spirit of India's revolutionary youth.

Source for these accolades for the action of 1931 and afterwards? Why, a book from 1922, of course!

I recommend an indefinite block for Eshaan the writer, based on the above disruptive and tendentious editing on article and talk pages. Their contributions will need careful scrutinizing and possibly a total WP:TNT. I suspect that every citation they have added in the past few weeks is in some way fabricated. They are welcome to disprove me by pointing to a citation which verifies all the text it claims to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay go ahead block me then. Waiting impatiently!!! Thank you for standing up a huge amount of evidence against me. You are really progressing in your objections. Eshaan the writer (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess? You may want to defend yourself, if you want. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a possible defense to it? Either Eshaan the writer has been using LLM to do their edits for them -- in which case this isn't merely trout slap country, but the need for a team of bruisers to administer seafood justice -- or they've deliberately lied about what the sources say and hoped no one would check up on them, in which case an indef sounds about right. Ravenswing 11:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

take my angry thanks for the seafood justice pun. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even their userpage resembles the same tone of AI-generation that was used in the aforementioned conversation with CX Zoom. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 11:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The LLM and POV issues are outside my area of expertise, but regarding this user's 30 edits of Birendranath Dutta Gupta, after three previous huge additions - yes, it would take a shocking amount of cleanup, if we were to keep that content. Literally hundreds of random words are in bold text.

I understand this is not the primary issue at hand here, but I consider such MOS violations (and there are many, many more; LLM or not, it's just bad work) to be unacceptable from any user with over a thousand edits, and do not indicate someone who intends to improve the encyclopedia, nor to cooperate with others. Eshaan the writer's reply to me here - "sure just wait i am working on it to get all the stuff fixed" indicates the same; that message is from a week ago, and in that time, the article only continued to get worse. Jessicapierce (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is compelling off-wiki evidence (email me if you can't find it yourself) that Eshaan the writer edited here before as Eshaanbera (indefed on 22 September 2021 by Diannaa for repeated copyright violations), making him a block-evading sockpuppet. It is likely that he also edited as Eshaan2006 from 4 December 2024 to 18 March 2025, a period when Eshaan the writer was dormant. A checkuser is desirable to look for sleepers.

Support indefinite block of Eshaan the writer and Eshaan2006. Because of the severity of the POV, verifiability, and copyright problems, recommend per WP:BANREVERT that all pages created by Eshann the writer or Eshaan2006, on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, be deleted, and all their other contributions be reverted. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have some positive contributions, even though authored by AI, but it will be a pain to filter them from the vast expanse of problematic contributions. I suggest draftification of their new articles, to be reviewed or rescued by others, if feasible. A block is merited due to sockpuppetry. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the behavioral evidence, it's clear that the connection established by Worldbruce is a valid one per WP:DUCK, even leaving aside any off-wiki evidence. Blocked Eshaan2006 and Eshaan the writer for block evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Bushranger Should we block their ip address? This looks like a block evasion. Mehedi Abedin 15:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pretty obviously so. Blocked the /64 for 48 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request I know Wikipedia and Commons are not same, I mean, what happens in Commons doesn’t matter here. But he uploaded many images for his articles and if I am not wrong, the sources for those images he cites "WB Archives". I guess WB Archive means "West Bengal Archives". But the problem is Why West Bengal Archives has a photo taken in Bangladesh? Or even we assume that WB Archives means "Warner Bros Archives", why these images has no source link? I don't have the time to investigate these. But if anyone can, please look into this (even if this matter is nothing to do with Wikipedia). Mehedi Abedin 11:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehedi Abedin: Not at all suprising because the Archives of the former Bengal Presidency, which included present-day Bangladesh, at Calcutta became the West Bengal State Archives after partition. https://sadte.wb.gov.in/index.php/about states "Apart from the general record series, State Archives possesses special type of records which include old maps, glass and film negatives and photographic prints of intercepted letters, articles and photographs of the freedom fighters." —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CX Zoom Does West Bengal Archives, an India-based archive, keeps photos from independent Bangladesh of modern times? I don't know, this is a photo from Dhaka, Bangladesh seems taken recently. There is a possibility that maybe even many historical photos he uploaded aren’t from WB Archives. Mehedi Abedin 12:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not. Tbf, I'd think that a professional organisation would've taken a much a better picture than this. This seems like a picture taken by a civilian. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there's an IP user asking for admin attention regarding this article (see talk page), due to repeated content removals without edit summaries by multiple IP editors. I'm posting this message to help them, as they reached out to me. Thank you. - Arcrev1 (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP who removed content without edit summaries is 2600:8800:AA01:500:750E:7CAD:51C4:6888. I've warned them in their talk page. (Note: I'm not an admin.) Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP who was removing content was removing unsourced information from a WP:BLP article. Given this I removed the same information but with a descriptive edit summary [95].

Now the IP editor who asked for help, 2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has reverted me twice [96][97] while casting aspersions on the talk page [98] and insisting there must be consensus for removal [99] which is not policy. They have also called me blind [100] and have left an aggressive message on my talk page while the talk page discussion is ongoing [101].

The IP editor who asked for help has performed eleven [102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112] total reverts to include this information, while in their edit summaries casting aspersions about COI and claiming it is vandalism.

I'm stepping away from engaging and believe it would be beneficial for an administrator to have a word with them. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Up to seventeen reverts now [113][114][115][116][117][118] with more aspersions ("Unless you are a COI paid by the family."), and incivility ("seek consensus or removal the articl or 'Go away and get a life." – emphasis not mine) leveled against other editors in the relevant talk page discussion [119]. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've got information that would probably be useful in sorting things out here, but posting it would be a violation of WP:OUTING. Suggestions on what I should do? --Carnildo (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to send your findings to the Arbitration Committee and avoid any any further discussion here of non-public information. Address is arbcom-enwikimedia.org 184.152.65.118 (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Sportsnut24 has now made it clear that IP:2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D is them. [120] Between the IP and Sportsnut24, I have now been the target of multiple evidence-free claims of a 'COI'. All this, in order to include a vague anecdote referring to a non-notable individual who appears to have been married to the article subject for an indeterminate period before divorcing. I've no idea what external conflicts may be involved, and frankly don't care. Wikipedia biographies clearly aren't arenas for such disputes however, and simple common sense and decency, in addition to WP:BLP policy, should guide us as to whether we need to drag an otherwise entirely unreferenced individual into this mess. Following Sportsnut24's latest absurd COI allegation [121] I have warned them that unless they present evidence (rofl) or retract, I am immediately going to call for them to be blocked from editing: we clearly have multiple grounds for this, probably too many to be worth listing, but starting with editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny, repeated evidence-free COI allegations, and a general tendency to invent fictitious Wikipedia policies in order to further their obsession with inserting trivia about a non-notable individual into a biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, see this edit by Sportsnut24. [122] This was a restoration of material previously deleted, and possibly justified at least in part, though some is unsourced or improperly sourced, and clearly shouldn't have been restored. Note in particular though that the infobox includes two individuals in the 'spouse' section. Neither seems to be adequately sourced, but it would appear that Sportsnut24 must have been aware that there were suggestions that article subject had married twice. This makes the insistence on including the first (divorced) spouse in the infobox even less explicable. Basic common sense dictates that even if we don't have full sourcing, we shouldn't be naming a single individual as a spouse while ignoring the later one. Probably not an ideal source (promotional), but it isn't difficult to find evidence for the second marriage: "Akshay Nanavati and his wife Melissa live in Arizona". [123] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This diff suggests that Sportsnut24 has a grudge against Akshay Nanavati's current wife. --Carnildo (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected Akshay Nanavati for three days so that Sportsnut24 must discuss on the article talk page. (Note that the article's previous semiprotection was set to/will expire during that time.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the diff linked above by Carnildo, I'd have to suggest that at absolute minimum a topic ban from Akshay Nanavati (including his family, ex-wife, etc) is due. Sportsnut24 has been throwing around evidence-free COI allegations with wild abandon, while clearly abusing Wikipedia to pursue some sort of off-Wikipedia dispute with a non-notable individual. And by all appearances (see User talk:Sportsnut24) there have been multiple other issues with this contributor, to the extent that one might ask if WP:NOTHERE applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think at a minimum a tban or pblock from Akshay Nanavati is warranted. Given their incivility, aspersions, and WP:CIR or WP:IDHT-driven contortions of policy, a more broad block may be reasonable also to prevent future disruption. I would really like to hear from Sportsnut24 at this ANI before asking for a broader block. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed for BLP issues, obvious loutsocking, personal attacks, and basically this whole thing. If they come back after the protection expires hit up rfpp or let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that can be done about a persistent IP jumping editor of Pakistani politics? Their edits are not malicious, just consistently dreadful. I've encountered this editor a few times over the years, in batches of activity.

• IP based in United Arab Emirates
• Only edits infoboxes on Pakistani politicians or parties
• Churns through dozens and dozens of edits at a fast pace
• Never cites, never summarises
• Is completely unresponsive to attempts to communicate with, little point in leaving them messages on their talk pages, because they jump to another on every session.
• Incapable of understanding or remembering that there is no parameter "other party" on officeholder infoboxes
• Doesn't understand you cannot repeat parameters in infoboxes
• Doesn't seem to notice their edits do not work as intended
• Had a fascination for adding flags to infoboxes for a while
• When reverted, will just return the following day and relentlessly do it all again

Clearing up after them is a wasteful, time consuming task. Some of their edit appear to be ok, I don't know, nothing is cited. Blocking individual IPs after the fact is pointless, they always return on another.

Recent IPs;

• 2001:8F8:1361:5E6B:5CA1:25D5:6204:181C
• 2001:8F8:1361:4274:B04A:DD7E:870F:5932
• 2001:8F8:1361:11CF:B56A:B38D:7F49:3166

Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PP? Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert here but I think a range block would help if there is not too much collateral damage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three given IPs could be covered by a /49 block though the available range is larger, probably a /34 judging from the existing block. Unfortunately I think we may be at the point of soft p-blocking the entire range from mainspace in addition to the one template already on the p-block list. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's multiple constructive, non-IPA-area edits on the /34, so I'm leery of pblocking that broad a range from articlespace as a whole. I've pblocked the /49 from articlespace, expiring at the same time the /34's passel of pblocks (18:54, 29 October 2025), let's see if that helps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Morris College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• HTemoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since their account creation on June 10, HTemoney has only edited Morris College. Our policy against "outing" prevents me from saying exactly why I believe that they are an employee of the college but I trust that other editors can easily draw the same conclusion. They have posted one brief, incomplete statement in the article's Talk page but they have not responded to any questions on their User Talk page or a discussion opened at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). The COIN discussion has since been archived as there was no response from HTemoney or any other editor. But I'm afraid that their persistent editing in violation of our paid editing disclosure requirement and refusal to communicate means that they need to be blocked; a partial block only focused on that specific article may be the kindest approach. ElKevbo (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is very suspicious that after you and others have attempted several times to initiate discussion on their talkpage that they have failed to respond to. Additionally, while it is not necessarily against policy for someone to have an interest in a particular topic or range of pages and therefore have edits corresponding to those accordingly, this person has ONLY made edits on the Morris College page from the inception of the account until now. The edits also seem to be written in a way that an inexperienced paid editor would write them, highly partisan, lots of errors, and a chronic lack of communication. I think a partial block is probably warranted here. Perhaps they can be given the chance to appeal it in the future but I agree that this is very concerning behavior. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I went to go look for it, the COIN discussion, such as it was, can be found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 222#Morris College. I could partially block this editor from that article but I'd like to hear a bit more feedback from other editors on this option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Communication is required, if they aren't responding to inquiries on their talk page a p-block is logical. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OP does not want to cross this bridge, and I respect that, but given that the user in question literally put it out there, I will go ahead and say that there is an employee of Morris College whose name matches the username of this editor (I assume this is covered by exception #2, If individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums). This is a pretty clear-cut case of undisclosed CoI. I am not sure they are being paid to edit this article, but they are being paid by the subject of the article. They should be blocked from it and likely TBanned from anything relating to this institution, just in case, at the very least until they acknowledge the issue. Ostalgia (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. glman (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the clear COI, plausible UPE, and decided failure to communicate, I've indefinitely pblocked from Morris College with an invitation to come here and discuss. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

181.2.118.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On a good day, roughly half of the edits by this IP are useful. On a bad day, all of them have to be reverted. The IP has been asked numerous times to not remove sourced content and to follow the rules of WP:FILMOGRAPHY, but the IP apparently ignores all talk page messages, even multiple final warnings. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP ignores all warnings and just keeps going with the same crap. Can someone please stop this? — Chrisahn (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the behavior of Rebecana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and have had no success trying to communicate with them via their talk page. The editor appears to be inserting translations of French Wikipedia articles into existing biographies on this Wikipedia. e.g. [151], [152], [153]. The translations are:

1. Mostly unreferenced,
2. Poorly translated, often whole sentences remain in French,
3. Inserted into a new "Biography" section, disregarding the existing structure of the pages, and often duplicating content already present, and
4. Not correctly attributed as translations.

While translating from other Wikipedias can be valuable, this editor's translations are making the encyclopedia worse, as detailed above, and are probably copyright or license violations. I've tried to discuss this with them, but they're either ignoring my messages or don't know how to respond. Some assistance would be greatly appreciated. (Or perhaps I'm overreacting, and other editors think these are fine.) pburka (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given Rebecana has not made a single edit to Talk userspaces, I recommend a partial block from mainspace until they communicate. It's likely that they're unaware of the requirements for attribution between pages/sites and are similarly unaware of the existence of Talk pages/policy of any sort on English Wikipedia. They have a few contributions to Romanian Wikipedia as well. -- Reconrabbit 15:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and thank you very much for your helpful notices.

I’ve now had enough time to become familiar with my talk page and to follow Liz’s recommendations. I understand the importance of being active in discussions in order to resolve any issues that may arise. I want to emphasize that I am a good-faith contributor, and I’m here to help make Wikipedia richer and more reliable by adding well-sourced information.

You are right that I often use the French Wikipedia as a base for information, and I always try to include only content that is properly referenced with media sources. However, I recognize that some articles — especially older ones — may lack media references due to the absence of such sources at the time, which makes it more difficult to always include them. Moving forward, I will focus on the points you’ve recommended and will be more careful with the content I publish.

I also apologize for my delayed response — I’ve been busy daily with two children and didn’t notice your messages in time.

Thank you again for your guidance and understanding. Rebecana (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I hope you can contribute when you are able. My greatest concern is attribution. Please make sure that you leave an edit summary at minimum so that other editors know where your information came from. For example, in the first example given by Pburka, you could have written "the text in this edit was translated from fr:Anaïs de Bassanville." -- Reconrabbit 12:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might be helpful: Help:Translation, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. @Rebecana: Lectonar (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct the original report here: translations from other-language Wikipedias definitely aren't copyright violations. Without attribution, they are violations of the terms of use. You can resolve this by putting {{translated page|SourceLanguageCode|SourcePageTitle|version=123456789|insertversion=987654321|section=name}} on the talk page of the en.wiki article. Be sure to link to the source page in the edit summary.—S Marshall T/C 10:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of straying far off topic and into the realm of pedantry, uncredited copying is both a copyright violation and a license violation. The copyright on the text is retained by each contributor, and the terms of use spell out specific exceptions to the copyright. If you copy content from Wikipedia without following the requirements of the CC license, you're violating copyright. pburka (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

At the article Carmel Henry Carfora over the last months, the WP:SPA User:Catolicoantiguo (the user has only ever edited this single article) has kept adding the full succession list of the subject of the article, despite my WP:BRD opposition (here) and my multiple warnings at their talk page.

Diffs: [154], [155], [156], [157]

I think the user needs to be banned from editing this WP article. Veverve (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Belatedly, but...very recently (last week?) there was an IP editor here who was making the exact same vehement arguments. I have no doubt this is the same editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• After noting block evasion, I believe a rangeblock is in order both here and on the Srebrenica page. Borgenland (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. --Yamla (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am very skeptical of the motivations of this administrator. [161]. I am certain that I reverted a mainspace edit. It was apparently concurrently moved to draft space. Now this administrator makes accusations against me. To be clear, I don't want drama, but see that this person is apparently harassing other editors on the thinnest of pretexts on an issue in which they are WP:INVOLVED. (See this discussion). Again, I don't wish to get involved, but someone needs to take a look at this. A rogue administrator apparently threatening IP editors on blatantly pretextual grounds, and accusing other editors of bad faith. This is not behavior becoming of a Wikipedia administrator. This is cop stuff @BD2412:. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been notified of this discussion on my talk page, but will answer anyway. The linked discussion speaks for itself, and I will allow other admins to fully examine the circumstances and come to their own conclusions regarding the skepticism expressed above. Please be aware that the talk page of the IP in question has been cleansed of warnings and other discussions informative to this inquiry by that IP. I will say that I have not accused any editor in this process of bad faith. BD2412 T 01:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing nefarious about removing warnings from WP:OWNTALK. The IP in question appears to be semi-permanently assigned (at least over the last three years) so there is no issue with shared IP addresses. And although you say directly that you have not made any accusations of bad faith, your choice of wording about the issue of removal of warnings speaks otherwise. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When an IP address has repeatedly been warned and occasionally blocked for edit warring, and persists in that behavior after being blocked, I do find that problematic. I also find the pattern of removing those warnings (and then continuing the behavior warned about) to be at least curious. BD2412 T 01:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no edit warring. There were two reversions of your edits (which I might add were reasonable to revert, as being in contradiction to the consensus of a recent AfD) and then an entirely proper escalation to a relevant noticeboard and disengagement from continued editing. It is your warnings, and then your attempts to double down by threatening the IP for removing your warnings and for calling attention to your dubious edits, that currently appear more problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is permissible to write a new article at a previously deleted title if the new article is substantially different from the deleted content. The deleted article was an unsourced stub, and was deleted in part for being unsourced. I created a substantial and well-sourced new article in draft, and moved it to mainspace. Changing that to a redirect without discussion was not reasonable. Even if it had been, the reversion of that edit should have led to discussion, not another undiscussed deletion of sourced content. The second reversion was uncalled for. If there is a question about the propriety of a new article, it should be resolved by discussion. BD2412 T 01:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I offered that you should nominate the article yourself for deletion, so that it might be discussed, but you proceded in ad ipenem attacks on an editor who, as far as I can determine, is in good standing. Tito Omburo (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that I have, yet again restored the last consensus revision following the outcome of the last AfD. Tito Omburo (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically stated, "If you want to re-create the article, please go through the process we all have to: WP:AfC". I did so. An uninvolved AfC reviewer then accepted the submission. I frankly don't understand what more you want from me. BD2412 T 02:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "all have to" go through AfC, in fact, experienced editors are specifically encouraged not to use it unless there's a COI, in which case they're required to. Jahaza (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this, but the initiator of the discussion demanded that I go through AfC, so I did. Then they argued with the AfC reviewer who approved the submission, insisting that there needed to be weeks of discussion and a consensus in order for the AfC reviewer to move the draft. BD2412 T 01:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what started the entire argument here, but I will say this type of commenting needs to stop. I simply moved a draft to mainspace for reasons stated on my talk page and the talk page of the draft. Then undid the redirect as AfD is the appropriate venue since WP:CCC and the AfD cited is six years ago. I don't appreciate the lack of WP:CIVILity. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tito Omburo:, now there is an issue. You are WP:BLUDGEONING with your statement "Lack of AfC consensus." Where does there have to be consensus at AfC and where was there a discussion opposing such until AFTER you reverted the redirect for a third time. What are you doing?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring a consensus revision of an article that was previously deleted. (And my revert means that you should back off and discuss, rather than edit-war.) Tito Omburo (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, based on the article history, assuming you are referring to WP:BRD, the BOLD was your blank and the revert was restoring the article so that subsequent discussion could occur. That doesn't matter, though, given you have blanked the article five times in three hours, which is bright-line edit warring per WP:3RR. Weirdguyz (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Tito Omburo has well passed WP:3RR on the article in question and has been blocked for 31 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping the cooling off will allow for more civil discussion but this comment doesn't give me much hope.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note their response to the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary, lots of subpar behavior but the next step here for anyone who believes the page should not be an article is to send it to AfD.

With that aside, we can get into a more thorough analysis. The initial bold redirection by 35 was fine, reverting that was also fine, use of rollback to make that revert was not fine, but a one-off rollback error isn't a big deal or something we should be starting XRVs over. Second redirection is questionable, as a strict matter of ATD-R either a talk page discussion or AfD should have started. As a matter of day-to-day community practice some leeway is given for one or maybe two subsequent tries at redirection, the etiquette is complicated, but it's not that big a deal, and of course disruptive recreations from redirects are repeatedly reverted as a matter of routine, this was not disruptive but 35 does seem to have held a sincere belief that it was so again not great but not sanctionable, best addressed with open dialogue. Subsequent revert also logical, though again rollback was misused. Then Tito Omburo redirects, we're already past due for AfD by then but there does seem to have been a sincere belief the recreation was disruptive, perhaps a G4+decline would've cleared things up but stuff like this happens.

BD2412 gracefully submits the draft to AFC and it is accepted, that is precisely the procedure we are constantly advising people to follow for recreations. If it had ended there no one would have needed anything more than a trout, just another one of those periodic messy detours. Unfortunately it did not end there, Tito Omburo was advised to use AfD multiple times and decided to edit war anyway, so a block was necessary to end disruption.

Most of the rest has been covered above. But to briefly rehash, civility is not optional even in tense situations though some limited understanding is extended. Yes people can blank messages from their own talk pages and it is routine rather than suspicious. Blanking is actually to be interpreted as an acknowledgement that the message has been read this is detailed at WP:BLANKING. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not convinced this complaint was brought on precisely the correct grounds, but I think that BD2412's behavior shows an astonishing disregard for administrative behavior while involved in a content dispute, as well as WP:ABF. I do not think this discussion should be deflected into an unimportant and routine content discussion (I am a math editor and I don't really care whether or not there is an article on the square root of 10), because the behavior issue here is very troubling. --JBL (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, if I am in the wrong on this I will apologize and take my trouting. However, I find it hard to believe that an IP can be warned for incivility and edit warring over and over and over and over again, by many different editors, and ultimately be blocked for this conduct for continuing after those warnings, and still be treated with kid gloves. BD2412 T 01:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If they weren't an IP, would that change the standard you hold them to before taking off the kids gloves? 166.205.97.71 (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it would not. If a registered editor who had repeatedly been warned for edit warring and incivility, and had recently been blocked for the same, engaged in a similar pattern of recidivism, I likely would have warned them as well. However, IP addresses, no matter how static they may be for a time, are ultimately unstable. I would not assume that good behavior emanating from an IP address further in the past necessarily reflected the same editor. I will say, however, that on the basis of this incidence, I will probably be more hesitant to confront edit warring or incivility in the future. BD2412 T 03:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You are still talking as if what you did really was confronting edit warring and incivility from the IP. I still have not seen any such thing. It is exactly that hostile attitude, from you, that became a problem here. Please listen to the many people telling you that instead of continuing to double down. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    David, I am trying to listen here, I really am. I understand the perception that my aim was to "win" a dispute over the substance of the article. That was not what was in my thoughts at the time. I should have been more clear with the IP that my intent was that they should discuss the matter rather than continuing to revert. I am feeling somewhat misunderstood, and I am feeling that some people in this discussion are immediately assuming the worst of me. From my perspective at the time—and I grant that this was just my perspective—the IP was primarily concerned about one source in the new article, which they described in their edit summary as "one crank source I even warned you about", and they could have tagged or removed that source, or nominated the new article for deletion, or started a discussion, or done any number of things other than effectively blanking the page. Imagine how you might react if an IP turned Descartes' theorem into a redirect on the grounds that it was "trivia", and then immediately reverted you when you restored it. Would you consider that a content dispute, or would you consider that a conduct problem? Of course, I am aware that Descartes' theorem is a more important subject than the Square root of 10, but my overwhelming intent here was to improve the encyclopedia, and to route the IP into any of the infinite number of more constructive ways to resolve the dispute. I removed the disputed source myself after giving the warning. BD2412 T 15:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would like to make a specific case about BD2412's conduct, with diffs, I'll listen. Having looked through the page history of the article, and related discussions, I'm not seeing a problem. I do see one user (Tito Omburo) who edit-warred, made personal attacks, assumed bad faith, and got blocked. I see an IP with a history of being warned for edit-warring, including on mathematics articles. Warning such an IP that they're at risk of being blocked again for the same conduct is normal. If the complaint is that someone else should have issued the warning, okay, but blanking an article that went through AfC (and was accepted by an independent reviewer) is more than a content dispute. Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Simply going through AfD could have saved a ton of time. This was premature to have been brought to ANI.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are the relevant diffs: The IP 35.139.154.158 converted the article to a redirect on 21:55, 16 July 2025. This was done with an edit summary making a few points, and also suggesting prior interaction I haven't found. BD2412 rolled back that edit at 23:32, and then gave an templated twinkle warning for "Unconstructive editing" at 23:33 (ie. immediately after). The IP reinstated their change at 23:37, noting "inappropriate use of WP:ROLLBACK" and the previous AfD. BD2142 then rolled that back at 23:41. Discussion then occurred in WikiProject Mathematics as linked in the opening post, which spun out into a bit more edit warring and the article going to Draft again (for the second time I think?).

Looking at this, I agree with 184.152.65.118 that both uses of rollback by BD2412 were poor. I would add further that the "Unconstructive editing" warning after the first rollback was poor, the IP gave specific reasons for their edit in the edit summary, it was not the sort of test edit or minor vandalism that the "Unconstructive editing" warning is for. It is definitely not a warning that is related to either "incivility" or "edit warring", which BD2412 mentioned above as being their concerns regarding the IP's past history (which to repeat I have not found), and if there is history, the warning may have strayed towards WP:DNTTR. If BD2412 wants to take appropriate trouting, it should be for the issues of rollback misuse and inappropriate warning, with the most egregious problem being a second rollback.

That said, as 184.152.65.118 has also noted, BD2412 did later (re?)draft the article and take it to AfC (again?). This was a very appropriate action to take specifically on the question of the article's existence. If there are still concerns about existence, they should be discussed at WP:AfD. Content concerns within the existing article should be discussed on the talk page. Obviously as a final point, BD2412 should not take any administrative actions regarding the IP or others involved in an article they have created, but they don't seem to have done so. CMD (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: That is correct, I took no administrative action, nor would I have done so. Had blanking to the redirect persisted, I would have filed a report noting the IP's previous block for edit warring. With respect to the "prior interaction", that is certainly this RfD discussion, in which the IP was unfailingly and repeatedly rude in response to my !vote in the discussion, responding with a series of "facepalm" emojis, and particularly with the comment, "You've turned what should be a fairly mundane discussion into a clusterfuck of red herrings and other nonsense". I have seen them be more uncivil to others in similar discussions; in that same edit, they accuse Dicklyon of "years-long trolling" for advocating a minority but not-unreasonable position. BD2412 T 17:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking the RfD discussion, which provides some context. Certainly not the best behaviour by the IP, but if I might say so it does read a bit as if you're falling for that bait. Understandable, and not saying I would never do the same, just a view from outside. (And for all those that called that series of redirects "unambiguous" or similar, first of all, negative numbers exist, secondly these is all premised on the assumption of a base 10 numbering system, which is mathematical systematic bias.) CMD (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's more emojis than I like to see in an RfD discussion about square roots. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following all this, but yes I do troll my Square root of 4 idea every few years. My Square root of 6 and Square root of 7 creations were along a lightly different line, but still essentially poking fun at our Square root of 3 and Square root of 5 articles. I think the Square root of 10 is a much more serious idea. I haven't looked at the draft, but can tell you a few places where that number is important. For one, it's the amplitude ratio that corresponds to 10 dB. For another, some slide rules, such as the Sun Hemmi No. 250, fold their CF and DF scales at the square root of 10, instead of pi, because it's theoretically optimal, though less useful than folding at pi. Both of these uses gain their significance ultimately from our use of decimal number systems. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, I admit I'm still slightly confuzzled by the "inappropriate use of WP:ROLLBACK" thing. I can't see a functional difference between rollback and - for example - selecting a series of multiple diffs in the page history, clicking "edit" on the "prior revision", and then hitting save? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:Rollback#When to use rollback. There is a slightly complicated history here. If you're interested I can try to outline it so you can better understand how and why this came to be when I get a few minutes, but today I'm busy. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see the "no edit summary" concerns, but when you get a moment, wouldn't mind the explanation! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two accounts adding similar information to their sandbox (albeit differently formatted).

• User:Factfinders7/sandbox
• User:Group2epp6/sandbox

It is in their sandbox, so I'm not sure if it is strictly against Wikipedia policy. It just feels off. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 04:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+ Did you request for sockpuppet investigation? Because it looks like sockpuppeting. Mehedi Abedin 04:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, here. It didn't cross my mind that it could be a class. There are apparently several other usernames following the same pattern. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 04:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that these are two very, very new accounts that have only been editing for the past 5 hours. I don't know how you even came across their User pages. We usually don't police User pages unless the content violates policy (like BLP-violating content or copyright-violating content) and I don't think this does. Was this worth opening a report on ANI? They are just new editors who don't know what they are doing, experimenting. We've all been there once. You can always file an SPI report but even that seems like overkill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We usually don't police User pages unless the content violates policy (like BLP-violating content or copyright-violating content)

  If we didn't "police" User pages, then they'd become a free-for-all of advertising and self-promotion. Wikipedia policy also doesn't allow using user pages as a web host, blog, personal website, code repository, and so on. If the two usernames are indeed connected to a class, then their teacher should know better and use one of the plethora of other online platforms where the students can write and save text.

  You can always file an SPI report but even that seems like overkill.

  Right above your post I linked to the SPI report. A total of 5 related accounts were identified. Imagine if every school on the planet told their students to use Wikipedia for "practicing". TurboSuperA+_(talk) 05:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Weirdguyz and BusterD: I just remembered the "safe and responsible use of technology" editors/pages from a few days ago. These are very similar. I wonder if they all originate from the same school. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 08:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are they part of school project? Schools should encourage students to request for a Wikipedia account. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it at possible but unlikely IMO. Weirdguyz (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Weirdguyz; this seems an unlikely match. Those pages all had one or two plain text paragraphs about internet safety. Nothing bolded; nothing formatted. I agree userspace isn't our primary concern, but I also agree that somebody should tag promotional userspace when they see it. For the record, I estimate I delete about 10-20 U5s every day (often accompanied by a G11 tag), and I'm just one admin. BusterD (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged one page for speedy deletion. It may be eligible for G12. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Giray 3532 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is placing non existent Turkey's so called emblem on every articles, also has other edits like this and this. Basically fantasy editing. Not to mention the edit warring if you revert him. On his talk page, he replies always like:

• Please do not act prejudiced without a source
• You don't have any official sources, don't judge without researching
• Don't think you're scaring me by complaining, do some history research, you don't have a single source

I don't even know what to tell. Beshogur (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User continues to edit warring. Beshogur (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI notice was buried in two paragraphs of comments so I placed it in its own section so it is more visible to the editor. Hopefully, they will come here to discuss matters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten into it myself with him on his talk page. I can see that his sources demonstrate a different flag (you keep using the turn of phrase "non existent Turkey emblem," which is inaccurate English), but instead of seeking to upload an image of that flag, he keeps on reverting to this spurious regimental flag and claiming that it is either a "war flag" or the national military's flag. Granted, this is a content dispute, but his intransigence isn't going to win him favors. Ravenswing 07:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the repeated additions of this flag image to multiple pages and templates, I've indef pblocked from articlespace and template space. If clue improves, anyone can unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do now personal attacks, "Don't you understand, kid? Search Turkish resources. Stop learning from YouTube short videos. There is a war flag in Turkiye, but you don't understand because you are disabled" [[167]] Shadow4dark (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I order you to open my blocked account or I will report you to the moderators. @The Bushranger: Beshogur (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"fuck you kid" [[168]] Shadow4dark (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

serious WP:NPA violation! 176.202.109.198 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And they're now indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giray is back as an IP, using the same mis-spelled file '39th Regment flag' and adding it to two articles:

editing logged out

I've reverted both, but he might keep coming back. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 176.220.247.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 176.219.171.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a week, and semiprotected War flag for two weeks. Will protect other pages if it's needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now semiprotected List of military flags as the editor is repeatedly IP block evading while using taunting edit summaries. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]