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]

I am posting here because it appears Mediascriptor has an undisclosed COI regarding media organization Antigua.news, and/or its owners/operators. Mediascriptor has denied any connection, claiming they write about Antiguan topics more generally. Their editing history appears to indicate diffferently.

Background

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

Evidence:

• In 2020, Mediascriptor uploaded an image of the Embassy of A&B in Madrid to Wikimedia Commons as their own work.
• Mediascriptor later uploaded content to Wikimedia commons from Antigua news and content about the publication's owner and business colleague.
• In 2025, Mediascriptor made pages for Antigua.news on English, German, French and Italian wikiprojects. Their edits to fr, de, it wikiprojects were largely confined to Antigua.news. On Italian Wiki, Mediascriptor recieved a block for suspected COI editing. The Antigua.news page on that wikiproject was deleted, and the discussion went into illluminating detail about allegations of COI editing on that Wikiproject.
• Mediascriptor's contributions on de.wiki consist of making the page for Antigua.news and adding references to Antigua.news on other pages. On fr.wikipedia, the contributions are similar. The fr.wiki page to Antigua news has a few flags by editors for neutrality, and the content used to populate the pages does not appear to give a balanced perspective.
• On en.wikipedia, Mediascriptor's edits appear almost entirely focused on pages they have made themselves or where where Antigua.news can be added (I find one recent exception of participating in a unrelated deletion discussion [18]). On en.wikipedia, there are 180 references linking back to Antigua.news, 'of which Mediascriptor has made upwards of 160 of these in the last six months'. The linking here raises questions about the source when it comes to WP:USEBYOTHERS.
• Mediascriptor made extensive edits to the pages of Antigua.news's owner and created the page for this person's business colleague before the pages were recently deleted.
• In a sockpuppet investigation initiated by another editor related to edits on these pages, Mediascriptor admitted they supposedly live in the same house[19] as another editor who appeared to edit exclusively on topics related to Antigua.news's owner and business colleague (the two persons are involved in some business around nobility/royal titles). The editors were blocked.

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

1. Creating pages which stuff Antigua.news links to the site [20][21][22][23] For example, Antigua and Barbuda Hotels and Tourism Association (8 links to Antigua news)

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

3. Making pages related to the line of work that the owner of Antigua.news is involved in [24][25]. Many of these pages have questionable notability and sourcing appears to be haphazard. A previous page along these lines made by Mediascriptor was redirected.

• Mediascriptor has denied being paid for editing, so it may be an instace of WP:SELFPROMOTE. When previous COI concerns were raised,they have said they are editing "generally on Antigua and Barbuda but rather than general editing. their editing appears clearly focused on promoting Antigua News and or topics related to the line of work the owner of Antigua.news is involved in.
• Mediascriptor has argued that A&B's newsclimate is small thus the many refs to Antigua.news are justified. Antigua.news is not WP:USEBYOTHERS to the extent that Mediascriptor is promoting the content. It appears other editors in this topic are choosing to reference other publications, as evidenced by sources to the Antigua Observer, and Antigua News Room.

In summary, Mediascriptor's editing history appears they have an apparent COI with topics related to Antigua.news, its owner and the Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda in Madrid. They do not appear to edit on anything outside these topics, or work on other pages about Antigua not created by them. Despite their claims to edit on Antiguan topics more generally.

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

  The state of Antigua.news, which they started, prior to other editors involvement could be charitably described as "less than neutral" [26]. Additionally:

  • 29 Dec – Mediascriptor uploads "Antigua.news.jpg" and "Antigua.news small icon.jpg" to commons [27][28] and adds them to the article [29][30].
  • 7 Jan – both are deleted from commons [31][32] for copyvio.
  • 6 hours 27 minutes later – es:User:Antigua.news is created.
  • 9 Jan – Antigua.news uploads "Antigua.news logo.jpg" and "Antigua.news icon.jpg" to commons [33][34].
  • 18 Jan – Mediascriptor adds these images to the article [35].

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

  I was anticipating @Mediascriptor to come up again at some point after the Dario Item discussion, I'm more surprised their sockpuppet block was lifted after only 2 weeks.

  I think it's hard to conclude this account is not involved in either WP:COI editing or WP:UPE, despite their continued denials. As a reminder, Antigua.news was founded (and is owned?) by Antigua & Barbuda's ambassador to Spain, Dario Item.

  • 3 of Mediascriptor's first 5 edits ever on en.wiki were to add the now-deleted Dario Item to lists of notable alumni of various universities: [36] [37] [38].
  • Edit #7 more than 10 months later was to create the Antigua.news article; in the edit summary, they tied the site explicitly to Dario Item and mirrored the site's promotional language ("delivering comprehensive coverage of current affairs", "offers timely and relevant information, insights, and analyses").
  • Immediately after creating Antigua.news, they then edited a series of pages linked to the now also-deleted Giacomo Merello: Lord Leslie (Merello's title), Marcella Bella (Merello's mother), and Gianni Bella (Merello's uncle). Why is this relevant? Because Merello is a business partner of Dario Item, and I can't think of many reasons why an uninvolved editor interested in Antigua & Barbuda should be on those pages within their first 20 edits.
  • They voted 'Keep' with extensive explanations about supposed notability on AfD discussions on Dario Item, Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland) (Item's title), and Giacomo Merello.
  • As @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four points out, the Commons upload of the logo is incredibly suspect, given what else we know about their contributions.
  • In several editing sprints in January, February, and June, adding links to Antigua.news constituted the majority of their edits, e.g. 7 of 12 edits on 22 January ( [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]), or 9 of 12 edits on 30 January (I will spare you the diffs). This underlines the single-source pushing which @Nayyn points out.

  While an over-reliance on one source could be written off as inexperience (in an "if all you have is a hammer" way), their editing history on Antigua News' owner and his business partner, and their Commons contributions imply otherwise. I think it's pretty clear they have direct ties to Dario Item, Giacomo Merello, Antigua News, or all three. I won't speculate what those ties are.

  Within their first 500 edits, they have managed to be blocked for COI related to the same page on another Wiki, been hit with a copyright violation, been banned due to meat/sockpuppeting, and are now poorly using AI ([46] (they blanked the warning from their user page), [47]). I'd say this user is WP:NOTHERE. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 19:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Hi @Children Will Listen, I see you've G5 tagged some of their articles [48][49], but they aren't currently G5 eligible. The first sentence of WP:G5 is "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block", this has not yet occurred.

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

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

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

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

Sorry I apparently I missed a few things due to @Mediascriptor's practice of blanking their talk page, which I'll include here.

• In 2020, they made a Wikipage for Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Madrid [50] which was turned down at AfC. So the connection to the entity that owns Antigua.news predates the existence of Antigua.news itself.
• In January of this year, @Gitz6666 first raised the question of COI with Mediascriptor on their talk page about editing related to Antigua.news, Dario Item or other subjects [51]. This was around the time their article submission for Antigua.news was denied.[52] Mediascriptor said there was no connection [53], Gitz kindly responded to share the connected contributor template [54]. Mediascriptor again denied a link [55]. Gitz followed up to explain further about the policy [56]. The following day @Mediascriptor blanked their talk page.[57]
• In February, @PARAKANYAA nominated one of Mediascriptor's articles about the Stanford case for deletion.[58] The result was pretty clear about psudo-biographies/ no notability.[59] Since then, Mediascriptor went on to write 2 more psudo-biography articles about figures from the same case Gilbert Lopez and Leroy King (Antigua and Barbuda).
• Five days after @Asilvering lifted Mediascriptor's block, @Jlwoodwa notified Mediascriptor about article creation with LLMs.[60]. Mediascriptor blanked his talk page right afterwards.

There is not a question that Mediascriptor is unaware of the policies at this point. It appears they are choosing to disregard them. Nayyn (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Just responding to one aspect here: the it.wiki block was indeed for COI, and their request for unblock demonstrates further it.wiki community reasoning regarding the block and its appeal. My general sense of that discussion is that editors did not find Mediascriptor's explanations particularly persuasive, although editors ultimately expressed a willingness to extend good faith and allow them to return to editing following the expiry of the block provided that problems did not continue. In particular, Mediascriptor was admonished, L'utente è avvisato che l'eventuale introduzione di antigua.news come fonte in altre voci, se non appropriata, ed eventuali nuovi indizi di conflitto di interessi potrebbero inficiare la sua dichiarazione negativa e/o essere valutati come spam; è quindi invitato a rileggere le linee guida WP:COI e WP:SPAM. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

​I collapsed the above comment by Mediascriptor as being LLM-generated per WP:AITALK, they reverted this [61], I've now re-collapsed it. I have absolute confidence their reply has been model-generated, they are welcome to formulate another response in their own words. Should they revert again I will not edit war to keep it collapsed. (update 07:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)) They re-reverted. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

It certainly checks some boxes: the numbered sections with their neat little headings, the abrupt style changes between sections, and the dreaded em dash. AI use is not what the ANI was about, but it doesn't instill confidence that this is an editor who's here for the right reasons. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 22:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The COI seems obvious and I appreciate Nayyn for putting this report together. I support determining that Mediacriptor has a COI with Antigua.news and Dario Item. It is also highly likely that there is some kind of UPE going on; perhaps the admins involved in the unblock process (especially those who can see the UTRS tickets) have more information on this. Toadspike [Talk] 17:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. What you can see on-wiki is what you've got. -- asilvering (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Toadspike. Not sure about the protocol as it doesn't seem @Mediascriptor is responding. As @Star Mississippi has put in an indefinite block until they reply, does it mean things are settled here? Nayyn (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I get to decide if things are settled, but if they refuse to communicate and thus remain blocked I don't have any further requests for admin action here. I guess that means this discussion can be closed. Toadspike [Talk] 11:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Toadspike @Nayyn probably. It can be revisited when and if they file an unblock request

  I had missed their HATted post above, but it reads as a retirement to me. Star Mississippi 14:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This person has clearly used LLMs to create several articles featuring hallucinated sources, several times, without changing behavior, as evidenced by their talk page.

They have also used LLMs in edits, again with hallucinatory content:

• This edit which tries to use a random English study guide to justify a claim about gambling law.
• This edit which adds a source (the URL featuring ?utm_source=chatgpt.com) discussing the death of Maurice Costa, when the previous claims are about Louis Memmi.
• This edit with a (yet again ChatGPT-provided) reference to "Academic Kids," a Wikipedia clone. In fact, the reference is to a clone of the very article they are editing.

This user has on several occasions had articles rejected or drafted on the basis of using LLM content and yet continues to use LLMs, adding a significant amount of erroneous material to Wikipedia. It seems to me this may merit action by an administrator. Altoids0 (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hi! Oh, I am very sorry, I didn't realize I couldn't use AI. Also I honestly didn't know that AI makes up sources. I most definitely didn't mean to do anything that would cause harm to Wikipedia. I believe it's my lack of knowledge about both Wikipedia rues and how AI works that caused this situation. I will educate myself better and won't use AI anymore. Really sorry to have caused the trouble. Rynodex (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for replying! Demonstrating good faith here would also require you assisting in the reversion or correction of these edits. As well, if you could state which of your edits were LLM generated, that would be helpful. Altoids0 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I already started going through all of my my edits and correct those that were LLM generated. Will do more. Sorry again! Rynodex (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has resumed following my edits [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] after a weeks-long absence from the encyclopedia despite past calls by administrators for them to stop doing so [70] [71]. 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 [72] 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. [73] 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 [74] violations, all of which have yet to be addressed.

@Weirdguyz's[75] and @Simonm223's [76] 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 [77] 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 [78][79] 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.[82] - 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.[83] Again, you're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them.[84] - 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.[85] - 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.[86] - WP:WL, blatant ignorance of previous consensus
• [87] - 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 [88], 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 [89], 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[90][91](even an admin, @Robertsky [92]) 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[93], 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: [94] [95] All of their edits: [96]

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. [97] [98] 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]

(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]

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been repeatedly adding unsourced content about Handan's birth date as “1565” to already sources birth date “1570”, despite requests to fully cite the source before editing they state that “other historians” cite different birth years “1566/67/71” without actually naming them or having a source to support this claim. Per WP:BURDEN, the material has been removed multiple times, but user is persistent and appears to try to engage in edit war. When asked to fully cite their information they claim that “they will when they find it”, similar argument happened back in June with another user and same claim was made by the reported user. Melty love (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I quote your recent statement regarding your motivations for deleting content: "No page given, till you find it dont add anything, thanks", which could actually be considered a warning. Since the edit way is free, and since this is a free encyclopedia, and also since I known how to edit, how to behave, I must work in the proper way I consider to be more appropriate. Deleting content based on such a motivation (not page given) is inappropriate. Accepting the work of the others is a must: since everyone has a different way in which he/she edits, we must respect how they do as such, without lack of respect or a very childish behavior. The important thing is to bring a source, and since i do this every time, I don't really understand your motivations. I don't come to know asking you to do your work in a different way 'cause I don't like it, and this must be given in exchange. Since that page is consistently vandalized by anonymous, I can't and won't tolerate such a behavior, nor to left the page in a shameful state, nor to receive instructions in how to do my edits. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, not all ways of editing Wikipedia are equal, and the "proper way" is to first have the source to hand (which means that you can provide the page number) and only then to add content to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respect must be given to everyone, and being on such an encyclopedia, it must be known that unless you vandalize a page, every edits are welcomed if supported by a source, but there is no rule to order a user to do his/her job in another way. Simply check my contributions on her page, you'll se that the last thing I do is to vandalize it. And since I edit on that encyclopedia, with an account and always providing sources, I could feel a little offended by such insinuations and the freedom that one takes in explaining to the other how to do their job. Since it is not vandalism, my work must be respected like those of the others. Not giving the page at the moment means vandalize? No, and so, as a consequence, the work must be respected. There is no authority that can say "if there is no page, it cannot be here". MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"not all ways of editing Wikipedia are equal": you are right, and the proper is to bring a source, to not vandalize and to not accuse others if you don't like how they do their work. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody called you vandal or that you are vandalising her page, your contributions to her article are not excuses to leave unsourced information on the article which can mislead readers. You left the information unsourced for a month without attempting to add the necessary page number and with no page number its harder to verify the information, so its only appropriate to delete it until you properly soruce information. Melty love (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, of course, but since I know that the edit way is free, for this motivation I edit in they way I feel is more appropriate and with the material I have at the moment. And also since there is no rule for declaring false a contribution only because the page is missing. I edit thinking only about the well-being of the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what i could find is that Necdet Sakaoğlu doesn’t appear to give birth year of “1565” on PAGE 219 he lists Handan as one of Mehmed III’s consorts as “VALIDE HANDAN SULTAN [ö. Istanbul, 12 Kasim 1605]” without giving the “1565” birth year same thing for PAGE 211 he only mentions when she died. Melty love (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was from a PDF titled the same same, one of the authors cited was Sakaoğlu. I get your point, I'll try to find it and provide the page and reference so the warning "page needed" will be removed. Also, I'm sorry if my edits passed as vandalism, it wasn't my intention at all, cause I love Handan's historical figure. I'll try to do better. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the ref that you wrote "Sakaoğlu, Bu mülkün kadın sultanları" is not this book:[99]. If that is so, you should write better references, they are there to make it as easy as possible for a reader to check WP-article info, and full author name and year of publication is not too much to ask. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From research ive done earlier Sakaoğlu doesn’t mention Handan’s birth year anywhere in his book “Bu mülkün sultanları : 36 Osmanlı padişahi (1999)” he mentions her date of death at PAGE 222, in 2008 one i stated before and for “Mulkun Kadin Sultanlari (2015)” mentions Handan only by name PAGE 190. And gives date of death without (“1565”) as birth year, PAGE 194. While doing my research earlier I couldn’t find works that cite Handan’s birth year as (“1565,1566” etc) i only found one work by independent research thats cites (“1568”) though i dont know if works by independent researchs are reliable and are they allowed to be cited as sources in Wikipedia. In my opinion since Sakaoğlu doesn’t mention the alleged birth year it’s only appropriate to delete material entirely leaving the (“1570”) as it’s properly sourced. Melty love (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, Necdet Sakaoğlu has an article on tr-WP, and seems like a decent source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but he doesn’t give birth year in question (1565) for Handan which the reported user has claimed. Melty love (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, fwiw. ^{[failed verification]} is sometimes a useful template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, when you edit factual content without having the reliable source on hand, either digitally or on paper, you are relying on your memory. And neither your memory nor my memory is a reliable source. When I was a new editor, I once added some content that I "remembered" and later found out I had confused two well-known authors. That was so embarrassing that I still think about it 16 years later. You wrote the edit way is free, and since this is a free encyclopedia which is true but it is also true that this encyclopedia has Policies and guidelines, and among them is Verifiability. So, if you are asked to provide a page number, then please do so on a timely basis and do not argue with the editor who made a reasonable request for the page number. OK? Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when they have this prominently displayed at the top of their user page "Please note: Before you come to discuss with me, prepare an argument well. I will not listen to any personal opinions not supported by sources, in general." Canterbury Tail talk 18:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 I understand your point. At the moment I can't really find the work I'm talking about. As you say, it's better not to go on by memory. I'll check and if I find the work, I'll add it. If I can't, I'll delete the year. Actually I added the reference quickly, really not providing the year, nor the link; now at the moment I haven't saved it, and I'll try to find it again.

@Canterbury Tail Yeah. That's a sort of motto I base myself on. And I try to behave based on it, but sometimes it is difficult. I always bring sources, but I recognise that maybe sometimes I should check them well with all the informations regarding them.

@Melty love As I said before, I will check for the right source, and If I can find it again, I'll add it. If not, I'll delete the birth date. As I told you, I'm sorry.

Also, I suggest for now to add the "better source needed" or "source needed". MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I too found works estimating Handan's birth date to 1568. If they are reliable, maybe I can add them. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Do you happen to have the titles or authors of those works? I’d love to take a look. Melty love (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are web works or web pages, so I think I should continue to search, 'cause I don't know how verifiable they could be. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma If by "web works or web pages" you mean something like WP:SPS, yes, keep looking. But [100] is also a "web page", and it's a pretty good source. In general, when the subject is history, try for history books, history journals and similar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 15 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.[101]

• 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),[102][103] 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.[104] What he fails to mention is that it was explained to him in the edit summaries[105], as well as on the article talk page.[106][107] In one instance, he reverted my edits TWICE without providing a reason in his edit summary,[108] even though he was told to see the article talk page.[109] In another instance, he does not even respond to the article talk page topic (still no response)[110], and continues the same manner of edits (Persianization) on another article.[111]

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[112] and that he should not report in haste.[113]

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'.[114] I refuted his false claims by providing these diffs as evidence: [115][116]

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.[117]

This is the diff where I clearly told him I'm reporting this as WP:PERSONAL.[118]

This is his final diff showing neither any remorse nor retracting his comments. He instead tells me "Let's not derail the discussion".[119]

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.[120] 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.[121]. 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.[122] In fact, I even acknowledged one of your points in good faith,[123] 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]

CFCFOUREVA has 28 edits, of which 26 are to the same discussion Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#2025 FIFA Club World Cup final (and 2 to their talkpage to debate me calling them out). Clear case of WP:BLUDGEON- which 4 editors on that thread have pointed out, and this User has just ignored the advice or tried to argue against- and this is massively annoying and disruptive. Clear WP:NOTLISTENING mentality from this User. Can they be partial blocked from WP:ITNC, or blocked per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE? My preference would be partial block to see if they edit helpfully elsewhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: it's actually 6 people who have pointed out to this user that they are bludgeoning: EF5, Aydoh8, Kiril Simeonovski, The Kip, Moscow Mule and myself (courtesy pinging them all to increase engagement in this discussion). If 6 people tell someone the same thing, any collaborative editor would likely pay attention, but CFCFOUREVA has not. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, their complete failure to WP:GETTHEPOINT should warrant a WP:NOTHERE block. ^EF⁵ 12:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Joseph2302 for reporting this here. I can only add that this seems like a scrutiny-evading single-purpose account, so I agree with the proposed partial block from WP:ITNC to see if the editor will continue contributing to Wikipedia elsewhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Chelsea fan trying to cope, CFC is Chelsea FC Kowal2701 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pblocked from ITNC for a week. I see this as the absolute minimum possible sanction based on evidence presented, and I don't have any objection to an admin widening or lengthening the block. The bigger misconduct claims made here and ITNC don't seem justified to me based on the evidence presented so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed the FIFA Club World Cup final nomination, as it is clearly not going anywhere. After this user's Pblock ends, we shall see if he returns. Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like how Joseph "increased engagement" to stack the deck. His list of complainants was actually a small but vocal minority, ironically. There were far more participants than that, over 20 it seems. And they not only didn't seem to have a problem with the number/length/content of my posts, they engaged with them on the arguments. Why wasn't that taken into account? That's pretty good proof I wasn't BLUDGEONing, is it not? And that the minority who said I was, were merely the ones who saw a threat to their positions if extended back and forth was had. Look at Kiril Simeonovski for example - the longer the exhanges went on, the more exposed he became. It's clearly not an invitation-only tournament, but he clearly didn't think it was important to find that out before he dismissed it as lacking credibility. With opinions like that floating around, you need a lot of words and posts to expose it all. It isn't BLUDGEONing, and I was being as careful as I could to ensure I wasn't repeating myself. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like how yet another person (the admin that partial blocked you) has agreed that you were bludgeoning (7th person to say so), and yet you still won't listen..... perfectly acceptable for me to ping involved editors into a conversation, but then again, you clearly don't understand what is and isn't acceptable on here... Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that didn't smell right, so I did a little digging. It didn't take me very long to find out that no, it is totally unacceptable for you to "ping" ONLY the people you knew for sure would 100% support your claim that I was BLUDGEONING.

No worries though, I won't complain. What's done is done. If this is how Wikipedia Administrators do things, who am I to question them?

The fact remains that Chelsea are now officially the world champions of football. Both according to the only authority whose word matters, FIFA, and presumably as a result, also according to all websites devoted to football. With everyone in agreement that whatever other issues that tournament had, lack of footballing merit wasn't one of them.

But if Wikipedia wants to live in a world where that was just a bunch of meaningless friendlies, a nice summer kick about, while the World Cup of national football, and the Champions League and Copa Libertadores in club football, are supposedly the only true bastions of competitive purity, untouched by influences unrelated to footballing merit, good luck with that.

Such views do not persuade me to become an editor of a website that claims to be working against systemic biases and ensuring everyone in the world can take part in the global game.

With the decision made, I look forward to things like the NFL international games being dismissed as mere friendlies, vanity projects or money spinners, based on their location, media coverage and spectator loyalties. If there should ever come a time that there is a specific trophy tied to offshore NFL sporting success. It being recognised throughout the world that "World Champions" is a pretty odd way to described the winner of a wholly single nation league competition. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dustfreeworld is continuing to WP:LOUTSOCK after their 2-week block a few months ago. An IP geolocating to the same location as before, is reinserting individual air pollutants into the first paragraph of the lead new IP, similar edit from account, old IP evading tban. Just discovered that the old IP has been following me offwiki, and edited the article DWARS, an organisation I was involved in years ago, and ME-related articles I've been working on after the block. A bit creepy if I may say so. Time for an indef? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note the Dustfreeworld account has not edited since they were last the topic of an ANI report in April.[124] Bon courage (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've similarly edited about my current place of work [125], now from their main account. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Femke, that diff is from March. Ostalgia (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ofc it's also possible the IP is a troll who knows what a good drama button looks like, and so is pressing it ... Bon courage (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find that unlikely for both IPs, as the old one edited last September on topics around dust and health [126], when DFW was already topic banned from medical content. The new one is able to edit rapidly in air pollution, showing high familiarity with the article and sources. Also behavioural matches, such as copying a lot from public domain sourcing [127], [128]. Behaviour, content and geolocation match: that quacks like a WP:DUCK. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on interests, edit summaries, and geolocation (to a place DFW has long edited about), I'm convinced to a sufficient degree to block. I will block DFW for a month, which is what I usually go for on first-offense socking + TBAN violation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I had overlooked the previous 2-week block for TBANvio. I went back and forth between a 1mo sockblock and an indef-with-first-year-AE, but I couldn't convince myself that any of the IP's edits were clear-cut TBAN violations. Very much nibbling around the edges, but not directly talking about medicine. Still, it was clearly avoidance of scrutiny, so I went with the 1mo sockblock. I have no objection to any other admin converting that to indef, and would probably support a CBAN at this point. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[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: [129], [130], [131], [132].

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]

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 ([133], [134]) and without ([135], [136], [137]). The issue has also been brought up by Jonesey95 ([138]), Worldbruce ([139]), and myself ([140]). Every time, Eshaan's response has been the same: to deny, dissemble, and dismiss the legitimate criticism with AI-generated replies (!) ([141], [[142], [[143]), and then to subsequently remove the criticism from their talk page ([144], [145]). 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]

• 103.170.190.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is bludgeoning a page move request [[146]] [[147]] [[148]] (and other issues, I think), with a clear case of not listening [[149]], lack of competence and SPA issues [[150]] (as well as righting great wrongs). It is a huge time sink. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And removing other users posts [[151]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 15 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 [152].

Now the IP editor who asked for help, 2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has reverted me twice [153][154] while casting aspersions on the talk page [155] and insisting there must be consensus for removal [156] which is not policy. They have also called me blind [157] and have left an aggressive message on my talk page while the talk page discussion is ongoing [158].

The IP editor who asked for help has performed eleven [159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169] 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 [170][171][172][173][174][175] 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 [176]. 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. [177] 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 [178] 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. [179] 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". [180] 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]

The editor User:Afrika1997 is a disruptive editor who changes the ethnicities of biographical pages and towns without providing reliable sources. His first edit included changing content with no explanation. I left messages on his talk page beginning on 28 April 2025 about the importance of adding sources for making changes on an article but he hasn't been cooperative. On 29 June, he made unsourced changes here and here which I reverted. On 6 July, he made a change with no source to back it up, on this page. On Vice President of Ghana, he added a disputed tag to a source and prompted a discussion on the talk page. His argument is that former Vice President Kow Nkensen Arkaah, listed in the article is of Guan ethnicity, which goes contrary to what the given published book source states.

I engaged with him to provide reliable sources if he wants to make changes but he shared sources on the talk which have nothing to do with the former Vice President. He gathered random sources to make his own conclusion and I informed him that is original research and WP:SYNTH. Examples of his WP:SYNTH arguments are here, here as well as here. After back and forth, I came to an agreement that I would add a "Qualify evidence" tag to the source he is challenging in the article. But if he plans to change content, then he must provide sources that explicitly say what he wants to change. This has been ignored. Now he adds "false citations" for his edits on the page as these sources he provided fail verification. This has turned into disruptive editing and I don't want to engage in it. On the most recent edit history of the page, he changed content and provided sources that do not say anything about the content he added. Kwesi Yema (talk) 15:53, 15 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]