Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

I would like to report a pattern of disruptive editing by user Vofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information regarding the Mongolic influence on the origins and language of the Hazara people across Wikipedia articles. These edits appear to violate multiple Wikipedia policies, including WP:RS, WP:DE, WP:CONS, and WP:NPOV.

1. Article: Hazaras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Vofa removed referenced material discussing Mongolic origins of the Hazaras. Deleted sources include: Encyclopaedia Iranica (based on research from the Central Asian Monograph series, London), Rashid al-Din Hamadani, Orientalist Ármin Vámbéry, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations.

2. Article: Hazaragi dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Content about the Mongolic influence on the dialect was removed: 1, 2, 3. The removed sources include: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Work by Dr. Lutfi Temirkhanov, a Doctor of Sciences and leading Hazara scholar.

3. Article: Mongolic peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Information on the Hazara as a Mongolic-influenced group was deleted, with the edit summary citing it as "WP:FRINGE". However, multiple peer-reviewed sources support the presence of Mongolic ancestry and linguistic heritage among the Hazaras.

4. Disputing source reliability. In a related discussion, Vofa claimed that Encyclopaedia Iranica is not a reliable source - contradicting WP:RSPS and consensus, as this source is widely accepted for Iranic, Persian, and Central Asian topics.

5. Prior behavioral issues. The user has previously been blocked for violations of WP:EW and WP:DE. These recent actions demonstrate a continued disregard for sourcing standards and consensus.

Request: I kindly request that an administrator reviews Vofa’s editing behavior across the mentioned articles and warns the user about the importance of complying with Wikipedia’s core policies, especially regarding reliable sources and neutrality. Thank you.--KoizumiBS (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• The revision you linked here -- the removed statements are well-supported by (or directly quote) the sources, and the weight of the bits in the article also seem to line up roughly with that of the sourced texts.
• The edit summary for this edit on the same page notes that the sources the section uses aren't easy to find or verify, which is apparently their reasoning for selectively removing only the parts of the section they disagree with.
• The next edit uses a misleading edit summary ("grammar") to remove the last pieces of Mongolic mentions in the article.

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

Thanks a lot, tony, really appreciate your input - it helps a lot to see that others noticed the same pattern.

Since this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this kind of editing from Vofa, I’d also like to tag a few people who were involved in earlier discussion around similar issues - maybe you’d like to share your thoughts too?

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

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

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

im not going to point out the obvious. i cant type fast and i have no intention of defending my edits. i only know that when people look back at this unnecessary ANI, you will look really really bad. as for the articles—the truth will prevail. Vofa (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't about "winning" or "looking bad" – it's about upholding Wikipedia’s core policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view.

Your refusal to defend your edits, combined with the tone of your comment, only confirms what some have already observed – a pattern of disruptive editing and an unwillingness to engage in meaningful consensus-building. That’s not how collaborative editing works. If anything, your response reinforces concerns that you're editing based on personal bias rather than adherence to Wikipedia policy.

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

Has the disruptive editing continued? If a topic ban was imposed, what would be the subject area? Do any contentious subject areas cover these interests? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ANI complaint was filed, there have been no new edits from Vofa. However, I believe the pattern of past behavior justifies a topic ban related to the origins and ethnolinguistic history of the Hazaras and Mongolic peoples, broadly covering Central Asian ethnic history.

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

@Liz just a quick follow-up. After my last comment, Vofa has again removed sourced mention of Mongolic ties - this time from the "Ethnic relations" section of the Merkit article.

This shows that the disruptive pattern hasn't stopped and continues to specifically target content related to Mongolic origins and influence.

Given this, I believe a topic ban covering the ethnolinguistic history and origins of the Hazaras, Mongolic peoples, and related Central Asian ethnic groups is both reasonable and necessary. KoizumiBS (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please reflect. feel free to start a discussion and explain your monitoring of "certain behaviours" as you see it on the relevant page. furthermore, honesty should be a top priority. Vofa (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz another example of disruptive editing - in this edit, Vofa removed sourced information about the Turkic version of Merkit origins. At the same time, he labeled it as "vandalism" in the edit summary. KoizumiBS (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Liz If they aren't editing in a contentious topic, they are butting up against WP:CT/EE. I'm thinking specifically of edits like this one to Crimean Tatars, where the quoted passage is preceded by, "From a geo-strategic perspective it was certainly beneficial for Turkey to have a Turkic Muslim presence in the Crimean Peninsula to counteract the danger of Russian nationalism in this vital area." —C.Fred (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note:

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

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

• Support some sort of topic ban per above diffs, including edits less than two days ago, showing disruption has not stopped and a block is needed per WP:BLOCKPREVENT. The above suggested scope of "Central Asian ethnic history" sounds good to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Vofa was previously involved in an edit dispute on the page Uralic languages trying to claim that the Samoyed languages are not Uralic, for which they were blocked from editing that page for 2 weeks. However, since then they have continued with this disruption elsewhere, see this diff: Special:Diff/1296066296. If a topic ban is agreed on, I would propose a topic ban along the lines of "Ural-Altaic peoples and languages", including their influence on other people and language groups, since this seems to be the focus of the disruption rather than specifically Central Asia. (Samoyed languages are spoken in North Asia and would be exempt from the earlier suggested ban, as would Uralic peoples of Europe which were a target in the past based on the previous ANI from January). Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE, the user’s editing record shows a pattern of removing reliably sourced content, labeling it incorrectly as "fringe," and resisting consensus-based discussion. This behavior suggests they are not here to build an encyclopedia in good faith, and in practice, their edits are doing more harm than good. KoizumiBS (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Liz, more examples of WP:DE from user Vofa: 1, 2, 3. I would appreciate if administrators could take a closer look at this user's editing history.--KoizumiBS (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban for Central Asian ethnic history, broadly construed. Vofa is currently name dropping random policies as a way to justify their edit warring at Hazaras [2] [3]. Before that, they had attempted to justify their edit warring by claiming that KoizumiBS had removed loads of sources [4], which was blatantly wrong [5]. They also claimed that encyclopedias (such as Encyclopaedia Iranica) should not be used due to WP:NOTESSAY (???) [6] [7]. They're currently WP:STONEWALLING at Talk:Hazaras. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support extended or indef topic ban. Let's be clear: Vofa is editing ethnic articles in what could be considered an attempt to scrub another (related) ethnicity out of them. When presented in this very ANI with specific diffs and the problems with them, Vofa has offered only these words:

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

Vofa literally refuses to defend. Pick any of the examples linked by any of the editors here and you will find multiple editors politely attempting to work with Vofa only for Vofa to WP:STONEWALL (like this talk page discussion), or shove fingers in their ears (like in this ANI) while appearing to scrub any mention of a particular ethnic group (like they did again earlier today). They've been doing this for a long time -- long enough for multiple ANIs. They will continue until stopped by a topic ban or block. —tony 15:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please, assume good faith. i will defend my edits in short order;

Hazaragi edits: as outlined in the follow up summary, the Hazaragi dialect has the same amount of Turkicisms and perceived Mongolic derived words as in Kabuli dialect of Dari.

Hazara edits: edits made by @Shishaz were restored for the removal of Mousavi 1998 et al., unsourced statements. follow up edits were made to polish the article to uphold Wikipedia’s standards.

i strongly disagree with your statement as to what the 'purpose' of the edits was. i did not refuse to discuss issues on relevant pages, instead—the willingness to solve the dispute was offered on two or three occasions. i want to note that pings get late to me (minutes, hours, days after).

the 'thanks!' that was given to @Beshogur was not sarcastic, it was the opposite—a sincere gratitude for a reminder of the edits made, which were not contested at any point when removed.

your last sentence, which reads: "They've been doing this for a long time -- long enough for multiple ANIs. They will continue until stopped by a topic ban or block." appears dismissive and is wrong.

i am ready to co-operate with all sides of the ANI despite hardship in responding to the many messages.

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

Following my initial report, I’d like to add that Vofa’s pattern of disruptive editing has continued in other related topics. Specifically, he has removed content in multiple articles related to Mongolic history and influence, including:

Removal of mention of the Baghatur title as used among the Mongols.

Deletion of a note about the Barlas tribe's original language, which was Mongolic.

Erasure of the Merkits from a list of Mongolic tribes, despite reliable sources confirming this classification.

Removal of referenced content on the Mongolic lexical component in the Hazaragi dialect article.

These actions are consistent with the editing behavior outlined in my original complaint - namely, a repeated pattern of removing well-sourced material without proper justification or consensus-building. I believe this further supports the case for administrative action, including a potential topic ban or block.--KoizumiBS (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to state that all of the listed edits are justified. i once again ask for you to bring up latest versions of the pages you mentioned. take Merkits as an example. i stated that i would make a follow up edit where i would restore sources and corresponding claims, and i did. Vofa (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to state that all of the listed edits are justified. i once again ask for you to bring up latest versions of the pages you mentioned. take Merkits as an example. i stated that i would make a follow up edit where i would restore sources and corresponding claims, and i did. Vofa (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is little reason to continue this ANI, as the problem was essentially solved. i dont want it to turn into a list of my recent edits. Vofa (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Vofa I looked at your edits, and the net result was changing ethnicities without introducing any sources to back up the claims. At the least, I would expect some discussion then to explain what you consider to be misinterpretations of the cited sources. Otherwise, we're running out of explanations for your edits that don't point back to bad-faith edits. —C.Fred (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despite the large number of edits, the user still does not understand the rules of Wiki edits. He regularly violates the rules of "The Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Uncertainty and rounding" - MOS:LARGENUM and rounds the box office to the nearest million forward or the nearest million back (what is even worse and definitely incorrect information), when in the rounding rules there is a special example of how to round on the Wiki "The jury's award was $8.5 million (not $8,462,247.63)". "The Manual of Style/Film" also refers to the "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" table at the beginning.

The same is stated in the Template:Infobox film - "Use condensed, rounded values ($22.4 million vs $22,392,684)". Despite the many warnings on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Evope and my own undo edits with warning, he continues to ignore the rules.

If I misunderstand something, please clarify, because I and other users see this as purposeful conscious violations, since people have been writing to him about it since at least 2023.. I see no reason why the figures for the box office/budget should not correspond to the MOS:LARGENUM when all the other numeric designations on the wiki pages match them. In this regard, the films grosses are not something special from other figures. Russiaoniichan (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd suggest point out specific diffs where they are added the excessive digits. I spotchecked their contributions and they appear to be gnoming in terms of updating box office numbers with new data, but I am only seeing the use of rounded numbers. Masem (t) 17:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For any lurkers not familiar with Wiki jargon "gnoming" refers to Wikipedia:WikiGnome which is a description of editors who keep busy with minor edits "A WikiGnome is a wiki user who makes useful incremental edits without clamoring for attention." This would be an appropriate description if Evope was properly updating the gross in Infobox lead section and article body, but since Evope frequently fails to consistently update the gross figures in all sections I would call it busy work creating needless inconsistencies for other editors to fix. -- 109.79.161.130 (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I have just placed a warning on their talk page about this [8], taking that as a final warning. If they continue to make changes that do not follow proper rounding and other related factors, then this should be reason to at least block them for a limited period to start, so they understand the need to avoid this type of disruption. Masem (t) 20:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: thanks, but he doesn't seem to care. It was said many times on his talk page earlier, and he claims that he is doing it correctly. He's just messing around like he doesn't see it. Today's edits [9] he updated 18.6 million to 19 million, 36.1 to 36 million, [10] 30.7 to 31 million, 18.5 to 19 million. I don't think talking works for him, he's had a long discussion before and he just doesn't care. Russiaoniichan (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except all those are proper numerical roundings, and unless there's specific advice as to decimal place or significant figures we should be used in a MOS, I can't see a problem with. Mathematically incorrect roundings were done by that account in the past, that's addressable, but those changes aren't. Masem (t) 12:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: MOS:LARGENUM just uses the exact example of the rounding to the nearest hundred thousand in advance. And it also says in Template:Infobox film. Since when is rounding several hundred thousand to the sum a normal phenomenon that does not violate the MOS? And MOS does not provide for a reduction in the amount in a smaller direction, as he do. Russiaoniichan (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are pointing to examples where the rounding is to the hundred thousand, but I don't see where in the relevant pages where it says that one *must* round to the hundred thousand place, just that rounding should be used. Whether or not that is to hundred thousands or to millions seems unspecified. Masem (t) 14:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russiaoniichan, it looks to me in the examples you cited that the editor is rounding correctly. How would you do this differently? This discussion is a lot of criticism that is short of examples of what you are so upset about. Be specific, don't talk in the abstract. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers:, @Ealdgyth: or @Pbsouthwood: please explain. Do I understand correctly that we can increase the amount and round it up to the nearest million in advance when it comes to millions of money, despite the fact that MOS:LARGENUM and Template:Infobox film are showing about rounding to the nearest hundred thousand? And do I understand correctly that it would be incorrect to reduce 150.3 million to 150 million in the opposite direction, for example?

My problem is that in this case, it is unclear from what point this rounding to the nearest million takes place, since MOS does not provide such an example, while everything is clear with rounding to the nearest hundred thousand. It is also not clear to me what to refer to if I round to the nearest million, if my edits are undone or changed, since MOS:LARGENUM and Template:Infobox film provides a completely different situation and users are guided by them. Russiaoniichan (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I do not know why I have been pinged and the discussion above does not provide much useful information. Please briefly explain exactly what the problem appears to be. Please quote the exact statement from the MoS that you consider has been violated. I am getting the impression that you object to rounding to the nearest million and not to the nearest 100,000. Where is it stipulated that for this application it must be to nearest 100,000? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: I explain this by saying that MOS:LARGENUM states that rounding should match "round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative". In significant figures, the nearest rounding occurs to the nearby figures. In "Rounding to significant figures" - 1.2459 to 1.25; 1.35 to 1.4; 14.895 to 14.9.

This example from MOS:LARGENUM - "The jury's award was $8.5 million (not $8,462,247.63)." also confirms that it is based on the article as it corresponds to the accepted abbreviations. I don't really understand how rounding can work, that 8.5 or 8.6 million can turn into 9 million based on this data, as this user does. Russiaoniichan (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read our article on rounding, as people who are familiar with the practice do understand why 8.5 or 8.6 million not only can, but should turn into 9 million when rounded, but 8.4 million would turn into 8 million. It is a standard practice, well defined, used routinely by scientists, engineers, economists, journalists, accountants, etc. The only debatable point in this case is the precision, the number of significant digits, or the number of decimal places to be used in each case. I suggest you educate yourself on the topic, then decide what you perceive as the problem, then come back and describe it accurately. Then we can work out if there is a real problem, and if so, what it is. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The most relevant section is Rounding#Rounding half up, which is what is generally meant if not specified, particularly with money. it would appear the numbers were rounded half up to the nearest million. As long as this was done consistently, I see no obvious reason to object. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, that's the reason I had my doubts about rounding. If any 104.5 million looks appropriate, round it up to 105 million. 1.5 million to 2 million already look too high. Russiaoniichan (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reasonable response would be to ask the editor User:Evope, why they think it is good practice to round to one significant figure in these cases. Just in case they have a good reason, and because it will bring their attention to the actual point of the disagreement. If they do not respond appropriately, it might be necessary to take things further. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If I might chime in, I have been asking user Evope to at least be consistent in his edits and follow the same rounding in the Infobox lead section and article body. He has a bad habit of updating only the Infobox(diff) sometimes remembering to udpate the article body(diff) but frequently forgets to update the lead section to match. He updated the gross from $365 million to $365.7 million in the Infobox, which is mathematically correct based on the latest gross of $365,737,913 but Evope failed to update the lead section, so it leaves the article looking like the figure has been truncated in the lead section and that this encyclopedia is unable to get basic math right. (Evope seems unwilling to follow the rounding level of other editors, which would have meant rounding up and writing $366 million.) I went ahead and update the gross in the lead section to use the same figure as the Infobox(diff). Evope is prolific but he's not the only person frequently updating the Infobox while failing to properly update other parts of the article. I had hoped by asking nicely and persistently he might be more careful but this doesn't seem to have worked.

Unfortunately the documentation does not specify or require any particular level decimal places. The old discussion that lead to this was putting the highest priority on readability, with secondary concerns about not misleading readers by rounding figures in certain edge cases. I generally follow the rounding the previous editor has used but if editors are failing to keep the figures consistent I sometimes round to nearest million. The point of the gross is generally to compare against the budget, (as mentioned in the old discussion) so when a film has grossed many millions and already earned multiples of its budget then I see no further need for unnecessary decimal precision. Editors are allowed to include the figures with an extra decimal place if they really want but I do not understand why they would want to, as it creates churn and needless busy work for themselves and other editors and setting up other editors to fail to properly update those figures. (Perhaps I also need to clarify for some that a number such as $366 million is already at 3 significant figures, 1 decimal place of precision $365.7 million brings it to 4 significant figures and makes the number more cumbersome for readability and reading aloud.) Claims that editors want to precise do not ring true when they are at the same failing to be precise enough to also properly update the article body.
I merely ask that editors (not just Evope) try to be a bit more careful and bit more consistent so it doesn't leave this encyclopedia looking like it cannot get basic math right. -- 109.79.161.130 (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Background

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

Evidence:

• In 2020, Mediascriptor uploaded an image of the Embassy of A&B in Madrid to Wikimedia Commons as their own work.
• Mediascriptor later uploaded content to Wikimedia commons from Antigua news and content about the publication's owner and business colleague.
• In 2025, Mediascriptor made pages for Antigua.news on English, German, French and Italian wikiprojects. Their edits to fr, de, it wikiprojects were largely confined to Antigua.news. On Italian Wiki, Mediascriptor recieved a block for suspected COI editing. The Antigua.news page on that wikiproject was deleted, and the discussion went into illluminating detail about allegations of COI editing on that Wikiproject.
• Mediascriptor's contributions on de.wiki consist of making the page for Antigua.news and adding references to Antigua.news on other pages. On fr.wikipedia, the contributions are similar. The fr.wiki page to Antigua news has a few flags by editors for neutrality, and the content used to populate the pages does not appear to give a balanced perspective.
• On en.wikipedia, Mediascriptor's edits appear almost entirely focused on pages they have made themselves or where where Antigua.news can be added (I find one recent exception of participating in a unrelated deletion discussion [11]). On en.wikipedia, there are 180 references linking back to Antigua.news, 'of which Mediascriptor has made upwards of 160 of these in the last six months'. The linking here raises questions about the source when it comes to WP:USEBYOTHERS.
• Mediascriptor made extensive edits to the pages of Antigua.news's owner and created the page for this person's business colleague before the pages were recently deleted.
• In a sockpuppet investigation initiated by another editor related to edits on these pages, Mediascriptor admitted they supposedly live in the same house[12] as another editor who appeared to edit exclusively on topics related to Antigua.news's owner and business colleague (the two persons are involved in some business around nobility/royal titles). The editors were blocked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 3 of Mediascriptor's first 5 edits ever on en.wiki were to add the now-deleted Dario Item to lists of notable alumni of various universities: [29] [30] [31].
  • Edit #7 more than 10 months later was to create the Antigua.news article; in the edit summary, they tied the site explicitly to Dario Item and mirrored the site's promotional language ("delivering comprehensive coverage of current affairs", "offers timely and relevant information, insights, and analyses").
  • Immediately after creating Antigua.news, they then edited a series of pages linked to the now also-deleted Giacomo Merello: Lord Leslie (Merello's title), Marcella Bella (Merello's mother), and Gianni Bella (Merello's uncle). Why is this relevant? Because Merello is a business partner of Dario Item, and I can't think of many reasons why an uninvolved editor interested in Antigua & Barbuda should be on those pages within their first 20 edits.
  • They voted 'Keep' with extensive explanations about supposed notability on AfD discussions on Dario Item, Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland) (Item's title), and Giacomo Merello.
  • As @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four points out, the Commons upload of the logo is incredibly suspect, given what else we know about their contributions.
  • In several editing sprints in January, February, and June, adding links to Antigua.news constituted the majority of their edits, e.g. 7 of 12 edits on 22 January ( [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]), or 9 of 12 edits on 30 January (I will spare you the diffs). This underlines the single-source pushing which @Nayyn points out.

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

  Within their first 500 edits, they have managed to be blocked for COI related to the same page on another Wiki, been hit with a copyright violation, been banned due to meat/sockpuppeting, and are now poorly using AI ([39] (they blanked the warning from their user page), [40]). I'd say this user is WP:NOTHERE. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 19:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• In 2020, they made a Wikipage for Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Madrid [43] which was turned down at AfC. So the connection to the entity that owns Antigua.news predates the existence of Antigua.news itself.
• In January of this year, @Gitz6666 first raised the question of COI with Mediascriptor on their talk page about editing related to Antigua.news, Dario Item or other subjects [44]. This was around the time their article submission for Antigua.news was denied.[45] Mediascriptor said there was no connection [46], Gitz kindly responded to share the connected contributor template [47]. Mediascriptor again denied a link [48]. Gitz followed up to explain further about the policy [49]. The following day @Mediascriptor blanked their talk page.[50]
• In February, @PARAKANYAA nominated one of Mediascriptor's articles about the Stanford case for deletion.[51] The result was pretty clear about psudo-biographies/ no notability.[52] Since then, Mediascriptor went on to write 2 more psudo-biography articles about figures from the same case Gilbert Lopez and Leroy King (Antigua and Barbuda).
• Five days after @Asilvering lifted Mediascriptor's block, @Jlwoodwa notified Mediascriptor about article creation with LLMs.[53]. Mediascriptor blanked his talk page right afterwards.

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

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

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

​I collapsed the above comment by Mediascriptor as being LLM-generated per WP:AITALK, they reverted this [54], I've now re-collapsed it. I have absolute confidence their reply has been model-generated, they are welcome to formulate another response in their own words. Should they revert again I will not edit war to keep it collapsed. (update 07:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)) They re-reverted. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Involved editor: User:Alex V Mandel

Summary of issue: Over a sustained period, User:Alex V Mandel has exhibited behavior consistent with WP:OWN, including:

• Repeatedly reverting good-faith edits without consensus
• Treating the Irene Craigmile Bolam article as a personal platform for his own opinions and conclusions
• Citing his own self-published report (hosted on Wikisource) as justification for edits
• Personalizing disputes and dismissing neutral edits as “conspiracy fantasies” or “vandalism”
• Intentionally and willfully misidentifying me on multiple occasions as Tod Swindell, thereby derailing good-faith discussion and making constructive editing impossible

When the editor opens Talk page comments with formal proclamations (e.g., “Ladies and gentlemen…”) and signs off with “Respectfully submitted – Alex V. Mandel, PhD,” it may appear formal, polite, or merely theatrical. However, this rhetorical style appears designed to create an atmosphere of performative authority, discouraging disagreement and assigning undue weight to personal opinion over collaborative policy.

The editor also claims academic credentials and presents himself as an historian, yet provides no verifiable evidence of these qualifications. These credentials are invoked as authority in disputes, in lieu of citations to independent, reliable sources.

In a Talk page comment dated 24 June 2025, addressed to Mr Swindell, Mr Mandel wrote: “I plan to continue to do this. As you fairly said, our discussion about this topic is already 20+ years old. I am ready to continue it for the next 20+ years, if necessary (and of course if I will be still alive and well by then).” (permalink)

On 26 June 2025, again replying to Mr Swindell, he wrote:

“I can do this all and every day. As many days, as necessary. I have time.”

(permalink)

These exchanges, directed toward a longtime adversary in this topic space, reinforce a pattern of entrenched editorial control. The editor casts himself not as collaborator but as gatekeeper, prepared to oppose any challenge—no matter how policy-aligned.

In a June 20, 2025 Talk page comment directed to me, Mr. Mandel accused me of “abusing Wikipedia” and “promoting a false conspiracy fantasy,” while purposely misidentifying me as Tod Swindell. He offered no policy citations, but framed himself as defending Wikipedia from misuse. This early exchange also illustrates a deeper pattern: despite Mr Mandel’s claims to the contrary, I have not introduced new content or sources and made no changes to the infobox.

Examples:

1. Reversion of neutral edits:

  * Diff of my trimmed version (June 21, 2025)  
  * Mr. Mandel’s immediate revert

1. Use of self-published material:

  * Mr. Mandel’s 2005 report, Amelia Earhart’s Survival and Repatriation: Myth or Reality?, appears in the article’s External Links and is cited on the Talk page to justify edits. The report is self-authored, not peer-reviewed, and lacks publication by any independent reliable source.

Why this matters: This behavior derails collaboration and makes it difficult for others to contribute in line with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Factual, neutrally-worded edits are reverted without cause, while Talk page dialogue is replaced with rhetorical proclamations and accusations of bad faith.

While the editor may not have violated the letter of the Three-Revert Rule (3RR), this is only because his pattern of swiftly undoing any substantive edits discourages further attempts to improve the article. The result is a de facto ownership of the page, enforced not through consensus but through attrition.

I have taken no position on whether or not Earhart was Bolam. I have simply removed material that was unverified, duplicative, or presented personal conclusions as fact, consistent with Wikipedia's core content policies.

Request: I ask that administrators review this pattern of disruption and consider appropriate action, including:

• A formal warning regarding WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL
• Page protection or topic ban if warranted
• Removal of self-authored material from External Links unless independently sourced

Thank you for your attention.

--Glm1 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that until their recent editing stint on Talk:Irene Craigmile Bolam, it had been three years since Alex V Mandel had done any editing on the project. They haven't edited in a week and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a large gap of time before they returned to a regular editing schedule (see Special:Contributions/Alex V Mandel for a look at their past editing schedule). I'm not saying this to bring an end to this discussion, it's just to put their recent edits into the context of their pattern of irregular editing on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write this with an LLM? On Wikipedia, we want to hear from you, not a machine learning model. Sesquilinear (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're directing that to me, I'll take it as a compliment. Glm1 (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glm1, AI/LLM is heavily discouraged on Wikipedia so it wasn't meant as a compliment. They are considered error-prone, inaccurate and robotic. 08:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and very polite and just as formal as the behaviour you are complaining about. Just like your (Glm1's) edit, in fact. There is nothing wrong with a rational fighter against conspiracy theories being as tenacious as the conspiracy theorists. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. I don't like conspiracy theories either. Glm1 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does someone who doesn't like conspiracy theories edit in support of one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I can see no more evidence for this theory than that 60 years ago someone thought they looked a bit similar. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not furthering any theory one way or the other. My goal was to rectify the page by removing anything that was in dispute in either direction. Glm1 (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in either direction meaning you would like WP to treat a ridiculous conspiracy theory with no evidence as equivalent to the rejection of that theory, and to sanction an editor who has done good work keeping the conspiracy nuts away from the article. The correct course of action at this point is probably to offer an apology to Alex V Mandel for inappropriately starting a thread about them, offer an apology to everyone else who has wasted their time responding to you here, and to withdraw from the article (to ensure that it is not necessary to enforce that by sanction). 173.79.19.248 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew from the article some time ago. If you like what Mr Mandel has done with it, so be it. Glm1 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been called most things, but never robotic. Of course, it's only Monday.

When I was at Cleveland-Marshall for two years (1991-93), we often used outlines. Sorry if you don't like the format. Glm1 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are just asking if you used an LLM and pointing out some of the issues with using it. Nobody said this particular post was robotic. I think one of the bigger signs are the weirdly broken links (two cases of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=XXXXXXX), which is what LLMs will generally do in my experience. Of course, it could also just be a placeholder written by yourself. Anyway, if you did use an LLM, you can just say you didn’t know it was policy not to use them and say you will avoid doing so in the future. If you didn’t, you can just say you didn’t. LordDiscord (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original double-heading and double-signature, including an em-dash, is also a giveaway. I think that means so far we have (1) conspiracy-pushing, (2) LLM-use on noticeboards, and (3) lying about the same; very charming all. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I just mentioned in another reply, the words are my own. I used AI for the citations -- I was not aware that this was an issue -- and the title was my error, because I didn't know if it should be italicized or not, I decided it should not, but apparently I failed to remove it. (Yesterday on BlueSky, I posted the same message twice in under a minute. I deleted the second one.) As to conspiracy pushing, I have no interest in pushing any conspiracy. I don't recall putting anything on the Bolam page that would do that. I simply reduced it to facts which are not in dispute. I don't see Wikipedia as a forum to discuss whether Bolam was Earhart or not; that can be done elsewhere. Glm1 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that this was an issue Oh so in other words you were evasive and dishonest over five or six different responses here, but once it became completely impossible to maintain the dishonesty, you are now changing tack and you would like everyone to forget about that and instead take your obviously dishonest and evasive comments about the conspiricism at face-value. Love it, excited to see how that works out for you! 173.79.19.248 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been evasive and I don't appreciate your tone. My initial draft of the ANI was in the form of a letter, which was too wordy. I was about halfway through editing it when I thought it would be better to reduce it to bullet points. In the end, I settled on the outline because I liked the heading 'Why It Matters' (a working title I have for an unrelated project), which did not receive the same emphasis in the letter. Rather than attacking me personally, I suggest you check your spelling. Glm1 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evasive is perhaps true, but where were they dishonest? LordDiscord (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster defines dishonesty, n: lack of honesty or integrity; disposition to defraud or deceive. Everything about all of Glm1's comments here is dishonest (transparently so), whether or not their comments consist of lies (in the sense of assertions known or believed by the writer to be untrue with intent to deceive) specifically. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to say exactly what I added to the article that furthered any conspiracy theory. Beyond that, I won't have any further back-and-forth with you. You have repeatedly called me a liar, which I am not, and I don't need to be here. No one is paying me to put up with your verbal abuse; in fact, I'm paying Wikipedia. I reported what I see as gatekeeping, and as far as I'm concerned, that's an end to it. If my ANI is inadequate, that's on me, and my own ignorance and incompetence. (I would much rather say that all this is down to an AI program, because I wouldn't have spent a weekend working on it, the mistakes would not be mine, and the rejections of the writing of it could be blamed on AI.) My own view, which does not belong on Wikipedia, has always been that Earhart went down with the plane in 1937, but there is nothing in my life that requires me to have a stake in the subject. If you want to say what I put into the article that you take issue with, do so. If not, I have better things to do. Glm1 (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used AI for the citation links, because I don't know any other way to do that. That has been the case in any instance where I have cited anything. For that reason, I seldom do citations. My edits are generally to improve the writing on a page. The words in the ANI, for better or worse, are my own. Glm1 (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that seems plausible to me. Unfortunately, citations seem to be one of the things AI is worst at, due to hallucinations and putting in generic links (as above). For very simple linking, just put “url|text” in double brackets: [[ ]]. I’ve fixed up many like this, it is much better than broken or no citations in my opinion. And then for best practice see: WP:CITE LordDiscord (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful. This will be of great help to me in the event that I have to do any more citations. I am still coming to grips with how things are done here. Thank you again. Glm1 (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI reports aren't school essays with minimum word/page count requirements and indeed it's preferred to be more concise and focus on diffs instead of editorializing. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will bear that in mind. Hopefully, I will not have any further involvement with the ANI board after this. I started as an editor here (not so many months ago) because of a false claim about Gordon Lightfoot (that he set track-and-field records in school). I confirmed that this was not so and removed it from his page. Most of what I have done since has been to improve clarity on pages and to remove redundant passages. Glm1 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

It looks like in their 5 months on the project, they have used a talk page or noticeboard once (here). I have a preference that I don't like imposing a block without hearing from the editor but in this situation they might need to be encouraged to come to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - they demonstrated they know how to use a talk page when they asked their mentor a question. In my opinion, that means there's a decent chance that they've chosen to ignore their warnings. Gommeh 🎮 15:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave some advice to the editor in March, some more in April, & more in June. It all seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as do messages from other editors. It looks as though there are problems with understanding, which unfortunately may lead to a block from editing, but I agree with what Liz has said, & I hope the editor will come to this discussion and answer the concerns which have been raised, both here & on their talk page. JBW (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i'm really sorry and sorry again for the inconvenient those mistakes of mine might cause ,I promise to change and contribute some positive impact to this encyclopedia of knowledge. I'm pleased you to give me some mentors to guide me through some edit as I'm just a beginner here. If you agree with me you can mail or chat me (Redacted) 197.211.63.45 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is actually you posting while logged out, I don't think anyone has questioned your good faith and your desire to improve the encyclopedia. The underlying problem is that nearly all of your edits have serious issues. I don't think simply being sorry or having a mentor can suddenly make you better able to write an encyclopedia in English. Your most valuable contributions may be to the Wikipedia edition in your native language. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Competence in English is required to contribute to the English-language Wikipedia. That response above clearly demonstrates that they do not have a sufficient grasp of the English language to productively contribute here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I just blocked them from article space until they establish they can contribute usefully, either by submitting requests on Talk or contributing on another English-language wiki. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• UNI ASIA TENGGARA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Southeast Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

UNI ASIA TENGGARA is continuously adding a self-made image to Southeast Asia, and has also added it to History of Southeast Asia and their userpage. The image makes little sense, consisting of a screenshot of the map already in the infobox, alongside some flag that I cannot identify and the text "PETA". Their only edits have been to add this image to the articles and their user page here on EN as well as on ID. As the content of their user page on IDwp google translates to Southeast Asian Union an inter-governmental organization in Southeast Asia, which is also the translation of their username as far as I can tell, I presume that this account is solely for the purpose of promoting this apparent union (which I cannot find any details about) with this image. User has not responded on talk page to either of my comments. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that looks like some kind of rp althist? Rhinocrat (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged the image for speedy deletion. Obviously NOTHERE and NOTTHERE on Commons. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pblocked from that article. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This user has added that same image onto the id:Asia Tenggara on the Indonesian Wikipedia [55] [56] [57]. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 15:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: User is now blocked on the Indonesian Wikipedia. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 15:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to SRG. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted on Commons. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Like56d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on pages Brazilian Portuguese and Portuguese language vandalism: keep reverting all edits on those pages with fake claims of accepted revision and disruptive editing leading to edit wars. Even minor edits are being reverted with the same claims on those pages [58] and [59] apart from reporting false vandalism multiple times. Reported first on vandalism but an admin recommended using this page instead for this issue. Likebr 20 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Likebr 20 and Absolutiva: this page is not about discussing page content disagreements, and administrators will not respond here about them, so you are wasting your time here. Absolutiva's suggesting of moving to the EW board is the right one, if edit warring is occurring or suspected. Please be careful about using the word vandalism; it does not mean the same thing here as it does in standard English and implies a measure of intentional malice. As long as the other editor is trying to improve the article, even if they are going about it all wrong or edit-warring, it is still not vandalism. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the correct avenue for reporting this, so please bear with me. The relevant users and IPs are as follows:

• The Final Bringer of Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Final Bringer of Truth was indeffed on May 31 for disruptive editing, and a one-month block was placed on this IPv6 range as their logged-out editing consistently falls within this range (and they admitted as much on this noticeboard, so there isn't any need for a CheckUser).

This editor is evading their block by editing logged out, and they have continued to make disruptive edits in the area of American Politics, particularly relating to the page One Big Beautiful Bill Act. I suggest that the IP range be blocked again until this editor shows that they can be constructive. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the /64 is apparently very stable, and they resumed the exact same behavior that resulted in their being blocked before the moment the IP block expired, blocked the range for a year. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The account is  Confirmed to Fearless Speech (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I did not check the IP range, but if this is the same user then they should be blocked with TPA & email revoked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plot twist. Amended the IP rangeblock accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fearless Speech, and noted on their user page that they are now WP:3X banned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there was a need for CheckUser after all. I was definitely not expecting this. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger:

This editor appears to be evading their block again as they made a personal attack against you from a different IP. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're welcome to whatever opinion they wish to hold about me, but they're not welcome to block evade. /64 blocked for two weeks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I widened that range block for you. Feel free to ping me any time this person pops up again (or email me if you'd rather do it privately). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I won't be able to edit for the next 12 days, but I trust other editors will report anything they see. Again, thanks. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user was recently reported at AN/I, but no administrative action was taken, while the disruptive behavior continues. Most recent disruption is at Rui Hachimura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a combination of lengthening the page's WP:SHORTDESC without consensus, and also adding the unsourced position of "small forward":

• 25 June
• 30 June
• 3 July
• 8 July

They were warned about making short descriptions too bulky on June 27,[60] when they were also informed to seek dispute resolution.[61] During the last ANI, Liz warned them: You have a choice to make, you can adopt the standard format that is agreed upon on Wikipedia or you can continue to do whatever you want and in that case, you will likely be blocked from editing[62]—Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruption here to Zion Williamson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with WP:OR edits not supported by existing citations in a WP:GA article.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I make this incident report under the guidance of chronic and intractable problems.

Descriptive labels in biographies of Catalan subjects are repeatedly subject to low-level revert warring. In minor subjects, the change Spanish->Catalan is often made without an edit summary or mention on the articles Talk page. Better known subjects are often subject to repeated back and forth, also often without substantive edit summary. What's going on? In my view, the replacement of the "Catalan" label by "Spanish" is a systemic attempt to suppress the Catalan identity - this is a long standing controversial, hot issue in Spain; one should not underestimate it. I do not say that each and every change has this motivation, I am sure there are good faith, if uninformed, editors, but I believe the issue is wide spread and persistent enough to justify this conclusion. Edit summaries such as "Catalonia is not a country" diff rather give away the game. Spanish national politics have been exported to Wikipedia; this is not a proper forum for resolving Spanish political questions!

Examples from actual articles include:

In creating this table, by no means exhaustive, I went down the list of biographies in the category Painters from Catalonia, then added Companys, Nonell, and Casas as articles for which I had recent experience, then added the short list of high profile Catalan subjects at the end that have experienced extraordinary reversion battles Catalan/Spanish. Such articles have had excessive, redundant arguments on their Talk pages. Such arguments regarding labels are similar to those regarding Wikipedia:Crime_labels. Excessive, repetitive argument; a huge waste of time.

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

My interests in this question are that I consider the "Catalan" label, where appropriate, to be more effective writing. Ramon Casas is a Catalan artist; to describe him as "Spanish" is misleading and requires further unnecessary explanations (e.g., if he is Spanish, why does he speak Catalan?). N.B. This is not the proper forum to re-litigate the label use. Secondly, these changes are often accompanied or accomplished by bullying - often in minor biographical articles the change is made and who wants to fight it; its a minor issue. But the issue is not minor; labels are important. The word "insidious" frequently comes to mind as I think about it.

I began to deal with this issue with the Ramon Casas article. After the usual Catalan/Spanish revert dance, I began the RfC. Researching the issue, I noted that there were already RfCs (noted above) and how pervasive the issue was. The result of the RfC was (not even close) in favor of using the Catalan label. More or less randomly I chose the Isidre Nonell to reassert the "Catalan" label, stating the extensive summary above on Talk:Isidre_Nonell. I view the question as a settled consensus. There was then the expected revert war involving User:CFA1877 and User:Lopezsuarez, who had previously advocated for the "Spanish" label in the Casas RfC. I cite this incident only to highlight the fact that the "Catalan" question will never be settled; there are those who will object to "Catalan" irrespective of any RfC. Their objections on the Talk:Ramon Casas were not substantive, but ad hominem and personal; c.f., "bullying" above.

To address the question on the numerous Catalan biographies it would seem that every article would have to be subjected to revert warring and exhaustive, pointless, repetitive arguing on the Talk page. Or, god forbid, an RfC will be required for every article. This is Spanish politics...they are not going to give it up. In my efforts with the Isidre Nonell article, I do not consider the 3rr to apply; correct me if I am wrong on that.

So I post this incident report - perhaps you all can reaffirm the approach I've been taking, or suggest other strategies for tamping down the endless back and forth on the issue. It is a huge waste of time. At the very least I would like the issue to be more broadly recognized. Bdushaw (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Voorts: you may want to strike your comment as it's clear from the responses below that you don't speak for all moderators. Feel free to ignore the topic though if you don't have time to read it. 24.97.73.220 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Footballers who identify as Catalan usually take this format; X is a Spanish footballer from Catalonia... i.e. Alexia_Putellas. I can't find the discussion but I believe this was agreed (for these articles) a while back. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I recall this was the agreed compromise format because if they play for Spain it could be confusing to not put that first. I’ll try to find the discussion and add it to the essay.

Note that the essay is not intended to be (nor would it be effective as) a “solution” to the issue Bdushaw outlines, it is intended to be a quick reference (when upholding consensus) for what has and has not got consensus, and may expand to include argumentation and a list of things previous RfC’s have decided are/n’t useful points. Kingsif (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't claim to have any particular understanding of the issues surrounding Spanish/Catalan national identity, but this is all very reminiscent of the issues one has regarding British bios, for which we have some guidance at WP:UKNATIONALS. Perhaps some similar guidance might help guide discussions in this subject area? (Not that it has entirely fixed the problem in the British context...). Girth Summit _(blether) 18:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

One thing that would be helpful/constructive is a better description of such labels on the MoS/Biography guidance. It is rather vague/unhelpful/counterproductive on the subject of nationalities. Is a nationality something of loose definition, such that Catalonia can be considered a nation, or is it a formally recognized nationality, of the passport-carrying kind? A frequent argument for "Spanish" is that "Spain is a country, Catalonia is not"; often repeated in the RfCs, but not the compelling or consensus notion. (The issue is not unrelated to the label for first nation peoples vs. their formal country...is an aboriginal of his tribe or of his formal country (that he may not acknowledge)?) Bdushaw (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Catalonia is a region of Spain, not a "nation" (it never has been). However, in the sense of a minority, it is a nationality. In any case, Wikipedia cannot accept minority nationalist sentiments. The only reality is that Spain is a country and a nation, and Catalonia is a region of Spain. All these people should be referred to as Spaniards. Lopezsuarez (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the broader point, as to a significant extent it is a situation similar to what happens in my area of interest (Eastern Europe), where someone comes to an article about some figure from the past and automatically labels them Ukrainian/Belarusian/Polish (instead of Russian, Polish, Austro-Hungarian) on the basis of their place of birth or ethnic background even if those countries did not exist at the time and the figure in question was a loyal servant of their country of birth.

This is where nuance comes into play, however. In other cases it is very clear that the subject expressed views at odds with the state they lived in. Take, for example, Taras Shevchenko. Shevchenko was a Russian subject, a member of the Imperial Academy of Arts, and some of his works were written in Russian. However, to label him Russian would be to deny the most important side to Shevchenko's activity: the promotion of Ukrainian culture and language and, in a way, of the Ukrainian nation (note that in English "nation", a term you object to, can mean not only a state but also a nationality). To label him something other than Ukrainian would be wrong. To bring it closer to your interests, do you not think that describing, say, Lluís Companys as Spanish (!) instead of as a Catalan nationalist politician would be misleading? I think that you need to allow for some flexibility for cases where an individual's notability is inextricably linked to belonging to a nation[ality] or having an ethnicity other than that of the state he is a subject of. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation is a very good one, I fear it may be fruitless in the face of people who would rather label Companys as a 'Spanish traitor' so they can ignore Catalonia's nationhood. Kingsif (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiight. So it's illegitimate to view me as a "Yankee" because I'm from New England, is that what you're pushing? That you can't refer to "Welsh" or "Scots" or "Walloons" or "Bavarians" or "Sicilians" because they don't come from currently recognized nation-states? Ravenswing 10:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the political edit warrers under the guise of 'pedantic about Spain is the UN state' have shown up. Whatever you think (and remember Catalonia existed before Spain was unified, natch), it is Wikipedia's job to be informative. If being Catalan is significant in someone's identity, career, and/or notability, then excluding it makes absolutely no sense - and thus would be for nothing but suppression of information. It's also worth noting that even if we were to bow to 'regardless of how contextually inappropriate we only use nationalities of UN states', it would still be valid to use Catalan as ethnicity, and consensus on this subject has already agreed it would be appropriate to use Catalan as an ethnicity in the first sentence. This discussion here has not been opened to relitigate the question for which consensus is strong, it's about how to enforce that. If you don't have an opinion on that and just want to expose yourselves as people who like to use Wikipedia to suppress information, it's probably wise to say nothing at all. Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  Strongly as some editors believe this, I don't think this is the result that flows from the dispassionate application of enwiki's policies, guidelines, and sourcing requirements. Biographical subjects that are referred to by the BESTSOURCES prinarily in terms of their Catalan nationality - in wikispeak, where the primary context of their notability is "Catalan" - should be refered to as "a Catalan Y", not "a Spanish Y". Sources should decide what nationality is relevant; the strongly-held opinions of editors should not be allowed to override the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I strongly disagree with the point raised by Giant Snowman (following his logic, we should label someone like Carles Puigdemont a "Spanish Catalan nationalist", which sounds pretty silly, or something overly convoluted and silly such as "Spanish politician who is a Catalan nationalist"), your position is also not without danger. Some sources could very well refer to someone on account of their ethnicity or even belonging to a region, province or state without overriding their primary belonging to the state. In Spain, and particularly in Spanish, you will often find descriptions of people as Basque, Galician, Andalusian, Catalan, Valencian, Asturian, etc. without necessarily arguing that this is the "primary" nationality of these individuals. It is up to editors to find consensus in this regard while using our guidelines as, well, guidelines. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, editorial judgement will always be required in assessing sourced attributions of nationality - not all identities are national identities. But the idea that only FIFA federations are recognized nationalities, or that "real" nations consist of the Westphalian system plus the Home nations, has no basis in Wikipedia policy nor in empirical reality, as far as I can see. Catalonia is a nation in precisely the same sense as Wales. Newimpartial (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with this, and it's why a one-size-fits-all rule to determine nationality is pretty inappropriate. If you have a regional newspaper reporting on someone famous who's from there, you can bet the newspaper is going to use every chance to point that out for clout. Even national news does it for variety when they don't want to write names over and over. I think humans can be pretty good at judging when a source is doing either of the former, and also when a source is highlighting a real identity - and I think this is what Newimpartial is discussing, in general. Kingsif (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This also reminds me, a mass category change to ‘only UN states’ happened a while back and included in the mix were Catalan ones, so we got “Spanish exiled politicians from Catalonia” instead of “Catalan exiled politicians” and that needs changing if it hasn’t already. Kingsif (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Indeed, but not only is the name “Spanish exiled politicians from Catalonia" such suppression, it also defies the point of it being a category (Catalan being the reason for exile); it is more unnecessarily loquacious than others; and, whatever one’s opinion on Spanish/Catalan, it reads like a poorly written way of meaning any Spanish politicians that aren’t allowed in Catalonia, a bizarre factual inaccuracy. For readerly reasons that one, at least, needs a change. Kingsif (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That link is incredibly useful and that RfC itself points to two 2018 RfCs that together provide cast iron consensus for the position that X is a Catalan Y from Spain is an appropriate descriptor. Is there something that can be done to support maintaining that position against the constant pressure of nationalistically inspired reverters? Designating anyone Catalan as CTOP strikes me as something of a lead pipe, but anyone with an interest in Catalan figures having to constantly 'fight the good fight' is also a wearying task, I would imagine. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't believe that whether or not the label "Catalan" should be used is the subject of this incident report - that question is a distraction! It is a settled issue, as decided by the multiple RfCs and extensive discussions already. The question is how to enforce the existing consensus. The objections above ("Catalonia is not a nation"!) only serve to illustrate the difficulty of the enforcement. Chronic and intractable, as I say. Bdushaw (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you all want to see the problem in action, I could (or someone else could) attempt to change the lead sentence label in another article. I am looking at the article for the Catalan artist Joan Miró, history shown in the table above; the article content itself supports the Catalan label. Change the lead label to "Catalan" and watch the fireworks; a day or two of reversions would illustrate the problem in real time. (It may be better for me to stand down from the issue now?) Bdushaw (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the article Pau Casals recently had the label change in the lead sentence to "Catalan" from Spanish diff. I have pasted the above boilerplate summary of the several RfC/Discussions to add to the editor's Talk entry; the first for the article. Per the above description, the article has undergone a multitude of Catalan/Spanish reversions. Those following this Incident Report can note the response to these changes. Bdushaw (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wanted to add, or emphasize, that per the above summary of RfCs/Discussions, I do view the issue as having a broad consensus for the "Catalan" label. You all may decide that is not correct, and establish a broader precedent/consensus by some other means. But a consensus has to mean something. Bdushaw (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's strange how some editor's opinion that someone's country of citizenship is the most important factor is allowed to override the fact that it is not always the most salient means of identification in reliable sources. Why not just follow the same standards as with all other content? (t · c) buidhe 13:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that Lopezsuarez is currently blocked by Ivanvector for edit warring for 72 hours, of which 13 have passed. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarcinTorun1971 has persistently disrupted the Obshchak page, insisting on adding an infobox replete with unreferenced and often irrelevant content, despite multiple entreaties to stop and several warnings left on their talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had also reported the editor for persistently inserting unsourced content and they have continued the conduct (diff 1 and diff 2), even after I tried to discuss the content with them (diff). Since they are uncooperative, I think some sort of sanction is necessary. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick glance through this user's edits I can see about 1000 edits but not one to a talk or user talk page. Maybe a pblock from mainspace would be in order until Marcin starts communicating, particularly as he seems to specialise in organised crime, which is a BLP minefield? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User was recently reported here for disrupting another page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1192#MarcinTorun1971. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous report that rsjaffe linked, they continued reverting to their preferred version immediately after that protection expired, and are still doing it today. I have blocked 72 hours for edit warring, and indefinitely part-blocked from article space until they commit to communicating. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings admins and non-admin ANI participants,

Been dealing with an issue over at 2025 in South Korean music for some time now with an editor that frequently engages in disruptive activity and doesn't engage with anybody's attempt to talk it out.

@AndyFung98 has built up quite a history of the following:

• Adding information to the list without reliable sources
• Modifying information in the list with information that isn’t included in the source. This means that, to anybody scrolling by, it looks like the information is cited, but it isn’t.
• Replacing known reliable English-language sources with Korean ones (WP:NONENG)
• Replacing known reliable Korean sources that are fully populated with information (ie. translated title, author name, etc.) with citations linking to the Naver news aggregator.

Looking at the history of their talk page, it seems they have quite a history of disruptive behaviour in the “XXXX in South Korean music” articles, going back to at least 2022. They’ve been blocked in the past for failing to engage in discussion, and I believe they’ve been blocked from editing one of the year-lists in the past.

Several editors have attempted to engage on their talk page, including my attempt here, @Randompersonediting attempt here, and @Orangesclub attempt here. In addition, a conversation was started on the article’s talk page by @D.18th here. I personally notified Andy of the article talk page discussion here.

Despite all our attempts to engage, the activity is still happening (see here today, and here yesterday.)

The article is in good shape and is well cited, but becomes difficult to maintain when another frequent contributor often makes changes that require somebody to come through to cleanup after, and they seem to refuse to make an effort to adjust their habits.

Can someone else see if they can get through? RachelTensions (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification here. RachelTensions (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indefinitely part-blocked them from editing articles, and noted in their block log that this time they should not be unblocked until they actually constructively respond to feedback, not simply commit to it. They committed to communicating the last time they were blocked for this, but still in four years have never edited an article talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Ivan, I appreciate it. AndyFung's efforts in keeping the list up-to-date are greatly appreciated so hopefully this can some to a satisfactory conclusion that involves them still being able to edit, while kicking the bad referencing habits and understanding that communication is necessary. RachelTensions (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mistaken - they didn't commit to communicating last time, they only committed to stop adding and replacing content with all caps in articles. And it took a lot of handholding to get them there. This user may lack the necessary competence, but we'll start with just responding to feedback. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The pages have been repeatedly vandalized over the past few years by users with a conflict of interest. Multiple instances of adding promotional content, adding external links to the primary sources, adding "press" and other unconstructive sections, and more. They override the work put in by other editors every few months, replacing the existing text with promotional text that does not follow the Manual style.[[63]] [[64]] [[65]][[66]][[67]] [[68]][[69]]

With some of the users, whose usernames are their real names, you can further establish COI.[[70]][[71]][[72]] Most of the users have been warned and made aware of the unconstructive edits, and yet every few months, a new user with COI pops in on one of the pages to continue the vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baberoothless (talk • contribs) 07:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for your response! I considered posting on WP:Rfpp, but I can only request one page at a time. Unfortunately, we are dealing with multiple, recurring vandalism incidents on these pages with a common theme (i.e. people affiliated with the Gallery that represents these artists creating new accounts every few months for the sole purpose of vandalism with no response to warnings). I'm happy to submit individual pages on WP:Rfpp as a last resort, but I'd really appreciate if we can consider the common thread running through these vandalism incidents. Baberoothless (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

An editor @Maruf Sumra on the Soomra dynasty article is refusing to engage in the WP:BRD process and is repeatedly removing sourced content from the article for the past week. They have been reverted by myself and another editor on 4 occassions and I have made attempts for them to discuss this on the article talk page here: [73]

I have also warned them on their own talk page twice: [74] [75]

Please can this be looked into as I know there are more than 24 hours between edits however the same mass removal of content is still being repeated.

Diffs of user removing sourced content: [76], [77], [78], [79] Ixudi (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Maruf Sumra appears to have tried to engage in discussion after this report was opened by making content arguments on their user talk page. Maruf Sumra, please note that other editors are unlikely to respond to article-specific content arguments there; the appropriate place to make suggested changes and discuss disagreements would be Talk:Soomra dynasty. If you start a discussion there and refrain from re-instating you prior edits that other editors have objected to until you reach consensus there, I think the issue raised in this report can be considered resolved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wiscomiller is a prolific creator of (more often than not poorly sourced) WP:BLP articles. But a number of their recent articles have been tagged by me and another user as being potentially AI-generated.

• Kim Jung-kwan (tagged by me; 2 reasons. 1. the quote "As we prepare for the era of artificial intelligence (AI), if the brain is the semiconductor and data center, the heart is energy. Just as the heart and brain cannot be separated, I will do my best to ensure integration." is stitched together from two quotes in the source article [80]. 2. Stiff and a little flowery prose; the prose seems different in character to this user's other articles)
• Regie Tongol (tagged by Paul 012)
• Ading Cruz (tagged by Paul 012)
• Manuel Teehankee (tagged by Paul 012)
• Raul Villanueva (tagged by Paul 012)
• Rodolfo Ordanes (tagged by Paul 012)

Whether or not these are LLM-generated is probably debatable, but imo the major issue is multiple people have been giving this person feedback over the years, and I think they've only ever responded to feedback once: in January 2025.

Since then, multiple people made posts, warnings, copyvio notices, deletion nominations, and they've not significantly engaged with (or even seemed to have learned from) the feedback. Recently, I made a post on their talk page and tagged them multiple times; they've continued editing while never responding to my talk page posts and pings. User talk:Wiscomiller#June 2025.

Proposal: If Wiscomiller refuses to engage with even this thread, ban them from editing until they show willingness to engage with others. There are too many concerns that need addressing, and their refusal to work with others, or seemingly to listen to feedback at all, is not good for the project. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the post is true I agree with a ban. We are not quick enough to show the door to people whose "content" contributions are a net negative. (t · c) buidhe 01:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I first noticed Wiscomiller's contributions from the page Jatuporn Buruspat, the first version of which began with, "Here's the properly formatted Wikipedia page for **Jatuporn Buruspat**." They did attempt to fix some of the LLM's most egregious mistakes, such as listing the wrong person as prime minister, but that was not nearly enough, and a whole lot of it was a bunch of junk and blatantly false information that had to be removed. Among many other things, the AI hallucinated a false birth year, false degrees, false party membership, false name spelling, and a wholly messed up career section. It's very difficult for editors without local knowledge to sift through these AI articles and catch the errors, and Wiscomiller is clearly not doing that and probably isn't capable even if they tried. I tagged the most obvious cases where the LLM wrongly dated maintenance tags, though many other contributions of theirs seem likely to be AI-generated as well. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Adding large amounts of erroneous material to Wikipedia without comment is definitely grounds for a ban. Altoids0 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Any content which is AI-generated which contains erroneous materials should be removed immediately. Additionally, poorly sourced should be removed and the user should be banned indefinitely. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 06:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are you reporting a user for making edits...? Admittedly, I don't know fully what the contents page is (never seen it before, actually), but you can clearly see that Interstellarity was asking why their edits were getting reverted here. So immediately reporting them to ANI for allegedly wrongdoing when they tried to talk about it is bizarre. λ NegativeMP1 01:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Per the red notice at the top, you need to notify Interstellarity of this discussion on his talk page (not simply a ping); I have done so for you. OutsideNormality (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I think this problem can be solved without a trip to this noticeboard. Rather than coming here and reporting me, why not open up a discussion on the WT:Contents page and I am happy to discuss it with you? Let's move on from here and I'll see you there. Also, administrators do not have the ability to block whoever they want, whenever they want. They need supporting evidence that what I did was blockable. I believe I did not do anything that would warrant a block. They usually block after extensive attempts to educate an individual to better contribute failed. Interstellarity (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I didn't notified him, extremely sorry. @NegativeMP1, looking at his overwhelming edits (which made me worried ) on page I had no other option but to bring him here so that administrators can solve this issue. My only issue is 'discussion before major edits', which he definitely did not attempted. Also his Teahouse comments was helpful because it triggered us to know what he is doing. Thanks, let me know if I made any mistake. Sys64 message this user 01:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang of some sort - Unrelated to the report in itself, this user has been disruptive at multiple help pages (particularly the WP:Teahouse by WP:BITING new editors asking genuine questions), something which several others have told them not to do. I was contemplating bringing here, but why not propose since they've brought themselves here. — ^EF⁵ 01:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, However, from what I see in your article, you have demonstrated an inability to write an article even about yourself, which is, as guessed, filled with promotion, bias and unnecessary flattery proses to a user with seven edits yesterday (diff), and Did you have any idea that this is a most gibberish article I have seen, as demonstrated here. You have used it as a blogging site while thinking it would 0.00001% chance of appearing on main page (also yesterday) (diff). I don't know what your goal is, but you're being disruptive to the project. I'll dig further if time allows, although my internet is utterly horrendous right now so it may take a bit. — ^EF⁵ 02:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Noting that this user was previously blocked a few months back for unhelpful Teahouse/Help Desk comments. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 02:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats a normal process on Wikipedia, nobody is perfect in one place at time relative to the other. And I don't think message prior to block are relevant here except this is something to direct at me. Sys64 message this user 02:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't normal at all to be blocked on Wikipedia, that's a sign that there may be an issue (especially if it continues after the block). — ^EF⁵ 02:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are multiple administrators who were blocked on Wikipedia prior to their administration, its not abnormal to have a block and being pure from it. The reasons for blocks varies and if you could understand why I was blocked that may help you. Also sometimes block is best way to stop and be more attentive to Wikipedia guidelines. I hope you understand. Sys64 message this user 02:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and multiple editors remain indefinitely blocked after they were blocked for a short time and then continued with the behaviour that got them blocked the first time after their block expired or was lifted. Your continued misbehaviour at the Teahouse means you're far closer to falling into this category than admins who were blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sys64, the normal expectation is for you to start a discussion on the talk page of the relevant page. You did not attempt to do so, and went straight to ANI. That's not proper procedure. You're also assuming bad faith of Interstellarity; you accuse them of being unhelpful but are unspecific as to why you think they are unhelpful. If anything, this reflects worse on you than it does on Interstellarity. Granted, idk what Interstellarity changed. Even if they are being disruptive, you (Sys64) went about this the wrong way grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I think ignoring my point of view is not a good discussion eitherl. I think i explained that I was not ready to engage with any user directly without an administrator involved in the discussion, and so ANI was my only way. However I see the anonymity towards me and lot of people are here now "digging" my edit history to take out those specific comments on which was quite naive and should have been pateint. I don't understand their problems or their possible reason as to why they are doing this but i think we could get any fruitful conclusion as to what should be done about User:Interstellarity? And let me please copy paste my those Teahouse comments on which I was more fruitful than necessary. Just to counteract these comments. Sys64 message this user 02:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social Media is not a reliable in most cases, but sometimes it could be used as a primary source, depending on context. However, in most of the article, the reason we don't use social media is because they are filled with bias, misinformation and individual's creation. According to our core policies, WP: Guidelines, sources must be independent, published, and subject to editorial oversight. But that doesn't mean they are completely unreliable, you can use YouTube link to indicate the existence of a channel or a specific video, you can use reddit to indicate a thread dicussion that is important for the article, let's say you want to indicate that Brian Cox said X in his reddit discussion about Black Hole. It is when we talk about actual and proved facts, we need certain amount of secondary sources (non-social media) for the authenticity and only sources that are reliable. See WP: Reliable sources if you want to learn more. Cheers! Sys64 message this user

From my evaluation, writing about yourself is discouraged in Wikipedia, and it passes basic WP:COI, check WP:Autobiography. However, from what I see in your article, you have demonstrated an inability to write an article even about yourself, which is, as guessed, filled with promotion, bias and unnecessary flattery proses. How about you take a time learning here and here. Please read this and this too. Sys64 message this user

{{tq| I think administrators are trustworthy in certain manner or they won't be admin at all. And they are the one supposed to show maturity before than any other general editors, so the situation of block rarely comes forward but that doesn't mean they are invincible. [[User:Sys64wiki|Sys64]}} Sys64 message this user 02:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

i explained that I was not ready to engage with any user directly without an administrator involved in the discussion, and so ANI was my only way.. Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Communication is required. Involving admins is the last resort, you must attempt to communicate and resolve disputes at lower levels before coming to ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This poorly formatted, rambling wall of text above isn't really encouraging. Feel like behavior is erratic. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. The editor doesn't have an archive, but one can see what had been deleted from their Talk page. It is full of warnings/notices: copyvio, OWN, edit warring, linking from mainspace to draftspace, blanking mainspace articles to then redirect to articles they have written. Responses that stood out to me: Just wanted to know how to get a complete ban than a simple ban? Like if i harmed Jimmy Wales account? Why I want to ban mt account? I just don't think I wish to contribute to wiki anymore. diff and I might suggest to delete it and block me permanently but stop messaging me. diff and I am amazed I am banned and blocked and destroyed and still facing irrelevant email. At least after good faith contributions i faced this thing, leave me to still use wiki as a learning platform. Stop messaging me, delete it stop it or whatever you do with whatever i contributed to wiki. STOP MESSAGING ME!!!! diff.

These kinds of responses to concerns about editing and deletion of articles show a lack of maturity and an inability to take criticism. I suggest Sys64 be limited to editing in Article space without the ability to create new articles. They should be given a warning telling them that they have to show they can edit articles without using LLMs, copyvio or resorting to edit warring. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sys64wiki looks to me like a young non-native speaker. He would probably have an easier time communicating and understanding rules in his native language. I don't know about anyone else, but I struggle to understand what is meant by phrases like "making blatant edits", "he seems to do it itself", "nobody is perfect in one place at time relative to the other", "its not abnormal to have a block and being pure from it". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

GogoLion was recently blocked for personal attacks (e.g. diff, diff). When the block expired they started ranting on their User Talk page and, when asked to stop, became abusive (diff, diff) and have now expressed a willingness to be "banned" (diff). Whatever their original motivation when they joined Wikipedia, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE now. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear WP:NOTHERE violation, with support for revoking talk page access. After their LLM-generated AFD was procedurally closed, they had a meltdown and started attacking multiple editors involved (diff, diff). ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While they behavior has been bad, I just want to be clear here. Are the activities recounted here happen AFTER their original block expired? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[81] is a start, nearly a week after their 31-hour block expired. Borgenland (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Followed by this [82] and then the attacks on Rigal’s TP today and blatant trolling throughout their block. Borgenland (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal, do you think that this user should be blocked indefinitely? This user was making disruptive behavior by using a large language model and edit summaries like this. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 06:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. The short block was their opportunity to cool down and start afresh. Instead they came back to declare "I win" and responded abusively when asked what they meant. They have had enough warnings about personal attacks. An indef doesn't have to be forever. That said, a long but not indefinite block might be just as good. I don't think they care either way given this.

I'm generally somewhat sympathetic to editors who use use LLMs inappropriately, irksome though this is. People are being bombarded with relentless propaganda telling them that LLMs are a universal panacea that can do things that they can't. It is understandable when people believe this and somebody misuses them on Wikipedia without realising it is misuse. So long as they step away from the LLM when this is pointed out to them, that's OK. GogoLion has doubled down and resorted to personal attacks, not being stopped by a short block. That's what makes this seem to me like an intractable case worthy of an indef. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about those diffs. The first two are examples of their behaviour before the block, provided purely for context. The latter three are their behaviour since the block. (One shows some back and forth between them and other users.) I thought it was clear but maybe I should have been clearer. It is their behaviour since the block that I am reporting. I believe that their behaviour since the block shows that they are not able or willing to contribute constructively. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is as clear as it gets that they are WP:NOTHERE. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 12 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, what is the purpose listing the byte numbers? In my third edit, I removed a section consisting of synthesis and OR. Big number or not, we shouldn't keep it 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, it's clear there's an effort to create new user accounts with some repetitive material on their userpage. Not asking for help so much as getting eyes on this suspicious phenomenon. BusterD (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on BusterD's talk page upon seeing this thread, but he encouraged me to respond here so that others can easily see it. I'm also being careful on what I say as there are some privacy concerns involved, however I was able to put together that this is being done as part of a school curriculum. I have contacted Oversight, who took action on one specific instance, but otherwise said that they honestly aren't sure of what else they can do.

And to any admin reading this, absolutely redact any parts of this you think should be removed. I am still quite new to Wikipedia, and this is a complex situation, so I'm trying to do my best and not screw anything up or say something I shouldn't .-. Weirdguyz (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An ISPN (2601:8c1:8200:2151:c307:afb3:af1b:3a48) is threatening to continue to be disruptive if their WP:SYNTH edits are not left in. Can we have someone with more technical knowledge than I have fix the formatting as well? The ISP keeps breaking it. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the article and talkpage need serious attention - accusations about recent aircrashes are getting into BLP territory "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime." Semi protection of the article is probably needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'd 2 weeks. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Valkazman

This user keeps adding unsourced additions with no explanations. When attempting to revert their edits, they keep adding them once again. You can check here: [83]. I also opened a discussion on the talk page of Lord Edward's crusade but they never responded. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]