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]

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]

SteeledDock541 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SD541 has unfortunately given up on consensus-building processes within Wikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing. They have resorted to editing sprees whereupon they make changes of things which a consensus is forming against their position.

Incident 2 which brings me to seek admin intervention is regarding infoboxes on racing driver articles. SD541's attempt to seek consensus regarding using a new template did not go his way with several other users opposing, some questioning what is wrong with the first infobox[8].

On June 8, SD "flipped the table" and made unilateral changes, replacing entire infoboxes[9], leading to RegalZ8790 to say, Your decision not to complete the consensus-building process you initiated is discouraging.[10] SD did not respond after this, however, today, SD541 has made more changes that go against the consensus[11][12][13], changing the entire infobox for his preferred infobox.

Incident 1 which makes this a pattern is regarding the use of {{flagicon}} in articles. I and other users opposed what I felt was excessive use of flags at 2025 IndyCar Series that went against WP:FLAGCRUFT's wording placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. In the middle of the discussion on this, in which SD541 says, let just end the conversation here and agree not to add them....,[14] SD541 unilaterally not only added flagicons article for previous IndyCar seasons[15], but also did so to individual race team articles[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] that they ought to have know I'd have opposed for the same reason.

Given that this is now an ongoing and chronic problem, I am seeking admin intervention to prevent further disruption like has occurred today. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 19:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the intervention proposed by @GhostOfDanGurney. Assadzadeh (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, GhostOfDanGurney. Can you link to any discussions you have had with SteeledDock541 about your disagreements? It looks like you haven't posted to their User talk page since last November and back then you were getting along. What kind of dispute resolution have you tried before coming here? I'm not talking about edit summaries, I'm talking about talk page discussions between the two of you. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing about some of these issues is all from today. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I attempted to link to a discussion at Talk:2025 IndyCar Series#FLAGCRUFT so apologies if that wasn't clear enough. SD541 went to DRN after I had initiated that discussion on article talk, but I declined to participate at DRN for feeling such action was premature. Subsequently, discussion at Talk picked up and SD541 conceded to agree not to add [flagicons], only to immediately add flagicons to other articles in the wikiproject. I am at work on break so cannot link a diff to DRN right now

  Also a talk page message from SD to me in late May: [24]

  The infobox issue and the flagicon issue are two seperate issues that show a pattern of conduct. Both issues saw consensus form against SD, only for SD to make unilateral changes afterward. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 23:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also supportive of an intervention. Please note that I am on vacation through July 8. This is my first time being involved in an incident, and I would like to let people know that I am not able to participate further until after that date.

Anyways, @GhostOfDanGurney quoted a comment I had made to SD541, in which I expressed some frustration with SD's behavior. Looking at SD's editing activities, one can see they are an active creator of new articles. This is a good thing!

However, I have observed for some time SD's attempts - when things are not what they prefer - to surreptitiously enact changes by waiting for periods of time, then restoring their preferred content with edits lacking a summary and which abuse WP:MINOR. An example is a long running series of edits which culminated February 1st [25]. SD attempts to insert incorrect/improper information regarding the flags and nationality of a driver. These were significant edits marked as minor, made with no summary. I reverted them, leaving detailed summaries explaining why the edits were improper [26][27].

Such activity took place after earlier attempts by SD to enact their desired changes. This happened June 20, 2024 [28][29], where SD attempted to revert another editor [30][31]. Previously, on June 19, 2024, SD tried to pass the edit off as minor [32]. They had even earlier tried to sneak it in on August 7, 2023 [33], after which I added cited content to the page explaining the driver's heritage [34]. I also started a discussion on the driver's talk page [35], which received no participation/acknowledgement from SD541.

The reason I used the word "discouraging" is because I was initially encouraged to see SD541 become more involved with the community by beginning discussions and seeking consensus. As mentioned previously, content creators are valuable community members. However, as Dan Gurney has pointed out, SD has returned to their familiar patterns of attempting to shape Wikipedia to their own preferred image, independently of communities at large.

I would also like to point out that SD's July 1 series of driver infobox edits [36], which Dan Gurney pointed out, have all taken place to articles where the driver is no longer actively competing in the IndyCar Series. My personal opinion is that this is another attempt by SD541 to play "the long game" - if they can't make the changes they prefer when people are paying attention, they wait until they believe the focus of the community has shifted elsewhere.

While I believe content creation is admirable, SteeledDeck541's other patterns are disruptive. I have lost confidence that this editor can participate productively in WP:AOWR.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Regal articulates here is a long-term pattern of WP:GAMING that is much worse than I had first thought; I was hesitant to cite GAME at first, but Regal shows that this behaviour extends into the BLP articles in the WikiProject as well as being of a much longer duration than 6 weeks.

I hope SD responds soon so we can find some sort of resolution or else I am prepared to formally propose a TBAN from motorsports articles. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 23:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying everyone that I edited my previous comment after realizing I had linked incorrect edits within the sequence. I've struck through those edits and added the correct ones.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than discuss their conduct of WP:GAMING consensus-building processes in motorsports topics, SteeledDock541 created a WP:SOCK account, SmokeyBandit512 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in order to continue editing in the topic under the RADAR. Evidence was posted to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SteeledDock541 where a checkuser confirmed the connection and blocked SD541 indefinitely.

Should SD541 someday wish to return to editing and successfully appeal their block for SOCKing, I am proposing that they be subject to an indefinite topic ban from motorsports, broadly construed given what is now rampant GAMING conduct in a topic area full of inexperienced editors who either avoid or are unaware of Wikipedia's overwhelming backend, which the SOCKing is yet another example of. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 05:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 05:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given the behavior here, I suspect that any unblock would likely come with a topic ban attached, as a note. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I would like to see at least a six-month topic ban. Perhaps with some time to reflect they will be willing to collaborate and participate effectively. RegalZ8790 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I agree and would also like to see at least a six-month topic ban. Assadzadeh (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @RegalZ8790: @Assadzadeh: To clarify, as the user in question is currently indef'd, you mean "six months from any potential unblocking", correct? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and only if they can show that they are willing to collaborate with other editors and participate in a positive manner. Assadzadeh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, six months from any unblocking. RegalZ8790 (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree with the proposed topic ban. Esw01407 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin note - while SmokeyBandit512 was confirmed to be SteeledDock541's sock, the other socks blocked in the discussion above are unrelated: it's one of our ANI joe-jobbing trolls. In case it impacts anyone's opinion here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion concerns a number of images that meet enwp copyright policy, but not the commons copyright policy as they are believed to be public domain in the United States but not the source country of the image. The images, for example this one and this one, were clearly tagged not to transfer to Commons prior to Absolutiva's edits. In the edits, Absolutiva added a copyright tag that does not apply (the copyright tag depends on publication a certain number of years ago, but I could not find evidence of such publication and Absolutiva did not mention any). Then they removed the tag saying to keep local on enwp and transferred the file to commons. This is concerning because it has resulted in incorrect licencsing and transferring the files to another wiki where they violate policy. Here I notified them of the issue, and they have not responded despite continuing to edit. Unfortunately I have no choice but to bring this matter up on a noticeboard as the editor is not responding. (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buidhe, without looking at all of the diffs, could you identify what editor you are talking about? I assume you have notified them about this discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz as named in my comment it's Absolutiva (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved some files to Commons for public domain photographs both source country and the US. This file (File:Oswald Boelcke (ca. 1916).jpg) is public domain by an identified author de:Robert Sennecke died in 1940, and in the US which is published in 1916. But two photographs are also public domain (File:Jewish men forced to unload a munitions train in Izbica.jpg, File:German observation post above Salonica, 1941.jpeg) as unidentified human authorship per {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. However, whenever it is uncertain for public domain in the US under URAA or {{PD-US-alien property}}. Absolutiva 03:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutiva If you have identified a death date for the author it should be listed in the photo description before you add the licensing tag. The other images you claimed were published over 70 years ago according to the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Publication is not the same as creation, you have to identify a specific published work from at least 70 years ago where the image appears and provide the information in the image description. You've made some changes that are difficult for other editors to reverse and apparently without fully understanding the copyright rules, which is a problem. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it's nice that Absolutiva did actually respond here, it seems that they are going back to ignoring the mess they made. It would be amazing if some action could be taken when editors put up false copyright information on images and refuse to fix it. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have nominated both of these images for deletion. See: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Some uncertain public domain images. Absolutiva 11:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I reverted some of licensing information. [37][38] Absolutiva 11:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can they (legitimately) be moved back to en? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, manually. By nominating for deletion, then upload as locally on English Wikipedia. For example, by uploading locally File:Signature of Grian.svg, which had nominated for deletion from Commons per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grian sig.svg. Absolutiva 11:04, 7 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]

@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 [39], 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 [40] he updated 18.6 million to 19 million, 36.1 to 36 million, [41] 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]

Editor User:Woovee has removed several band names from the "Influences" section in multiple edits (example: [42]), stating in summaries that they should be mentioned later instead.

However, these bands are: - Cited with reliable sources - Relevant to the context

User is also WP:WAR rather than engaging in WP:CONSENSUS. I've alerted him of his WP:OWN and WP:JUST previously, and asked to resolve these issues at Talk:Post-punk on his talk page, but he ignored it and kept removing context and information from post-punk. Bare with me that I'm not an old user so I don't know how to really go about these reports, but I do know that users should refer to WP:CONSENSUS before going back and forth in reverting information, or unwilling to resolve this by opening a WP:DR

User also kept deleting Mark Fisher from the post-punk page stating he's not a reliable music journalist, although he has been described as a music critic by numerous sources and wrote for publications like the Guardian and the Wire about music. Fisher meets WP:RS. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-punk&diff=prev&oldid=1299016071

Thank you. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor doesn't respond to queries on their User talk page so this might require a namespace block from Article space in order to hear from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the own label is against wp:good faith : this is serious business. That kind of accusation alone resting on nothing, should be enough to sanction the other user.

Secundo, there isn't any edit war as the part about Mark Fisher is still included in the article. Anything else was explained in edit summaries. Liz, your threat is not what is expected from an administrator. If an user doesn't want to answer at a noticeboard because they consider this is about editorial choices and nothing more, it is their right. They shouldn't get forced to be dragged at ANI by an administrator. This is offensive. Woovee (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My words were not a "threat". We regularly block editors who are noncommunicative from article space so they will respond to complaints. I looked over your User talk page and it looked like it had been years since you responded to a message to you. But since you came to participate in this discussion after I invited you to, no block will be necessary which is good. Please continue to discuss this situation with the other editor, maybe on your User talk page where they tried to reach you or here on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Woovee WP:FORUM, but conduct that overlooks or breaks norms is becoming more common, in turn lessening controversy. Vofa (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

then communicate the editorial choice in the Talk pages instead of insisting your way but edit warring. Wikipedia is a project rests on collaboration, and one is expected to communicate and work with others. – robertsky (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. @Woovee:, Communication is required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aradicus77, where do you stand on this discussion now? I've asked Woovee to return so this dispute can be resolved but I doubt they will come back. Are there still matters that need to be discussed? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was he blocked as a sockpuppet? Not sure what happened in that conversation. I was willing to have a discussion with him about how to change the post-punk page since I did add a lot of information, and the page was in heavy need of trimming. I thanked some of his trimming edits like removing excess band mentions and all kind of stuff that was bordering on original research, but then some of his edits I had an issue with and I opened up a chance to discuss so we can reach a compromise (I would have probably let him do it anyway if I got to hear his point of view). But he seemed to just keep editing without answering me back and not using the talk page Aradicus77 (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh opened up the sock thing and seems there was a discussion there too. Nah this wasn't me trying to get this person blocked, not sure if that's what ANI is specifically for, is dispute resolution the right place to dispute un-cooperative edits? I wasn't suspecting the individual of being a sockpuppet or anything like that. Aradicus77 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[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 [53]). 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[54] 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 [55][56][57][58] 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 [59][60]. 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" [61]. Additionally:

  • 29 Dec – Mediascriptor uploads "Antigua.news.jpg" and "Antigua.news small icon.jpg" to commons [62][63] and adds them to the article [64][65].
  • 7 Jan – both are deleted from commons [66][67] 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 [68][69].
  • 18 Jan – Mediascriptor adds these images to the article [70].

  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: [71] [72] [73].
  • 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 ( [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]), 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 ([81] (they blanked the warning from their user page), [82]). 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 [83][84], 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 [85] 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 [86]. This was around the time their article submission for Antigua.news was denied.[87] Mediascriptor said there was no connection [88], Gitz kindly responded to share the connected contributor template [89]. Mediascriptor again denied a link [90]. Gitz followed up to explain further about the policy [91]. The following day @Mediascriptor blanked their talk page.[92]
• In February, @PARAKANYAA nominated one of Mediascriptor's articles about the Stanford case for deletion.[93] The result was pretty clear about psudo-biographies/ no notability.[94] 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.[95]. 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 [96], 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]

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

Got directed to this place from AIV, but here it is; pretty much this user is not here to build an encylopedia. For an account created in 2007, the majority of their time has been dedicated to disruptive editing over the short title to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The crux of their campaign to right their perceived great wrong is the lack of an official short title section in that Act. They've been told to follow common naming, back in 2017. They didn't care then. They even got told that portions of the bill (like section 12002) do use that title, they didn't care either. Once in more 2018, they got told by other editors to stop and that even the IRS recognizes the name, they still didn't care. With no edits since 2022, they've recently returned to continue their same campaign and even expanded it to other reconciliation bills such the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Irruptive Creditor,

It's interesting to see discussions from 2018 about a subject but can you provide diffs to edits that are being made now that have you concerned? Action won't be taken on disruption that occurred 8 years ago but on any current disruptive editing. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, see here, here and here, for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, see here, here, and here. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a WP:COI issue here (user page says they're an attorney) Rhinocrat (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhinocrat, sorry for the late response, but I doubt it. A short title to a bill generally doesn't affect its legal ramifications. A law remains a law. Even then, of the nine sections that specifically reference a "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", lack of an official short title section notwithstanding, none seem that they would have an interest to the professional work of an American expatriate attorney/CPA living in Japan. I mean, I don't really see how a section on "expensing of certain costs of replanting citrus plants lost by reason of casualty" would be relevant to them. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a willingness on the part of both parties to engage in edit warring as a means to an end. See [97]. Irruptive Creditor, for your part you are engaging in this but not attempting discussion at Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, instead accusing Hoofin of vandalism and reporting them as such. I see a content dispute, not disruption at present. If I'm missing something, I'd be glad to hear of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Irruptive Creator hasn't strictly broken 3RR, but they made four reverts in 28 hours at Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in addition to accusing another editor of vandalism when they are not, which can be considered a personal attack. I've pblocked them from articlespace for 31 hours for edit-warring. Hoofin has made multiple reverts, but only two within 24 hours, they get an EW warning. Remember that being right isn't enough, and edit-warring is not okay. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger, fair enough block, although being right about the short title to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is of little concern to me; rather, it is that Hoofin, who has dedicated a third of their editing career (over 30 out of 108 edits) to a single point (that some name isn't a common name for a particular bill), will continue, what appears at least to me, a habit of pushing a preferred view, whether wrong or right, simply through being more persistently assertive and not backing down. As Hoofin states themself, they don't really care about substance, whether a bill is titled right or wrong, but that: "Wikipedia is endorsing a partisan agenda." Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Let me add my piece to this. I am a Pennsylvania and New Jersey licensed lawyer, and a Certified Public Accountant in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Hawai'i (inactive in Hawai'i, active elsewhere.) As a tax practitioner for well over a decade, I am familiar with Public Law 115-97, which is generally nicknamed "Tax Cuts and Jobs" Act, or goes by the acronym TCJA. We in the lawyer community also know that the Short Title was stricken from the bill. It is one of those facts that you need to know where to go to look it up.

I don't understand where Irruptive Creditor shows up seven years after an act passes Congress, and, at the time it did pass, Senator Sanders purposely had the Short Title stricken, and then want to inform us that, "no, this IS the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act!", when the reality is that the bill was promoted or marketed under that phrase. But the Short Title exists nowhere in the final document.

It is Public Law 115-97. Or, you can reference the Long Title officially.

Sometimes bills are passed, where one Division in the bill has a specific Short Title for that part. The recently passed 2025 budget bill (which, in pattern, is NOT the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" because, on filibuster-rule motion of Senator Schumer, the Senate did not have 60 votes to keep the Short Title) is a more current example.

This is fresh news. Fox News, among others, reported it. It shouldn't take Wikipedia editors a lot of time and effort to find it.

This is not a matter of a "partisan agenda". In my younger days, these tax laws were simply called "Revenue Acts", like the Revenue Act of 1978. Some senators want the marketing out of the bill.

This is fact. It's the history of how the bill passed. This isn't even Gulf of Mexico / Gulf of America league, a style issue with a strong minority contingent.

The Short Title is not in the act. Hoofin (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is not a place for attempting to come to consensus about what to do in the article. This noticeboard is to request potential admin intervention to stop disruptive behavior from happening. Everything you've posted above is irrelevant to the nature of this board. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[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]

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 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]

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]

Since March 2022, I have attempted to improve the article on Norman Vincent Peale by removing some unsourced content and placing citation requests for other unsourced content. My edits have always been reverted by the editor Melcsw, who has accused me of vandalism, which is certainly uncivil.

In March 2025, I explained in one of my edit summaries, "This is not vandalism. This is removing unsourced content which has had citation requests since 2022. The content remains unsourced without citations provided. Please see WP:VERIFY, please discuss on the talk page and please do not restore unsourced content and claim that the removal of unsourced content is vandalism."^[1]

In June 2025, this edit was reverted by Melcsw, who again accused me of vandalism.^[2]

Please see the edit history of the Norman Vincent Peale article for other instances of this and false accusations of vandalism by Melcsw.

On other occasions, citation requests and other templates have been removed by Melcsw, leaving either unsourced or poorly sourced content or other issues in the article.

Melcsw appears to be a WP:SPA with virtually all of his or her edits since 2006 on Norman Vincent Peale.

Melcsw's continual accusations against me of vandalism, when I've merely attempted to try to improve the article and remove unsourced and poorly sourced content, is in my view disruptive editing. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notice on their User talk page and hopefully, then will come and discuss the situation here. I did notice from their edit summaries that the two of you are sort of in an adversary situation. Have you thought about going to one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Melcsw is indeed a SPA, since joining in 2006, they have a total of 97 edits, of which 96 have been to Norman Vincent Peale and/or the talk page. It also appears they do not know that vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and can be considered a personal attack. Here is a sampling going back to March 2022 of edits they have characterized as vandalism by Kind Tennis Fan - March 2022, March 2022, March 2022, November 2024, November 2024, March 2025, March 2025, June 2025, June 2025. None of these edits by Kind Tennis Fans are vandalism. In my view, Kind Tennis Fan is an editor in good standing, with a clean block log, and has over 100,000 edits to the project, and based on what I know of their editing the project, I have never known Kind Tennis Fan to be a vandal. Besides calling Kind Tennis Fan a vandal, a examination of Melcsw's contribution history shows they have used the terms vandal/vandalism at least 30+ times when reverting edits on Norman Vincent Peale. I also agree this is a pattern of disruptive editing, and it needs to stop. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  + Melcsw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Isaidnoway (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melcsw has engaged in disruptive, uncollaborative editing for almost twenty years at Norman Vincent Peale. Specifically, the editor has repeatedly made false accusations of vandalism against good faith editors who are not vandals. They have failed to discuss disagreements on the article talk page. Their behavior shows clear evidence of article "ownership" which is contrary to policy. Accordingly, I have pageblocked Melcsw from that article. They are free to make well-referenced, neutral, formal edit requests at Talk:Norman Vincent Peale. I have warned them that further false accusations of vandalism may lead to a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[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]

• 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 [98] [99] [100]. 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]

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

PrezDough began editing on 23 September 2023. I came across them when doing NPP and nominated the first creation of Eulalia Bravo Bravo for speedy deletion, as a copyright violation. PrezDough currently has 11 sections on their talk page, three of which (four now) address copyright violation issues. That article was deleted. They have today re-created the article, which CopyPatrol registers as a 68% copy of the original source. They are, at this stage, well aware of our policies on copyright. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that they have had copyright issues in the past with Lucia Laura Sangenito and Marie-Rose Tessier. Gommeh 🎮 15:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've partially blocked them from mainspace. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:56, 7 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 [103] and [104] 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]

• 2603:7000:1700:42E8:ECDC:49B9:E565:44D2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is going to the pages of various television episodes and adding episode ages and changing dates of templates against Wikipedia guidelines, which I have urged them to stop doing to no avail. While this is not vandalism, it is seriously disruptive and I am looking for some administrative action whether through a stern warning from someone who is uninvolved, all the way up to an outright block. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide the diffs showing their conduct? Gommeh 🎮 20:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, yes, sorry about that. Here are a few: [105], [106], [107], and [108]. I will note that most of these happened after my final warning to them about their disruptive editing. JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Personally I never really agreed with the guideline that said not to change the dates on maintenance templates such as {{Use American English}}. Although I don't do it, I'm not really sure if it fits my definition of "disruptive" either, as to me it's a minor nuisance at worst. That being said, I'd have liked to see some communication from the IP about the reasons why they made the edits they did. Your concerns especially about episode ages are valid though, and I agree with you 100% on those. Gommeh 🎮 11:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[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,[109] when they were also informed to seek dispute resolution.[110] 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[111]—Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. As evidenced by Bagumba's posting, the previous ANI, and Kelpongames' talk page, the disruptive anti-consensus and uncollaborative behavior continues and won't stop despite many chances to change, so an indefinite block is needed to prevent further timesinks to the encyclopedia. (pinging the remaining participants from the last ANI @DaHuzyBru and GOAT Bones231012:) Left guide (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous ANI attempt. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The community has tried to engage with them on their talk page, but they just don't seem to be here to collaborate. Per WP:CIVIL:

  Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative ... and to be responsive to good-faith questions.

  —Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is clear that this editor will not stop on his own. Rikster2 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Indef right off the hop? The account is 13 days old. A temporary block of days/week(s) might be a better first step. —tony 12:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The community has been discussing with the editor for a couple of weeks, but they have been dismissive. Can you identify evidence of positive contributions? They're free to request an unblock when they are ready to discuss and show they're willing to work collaboratively. —Bagumba (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's not even a basic acknowledgement from them that their own edits are contested, and that they thus need to pause and seek consensus. I count a total of six different editors (including two admins) who have challenged their edits or warned them on their talk page. The response is basically just an "I believe I'm right, so nothing else matters" attitude that I'd consider to be intractable WP:CIR and WP:IDHT, as well as an example of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5:

  Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input:…continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

  Many have tried for weeks to help and educate them, and nothing gets through. Left guide (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The user has received multiple warnings regarding their disruptive editing but has never responded to any of them. They continue to make the same problematic edits while remaining entirely non-communicative. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a partial block until they talk to us constructively. Gommeh 🎮 13:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Assadzadeh (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I fail to see what a timed block would accomplish. I'd be perfectly happy to see this editor unblocked with a change in approach that accepts that Wikipedia works by consensus, not fiat, but they certainly shouldn't be editing right now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:C7C:5800:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

This is a repeat of this report on the same user, who has continued making the same sorts of poorly written and otherwise disruptive edits on film/tv related articles across a /40 range.[112][113] Older examples to show it's the same user [114][115] Since the user appears undeterred by their repeated blocks on /64 ranges (at least one of which is still active here), I'm bringing this here as I think a wider block seems warranted.Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 15:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a wider block is warranted here since the last one went in one ear and out the other. Tagging @NinjaRobotPirate as the admin who made the original block. Gommeh 🎮 15:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I encountered this user last year, I've seen them blocked at least 3 times on various ranges, and have seen zero change in behaviour after any of them. Always the same pattern of unsourced claims, poor grammar, WP:EASTEREGG links, edit warring and personal attacks in summaries, no communication, etc. If this behaviour has been occurring for years as NRP noted in the last report, I struggle to think of anything that could change it at this point. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 16:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing probably will change that. But just because someone is being a minor pain doesn't mean that you can range block a major ISP in a huge city. Just report the newest /64 every few months, and I'll block it. If there's a major problem, like a neo-Nazi, I'd be willing to talk about what counts as acceptable collateral damage, like we're a bunch of assholes standing over a war map. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fair, my lack of technical knowledge about IPs rears its head again. Will do, and thank you NinjaRobotPirate Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 17:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many assholes do we have on this ship, anyway? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• {{subst:uw-unsourced3}} warning given 2 July 2025 by Iiii I I I.

This user has repeatedly failed to discuss their additions with the community, reverting reversions with no edit summaries despite invitations to discuss on talk pages.

• 23 June 2025: at Heidelberg Materials they added original research and deceptive links. After back-and-forth reversions including instruction to dicsuss on a talk page, I opened a centralized discussion myself at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights § Inclusion of forced labor claims in articles on products and companies. Their only contribution to the discussion did not acknowledge understanding the issues with their synthesis of the sources.
• 1 July 2025: created the article CCP Owns Farmland in the United States, which is primarily synthesis of deprecated sources and currently at AfD.
• 5 July 2025: added a list of people accused of crimes to a hospital article. I think some (most?) of these are convictions, so it isn't wholesale a BLP violation; however, given their edit history regarding Chinese topics I think it's intriguing how Hhqrhh describes one of the people as 35-year-old Chinese male and includes their name in Chinese characters.
• 8 July 2025: added a massive "controversies" section to a Chinese province article mostly of localized petty crime and non-issues (A reporter from The Times were surrounded by an angry crowd) but insinuates in the headings and prose that this is all state-backed. This was reverted by Pieceofmetalwork, who also left a talk page warning about original research, but to no avail as Hhqrhh re-reverted, again with no edit summary.

Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the edits they made at Henan I think that at the very least they shouldn't have added "state backed" without a citation backing it up. Doing so is definitely WP:OR. I think that the very least that should happen is we remove the word "state-backed" from that section. The rest of it from what I can tell looks decent and may just need some polishing.

OP, I agree that CCP Owns Farmland in the United States is clear WP:SYNTH and should be deleted. I've voted on the AfD.

With regards to their edits to NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital my first issue is that they added the doctor's Chinese name where it wasn't needed. Pretty sure that's against the MOS, but I doubt inexperienced editors would know that. That can easily be fixed. There are some WP:SPS that they cited in that same edit too, such as LinkedIn. However, a lot of the information in that edit seems to be backed up by reliable sources as well ([116], [117], [118], [119], [120]).

Based on this, I think Hhqrhh is making good faith contributions and may just need to be pointed in the right direction. I'd suggest we particularly make sure they're aware of our OR and SYNTH guidelines. Gommeh 🎮 17:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely tried to work with them (see my discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights § Inclusion of forced labor claims in articles on products and companies), but it just ends with reversions without edit summaries and no talk page participation so I'm not sure if they're understanding the guidelines.

I also disagree on including any of that in the Henan article: it's a province of 100 million people, there's absolutely no relevance for a top-level section to be about individual journalists being harassed by small crowds or a single event of harassment in a public park. But that might be a DRN issue rather than AN/I. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be somewhat active on their talk page, see this discussion. They did not, however, respond to @Iiii I I I and @Pieceofmetalwork's warnings against OR. They responded constructively at this earlier discussion regarding an unattributed translation they did from zh:沈阳市第一看守所 to Shenyang No. 1 Detention Center saying they weren't aware of the policy. Gommeh 🎮 18:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been editing today and I'd like to hear from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 9 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]

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]

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]

There was a recent discussion here about Morgajon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that was questioning a potential COI. This report is a different issue: the user is being incredibly uncivil in their replies to others at the ITN discussion referred to before, as if they are personally offended by the lack of exception to ITN's norms.

When I suggested they drop the stick, I received this in response, with such gems as so utterly desperate; total nonsense; I'm not going anywhere, and I've never shut my mouth just because someone with opinions like yours tells me to.; you better believe me when I say you will not succeed if your aim is to shut me up; Start by rethinking what you just said, etc. - all, horrifyingly, more offensive in context.

I left a reply just now reminding them of CIVIL, but then I read other more recent comments Morgajon has made to others who were also recommending they drop the stick, and the user seems to be far more personal and uncivil to people who aren't straight-up arguing with them - so trying to moderate with reasonable discussion is impossible. In one comment, Morgajon referred to everyone trying to reason with them as people who can parrot phrases and even articulate basic concepts, but when you step back, clearly don't really understand what they are all about. Morgajon also brings up @Masem: a lot - to attack/insult Masem - in replies to other users, and I find this targeting to be particularly uncivil. It needs to be dealt with at a higher level.

Diffs: [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126].

Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most of these diffs are from several days ago, maybe during the last time they were brought to ANI on the weekend. I'd be interested in seeing if discussion here led to any changes. I'm disappointed that they still seem fixated on that Oasis concert, fans have to know when to let their enthusiasm for one subject die down and get back to the regular, boring job of daily editing tasks that keeps this project going day after day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it civil to tell someone to "grow up" when you're literally reporting them for incivility? I'll admit and apologise for being rude, but horrifyingly offensive and insulting? Not sure about that.

I'm annoyed due to the sheer amount of falsehoods on display. Twice now it has been claimed I am seeking an "exception" to the norm, I suspect both times by Kingsif. But as we have now seen as more sources have been brought to the discussion, anyone who suggested there was nothing to show this reunion/tour was something significant, as Kingsif seems to think, certainly worth more than the lazy dismissal it got, is clearly lying. Or is otherwise as I dascribed - capable of repeating phrases, but not understanding what they mean.

I keep mentioning Masem as he seems particularly adept at this, and it surprises me he is allowed to continually and repeatedly behave that way. It is highly rude and disrespectful to keep repeating points already addressed, as if you think the other person is genuinely thick.

I am a professional journalist. I studied this matter in detail, so it is highly offensive to me, having imho demonstrated I have an exceptional grasp of things like ITNSIGNIF, NPOV and how Wikipedia prefers sources over personal opinion, to then be treated as if all I am is some deluded fan who just wanted to nominate his favourite band.

I nominated it because it is easily one of the most significant events in British music history, certainly in the time period Wikipedia has existed. The sources prove it. Therefore it is quite obviously a current event of wide interest. Suitable for ITN nomination and ultimately acceptance, on the facts. Subjectivity is fine, denying observable reality as reflected by the sources, is not. That is beyond rude.

I genuinely believe Kingsif wants me to shut up not because the stick needs dropped, but because he's afraid this is eventually going to be realised. People are eventually going to sensibly engage with posts like Black Kite's, and if not, when the tour does smash records, as reliable sources reliable predict it will, a heck of a lot of people are going to have egg on their faces for having offered some pretty ill-informed snap judgements about something they had done little or indeed zero research into.

As it turns out, it wasn't even true that ITN never posts concerts. Kingsif dismissed a highly respected journalist at a source Wikipedia considers the gold standard for reflecting general UK opinion, as a peddler of promotional marketing fluff.

That's the kind of thing that's got me angry, stuff like that happening on a supposedly serious project. And nobody but the man who had already put many hours into this issue just to nominate it, catching it. Stuff like that needs to be called out. It is embarrassing. And as a factual statement, saying that should not be considered rude, much less offensive. But you can understand why the person it is directed at would feel differently. Morgajon (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The walls of bludgeoning text from you are just massive. You throw a lot of insulting language out there directed at people, personalizing the dispute at every opportunity, including here. Even if one thinks they're correct, there's no right to "win" a dispute on Wikipedia. You made your case and the other editors disagreed with you, brush yourself off and move on. Or, dare I say, don't look back in anger. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or should that be Slide Away, and forget everything you thought you knew about Wikipedia, because it was a total lie? Facts, sources, logic and reason are meaningless here. Unfortunately for those who would like to me to just shut up and go away, I can and often do Look Back In Anger. And much like the famously antagonistic (in thier heyday if not their reunion) band they call Oasis, I can and I will use my platform to Bring It On Down if needs be. If there is lots of money in it for me. Morgajon (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following these developments quietly until now. However, I consider this particular posting to be absolutely striking in the threat that it contains. This requires admin attention sooner rather than later. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you saying I have threatened, and what is the specific nature of that supposed threat? Or are you referring to some generic threat against Wikipedia, a website. Are you trying to get me banned for having a dim view of how Wikipedia apparently works in practice, or is it the fact I have the means to write about my experience in a reliable source that you find so threatening? Morgajon (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You threatened to “Look Back in Anger,” and to “Bring it On Down,” which apparently means you will summon your favorite band Oasis to take down Wikipedia. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Kingsif hadn't made the report here, I probably was about to be making one here anyways instead too. The editor has participated in extensive bludgeoning and has consistently violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA despite being requested or notified not to. I will note that the last discussion was closed early, so all diffs linked in the report here are recent and were made after the previous discussion was closed. They also seem to be a potential WP:SPA account, only having edited the ITN discussions and the Oasis Live tour article. Happily888 (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm talking about. Unless you're going to repeat the false allegation that I am a paid editor, or you can otherwise show I've edited to skew the article in some way, then SPA is quite clear - I have done nothing wrong. It isn't a crime to be interested in only one topic, especially when you've only been editing Wikipedia for a week. But here you are, trying to suggest the exact opposite. I'm not being paid to put up with this, so when it happens over and over, it's unreasonable to expect me not to get a little cross given the palpable feeling that I am being disrespected. You perhaps think you can get away with it because I am new here, and might not know any better. Well I do, I read the pages I am referred to, such as SPA. I wouldn't get paid for my actual job if I didn't have that basic skill. Sorry for the length, but it's pretty hard to convey even a simple thing like this, in just a few characters. I should not have to say these things at all, it's so basic (or so it seems to me), is the worrying part. Morgajon (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to see such a new editor get an WP:INDEF without something more egregious like vandalism or spam, but I think it's clear from the discussion here that Morgajon has little interest in dropping the stick. To forestall more significant sanctions, I propose a topic ban to get this editor out of what appears to be a subject too high stakes for them for the time being. This is a time sink for the community. Naturally, I support as proposer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot be serious. I'm literally the only editor here who seems interested in editing the the Wikipedia article for the Oasis tour in any substantial way. And yet just because I won't shut up in the face of blatant lies (I am not and never have requested an "exception" at ITN, either as a giddy fanboy or paid editor, and I have done absolutely nothing wrong in choosing to only edit that article and about its ITN nomination), you're going to tell me I can't edit not juat that Oasis article, but any artice related to them. You do realise how that looks, right? Morgajon (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support After reading Wikipedia talk:In the news § Please clarify your stance on show business events it's clear that Morgajon fails to keep a level head when discussing the band. A topic ban would prevent further disruptive behaviour. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have not seen such aggressive and improper behavior since dealing with Engage01 (talk · contribs) (No SPI intended). Borgenland (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not a big fan of topic bans when an editor is a SPA, because they are just effectively an indef at this point. I would however, suggest that (a) the discussion at WT:ITN is shut down, it's serving little purpose now and it's the main cause of the dispute (I would close it myself but I have commented there), and (b) Morgajon considers a little more restraint in how they address other editors. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per BK, and hopefully when that bloody thread is closed (for the love of God, someone, please) it will lower the temperature and remove the locus of the dispute. If Morgajon is indeed an SPA for this tour, then they'll either expand their areas of interest—in which case we gain a productive editor―or they have nothing to do, in which case they stop editing (on their own accord; obviously if they begin disrupting elsewhere then their ceasing to edit will not be on their own accord). And yeah, they should also make a helluva lot more effort to check the belligerence and the walls-of-text at the door (although I'm mildly sympathetic to the frustrations of a new editor who finds themself faced with the near-Byzantine ITN predisposition for what Natg 19 has described as "unspoken rules and precedents ... [where] ITNSIGNIF is just a hand waving guide with no clear meaning".) —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the main cause of the drama is the thread at ITN, closing it (which I have now done) should do the trick. I don't see any good reason for issuing a topic ban to someone who I think would otherwise be a constructive editor. Gommeh 🎮 13:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Regardless of their behavior at ITN, I see nothing that is disruptive in the area of editing Oasis related articles. Thus is the wrong approach to correct the ITN disruption. Masem (t) 13:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a block for XxFNaF fan32 who has repeatedly added an obviously altered image of the principal of Bacchus Marsh Grammar School, most recently here despite multiple warnings. The image has been AI-generated or otherwise altered to show her with an elongated forehead and violates our BLP and image policies. I nominated the offensive image for deletion on Commons and it was deleted but is back somehow on the page for the school. Please also consider page protection so this vandalism doesn't continue. BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like XxFNaF fan32 last edited on 7/7 and the file was deleted on 7/8. So, this shouldn't be an issue unless the file is reuploaded. As the editor has only made 4 edits, all involving this image and article, I'm not sure if they will return now that the image has been deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logged in just now to find a nice threat from Alpha-Thinker because I deleted One-Shot Elites per WP:A7 on 23 May. Now, if you send me a message, it does say "Did I delete an article you were working on? If appropriate, read my Plain and simple guide, and provided it's not a copyright violation or libellous, I can restore it to a draft - just ask!" but if you threaten to crack my account in retaliation, then I think that's worth a block. Anyone agree? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would consult the founder of One-Shot Elites User:The-PIague-Docter just to be safe. /s — DVRTed (Talk) 08:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is definitely a threat. Would support a block per WP:NLT. Gommeh 🎮 13:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there is slightly more leeway in editing a personal TP, but I find it quite odd that Australian TV Fan (talk · contribs) is turning theirs into an attack page after being told off on what NOT to do here by multiple editors [127] and in the process demonstrating that they are outright WP:NOTHERE to work constructively in this project. Borgenland (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've given them a warning. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers crossed but still appreciate this. Borgenland (talk) 10:19, 9 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]