WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jojhnjoy

• {{userlinks|Vofa}}
• {{pagelinks|Hazaras}}
• {{pagelinks|Hazaragi dialect}}
• {{pagelinks|Mongolic peoples}}

I would like to report a pattern of disruptive editing by user {{userlinks|Vofa}}, 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: {{pagelinks|Hazaras}}.

Vofa [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1296868667 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: {{pagelinks|Hazaragi dialect}}.

Content about the Mongolic influence on the dialect was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1297814707 removed]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1296871920 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=next&oldid=1296871920 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1297814707 3]. The removed sources include: Encyclopaedia Britannica,

Encyclopaedia Iranica, Work by Dr. Lutfi Temirkhanov, a Doctor of Sciences and leading Hazara scholar.

3. Article: {{pagelinks|Mongolic peoples}}.

Information on the Hazara as a Mongolic-influenced group was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongolic_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1296828533 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)

:(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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1297814707 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1296871920 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1296872350 next edit] uses a misleading edit summary ("{{tq|grammar}}") to remove the last pieces of Mongolic mentions in the article.

:I'm also surprised to see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1296868667 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)

::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)

:::Also just noticed that Vofa earlier removed reliably sourced info about the Mongolic origins of the Merkits too ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=prev&oldid=1257689812 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=prev&oldid=1264658266 2]) - this really seems like a consistent pattern in his edits.--KoizumiBS (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::@Liz just a quick follow-up. After my last comment, Vofa has again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=prev&oldid=1298779012 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)

::::::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)

::::::@Liz another example of disruptive editing - in this edit, Vofa [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=prev&oldid=1299023995 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)

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

::::@Liz If they aren't editing in a contentious topic, they are butting up against WP:CT/EE. I'm thinking specifically of edits like {{Diff|Crimean Tatars|prev|1299913209|this one|diffonly=yes}} to Crimean Tatars, where the quoted passage is preceded by, "From a geo-strategic perspective it was certainly beneficial for Turkey to have a Turkic Muslim presence in the Crimean Peninsula to counteract the danger of Russian nationalism in this vital area." —C.Fred (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Also note:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1267608403#User:Vofa_and_removal_of_sourced_information 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" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgars&diff=prev&oldid=1293136484] Bogazicili (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

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

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• @Liz, more examples of WP:DE from user Vofa: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1299537616 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=prev&oldid=1299537662 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1299537704 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)
• 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1299537616] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1299539207]. Before that, they had attempted to justify their edit warring by claiming that KoizumiBS had removed loads of sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1297170814], which was blatantly wrong [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1297190180]. They also claimed that encyclopedias (such as Encyclopaedia Iranica) should not be used due to WP:NOTESSAY (???) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1297643867] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1297657095]. They're currently WP:STONEWALLING at Talk:Hazaras. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support extended or indef topic ban. Let's be clear: Vofa is editing ethnic articles in what could be considered an attempt to scrub another (related) ethnicity out of them. When presented in this very ANI with specific diffs and the problems with them, Vofa has offered only these words:

:* A refusal to discuss ({{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents|1298611183|1298609393|label=here}})

:* A stray sarcastic "{{tq|thanks!}}" ({{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents|1298809910|1298809760|label=here}})

:* Vaguely accusing KoizumiBS of lying without evidence ({{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents|1298864831|1298863862|label=here}})

:* When shown {{diff|Merkit|1299023995|1298927124|label=this diff}} where Vofa removed a source, their explanation for its removal is "{{tq|never removed sources. refrain from stating false information}}" ({{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents|1299048013|1299047547|label=here}})

: Vofa {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents|1298611183|1298609393|label=literally refuses}} to defend. Pick any of the examples linked by any of the editors here and you will find multiple editors politely attempting to work with Vofa only for Vofa to WP:STONEWALL (like this talk page discussion), or shove fingers in their ears (like in this ANI) while appearing to scrub any mention of a particular ethnic group (like they did again {{diff|Hazaras|1299539207|1299537710|label=earlier today}}). They've been doing this for a long time -- long enough for multiple ANIs. They will continue until stopped by a topic ban or block. —tony 15:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baghatur&diff=prev&oldid=1299857220 Removal] of mention of the Baghatur title as used among the Mongols.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barlas&diff=prev&oldid=1299867452 Deletion] of a note about the Barlas tribe's original language, which was Mongolic.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=prev&oldid=1299847345 Erasure] of the Merkits from a list of Mongolic tribes, despite reliable sources confirming this classification.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1299773248 Removal] of referenced content on the Mongolic lexical component in the Hazaragi dialect article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::@Vofa I looked at your edits, and {{Diff|Merkit|1299847460|1299790992|the net result|diffonly=yes}} was changing ethnicities without introducing any sources to back up the claims. At the least, I would expect some discussion then to explain what you consider to be misinterpretations of the cited sources. Otherwise, we're running out of explanations for your edits that don't point back to bad-faith edits. —C.Fred (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Evope}}

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)

{{ping|Peaceray}}, {{ping|Masem}} or {{ping|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)

: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)

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

{{ping|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)

:I have just placed a warning on their talk page about this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Evope&diff=prev&oldid=1299140964], 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)

::{{ping|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Phoenician_Scheme&diff=prev&oldid=1299214137] he updated 18.6 million to 19 million, 36.1 to 36 million, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M3GAN_2.0&diff=prev&oldid=1299209968] 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)

:::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)

::::{{ping|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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

{{ping|WereSpielChequers}}, {{ping|Ealdgyth}} or {{ping|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)

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

::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)

: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)

: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)

::{{ping|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)

:::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)

::::{{ping|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)

:::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

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

If I might chime in, I have been asking user Evope to at least be consistent in his edits and follow the same rounding in the Infobox lead section and article body. He has a bad habit of updating only the Infobox[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinners_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1299562286 (diff)] sometimes remembering to udpate the article body[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinners_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1299562388 (diff)] but frequently forgets to update the lead section to match. He updated the gross from $365 million to $365.7 million in the Infobox, which is mathematically correct based on the latest gross of $365,737,913 but Evope failed to update the lead section, so it leaves the article looking like the figure has been truncated in the lead section and that this encyclopedia is unable to get basic math right. (Evope seems unwilling to follow the rounding level of other editors, which would have meant rounding up and writing $366 million.) I went ahead and update the gross in the lead section to use the same figure as the Infobox[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinners_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1299792812 (diff)]. Evope is prolific but he's not the only person frequently updating the Infobox while failing to properly update other parts of the article. I had hoped by asking nicely and persistently he might be more careful but this doesn't seem to have worked.

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

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

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 "[https://antigua.news/about-us/ official news channel of the Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda in Madrid]". Editorial guidelines [https://antigua.news/editorial-guidelines/ here]

Evidence:

• In 2020, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Edificio_Ambasciata_A%26B.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=410815029 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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/upload&user=Mediascriptor Antigua news and content about the publication's owner and business colleague].
• In 2025, Mediascriptor made pages for Antigua.news on English, [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigua.news German], [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigua.news_(journal) French] and Italian wikiprojects. Their edits to fr, de, it wikiprojects were largely confined to Antigua.news. On Italian Wiki, Mediascriptor [https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Mediascriptor recieved a block for suspected COI] editing. The Antigua.news page on that wikiproject was deleted, and the [https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine%20da%20cancellare/Antigua.news 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 [https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antigua_und_Barbuda&diff=prev&oldid=254105040v adding references to Antigua.news] on other pages. On fr.wikipedia, the [https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antigua-et-Barbuda&diff=prev&oldid=223782199 contributions are similar]. The fr.wiki page to Antigua news has [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigua.news_(journal) 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 {{diff|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Brown (internet personality)|prev|1299059395}}). On en.wikipedia, there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=250&offset=0&target=%2A.antigua.news 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{{diff|User talk:Mediascriptor|prev|1296156018}} as another editor who appeared to edit exclusively on topics related to Antigua.news's owner and business colleague (the two persons are [https://expatliving.sg/antigua-and-barbuda-citizenship-by-investment-and-coat-of-arms/ 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 {{diff|Criminal law in Antigua and Barbuda|prev|1298721298}}{{diff|Antigua and Barbuda Tourism Authority|prev|1298640967}}{{diff|Antigua and Barbuda Tourism Authority|prev|1298639753}}{{diff|Antigua and Barbuda Tourism Authority|prev|1298639499}} 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 {{diff|Leroy King (Antigua and Barbuda)||1273518765}}{{diff|Gilbert Lopez||1273650974}}. 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=500&target=%2A.antiguaobserver.com Antigua Observer], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=%2A.antiguanewsroom.com 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)
• :The state of Antigua.news, which they started, prior to other editors involvement could be charitably described as "less than neutral" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antigua.news&oldid=1265947731]. Additionally:
• :*29 Dec – Mediascriptor uploads "Antigua.news.jpg" and "Antigua.news small icon.jpg" to commons [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=364229922][https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=364249403] and adds them to the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antigua.news&diff=prev&oldid=1265939040][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antigua.news&diff=prev&oldid=1266008218].
• :*7 Jan – both are deleted from commons [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=364605356][https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=364605369] 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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=364701035][https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=364701092].
• :*18 Jan – Mediascriptor adds these images to the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antigua.news&diff=prev&oldid=1270174963].
• :fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dario_Item now-deleted Dario Item] to lists of notable alumni of various universities: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Parma&diff=prev&oldid=1200460802] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Genoa&diff=prev&oldid=1200917622] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Geneva&diff=prev&oldid=1200930015].
• ::* 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Giacomo_Merello 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, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earl_of_Rothes_(Baronage_of_Scotland) 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 ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Redonda&diff=prev&oldid=1271024678], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Redonda&diff=prev&oldid=1271025514], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dean_Jonas&diff=prev&oldid=1271059211], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antigua_Barbuda_Global_Music_%26_Media_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1271060410], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antigua&diff=prev&oldid=1271096256], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hilson_Baptiste&diff=prev&oldid=1271144770], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caleb_Gardiner&diff=prev&oldid=1271160279]), 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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediascriptor&oldid=1298829927] (they blanked the warning from their user page), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leroy_King_(Antigua_and_Barbuda)&diff=prev&oldid=1298924730]). I'd say this user is WP:NOTHERE. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 19:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• :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)
• ::Hi @Children Will Listen, I see you've G5 tagged some of their articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antigua_and_Barbuda_Tourism_Authority&diff=prev&oldid=1299128667][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antigua_and_Barbuda_Hotels_and_Tourism_Association&diff=prev&oldid=1299123820], but they aren't currently G5 eligible. The first sentence of WP:G5 is {{tq|"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 {{tl|ai-generated}}, and leaving a note on the talk page. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• :::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)
• ::::I have moved most of their articles to draftspace. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::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)

::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMediascriptor&diff=prev&oldid=1266618706] 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 {{tq|Antigua.news, Dario Item or other subjects}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediascriptor&oldid=1267514461]. This was around the time their article submission for Antigua.news was denied.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediascriptor&oldid=1266782440] Mediascriptor said there was no connection [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediascriptor&oldid=1267517866], Gitz kindly responded to share the connected contributor template [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediascriptor&oldid=1267539169]. Mediascriptor again denied a link [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediascriptor&oldid=1267541880]. Gitz followed up to explain further about the policy [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediascriptor&oldid=1267542842]. The following day @Mediascriptor blanked their talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediascriptor&oldid=1274345134]

::*In February, @PARAKANYAA nominated one of Mediascriptor's articles about the Stanford case for deletion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediascriptor&oldid=1274384537] The result was pretty clear about psudo-biographies/ no notability.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Kuhrt] 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediascriptor&oldid=1298829927]. 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)

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

{{ctop|title=LLM-generated reply collapsed per WP:AITALK The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)|indent=3.2em}}*:

• :
• :My Reply
• :
• :Before discussing the specific accusations made against me by Nayyn, I want to clarify that every quotation or citation from Antigua.news in my edits is clearly relevant to the context in which it appears and is usually balanced by other reliable sources. This is an indisputable fact. Additionally, I want to emphasize that there is no evidence of paid or undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• :
• :1. Open topic focus, not concealed interest
• :
• :I am a declared member of WikiProject Antigua & Barbuda. The project’s explicit aim is to "expand coverage of all Antiguan and Barbudan topics". Providing well‑sourced material on local institutions—including media outlets—is literally the task I signed up for. Topic focus, openly declared, is "not" a conflict of interest.
• :
• :
• :2. Balanced sourcing—what Nayyn leaves out
• :
• :I also created pages that contain no antigua.news references at all. Nayyn omits every one of those pages, then claims I “edit only where the site can be added.” That selective framing speaks more about its objectivity than about my edits.
• :Take a quick tour of my recent pages and the “Mediascriptor = Antigua.news shill” storyline unravels:
• :* Gilbert Lopez (now proposed for deletion by Nayyn !), Antigua and Barbuda Digital Assets Business Act (now speedy deleted), Mark Kuhrt (now merged to Standord Financial Group) —zero links to "Antigua.news"; sourcing is DOJ filings, Government Gazette, FATF papers, Reuters, and SEC exhibits.
• :* Criminal Law in Antigua & Barbuda (now speedy deleted)—one citation from Antigua.news, one from Antigua Observer, plus Privy‑Council case law and Commonwealth sentencing data.
• :* Antigua and Barbuda Financial Services Regulatory Commission (now speedy deleted)—again, a single line from each local outlet, padded with IMF and Commonwealth‑Secretariat documents.
• :
• :
• :3. Why only two local outlets meet WP:RS
• :
• :* Antiguaobserver.com and Antigua.news are the only Antiguan publishers indexed by Google News—an essential reliability signal.
• :* “AntiguaNewsRoom.com” lacks a physical newsroom in the country, hides ownership, with anonymous by‑lines, no masthead and re‑syndicates aggregated press releases—failing WP:RS and WP:RSLOCAL on several counts.
• :* AntiguaObserver’s website output has shrunk as resources shift to its radio arm; multiple reporters have moved to ABS Television (see https://antigua.news/2025/07/02/abs-grabs-two-journalists-from-observer-media-group/). When Observer has no online article, "Antigua.news" is often the only verifiable local source—precisely the scenario WP:RSLOCAL anticipates.
• :
• :4. No undisclosed COI—record is airtight
• :
• :* I am not paid, hired, retained, or otherwise induced by Antigua.news, its owners, or any related entity.  Level‑one policies require evidence—diffs, reliable sources, or CheckUser data—before an editor alleges undisclosed paid advocacy (see WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PAID)
• :* No critic has produced a single diff showing promotional language that survived community review.
• :
• :5. Detailed answers to every claim in the Nayyn’s complaint:
• :
• :* Embassy photo upload = affiliation? I took a snapshot of the Antiguan embassy building from a public street while travelling and donated it to Commons. Taking a photo of a façade is not an employment contract and has zero COI implications.
• :* The photos uploaded to Common had been taken from the websites of the respective subjects and were copyright free. The relevance of this argument is therefore unclear.
• :* Cross‑wiki creation = promotion? Each draft went through local review: accepted on EN and DE, tagged for style on FR, deleted on IT for lack of Italian‑language sources—community scrutiny working as intended. On IT WIKI, I also rewrote part of the page on Prime Minister Gaston Browne without any criticism being made.
• :* Italian seven‑day block proves guilt? Italian Wikipedia: article deletion was for notability, not COI, and the block was brief. The Antigua.news page was deleted after a routine AfD in which participants found an insufficient number of independent sources in Italian; the closer’s rationale was “non enciclopedicità”, not COI. My concomitant seven‑day block (later narrowed to one AfD) has long since expired.
• :* “160 of 180 links” statistic? A quick scan of the list shows that first part of antigua.news citations were added by other editors; as I already said, the outlet is one of only two Antiguan newsrooms indexed by Google News and is therefore routinely used by multiple contributors when covering local events. Furthermore, a large share of the hits comes from the Antigua.news Wikipage itself, where self‑referential citations are standard practice to document the subject’s activity. In articles created or expanded by me, every antigua.news citation is context‑relevant and is balanced by references to Antigua Observer or other regional and international sources, demonstrating no intent to overweight a single domain.
• :* “Stuffing” the Antigua and Barbuda Hotels & Tourism Association (now speedy deleted) page? Page has 15 references, eight are Antigua.news, each supporting exclusive quotes. The rest are other media.
• :* Murders of Yenifer Bridge and Chantel Crump (now speedy deleted) are WP:TOOSOON? Both deaths triggered national policy changes and PM statements; coverage appears in Observer, ABS TV and Barbados Today—meeting EVENTCRIME notability.
• :* Multiple socks? SPI found only Mediascriptor ⇄ Royalorders; all other named accounts were “misses.”
• :* “No third‑party uptake” so Antigua.news is unreliable? AntiguaObserver, ABS TV, Caribbean Journal, El Pais, Reuters, Financial Times, die Weltwoche, Insideparadeplatz, Finews etc. cite Antigua.news exclusives—precisely the independent uptake WP:USEBYOTHERS looks for.
• :
• :I would like to express my sincerest apologies in advance if I inadvertently overlook any pertinent details in my forthcoming commentary.
• :
• :It is with a heavy heart and deep sense of disappointment that I reflect upon the unanticipated and rapid deletion of my recent articles on the platform. Each fact presented within those articles has been diligently supported by sources that I have painstakingly researched and meticulously verified. Moreover, these sources have undergone several improvements and updates over the course of the last few days, all of which were aimed at enhancing the quality and accuracy of the content.
• :
• :Furthermore, I was genuinely gratified to receive a public thanks for my efforts in creating the Antigua and Barbuda Tourism Authority page. This raises the rather perplexing question of how anyone could contend that the content of the page is promotional in nature, especially when it pertains to a public institution that plays a significant role in the region’s tourism industry.
• :
• :What I find to be most astonishing, however, is the remarkably swift deletion of the pages titled "Death of Chantel Crumps," "Death of Achazia James," and "Death of Yenifer Bridge." These pages were crafted entirely by me and were not the product of any large language model or other automated system. Every single fact presented within those entries is substantiated by reputable, independent sources; I have neither imported any copyrighted text nor fabricated a single piece of information. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that these pages had already been evaluated by other editors and even by an administrator, receiving the necessary assessment that lent credibility to their existence. Thus, the decision to proceed with the speedy deletion of these pages, rather than engaging in constructive dialogue on the corresponding talk pages, completely baffles me and seems utterly nonsensical. The same applies to Nayyn's request yesterday to delete the pages of Gilbert Lopez and Leroy King (Antigua and Barbuda). No words.
• :
• :Over the past two years, I have devoted considerable effort to expanding a multitude of pages concerning Antiguan politicians, notable individuals, and institutions. I have been fortunate enough to receive public thanks for my contributions. Throughout this entire process, I have always acted in good faith, driven by a genuine desire to enrich the content of the encyclopedia. Therefore, I am unable to mask my dismay at having the principle of WP:NOTHERE invoked against me.
• :
• :I believe I will bring my thoughts to a close here, as I have reached a pivotal decision to cease my contributions to EN Wikipedia moving forward. Given this realization, I feel there is little merit in continuing this dialogue. Regrettably, I have come to perceive Wikipedia as an increasingly hostile environment for my endeavors, characterized by persistent personal attacks. To maintain the motivation to write, one requires both peace of mind and a minimum level of gratification, neither of which I currently find in this space. Thus, this message will serve as my final post. I extend my heartfelt thanks to all those who have engaged with me during my time here. Mediascriptor (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

{{cbot}}

• ::Just responding to one aspect here: the it.wiki block [https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale:Registri&type=block&page=Utente:Mediascriptor was indeed for COI], and [https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Richieste_di_revisione_del_blocco/Mediascriptor/06_gennaio_2025 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, {{tq|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)

::::{{hp|Rosguill}}I collapsed the above comment by Mediascriptor as being LLM-generated per WP:AITALK, they reverted this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1299509344], 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1299575763 re-reverted]. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::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)

:::::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)

::::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)

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

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).”

([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Irene_Craigmile_Bolam#Latest_changes/corrections 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.”

([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Irene_Craigmile_Bolam#Latest_changes/corrections 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:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=XXXXXXX Diff of my trimmed version (June 21, 2025)]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=XXXXXXX 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)

: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)

: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)

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

:::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)

::::...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)

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

::::::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)

:::::::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)

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

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

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1299133279 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)

:::::::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)

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

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

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

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

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

::::::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)

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

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

:::::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)

::::::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)

{{userlinks|AI Librarian}} 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, {{userlinks|197.211.63.137}} is probably an accidental LOUTSOCK. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like in their 5 months on the project, they have used a talk page or noticeboard once ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldRomean&diff=prev&oldid=1282585127 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)

::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)

: 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 {{u|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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::Also, {{ping|AI Librarian}}/{{ping|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)

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

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

• {{userlinks|UNI ASIA TENGGARA}}
• {{articlelinks|Southeast Asia}}

{{u|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 {{tq|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)

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

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

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

:Update: This user has added that same image onto the :id:Asia Tenggara on the Indonesian Wikipedia [https://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asia_Tenggara&diff=prev&oldid=27506892] [https://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asia_Tenggara&diff=prev&oldid=27507060] [https://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asia_Tenggara&diff=prev&oldid=27508095]. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 15:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

• {{userlinks|Like56d}} 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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_Portuguese&oldid=1299225604] and [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_language&oldid=1299229106] 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)
• :Also for not following WP:MOS guideline, see this edit. Absolutiva 22:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{ping|Likebr 20}} I would recommend proceeding to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Absolutiva 11:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::FYI: Like56d did incoherent and duplicate messages at Talk:Brazilian Portuguese. Absolutiva 03:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

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:

• {{Userlinks|The Final Bringer of Truth}}
• {{Userlinks|2600:4041:5CE9:B300:0:0:0:0/64}}

{{u|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)

: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)

:The account is {{confirmed}} to {{checkuser|Fearless Speech}}. 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)

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

:::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)

::::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-to|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)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

::::::::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)

{{Userlinks|Kelpongames}}

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

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rui_Hachimura&diff=1297280518&oldid=1290558730 25 June]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rui_Hachimura&diff=1298138072&oldid=1297319542 30 June]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rui_Hachimura&diff=prev&oldid=1298548698 3 July]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rui_Hachimura&diff=prev&oldid=1299374247 8 July]

They were warned about making short descriptions too bulky on June 27,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelpongames&diff=prev&oldid=1297594337] when they were also informed to seek dispute resolution.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelpongames&diff=prev&oldid=1297611399] During the last ANI, {{u|Liz}} warned them: {{tqq|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}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelpongames&diff=prev&oldid=1297889284]—Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Continued disruption [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zion_Williamson&diff=1299875875&oldid=1298608677 here] to {{pagelinks|Zion Williamson}} with WP:OR edits not supported by existing citations in a WP:GA article.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Blocked|1=By the consensus of the Wikipeida community, {{noping|Kelpongames}} is indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. As this is a community-imposed block, appealing it must take place via WP:AN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)}}

• 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 {{yo|DaHuzyBru|GOAT Bones231012}}) Left guide (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support per previous ANI attempt. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• 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: {{tq2|Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative ... and to be responsive to good-faith questions.}}—Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support. It is clear that this editor will not stop on his own. Rikster2 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• :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)
• :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: {{tq2|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)
• 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)
• Support a partial block until they talk to us constructively. Gommeh 🎮 13:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Assadzadeh (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|Hhqrhh}}

• {{template link with subst|uw-unsourced3}} warning {{diff|User talk:Hhqrhh|prev|1298425229|given {{date|2025-07-02}}}} by Iiii I I I.

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

• {{date|2025-06-23}}: at :Heidelberg Materials {{they|Hhqrhh}} {{diff|Heidelberg Materials|prev|1296929179|added original research and deceptive links}}. After back-and-forth reversions including {{diff|Heidelberg Materials|prev|1297008279|instruction to dicsuss on a talk page}}, I opened a centralized discussion myself at {{section link|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights|Inclusion of forced labor claims in articles on products and companies}}. {{ucfirst:{{their|Hhqrhh}}}} only contribution to the discussion did not acknowledge understanding the issues with their synthesis of the sources.
• {{date|2025-07-01}}: created the article :CCP Owns Farmland in the United States, which is primarily synthesis of deprecated sources and currently at AfD.
• {{date|2025-07-05}}: added {{diff|NewYork-Presbyterian_Hospital|prev|1299264418|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|Hhqrhh}} edit history regarding Chinese topics I think it's intriguing how Hhqrhh describes one of the people as {{tq|35-year-old Chinese male|q=yes}} and includes their name in Chinese characters.
• {{date|2025-07-08}}: added {{diff|Henan|1299418648|1293852874|a massive "controversies" section}} to a Chinese province article mostly of localized petty crime and non-issues ({{tq|A reporter from The Times were surrounded by an angry crowd|q=yes}}) but insinuates in the headings and prose that this is all {{tq|state-backed|q=yes}}. This was {{diff|Henan|prev|1299441163|reverted}} by Pieceofmetalwork, who also {{diff|User talk:Hhqrhh|prev|1299462451|left a talk page warning about original research}}, but to no avail as Hhqrhh {{diff|Henan|prev|1299447531|re-reverted, again with no edit summary}}.

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

: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 ([https://abc7chicago.com/post/astoria-queens-doctor-rape-case-dr-zhi-alan-cheng-pleads-guilty-drugging-sexually-assaulting-patients-new-york/16901751/], [https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/202507010064.aspx], [https://abc7ny.com/post/newyork-presbyterian-brooklyn-methodist-hospital-employee-accused-of-punching-heart-surgery-patient-in-park-slope/14795091/], [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/06/nyregion/columbia-university-hadden-settlement-sex-abuse.html], [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/nyregion/13arraign.html]).

: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)

::I've definitely tried to work with {{them|Hhqrhh}} (see my discussion at {{section link|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|Hhqrhh}} understanding the guidelines.{{pb}}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)

:::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)

::::They haven't been editing today and I'd like to hear from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::[Henan]"state-backed"

::* 'Nationalistic outbursts against Western media in China are not uncommon. ....However, in recent years this foreign media bashing has received direct encouragement from the Chinese Communist Party.' [https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/chinas-harassment-of-foreign-journalists/#:~:text=direct%20encouragement%20from%20the%20Chinese%20Communist%20Party]

::* ‘Western journalists reporting on a natural disaster met with public hostility in person and online that the Chinese state media openly encouraged.’ [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/business/china-floods-foreign-media.html]

::* 'a sentiment underpinned by rising Chinese nationalism sometimes directly encouraged by Chinese officials and official entities.'[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/27/press-groups-raise-alarm-threats-foreign-media-china/#:~:text=directly encouraged by Chinese officials and official entities]

::HHQRHH (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:Noting that the user is blocked on zh Wikipedia due to sockpuppetery: :zh:维基百科:傀儡調查/案件/Hskphs/存檔, but I haven't seen any blatant abuse on EN side. Looking at their POV stance in their edits I feel like the OR & sourcing failures are mainly due to their efforts to WP:POVPUSH. Jumpytoo Talk 04:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::From the unblock request, the sockpuppetry event seems to just be from the user disliking {{their|Hhqrhh}} original username and making a new account instead of a rename request. My machine translation isn't working too well for the request response but it seems to have just been denied for unresponsiveness. Also of note is the creation of English-language articles on zhwiki which parallels the creation of Chinese-language articles on enwiki. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Looking at the unblock & SPI it seems there was also off-wiki evidence that raised flags; which may be why the user did not reply. From what I can see in the off-wiki evidence my belief is that having this user comply with WP:NPOV/WP:SYNTH in Chine related topics will be difficult. The user has stopped editing for now; but if the user starts exhibiting the same behavior on this or any of their other accounts a WP:NOTHERE could be appropriate. Jumpytoo Talk 05:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

::::And yeah, they edited again today and their most recent mainspace [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CCP_Owns_Farmland_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1299982423 edit] is chock full of BLP crime allegations that are fully unsourced or only sourced to the WP:BLPPRIMARY indictment. Combined with their response here I don't think they are willing to comply with the policies. Jumpytoo Talk 17:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::Given their response above doesn't address the concerns about their editing at all, and that edit linked by Jumpytoo that does, indeed, include multiple BLP violations with unsourced allegations, I've indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

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" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Llu%C3%ADs_Graner&diff=1058127732&oldid=1025556929 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)

: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)

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

::{{Ping|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)

: Footballers who identify as Catalan usually take this format; {{tq|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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

: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)

:: 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)

:::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)

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)

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

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

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)

: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)

::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)

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

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)

• 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 {{tq|All these people should be referred to as Spaniards}}. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• :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
• ::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)
• :::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)
• ::::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)
• ::::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)
• ::::This also reminds me, a mass category change to ‘only UN states’ happened a while back and included in the mix were Catalan ones, so we got “Spanish exiled politicians from Catalonia” instead of “Catalan exiled politicians” and that needs changing if it hasn’t already. Kingsif (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I also noted this recent change in category labeling. For example the category above "Painters from Catalonia" was recently changed (28 May) from "Catalan Painters" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3APainters_from_Catalonia&diff=1025556746&oldid=1025551931 diff]. While I am suspicious of the motivation for the change (And the two categories seem distinctly different to me; I don't agree with the change; it is a suppression of "Catalan" as an identity), there was a substantive discussion about such changes: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 18#Category:People by autonomous community in Spain. Bdushaw (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• :That link is incredibly useful and that RfC itself points to two 2018 RfCs that together provide cast iron consensus for the position that X is a Catalan Y from Spain is an appropriate descriptor. Is there something that can be done to support maintaining that position against the constant pressure of nationalistically inspired reverters? Designating anyone Catalan as CTOP strikes me as something of a lead pipe, but anyone with an interest in Catalan figures having to constantly 'fight the good fight' is also a wearying task, I would imagine. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::And yes, I realise those links are in the original report. TL;DR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

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

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

:FYI, the article Pau Casals recently had the label change in the lead sentence to "Catalan" from Spanish [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Casals&diff=1299094547&oldid=1298718438 diff]. I have pasted the above boilerplate summary of the several RfC/Discussions to add to the editor's Talk entry; the first for the article. Per the above description, the article has undergone a multitude of Catalan/Spanish reversions. Those following this Incident Report can note the response to these changes. Bdushaw (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

{{atop

| result = Topic ban from ITN and CU blocks implemented. No further action needed. Star Mississippi 18:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

}}

There was a recent discussion here about {{userlinks|Morgajon}} 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIn_the_news&diff=1299112712&oldid=1299111983 this] in response, with such gems as {{tq|so utterly desperate}}; {{tq|total nonsense}}; {{tq|I'm not going anywhere, and I've never shut my mouth just because someone with opinions like yours tells me to.}}; {{tq|you better believe me when I say you will not succeed if your aim is to shut me up}}; {{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIn_the_news&diff=1299326732&oldid=1299321675 one comment], Morgajon referred to everyone trying to reason with them as {{tq|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 {{ping|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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIn_the_news&diff=1299112712&oldid=1299111983], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIn_the_news&diff=1299319323&oldid=1299168705], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIn_the_news&diff=1299321476&oldid=1299319323], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIn_the_news&diff=1299326732&oldid=1299321675], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIn_the_news&diff=1299343149&oldid=1299327118], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIn_the_news&diff=1299409782&oldid=1299408867].

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

::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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

: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)

::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)

:::Nobody is saying that being a SPA is wrong, it is just a warning sign.

:::The part that is wrong is your inability to control your emotions and your language. Along with trying to WP:Bludgeon the talk page with wp:walls of text.

:::You should consider taking a break for a few days to let this pass, then re-engage when things have settled down. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Regardless of the rest of this discussion, consensus is not going to emerge for a t-ban from Oasis. Star Mississippi 19:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

}}

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)

: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)

:Support After reading {{seclink|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)

::Unfortunately I have to agree here; Morgajon's contributions are a net positive, but perhaps if they can't control their temper then it may be helpful to take a voluntary break from Wikipedia. I myself have done that in the past when I was too angry at another editor to think straight, and it's worked wonders. That way, you have a clear head when you decide to return to editing later and your emotions won't get in the way of becoming a productive editor. I remain opposed to a topic ban however, and my existing vote still stands. Gommeh 🎮 19:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:::It would be more accurate to say that my anger has been due to the wide disconnect between what my calm, focused, analytical brain has told me should be happening, becuase I have read (and surely understood) the (various) manual(s) here, and what's actually happened. Morgajon (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support: I have not seen such aggressive and improper behavior since dealing with {{User|Engage01}} (No SPI intended). Borgenland (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

: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)

: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 {{u|Natg 19}} has described as "unspoken rules and precedents{{nbsp}}... [where] ITNSIGNIF is just a hand waving guide with no clear meaning".) —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

: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)

: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)

:Oppose as excessive. Their mainspace contributions to Oasis Live '25 Tour seem like a net positive. If their ITN-related discussions around the topic are really that disruptive, then page-blocks from WT:ITN and/or WP:ITNC (or an ITN topic ban) may be more appropriate. Left guide (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support: Irrational, abusive activity such as this isn't likely to get better. ☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 17:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose a topic-ban from all of Oasis at this time, but would support a narrower topic-ban from Oasis on ITN which is where the problem has been, unless Morgajon agrees to step away from there voluntarily. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:{{strike|Weak}} Instead Support: {{strike|but believe that}} a ban from ITN (and a warning on personal attacks) might be sufficient and preferable, most of the disruption appears to be there.MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support ITN ban but oppose topic ban. If they want to improve the tour article (and they have, using reliable sources), that's great- banning them from Oasis seems wholly unnecessary when the problem is their discourse, not their article editing. With that said, I do think the user is of the opinion that people are out to get them, which (I would hope) others are not, and a stern warning that a continued lack of civility will lead to an indef ban is certainly warranted. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::So far I've been falsely accused of being a paid editor (COI/PROMO), falsely accused of seeking an "exception" at ITN, falsely accused of having an improper focus on one subject (SPA), falsely accused of being a fanboy (POV), and now been threatened with a total ban from Oasis "broadly construed" for having been overly emotional in precisely one, internal, debate, for less than a week. Persecution could be one way to describe it. So maybe I am not getting enough credit for actually knowing when keep my mouth shut when I'm really annoyed? Not that I do think this is persecution. It's more like a basic lack of respect. Morgajon (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose any action now that the WT:ITN thread is closed, but a formal warning against what to me seems to be obvious bludgeoning/WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA nonsense does appear to be in order. I'd support sanctions if the thread is re-opened or disruption otherwise continues at ITN; maintaining my oppose on a topic ban from Oasis per others. Departure– (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:::{{strike|Yes, you are refusing to show an appropriate level of respect for other editors while continuing the same behavior here after being reported.}}

:::{{strike|From what you've said, it sounds like you will continue to be unable or unwilling to control your language, so a ban from the ITN page seems the best way forward for everyone. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)}} -my mistake, thought that was a reply to me MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose, a forgivable reaction for a new editor who is the latest to discover the stunning incompetence we see at ITN on a daily basis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::I'd go one further. Some of it is definitely deliberate. Assorted people involved in that debate really cannot deny knowing they have said blatantly incorrect things. Asburd claims about policy or blatantly incorrect statements of fact. But rather than admit it, they just ignore it and move on. Or worse, file a complaint about my behaviour. It gives the impression that being INCIVIL is worse than being a deliberate liar (which is also INCIVIL, no?). And there has been zero sign anyone wants to do anything about it. Morgajon (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, sounds like ITN to me. Now, you're really going to need to chill if they're actually going to be held accountable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Thebiguglyalien}} The extent of the reaction is far from acceptable, even being frustrated at discovering a system prioritises discussion so they can’t do anything about people disagreeing with them. Especially directed at users who are not devaluing their opinion or saying the system is infallible. I am surprised at this apparent legitimising of abuse-as-bludgeoning (especially when so chronic it is surely an MO, not a reaction) - and I fear your replies (regardless of any intention) may even be encouraging of the attitude that has led to this. Kingsif (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:::The claims Morgajon is making are correct, and while being right is not enough, I will always side with the newbie who is still on their first chance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, my concern was that you are teaching them to ABF {{small|(their response to you being a ‘yay someone agrees people are maliciously dishonest I can keep saying it’)}} rather than try to work with others, regardless of your good intentions. Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose even though getting bent out of shape over Oasis is silly, but Support pblocking everyone from ITN and every new editor the minute they open an account too. NebY (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::Are you implying ITN should only be for "experienced" editors? Perhaps that is good but not sure if we need to be that drastic. Natg 19 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:::No! pBlock the experienced editors first. Then everyone else. Then anyone new. Oh, and all IPs too. NebY (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose. Lots of "assume bad faith" from the other camp, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morgajon&diff=prev&oldid=1299131683 namecalling Morgajon as "a paid shill"] for discovering ITN candidate on their first day when it is literally linked, in bold text, from the Main Page that reads "Nominate an article". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Morgajon here. In case anyone hasn't been paying full attention to the backstory (and I'll take the fair share of the blame for that due to the word count), one of the main themes has been whether ITN should consider subjective or objective meassure when assessing importance.

Long story short, that means I am extremely interested to know what would happen if this reliable sourced prediction: "[The Oasis Live '25 Tour is] expected to be the most popular, and profitable, run of gigs in British history", comes true, and the tour is presented to ITN for consideration in a second nomination.

But I am getting the distinct sense that if I am not allowed to nominate it at ITN when that happens, it will conveniently not happen at all. If that's the intention of this proposal, I'd like that to be made clear. Morgajon (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:If you are topic-banned from Oasis in ITN then you would not be permitted to nominate anything related to Oasis at ITN, whether or not that prediction comes to fruition. Since you seem to believe this subject is objectively really important, then surely you also must believe that you are not the only person who would consider making such a nomination, so there should be nothing to worry about. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::I seriously doubt it, based on the very simple fact that if it wasn't for me, the only thing Wikipedia would have documented about this tour once it had started, was the set list. Step 1 at ITN of course being to have updated the article with prose. I guess I could be nice and update the article, and then let someone else nominate it. But maybe I'm not a nice guy. So I might leave it all alone, not documenting this feat, just to spite the Wikipedia editors who in my view barely even considered the merits of the nomination when it was merely a matter of subjectivity (if we also ignore the objectivity of "the biggest concert launch ever seen in the UK and Ireland".) Especially those who accused me of being a paid editor or giddy fan boy, rather than someone who had read and surely understood ITNSITNSIGNIF. Morgajon (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:::The encyclopedia will continue to function if you do or do not edit about Oasis. If the subject is objectively that notable, and subjectively that important, somebody else will eventually address it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::::"Eventually' isn't much use when the part of Wikipedia we are discussing is the part that deals with "current events". As in, if the article hasn't been updated within days, probably hours if there's then going to days of debate regarding the significance of the update, that's not quick enough. And so by definition, Wikipedia isn't meeting the goal of informing readers of current events of wide interest (ITN). That it will survive anyway, amd someone will "eventually" edit the article to reflect an event of the merely recent, perhaps even distant, event, was really rather obvious. Or so I would have thought. Morgajon (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::See WP:NOTNEWS, specifically, {{tq|q=y|[W]hile including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.}} may be of interest. Trying to have an always up-to-date source of information is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I recall a similar point being made when folks were trying to push unreliable sources for weather-related articles, claiming readers needed it to be up-to-date. The consensus was that "timeliness" was not one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::See WP:ITN. For that part of Wikipedia, the purpose is *precisely* to have accurate up to date information on recent developments. It's literally made very clear that this is all about showcasing the benefits of Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. Morgajon (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Besides that you continue to assume bad faith, attack others, and bludgeon the conversation, which makes me think the encyclopedia might be better off if you simply were not involved with it, I would like for you to ponder the crux of your argument. OK, sure, it's the biggest concert launch ever in the UK and Ireland. As far as ITN is concerned, so what? Unless they were also worldwide leaders, we wouldn't even think about posting the biggest movie launch in Bangladesh or the biggest video game launch in Russia or the biggest album launch in Nigeria, all of which are countries with over twice the population of the UK. It's cool trivia with no lasting effect.

:::If you want to make the argument that we SHOULD be posting stuff like that, fine with me (though I'd probably disagree), but currently, your argument seems to simply be "everyone is against me and I'm correct". I've had your back on a lot of this- I don't think you're a paid editor and I do think you've made good contributions to the article- but enough is enough. Kicking222 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::::ITN guidance says do not oppose due to significance to only one country (although Oasis pretty clearly has a far wider fan base than just UK & Ireland, which are of course two separate sovereign countries also). Probably becuase ignoring what's big in Nigeria is a manifestation of systemic bias. Morgajon (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::Completely off topic but this is more evidence we need to rewrite that guideline; it’s clear Kicking’s point was that being top X in 2 out of 200 countries cannot in itself be criteria for posting, for hopefully obvious reasons. Kingsif (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::But it's not off topic is it? It's yet more proof I know what the guidelines say, but I'm getting major flak from people who apparently don't, but want to take me to task for getting testy when it seems like this is actually the normal way of discussing things. Much of my "bludgeoning" has literally been correcting people when they're clealry not accurately reflecting the guidance. Morgajon (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:The actual effect would be next-to-nothing. The article for the band has received more than 15 million views and been edited by nearly 1,500 different editors over the last decade. Over that same timeframe, Noel Gallagher's article has been viewed nearly 11 million times and Liam Gallagher's more than 14 million times. The Be Here Now Tour, a tour from nearly 30 years ago, has been viewed about 150,000 times over the last decade and is linked to from 142 different Wikipedia articles.

:Somehow, Wikipedia has been able to provide extensive coverage of Oasis and other topics related to the band over the last two decades despite the band originally splitting up 16 years ago and your arrival not being until five days ago. If this tour/event has even 10% of the historical importance that you assign to it, there's not a chance in the universe that this article will lie fallow. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::An apparent superiority complex {{small|(I can find no other way to describe the contemptuous and demeaning language shown to people who were even trying to help them, not to mention in their first rant above they act like they are the only one who knows guidelines and deserve a medal for 'catching' other people they think know less)}} has contributed to Morgajon getting into this, and yet they seem to think it will get them out of it. We can refer to WP:WPDNNY and be done with this part here. Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::And yet it did "lie fallow" (unless you think Wikipedia's only purpose is to his set lists). That's just a basic fact. Sorry. Morgajon (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:::What are you even talking about? This article was being edited extensively before you arrived, and was certainly far more than a setlist. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oasis_Live_%2725_Tour&oldid=1298780251] CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::::I am talking about what happened between the first actual concert date taking place, and me updating the article with everything you'd expect to see in a tour article once the tour has actually begun. Namely critical reception. In fact, now I think back, I was also the first person to start the Set List section. It was only after that, that someone else did the really rather trivial work of copying the literal set list of songs from the source I'd already added, into Wikipedia. Morgajon (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wikipedia is not a news source. There is no WP:DEADLINE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wikipedia is a dynamic resource capable of updating encyclopedia articles as fast as reliable sources become available to editors to read, digest, and summarize. In other words, as soon as the concert wss over. In some cases, such as the set list, it was during the performance. I remain baffled as to why people are assuming I didn’t read the manual before I became a Wikipedia editor. Morgajon (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There's a difference between reading a manual and absorbing what it has to say. Your "bull in a china shop" approach has been done before, and it has a rather poor success rate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::My absorption of the manual in this context is clearly correct. For the purposes of ITN, there *is* a deadline and Wikipedia *is* serving news. If it's rubbing people like you up the wrong way to realise I'm not even remotely as thick as you seem to think I am, sorry, not sorry. Morgajon (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Am I alone in thinking that the title of this subsection betrays more than a little narcissism? There is no room for that here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Topic ban imposed|1=By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, {{noping|Morgajon}} is topic-banned from ITN for six months. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)}}

Honestly, this is as much as/more for Morgajon's own sake as it is for the project. At the talk thread, I didn't even express an opinion on whether the item should have been posted, instead trying to explain some ITN philosophy, and received abusive replies. It's clear that the ITN process and Morgajon do not get on, to the point that just telling them about aspects of ITN they don't like is cause to receive abuse. The emotions that lead them to do this cannot be good for their mindset, and while the comments above suggest they may self-exile from ITN, it's also not good for the minds of anyone on the receiving end - of abuse or even just badgering about why people are allowed to disagree. There are ways to conduct oneself in 1 versus many debates at ITN, which is collaborative and focusing on the content. This is why I propose a temporary ban, perhaps six months, as I feel Morgajon should certainly be given the opportunity to have such kinds of discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia (in a space that does not operate in a way that they do not like), and then return if they so wish. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:You entered at a late stage, and claimed there had been no proof presented this tour was ITN level significant. I corrected you, pointing out the already presented evidence and argument. Perhaps rudely, but by then I was getting pretty sick of people doing things like that. That is my objection to the nature of how this process apparently works. Morgajon (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::This hostile response was made in reply to someone who thought that you might be able to learn how to control your emotions and contribute to the site.

::Consider that. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::@Morgajon FWIW, I didn’t actually (intend to) say that, my comment you’re referring to was about how, with a lack of ITN/R, any sources being used to determine “exceptional” can all be interpreted subjectively (and that this is how it should be or we’d be getting pushed to post unimportant events just because someone said X). Now, your reply here is more civil and I appreciate that, but if you’re saying you get rude to everyone indiscriminately once you’re past a point of frustration, is it possible you can start recognising that point and taking a break or using moderation (e.g. ask someone to represent your position for you, use WP:DR, etc)? It’ll be more frustrating if you start finding you can’t get anything collaborative done. Kingsif (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd rather you'd have simply said that's not what you intended to say at the first opportunity, namely when I replied to what you literally said. Instead, you gave a frankly not very intelligible reply about me having got my answers. Morgajon (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::That's what you consider hostile is it? A factual recounting of events. Morgajon (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support until there is a commitment from Morgajon that they are willing to completely disengage from this incessant badgering. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support per Walt. Borgenland (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support after reading this whole discussion and seeing walls of text and assume bad faith Rhinocrat (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support per Borgenland. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support per Kingsif's arguments and Walt. Sigh - this whole discussion here (following the walls of text on the ITN discussion page) do signal a lack of self-reflection. Hope that's not a broader trait that ends up extending to any Oasis-related article once someone dares to disagree with them. Khuft (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

::Don't worry, I now know to use short sentences, and not even bother taking issue with what other people say here. Even if it appears manifestly incorrect. Because I know nothing. My employer is a fool for trusting me to know how to research a topic, assess sources, correct for bias, work with others and follow the company's many editorial policies. If only he had access to the excellently detailed and thoroughly well evidenced criticisms of my skills here. What a fool he's been. He should probably return his Knighthood. Morgajon (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:::{{outdent}}

:::Note: I have blocked Morgajon for 31hours for the above response, but also because their conduct toward other editors since creating this account has been combative and disruptive. I have no objection to this being adjusted in either direction if another admin sees fit, as this was to stop the immediate disruption present now. Star Mississippi 20:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support after reading the editor's reply to the !vote above mine. Don't let it be said that I didn't try. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

:*Support - There's clearly no consensus for a topic ban, but slowing down this editor's battle against everyone they come in contact with can only be beneficial to the project, the editors, and themself.

:CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• I will note that their actions on their talk page following the block, and following the topic ban, including using inflammatory language in edit summaries when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morgajon&diff=prev&oldid=1299876758 removing] answers to their questions they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morgajon&diff=prev&oldid=1299886176 don't like], have made it clear to me that Morgajon is not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Someone remember to get in touch with Morgajon's employer to pass on Morgajon's suggestion that the employer return his knighthood. EEng 04:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• :Sad really, he’ll have paid good money for it. Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:Well, that's disappointing. I was hoping a limited topic ban would be sufficient. I saw promise in them if they could find a way to get along with others. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• They have sealed their grave just now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morgajon&diff=prev&oldid=1299926409]. Borgenland (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• :Wonderwall of text. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

::Reading their latest, I've rarely encountered someone who feels such a need to announce how smart and/or competent they are in every other sentence. They may get their chance to edit again, despite their best efforts to the contrary, but I'm quite bearish on the prospect of them going beyond seeing editing Wikipedia as an adversarial exercise. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:10, July 11, 2025 (UTC)

• This user is currentky blocked and topic-banned for abuse of editing privileges. Fabvill (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• :Yes but to reiterate, the behavior is continuing as outlined above and may be doubled down once the short block is lifted. Borgenland (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::Leaving aside their multiple aspersions and personal attacks in that screed, {{tqq|the function of Wikipedia is very similar to a newspaper}} illustrates that they are not getting it. Deliberately, I'm pretty sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• :::And finally bundled off to somewhere where they won’t make trouble in the long run. Borgenland (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Guess that explains why they had an intense axe to grind with the community so quickly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• :and to absolutely no surprise, they were not a new user. Thanks @Blablubbs for helping put an end to this. Star Mississippi 13:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ah, that explains a lot. The "I'm a new user but I read all the manuals" story did raise my eyebrows (though I assumed good faith). Khuft (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

User:MarcinTorun1971 has persistently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obshchak&diff=1299621870&oldid=1295326867 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)

:I had also reported the editor for persistently inserting unsourced content and they have continued the conduct ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_mafia&diff=prev&oldid=1299281893 diff 1] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_mafia&diff=prev&oldid=1299489724 diff 2]), even after I tried to discuss the content with them ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frankfurt_mafia&diff=prev&oldid=1297208016 diff]). Since they are uncooperative, I think some sort of sanction is necessary. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

: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)

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

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

Greetings admins and non-admin ANI participants,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have indefinitely part-blocked them from editing articles, and noted in their block log that this time they should not be unblocked until they actually constructively respond to feedback, not simply commit to it. They committed to communicating the last time they were blocked for this, but still in four years have never edited an article talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you Ivan, I appreciate it. AndyFung's efforts in keeping the list up-to-date are greatly appreciated so hopefully this can some to a satisfactory conclusion that involves them still being able to edit, while kicking the bad referencing habits and understanding that communication is necessary. RachelTensions (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Hi, I'd like to request protection measures for the following pages.

Alwar Balasubramaniam, Alia Syed, Ranjani Shettar, Nasreen Mohamedi, Rummana Hussain, Allan deSouza, Anjum Singh, Arpita Singh, Sheila Makhijani, N. N. Rimzon, Paramjit Singh , Talwar Gallery, Valay Shende, and Nalini Malani.

The pages have been repeatedly vandalized over the past few years by users with a conflict of interest. Multiple instances of adding promotional content, adding external links to the primary sources, adding "press" and other unconstructive sections, and more. They override the work put in by other editors every few months, replacing the existing text with promotional text that does not follow the Manual style.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alwar_Balasubramaniam&oldid=1299864337

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arpita_Singh&oldid=1299333430

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheila_Makhijani&oldid=1299345202https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valay_Shende&oldid=1278254121https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nalini_Malani&oldid=1231451276

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rummana_Hussain&oldid=1299299332https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N._N._Rimzon&oldid=1166325459

With some of the users, whose usernames are their real names, you can further establish COI.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talwar108https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kiranslomka2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/YiyangMikeLiu Most of the users have been warned and made aware of the unconstructive edits, and yet every few months, a new user with COI pops in on one of the pages to continue the vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baberoothless (talk • contribs) 07:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• The common thread here is that all of these accounts were created by single-purpose throwaways, and all seem to be connected to the Talwar Gallery in some way. I have just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talwar108, but I have to run and will check in on this later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• :I really appreciate you looking into this! Thank you. Baberoothless (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=Overflow from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:UAA, doesn't need to be dealt with here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)}}

88.97.192.42 is continuously harassing me. Please block them. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 14:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:Given the OP's behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#WP:UAA, a WP:BOOMERANG is clearly warranted here. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:I would call this borderline trolling, but I don't see the border anymore. — DVRTed (Talk) 14:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef block Sorry, but as I said at the WP:AN thread, this editor either lacks WP:CLUE and sufficient competence to edit here, or, frankly we're being trolled. Either way, they've become an absolute timesink. First, they're clerking at WP:UAA, which wasted several editors' time and bought them a pblock, then the appeals, then launching an RfA which if it's allowed to run will waste a lot more editors' time... all of which have done nothing except waste several editors' time and energies over a period of days. See also ths thread. The fact that at RfA their answer to the question, "What are your best contributions?" was answered with, effectively, "The thing that got me blocked", says everything. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|SarekOfVulcan}} Where do you suggest that {{blue|chronic, intractable behavioral problems}} are discussed, then? —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Fortuna imperatrix mundi}} in the extant AN thread if anywhere. This was not a chronic, intractable problem and was only going to end in a boomerang block. Star Mississippi 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

::In the place linked twice above where it's already being discussed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

:::{{reply|SarekOfVulcan}} So you want me to discuss {{blue|chronic, intractable behavioral problems}} at a noticeboard that explicitly requests that {{blue|For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}}? Right. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

::::It's neither urgent, nor established as chronic and intractable. So yes, use the existing discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

An editor @Maruf Sumra on the Soomra dynasty article is refusing to engage in the WP:BRD process and is repeatedly removing sourced content from the article for the past week. They have been reverted by myself and another editor on 4 occassions and I have made attempts for them to discuss this on the article talk page here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soomra_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1299090799]

I have also warned them on their own talk page twice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maruf_Sumra&diff=prev&oldid=1299090568] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maruf_Sumra&diff=prev&oldid=1299973619]

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

Diffs of user removing sourced content: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soomra_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1298851861], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soomra_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1298883805], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soomra_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1299086236], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soomra_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1299957668] Ixudi (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

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