Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Possible block evasion by 83.6.206.183

    [edit]

    I think Special:Contributions/83.6.206.183 matches pattern of editing of blocked Special:Contributions/Meellk. They are primarily edit warring regarding which system of government Poland is. IP user appears very shortly after named account has been blocked and continue same discussion that was started by named account. -- Svito3 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The behavior continues since they have received a notice. Please take a look. -- Svito3 (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked based on behavioral and linguistic match. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Emiya1980 redux

    [edit]
    Emiya190 is topic banned for six months from infoboxes and infobox-related editing, sanction to be logged under WP:CT/CID. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    For the background, please see the recently archived discussion where Emiya1980 was formally warned by Cullen328 about their disruptive behavior around filing infobox-related RfCs, and informally warned by other editors and admins about their combative and uncivil interactions in those discussions, and their refusal to listen to multiple editors and admins all telling them the same thing about their behavior. As Daniel stated, a formal warning is pretty much a 'final chance' in terms of this editing issue, so while no blocks etc. have been placed, if it happens again the editor will very likely be blocked if it is brought back to this noticeboard with a link to this discussion.

    Editors were optimistic that this edit suggested Emiya1980 was slowly taking on the advice from the ANI discussion. Instead, after it became clear their position at Talk:World War II had no significant traction, they simply waited a week and initiated a "discussion" that is yet another RfC in everything but name only, claiming that this was perfectly fine, since it's not a formal RfC. They went on to falsely claim the previous consensus discussion had no consensus (because it wasn't formally closed), that editors who don't support their position are shrilly objecting, and that the issue wasn't settled. This is a classic, ongoing refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK situation from an editor who has been open about wanting to institute this change for a complete non-content reason: There is no good reason to list Stalin, a mass-murdering dictator with a death toll that rivals that of Adolf Hitler, at the top of the Allied Powers.

    Infoboxes are already under WP:CTOPS, and persistent disruption around them (whether it's about images, or ordering of information, or disputes about categories, or whatever) seems to be more the locus of the problem here than the RfC aspect itself; additionally, it's clear that Emiya1980 is perfectly willing to engage in the RfC behavior without formally opening one. As was noted in the previous ANI discussion, Emiya1980 seems perfectly able to contribute positively elsewhere on WP, so a block seems punitive rather than preventative.

    I therefore propose a broadly-construed 6-month topic ban from infoboxes and infobox-related editing for Emiya1980, with the encouragement they spend their time productively on other things at enwiki. Grandpallama (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment – as someone at least moderately involved and also has strong opinions about infoboxes, I do wish that Emiya would've more quickly internalized the central point here: these things ultimately matter comparatively little, and it is more important for people to get along and be able to hash things out when it's agreed that there is a major problem. Sometimes one editor just empirically cares about specific things a lot more than everybody else does (guilty!)—and that care is not even wrong to have, at all—but it's important to respond accordingly to the expressed apathy and exhaustion of others (which likewise is their right) when the things you care about changing have highly visible ramifications or are adjacent to the existing work of others. Otherwise, disruption will ensue. Remsense ‥ 论 18:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have already stated, the current discussion in which I am involved is not an Rfc. Grandpallama's attempts to characterize it as one do not make it so.
    While I initially began the discussion with the intention of replacing Joseph Stalin with FDR at the top of a list with Allied leaders, I have since changed my position to ordering the leaders in a neutral order (alphabetical or chronological). At least three other editors have come out in support of adopting a more neutral ordering for the Allied leaders and two of the three have specifically expressed concern about arranging the list in a manner suggesting that Stalin was the most important leader of the Big Three. Therefore, this is not a concern unique to myself. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, just because you haven't labeled it as one doesn't mean it isn't an expression of the same issues people have tried to communicate to you. The conversation died down, which is very natural and should often be allowed to happen when there is no consensus unless some new argument is made. Remsense ‥ 论 18:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So pointing out that certain people are exploiting vagueness in the rules to silence me makes me guilty of Wikilawyering? Why don't you just come out and say that you're opting to ban me just because a select group of editors are annoyed by my editing? Emiya1980 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Emiya1980, this is a collaborative project and that comment of yours is not collaborative and indicates that you are not getting the message. Please be aware that further sanctions are possible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing that to the total exclusion of engaging with what I was trying to communicate to you as if the distinction invalidated it is Wikilawyering, yes. Remsense ‥ 论 19:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Casting aspersions is a way to fast track from a TBAN proposal to a sitewide block. Strongly recommend you strike that comment. Grandpallama (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as how I am unlikely to walk away from this thread without at least some limitations on my editing privileges, I want to offer a compromise. As opposed to a broad ban on any and all edits to Wikipedia's infoboxes, I ask for one final chance with regards to my probation subject to a few nonnegotiable conditions. Until the admins on this page feel differently, I will commit to abstain from pinging any editors, opening any Rfcs, participating in any discussions regarding the infobox of any page, and engaging in any further editing to World War II's infobox.
    Should I break this promise or do anything else that other editors view as disruptive to Wikipedia in the near future, I will accept whatever penalty that is handed down. In light of the positive contributions I have made to this project, I ask that the editors here please take this compromise into consideration before reaching a verdict. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not good enough for me. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that your prior warning to me was limited to Rfcs. It seems unfair that you are expanding it now to include my participation in discussions regarding the infobox. I also recall that I asked you for specifics regarding what was expected for me going forward and you refused to elaborate. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this offer came only after it was clear sanctions are likely to be imposed (rather than as a good-faith response to earlier concerns), the game-playing around the RfC-that-isn't-a-RfC, and the wikilawyering response to Cullen also makes me feel formal sanctions remain necessary over any informal, voluntary arrangement. Grandpallama (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My beliefs have not changed. It is true I still think at least some of the arguments made against me here are unfair. However, when I say I will commit to not doing something, I mean it. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also point out that the WP:Canvassing Page specifically allows editors like myself to notify "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Both of the pings I engaged in on World War II's talk page fall under these exceptions. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should mention: this is in reply to @Nemov. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Biohistorian15 This issue goes back several weeks and the editor was advised to stop pinging multiple projects. Pinging bio is perfectly reasonable and they agreed to stop spamming others, but they went right back to pinging multiple projects anyway. Just another example of that Emiya1980 says they'll change, then they go right back to problematic behavior. Nemov (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nemov: If I recall, I said I would narrow down which projects I would ping. Not abandon the practice entirely. Conservativism is listed as a Wiki-project with an interest in Edward Heath. Therefore, it seemed permissible to post a notice there. For the record, this is the first time it has been brought to my attention that Wiki-projects are automatically notified of Rfcs pertaining to pages they have an interest in. If I would have known that, I wouldn't have wasted the time posting a notice on said projects. However, the fact is I did not. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 6-month topic ban (and oppose accepting of the 11th-hour offer), and I would also support seeing it logged as an AE action (Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes). Daniel (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's very disappointing that Emiya1980 has continued this unhelpful behaviour after being explicitly warned to stop doing it by an admin in the recent ANI thread and several other editors also provided them with strong advice in that thread to knock this off. Their behaviour in the World War II article is particularly concerning given that they have never edited the article or its talk page beyond seeking to dispute the infobox recently (article edits, talk page edits). Despite this lack of previous interest in the article, as part of re-starting this dispute yesterday they made a range of serious attacks on editors who have been engaged with it [2]. The hectoring of most people who've commented in this thread and this other ANI thread also indicates that this editor is primarily here to argue with people. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support especially in light of the wikilawyering and bargaining here. With the note that if the same disruption happens elsewhere, it will be a full ban (which could well already be merited here). Star Mississippi 00:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Emiya1980's wikilawyering on Talk:World War II shows that a bright-line prohibition has to be set to avoid further disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sometimes a forced break from editing in a particular area is needed, which appears to be the case here. This will be a chance to show the community that you can edit in other areas of the project without creating disruption. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Emiya1980 continues to edit infoboxes [3][4][5][6] despite not just being aware of this discussion, but recognizing the community is almost certainly about to restrict their editing in this area. It's true that no restriction has yet been enacted, but it's looking increasingly like an avalanche at this point, and Emiya1980's continued activity in this editing area is suboptimal. Grandpallama (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Emiya1980 suggests continuing to edit infoboxes but not discussing their edits, which is unnacceptable in a collaborative project. It's good that they recognise that we find their talk-page behaviour problematic, but it seems they don't themselves recognise that it is or appreciate that it stems from their continued (attempts at) tweaking infoboxes for infinitesimal gains – if any. NebY (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just rolled back the archive on this topic. Can an admin close this? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent MoS violation and refusal to explain

    [edit]

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

    This editor has brought MoS problems to an awful lot of film/television-related articles and never explained their edits (see this, this, and this). They continued disrupting Wikipedia even though they had been warned about these multiple times (see this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). Thedarkknightli (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Quaerens-veritatem and @Nicholas0, could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. This editor has been asked to provide summaries on the editor's talk page (twice by me), and has been told about the MoS, but has made multiple edits ignoring it despite warnings by other editors, all warnings without any result. This is especially problematic as the editor's edits are often reverted or are otherwise problematic. Although the editor has been editing for only a year, the editor has over 3,000 edits and should have attended to his talk page warnings and stopped disruptive edits by now. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor has never replied to any messages on their Talk page, so I have to assume that they have never read them. They probably don't even realize that anyone is sending them messages. I'm not sure how to contact them in another way to get their attention. Nicholas0 (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With my talk page warnings I also pinged the editor. I don't think we can assume he's not reading them versus the editor is just ignoring them. Also, the editor hasn't learned from repeated direct and indirect reverts. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting prior to archival that User:Croystron has resumed editing, without response here or even to the polite message on their usertalk requesting their acknowledgement of this thread. Folly Mox (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Also, they made an awful lot of completely inadequate edit summaries after resuming editing. This is a WP:NOTHERE editor imo. Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Placed another request to respond on Croystron's talk page and, also, pinged Croystron: this edit Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weight of the problem aside, supporting block for failure to communicate until the editor replies to here or talk pages (such as the user's own). 172.56.233.104 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the user for two weeks, for their persistent failure to communicate. BorgQueen (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Olrac625's unreferenced edits

    [edit]

    I'm reporting @Olrac625: for persistent unreferenced edits in dozens of Wikipedia articles. Just today, they made these unreferenced edits.[7][8][9] The reported user don't use the edit summary for their edits. They have also been warned several times in their talk page, and there's zero communication from the user. I don't think they have edited their talk page. The user have also been blocked last month for disruptive editing.Hotwiki (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. Pblocked from mainspace for now. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Repetition of the same POV-pushing in the same caste article by User:Dympies for which they were topic banned

    [edit]

    Dympies was topic banned from Rajput by admin Abecedare after extensive discussion on the user talk page of admin Bishonen; the trigger was POV-pushing in a sensitive caste article, especially trying to promote the caste by relating the same with Rajputra (literally meaning 'son of a king')! Dympies is currently engaged in the same unfinished task (since the ban is no longer applicable) since the content earlier added by them was removed after their topic ban. I am providing the diffs of the detailed discussion on Bishonen's talk page as well as the detailed explanation by Abecedare how Dympies had abused their rights as an editor and engaged in POV-pushing slowly over a period of time; please check User talk:Bishonen 1 and TopicBanDetails. Would request admins active here to initiate necessary action against the user. Current activities are evident from the latest revision history of Rajput and Talk:Rajput. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, these three users Abhishek0831996, Dympies and Ratnahastin are too much concerned about the Rajput caste and are surely related to this caste (having some WP:COI) as we can see by warring attitude displayed by them in linking this caste to some sort of kings or nobles. Clearly, this is creating issue with their WP: Neutrality. Hence, all three should be topic banned from Rajput caste page so that they may contribute in other areas without their judgement getting blurred. Adamantine123 (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to reduce the credibility of the quality edits by a particular editor only because he was once topic banned, then you deserve a WP:BOOMERANG here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about quality edit. This was already discussed that excessive focus on word Rajputra is not helping the article. It seems to be pov pushing to neutralize the origin section which says that Rajputs originated from peasants and pastoralists. A very long discussion happened in past over this and please don't try to do this again. Adamantine123 (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamantine123, It was never decided that content related to Rajputra shall not be added to the article. Only that content is supposed to be avoided which is totally unrelated to the Rajput topic. But as explained by me at Talk:Rajput, this wasn't the case here. Btw, you too removed a line of mine citing "too much stress on Rajputra". Tell me if that line had anything to do with Rajputra. You tend to remove anything which doesn't please you and for that, you don't hesitate to give misleading edit summaries. Dympies (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from Dympies: The problem with Ekdalian is that he hardly has any knowledge of the Rajput subject but he still pretends that his original research is fully accurate. My recent content dispute with him began on 28 September when he performed a mass revert to undo all my recent edits on the Rajput page. In his edit summary, he made personal remarks reminding me of my previous TBAN along with threat of reporting. Then he quickly realised that such a mass revert without due explanation can lead to trouble. So, he self reverted himself and reverted only my last edit. However, his tone didn't change and he wrote the same edit summary again. Not only he is ill-mannered, but he also has competence issues.

    On seeing my content being removed, I did put my clarification on talk page here. Now he was supposed to describe his objections about the content he removed. But he didn't comment. Instead, another user, Adamantine123 tried to justify the removal of content by Ekdalian but his justifications (according to me) were totally off-topic. Then Ekdalian gave his usual one-line support saying - "I fully agree with Adamantine123." Thats all what he describes as "his objections" to the content. After that, I responded. My response, as per me, was convincing enough to restore the content. And none of Adamantine123 and Ekdalian responded for the next 9 days. I kept on waiting and at last, on 7 October, I asked on talk page if anyone still has any objections. He responded with a yet another disrespectful comment accusing me of POV pushing and threatening me of facing the "action". This is a clear case of gaming.

    Then another user, Abhishek0831996 restored the removed content at Rajput asking Ekdalian to state his objections at talk page. As usual, he had nothing to say apart from accusing me of POV pushing and reminding that once upon a time, I was banned from editing that page! He says nothing but still he wants "his objections" to be taken seriously probably because he doesn't like the content.

    He has a strong POV that Rajputs have no relation with Rajputra. Last year, he tried to re-create a separate page titled "Rajputra" despite the community's decision to keep it as a redirect. His only motive behind that move was to push the agenda that "Rajput" and "Rajputra" are two completely different concepts, though almost all secondary and tertiary sources disapprove what he believes. Blinded in his WP:OR, he is eager to ditch the reliable sources. Dympies (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban on Adamantine123 from caste topics

    [edit]

    The above comment by Adamantine123 that "In my opinion, these three users Abhishek0831996, Dympies and Ratnahastin are too much concerned about the Rajput caste and are surely related to this caste (having some WP:COI) as we can see by warring attitude displayed by them in linking this caste to some sort of kings or nobles. Clearly, this is creating issue with their WP: Neutrality. Hence, all three should be topic banned from Rajput caste page"[10] alone justifies a topic ban for their blatant violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. This happened after they were recently warned for the similar violations[11] after falsely accusing another editor of canvassing.[12] As such, I propose a topic ban from anything related to caste for Adamantine123. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Not only what has been mentioned above but he has been making reverts by relying on misleading and combative edit summaries.[13] Such WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality should not be tolerated. Dympies (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Frivolously tagging a user as being canvassed [14] on an AFD only because they were involved in a content dispute with them "based on our longstanding dispute on Rajput caste related articles" and then edit warring to keep that unsubstantiated template while casting bad faith aspersions in edit summaries [15][16] and doubling down on those bad faith aspersions [17][18] "these editors are working together to harrass me" after being sufficiently warned. All of these instances have proven that they are not capable of editing this topic area without being hostile to other editors. The hostile speculation on the caste of editors displayed by them in this thread itself is highly concerning. I believe this topic ban will allow them to reflect on their problematic behaviour, they may appeal this ban after constructive editing in less contentious areas. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose — This seems to be an attempt to digress from the main issue, POV-pushing in the article on Rajput. Adamantine123 is an experienced and capable editor, editing neutrally in the caste/social group related articles. Ekdalian (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: I have been following this topic for a long time, and it compelled me to comment. I don’t believe it’s a good idea to ban Adamantine123 over a caste-based topics. I have been watching Adamantine123 for a long time, and I don’t think he has done anything wrong. He conducts his work in a completely neutral and courteous manner. Thank you with Warm Regards! Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, Adamantine123 is frequently showing their battleground mentality. Secondly, I would like to know what exactly convinced you to make this first ever edit on ANI? Ratnahastin (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think an editor's lack of familiarity with ANI should decrease the consideration of the argument they are presenting. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Uninvolved non-administrator) I believe the answer to your question can already be found in the very comment you're responding to: "I have been following this topic for a long time, and it compelled me to comment. [...] I have been watching Adamantine123 for a long time, and I don’t think he has done anything wrong." They'd been following the topic and the contributions of everyone, presumably saw that there was a dispute, and decided to speak up in defense of a contributor that they didn't think did anything wrong.
    Now, my question to you is: what exactly prompted this inquiry into the user's personal motives? Just in case: please remember to AGF.
    And just to be clear, in case my own presence here raises questions, I've been editing Wikipedia more frequently these past months (as my user contributions can attest to), and so I'd like to be more familiar with the processes, policies, and guidelines, in order to avoid mistakes and poor contributions. Hence, I'm visiting this board semi-regularly to get practical examples of what not to do. LaughingManiac (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — They are creating very obvious caste articles as surname listings in order to include BLP entries on the article without satisfying WP:CASTEID which states that self identification by the subject is required for BLP's inclusion into a caste article. I just cleaned up one such surname list that was created and almost entirely edited by them([19]) . The article was an obvious caste article, featuring caste boosterism and included a long list of largely unsourced BLP entries which were included there without any evidence of self identification with this caste which is a requirement per WP:CASTEID. I also note that there are many more similar caste articles created and mostly edited by them that exhibit this same problem, i.e Maurya (surname) [20]. Elsewhere, they moved Gangwar (social group) to Gangwar (surname)[21] and gamed their way into adding unsourced BLP entries onto an obvious caste page.[22] [23] Same thing with [24] Saini (surname) ,which was a left over redirect after a move from Saini (surname) to List of Saini people. [25]. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am sorry I was not following the discussion here as I was not tagged by anyone of you. Also, I am busy in my real life. But you should have checked the talk page of one of the surname article you are referring to. This comment from an Admin and a long discussion involving Sitush and that Admin made it clear that if a particular surname is used by a particular caste group in context of India, there is no problem in mentioning them in surname article, provided there are sources saying that XYZ Surname is used by ABC caste, with a tag that other mentioned name may or may not belong to that particular caste group. Check Talk:Saini (surname)#Discussion: Text of the intro [26]

      I confess I'm a little lost as to what pieces of the dispute remain. My general take would be that surnames may have association with specific endogamous groups, but are extremely unlikely to be restricted only to those groups. If a news source documents such a connection I think it's okay to use for something like "Saini is used as a surname by group X", but any more authoritative pronouncements need better sources, and in general we should not imply that a name is used only by a specific group unless we have multiple scholarly sources backing it up. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

      So, in your desperation you have removed highly sourced material here [27], without paying attention to the talk page or tagging the editors and admin involved in discussion, which included an Admin and a highly experienced editor in the area of caste related articles. That's why I proposed a topic ban for three of you, so that you may avoid this very contentious area and focus on something productive.Adamantine123 (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are falsifying that discussion. Sitush was thoroughly critical of your actions there. WP:BLP violation is not justifiable at any cost. It is embarrassing that you are not taking responsibility for your edits. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Photz9201's continuous unreferenced edits

    [edit]

    @Photz9201: continues to make unreferenced edits in several articles[28][29][30] – despite being warned four times since August 24, 2024.[31][32][33][34] The user is also unresponsive in their talkpage and was last blocked in April 2024, for disruptive editing.Hotwiki (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pblocked from mainspace, as they have never in their entire three years here ever touched a talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shahray, POV-pushing and disruptive editing

    [edit]

    I have tried to discuss with this editor their changes, but they are not listening. Take for example the article Ilya Muromets. They made significant changes to the article which included pushing the version of "Ilia Murovets" based on what is now a fringe view. I reverted their changes and I explained this to them on the talk page, as well as policies such as consensus (since they are a fairly new editor). Despite this, they have decided to continually restore their changes. In the edit summary of their last revert, they stated that my revert was made "without establishing consensus" and on the talk page they wrote that "WP:ONUS does not apply here".[35]

    This edit warring is now spilling to other articles. At history of Russia, they made POV edits and they decided now to restore their edits with the edit summary stating "Content with sources reverted without explanation... If you have questions or proposals, please start a topic in discussion". They changed the long-standing first sentence from The history of Russia begins with the histories of the East Slavs to The history of Russia traditionally begins with the histories of the East Slavs, although Russians are as well descendants of finno-ugric tribes in approximately equal amounts citing a source about the gene pool of ethnic Russians (with the reference simply containing an author and a translation of a book title).

    I also alerted them that their edits should not be marked as minor but they are still continuing to mark them as minor. Mellk (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another example of POV-pushing is on the article ruthenium. They changed the sourced statement this word was used at the time as the Latin name for Russia to this word was used at the time as the Latin name for Land of Rus', and reffered to Ukranians at that time.. They also cited a blog post that says nothing about the subject. Mellk (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear reviewers, I want you to notice that this user was involved in series of unreasonable reverts and edit-warring.
    In the article Ruthenium they have deleted [sourced statements], obnoxiously summarising their edit:"Complete nonsense". For this they were also criticized by other editors, and they even seemed to deny the fact that name Ruthenia was applied to Ukraine at that time [[36]], not something denied by the article itself or by other editors which I had discussion with in talk page, thus justifying their edit with their own POV.
    Unfortunately that's not the end of their disruptive editing. They continue to delete sourced statements in Ilya Muromets article, as well as references to Ukrainian wiki. They deny the existence of Ukrainian bylynas, ignoring the source provided in the article, the heading of which clearly states:"Ukrainian bylyny: Historical and literary edition of the East Slavic epic". They also use an offensive tone in discussion with me, constantly accusing me in POV pushing, ignoring their own critique and threatening me with account block, although I attempted to establish a peaceful talk with them.
    In the article "History of Russia", I expanded this article with new sourced statements, which they deleted [[37]], once again obnoxiously summarising their edit:"changes to lead that do not reflect body", although the changes to the body were also made, I suggested them to first start topic in discussion rather then deleting sourced statements . After I reverted them they traditionally started to accuse me in "POV Pushing", although I told them to start topic in discussion if they have issues with the sources.
    Similar situation is in the Rus' people article, where they once again deleted my changes, applied to multiple sentences, this time giving an explanation, but for deletion of only one sentence:"The statement about Novgorod not being part of Rus does not belong in this article and uses a fake reference", everything else they didn't concerned explaining.
    I already warned them, that they can be reported for this type of behaviour, but they tried to act quicker and report me first, in an attempt to seem innocent. Shahray (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes to ruthenium were undone by other editors. As mentioned in the talk page for that article, mentioning Ukraine here is indeed pretty ridiculous and there is no connection between the naming of the element and Ukraine. None of the sources you used mentioned Ukraine in the context of the element or even mentioned the element. There are already sources in the article that say that the element was named after Russia. Despite this, you call this an unreasonable revert.
    The main issue here is that you make edits, and in the articles mentioned above, despite there being an ongoing discussion (that you did not even initiate), you continually restore your disputed changes because in your eyes the removal is "unjustified". You were told repeatedly about WP:ONUS, yet for some reason you stated that it "does not apply here" and here you still seem to believe that since any source was cited, this cannot be removed, and it must instead be someone else who needs to get consensus to revert this. Although you also continually made other unsourced and unexplained changes. Can you for example explain why you changed Russian/Russians to "Suzdalians", "Muscovites" and "former Kievan Rus'" (among other changes) despite the statements already being sourced?[38] You were told before to not make unsourced changes like these. Mellk (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This attitude has also not been just to me. They questioned another editor who undid their changes to ruthenium, and when the other editor did not provide the answer they wanted, they said: I'm restoring the content, then, despite the objections, proceeded to make a similar edit using a different source that once again says nothing about the subject (even though this problem was already mentioned in the talk page). This article also has GA-status. Mellk (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see, user Mellk has no issues when the reason for revert is just "who cares", and will even blame those who don't agree with this. Shahray (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The element is named after Ruthenia, which is indeed a name for Ukrainians at that time, not for Russia. It was simply named after Ruthenia to honor Russia, and this is how it became worded, with an established reference for Ruthenia for those who wish to know more about the term. Your deletion of my sourced statements, with a summary "complete nonsense", is ridiculous example of POV push, and was instantly denied by the editors. Similarly, I will restore what you have reverted with a barely given explanation. If you have issues with my sourced segments, you have to discuss and give a proper reason first, and give a proper reason why they're disputed, where we collectively identify if there's an issue with source, and not just delete all my changes them with a summary like:"not true >:(", which is simply unacceptable by Wikipedia.
    "Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article" that's what has been written in WP:ONUS, how does that refers to this situation? Whether my changes sourced or unsourced you delete them all indifferently.
    "you still seem to believe that since any source was cited, this cannot be removed" no I don't believe that, I don't restore my changes when other editors make rv, because they usually give a reason, but the way you remove them with no explanation is just a weird POV pushing not acceptable by me or other editors.
    "Why did you change russia to suzdalians and muscovites" obvious anachronism for that time, duh. Consensus is that there was no russia at that time period. Shahray (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not provide any source that says that the element was named after something that referred to Ukrainians at the time. Instead, there was just more WP:SYNTH and a refusal to drop the stick on the talk page. The other editor already told you your edits were off-topic and undue, but apparently there is never a good enough reason for your changes to be reverted. Mellk (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I did, multiple. Your unreasonable reverts were instantly denied for this, and criticised by other editors, do not attempt to bring a blame upon someone else. Shahray (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has agreed with your changes. Otherwise you wouldn't have engaged in a long back-and-forth on the talk page insisting on restoring the mention of Ukraine. None of the sources you used in your edits referred to the subject of the article. The only source you mentioned on the talk page was this blog article and propaganda piece. Mellk (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mellk and @Shahray, I strongly suggest that you stop arguing with each other here, as that is not likely to lead to a satisfactory resolution for either of you. Shahray, please stop marking substantial edits as "minor", as you've already been warned. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I won't mark them like that. Can also you please kindly tell Mellk to not revert all of my changes with summaries like "complete nonsense"? Shahray (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though there is an ANI discussion ongoing, Shahray decided to again restore their disputed changes on History of Russia. I have started a discussion on the talk page but rather than trying to discuss there, they insist on edit warring instead. Mellk (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shahray, when someone has asked you to go to the talk page, please go to the talk page instead of reverting them and arguing in the edit summary. Please see WP:BRD. It's not BRBRBRD. Just BRD. And it's perfectly normal for pov-pushing edits to be sourced; claiming an edit has sources does not in any way mean it isn't non-npov. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked them on the talk page to undo all their changes, and I elaborated on the reasoning for reverting them, but they still refuse to self-revert. Instead, they demand that I first provide a complete explanation for every single change they made and why I oppose every change, then they will decide if they will self-revert specific changes.[39] They clearly do not understand BRD and they now claim I have not provided a reason for reverting them.[40] Mellk (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No Mellk, you don't understand fundamental principle of WP:BRD, which clearly states "If you revert, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary or on the talk page". You have been specific only about two sentences, anything else which you haven't given explanation for I shouldn't delete following this policy. Shahray (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already told you that you made POV changes (as well as unsupported changes) and gave examples of this. You were just told above to please go to the talk page instead of reverting them and arguing in the edit summary, yet you are still trying to justify reverting. Mellk (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "POV changes" without specifications is as good as an edit summary "complete nonsense". You gave only two examples in talk page, in which I responded and undid those two correspondingly. Everything else I should not undo following the policy. Shahray (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shahray, if you think "POV changes" is no more explanation than "complete nonsense", and continue to fixate on the meanings of individual policies and the actions of individual editors, you are not going to have a good time here - here being both "in a contentious topic area" and "on Wikipedia". This is a collaborative project. The expectation here is that editors work together to achieve consensus when there is a dispute about what any particular article should say. That goes twice over for articles in contentious topics areas, about which you have already received a warning. Please reconsider your approach. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were reverted by a different editor on history of Ukraine. The other editor explained the problem (for example their use of a certain term) and told them explicitly to propose changes on the talk page and yet they still restored their disputed changes. At this point, they are just not listening and insistent on restoring their changes first. I also wrote on the talk page about the problems with their changes and yet they dismissed any concerns and simply restored their changes. Mellk (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice that I repeatedly asked this user to clarify what they mean by "POV-edits" here, and they continually denied, and repeatedly made requests that violate WP:BRD. This is also what they wrote:"You made more than a dozen changes to the wording. I do not need to list all these changes you made when you can take a look at the diff yourself and see what you changed. This is a waste of time". They consider self-clarification
    "waste of time" and instead ask me to figure out what is going on inside their head. Once again they continue to make reverts in Ilya Muromets article that violate WP:BRD. Given that they stubbornly don't want to give any sort of explanation in the Talk page to me, you can advise them to refrain from such behaviour, and then we can have an actual conversation. Shahray (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You show no intention of working with other editors when you simply restore your edits after they have been challenged. Anyway, it is clear that your approach will not change. Mellk (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I work with other editors, while following your approach, you explicitly state that you won't give any further explanation for your reverts, and continue to violate Wikipedia policies. If you understood, I would advise you to self revert, and start to cooperate with others. Shahray (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shahray, I have looked, and I truly do not see strong evidence that you are committed to working with other editors. Please remember that the aim here is to achieve consensus, working together to arrive at the best and most neutral version of the article. If you find yourself stuck in a two-person dispute, as at Ilya Muromets, you may want to try going to WP:3O for an uninvolved editor to provide a third opinion. Other options are described at WP:DR. I will remind you again that you are editing in a contentious topic area, where Wikipedia's norms may be more strongly enforced, and within which single administrators may place editor restrictions such as topic bans, interaction bans, and revert restrictions. I am one such administrator. This is not a formal warning, but it may well be the last informal warning you will receive. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already told you and showed examples that user Mellk doesn't want to reach consensus or continue further discussion, and instead makes reverts that violate WP:BRD and WP:REVERT (reverts with no specific explanation). If you want to solve this dispute, @Asilvering, you have to address this issue to Mellk, not me. In other cases I reached consensus without much of an issue, like in Ruthenium article and Bylina. Shahray (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's fair. Mellk, please don't call someone's edits "complete nonsense", even if it is a strange, pov-pushing edit to make. But I'll also note that Mellk's reversions usually aren't brusque statements like "complete nonsense", and are often more explanatory. Those are fine. -- asilvering (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I realized soon after this that such edit summaries are generally not helpful. Mellk (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I had a few exchanges with the user in question on my talk page after reverting some of his edits. Attempts to explain some policies and/or make him understand why his changes violated NPOV were ignored, and there was no shortage of attempts to justify the changes with arguments that did not correspond to reality. Here, among other attempts to stress the Ukrainianness of the subject, he decided that he would alter the uncontroversial alphabetical order "Belarus, Russia and Ukraine" in a sentence remarking on his current status as a symbol in all three countries. In our discussion he attempted to justify that edit by claiming that in his opinion Ukraine should be first as Vladimir's trident was adopted as the country's coat of arms, ergo his biggest "legacy" is in Ukraine, and therefore takes priority. This is a debatable argument in itself, but while we were having this discussion he made this edit, where he again changes the order of things to push his PoV, this time a list of cities that bear Yaroslav's name. Here he put in last place a city located in Russia which also happens to be the largest and most important of the lot and, by his own logic, should have remained first.
    While he did not revert (even though he said he would) after I objected, he jumped on to other articles. I told him that if he kept at it he would end up being reported, and here we are. I didn't do it myself because I don't have much time anymore, because I have seen much worse from much "older" and "respectable" users, and because I figured the edits were harmless enough. The edit mentioned by OP on History of Russia, however, is... troubling. A temporary TBAN might be in order. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see how a topic ban here would help, especially a temporary one. Despite the ongoing ANI discussion, they are still restoring disputed edits and refusing to get consensus on the talk page first. I do not see why this kind of behavior would not extend to other topic areas. When they discuss on the talk page, they leave comments like "Lmao".[41] This kind of behavior is not really compatible with the nature of this project. Mellk (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he is evidently a prolific editor, which could be a good thing, and his main problem seems to be an inability to edit constructively in a specific area (Ukraine-Russia), where they have an axe to grind. Perhaps if he were to contribute to other topics he would not struggle with these same issues. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prolific" is the wrong term, I believe. Nearly all (if not all) of their edits consist of pro-Ukrainian POV-pushing. Mellk (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you to not involve modern politics into historical topics. If your main concerns is that this sourced statements somehow benefit Ukraine, then it raises further questions about the bias in your already unreasonable reverts. Shahray (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dhol

    [edit]

    An edit filer is stopping me from reverting this gigantic, weird edit (which appears just to be a repeated copy and paste of the entire article). Could someone with a bit more authority hit the RV button please? 81.2.123.64 (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unusual activity at Dennis, Massachusetts

    [edit]

    There is nothing wrong, necessarily, going on at Dennis, Massachusetts. However, I have noticed a strange pattern over the last week or so. This article is typically pretty sleepy. There were only 8 edits in 2022 and 10 in 2023. There have been 31 already in October. None of the edits, from what I can see, are a problem. All seem to be constructive. However, the vast majority are coming from accounts with only a few edits and which were created only a few days ago. They also don't seem to a rhyme or reason to the edits which might indicate that this was something like a class or group project. I'm not sure what I am asking to be done, but I thought it odd enough to at least raise the issue. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's anything nefarious. Almost all of those edits are tagged Newcomer task. It appears that Dennis, Massachusetts had multiple maintenance tags applied to it in April 2024, and hence became one of the articles suggested to new editors. Schazjmd (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, just as likely, we've got a new editor from the area who wanted to spruce the article up. I tend to do that myself: move to a new town, look up its Wikipedia article, rub my chin, and get to work. Ravenswing 18:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and potential WP:CITOGENESIS by Iimitlessyou

    [edit]
    Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
     – Moved by @Firefangledfeathers in diff1 and diff2 – 2804:F1...DB:1473 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Iimitlessyou has been edit warring and editing tendentiously on Lyle and Erik Menendez to exclude/minimize the prosecution arguments from the article.

    • here is their first revert, removing a summary of the prosecutions argument.
    • here they reverted me a second time, calling me "completely biased" and a "pro prosecution editor" who is "adding debunked information"

    At that point I placed a polite warning on their talk page, and opened a discussion and pinged them on the article talk page which they ignored: Talk:Lyle and Erik Menendez#Dispute over edits/lead by Iimitlessyou

    • They proceeded to revert me again here and called me a biased "pro prosecution editor", taking out additional content down the page.
    • They reverted me a forth time for "biased edits".

    I reverted them 3 times and attempted to discuss, they reverted me 4.

    I've tried to explain that the article is supposed to reflect the WP:RS, and this includes the prosecution case, but they seem to interpret this as "biased" against the menendez brothers who murdered their parents. Also note the editors heavy editing in the Netflix series article which is highly sensationalised.

    Zenomonoz (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A few more edits:
    • In this edit limitlessyou wipes all mention of the brothers confession that they premeditated murder (from both the lead and body) which was captured on a tape recording.
    • in this edit limitlessyou removed the WP:RS mention of the screenplay Lyle wrote in school: a story about a rich young man who killed his parents in the "perfect murder" for the inheritance money.
    • In the same edit, limitlessyou deleted the police description of the highly emotional act the brothers put on in the 911 call and their visit to the home.
    • in this edit the user deleted The prosecution argued there was no evidence the photographs were taken by Jose, and the rest of the film roll showed the photos were taken at a children's birthday party and changed it to prosecution argued that there was no evidence the photographs were taken by Jose, despite them being documented and kept by Kitty –deletion of the prosecutions actual argument.
    • Fabrication: In this edit limitlessyou wrote: Erik's prosecutor, Lester Kuriyama, also theorized that Erik's confusion about his sexual orientation suggested that José's alleged molestation was consensual. The original source does not say the lawyer ever suggested this. The prosecution argued no molestation ever happened.
    • The editor ignored my talk page request they revert this falsehood, and continued editing. WP:NOTHERE.
    @Zenomonoz have they been notified per that red box at the top of this page? – robertsky (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, my bad missed that. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I accidentally removed yours when I left one. Sorry. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 12:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I used the wrong notice. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    in the meantime I have protected the page. Will be looking into the edits further. – robertsky (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be nessesary but please change the "pp" template to admin-protected one as it currently display a "semi protected". Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Iimitlessyou may have introduced WP:CITOGENESIS in 2021 which made it's way into mainstream media

    [edit]

    I noticed another unusual quote in the Menendez article: "Lyle's Prosecutor, Pam Bozanich, argued that "men could not be raped because they lack the necessary equipment to be raped". I looked for it in google using the before:2000 before:2005 function etc. It was wasn't mentioned anywhere. None of the old court reporting mentions it. Not in the 2010s either.

    Using Wikiblame, I traced its origins in the Wikipedia article in this this 2021 edit by Imitlessyou, who used this citation, a Yahoo news piece, which does not include this quote at all.

    This looks to be a major fabrication by a user, which has now made it's way into the Independent, Fox News, New Zealand's state news, People magazine and more. It has also spread all over social media.

    This matches up with their fabrication they made today, which I cited above. What else did Iimitlessyou fabricate in the article years back?

    Iimitlessyou also just cited The Independent article, to give this WP:RS credibility! Zenomonoz (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't find any earlier instance of that either, or even any relevant combination of terms like "bozanich" and "equipment", it does look like WP:CITOGENESIS. Void if removed (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so the only recent "evidence" I can find is this short tiktok/instagram reel which appears to show the back of a woman in court saying "men cannot be raped because they lack the necessary equipment to be raped". However, it's dubiously edited. It's sounds like she says "you mention first of all...", at the start, not "I would like to say".
    I cannot see this quote in Google books, old articles from the trial, transcripts etc, despite a huge number of publications/books covering this trial. If this audio is truly from the trial, surely it would've been played in every documentary on this case ever. Perhaps the audio is swapped in from elsewhere, or simply AI generated for TikTok bait after this 'quote' circulated in the media. Perhaps it is real, and she is simply discussing some legal technicality with a judge, hence the rest of her sentence is cropped out.
    Regardless, Iimitlessyou injected the quote without a supporting source, and used the word "ARGUED" which appears to have been repeated verbatim in the media. That is still WP:CITOGENESIS imo. They also fabricated a false claim using another source today, which is what raised my suspicion in the first place. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if you've exhaustively searched the trial transcripts and the like without finding it, then fabrication becomes the most realistic option. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can make out there are no trial transcripts for the first trial - at least I can find none online, and a transcript for a recent appeal here says that the Menendezes and their lawyers don't have access to a transcript. There is hours of footage of the trial available here, and I haven't watched all of that footage (that clip alone, which is the one used as a reference for the quote in our article, is nearly two hours long) but having scrubbed through it quickly I haven't found any evidence supporting the quote. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, no, found it – it's at 1:12:23 in that footage. So it wasn't fabricated. That doesn't mean it's necessarily WP:DUE, but it did happen. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in this article too, and Erik Menendez gave a quote in response to it. And Robert Rand, who has written extensively about this case, also references that quote: One prosecutor even argued that "men could not be raped because they lack the necessary equipment." Robert says: "I remember sitting in the court in shock. Can you imagine that being said now?". Also agree that doesn't mean it's necessarily WP:DUE. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fairly complicated now that it appears in many sources. Especially since few or none of those sources seem to put it in proper context namely something that occurred during discussion of jury instructions. So not something that was was said to the jury and during a phase where it was actually quite important to discuss the technicalities of the law at the time. Unfortunately this seems to have been lost in the sources and while it might always have happened, it seems to me easily possible the way it was added in our article influenced how it's been covered since then. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thanks for that Caeciliusinhorto-public. I missed that it was now claimed to be in that video and there were too many videos to have any idea where to search. Like you I couldn't find trial transcripts for the first trial. However I later found there is a Youtube channel which I won't link to due to the possibility of WP:COPYVIOLINK but which which has quite a lot of videos about the case including many from court TV broadcast. Searching within this channel does I think look within the automatically generated transcripts so it might be what Zenomonoz was referring to by transcripts. I still failed but it doesn't seem that the jury instructions are on this channel. I have to say looking in to this more although it did appear in the 2022 Discovery documentary I linked below, it doesn't seem to have received much mention until recently. Even on Reddit the oldest mention of it I came across was after May 2021. So it adds to my view while we didn't invent something, it's likely we helped spread something that was likely mined from a primary source which I find fairly concerning. I mean it's even possible that the Discovery documentary mentioned it in part because of the person researching came across it in our article. To be clear, I'm sure there was discussion of this in some places before it appeared in our article but it does seem to be it wasn't something talked about much before then. Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have found absolutely no mention of it in secondary sources from before it was added to the Wikipedia article. I think it's pretty clear that even though this isn't citogenesis in the traditional sense, the fact that it's considered a relevant quote to bring up derives from Wikipedia – I can't imagine the fact that particular quote out of all ~250 hours of trial footage suddenly started being cited shortly after it was added to Wikipedia is a coincidence! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding this – I jumped on this (slightly too quickly) after Iimitlessyou inserted a misrepresentation of a source ("consensual molestation"), and then remove my failedverification tag. It's pretty normal for lawyers to discuss instructions/definitions. Major quote mining. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding this out. I was also in the process of looking through videos until another matter took my attention away before I retired for the night. – robertsky (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This user appears to be here to WP:RGW. Edit summaries like zenozemos [sic] is completely biased and pro-prosecution who keeps on adding extensive rebutted and debunked information on this page and removing proper citations in statements in favor of the defense [42] are completely unacceptable. Given the evident fabrication, and battleground editing I would support indeffing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely RGW, especially given it's getting millions of views at moment. They're merrily editing away as we speak. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef. The fabrication alone having made it's way into the media, is already really bad, Wikipedia unfortunately has this kind of effect due to news editors thinking that it's okay to just pull from Wikipedia without actually checking to see if it's actually true. Now we have to check all of their edits to see if there are any other fabrications.
    The lack of communication, casting of aspirations, editwaring is even more of a reason to indef in combination with the above. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 11:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two points, Zenomonoz were you able to find trial transcripts for the first trial? All the trial transcriptions I can find seem to be for the second trial which I think is in big part because the trial wasn't broadcast unlike the first trial but the claim added was it's in the first trial so it's not surprising if you didn't find it in transcripts. I was able to find the video [43] which seems to be from this movie [44] Menendez Brothers: Misjudged? which was released in 2022 so after it was added to our article which suggests to me other sources have started to make a big deal over this. So while we may have helped popularise this, I don't think it originated from us. It does seem to me likely something said in the trial although the context is still unclear. That said, it is concerning still if the OP is adding such claims based on OR from primary sources and it does seem likely this was the case unless the OP can provide a very good explanation of which secondary source the info came from since it didn't seem to come from the secondary source provided. Edit: Forgot to say it's at around 3:25 in the video. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, while I'm not saying it's any more acceptable to use our articles to WP:RGW by adding stuff from primary sources, I think coverage of this does reflect how dumb sources will be dumb sources. AFAICT, our article has always said this occurred in the first trial. This first trial is largely irrelevant to them now spending time in prison, so whatever people think of it, it is surely unrelated to whether mistakes were made in the trial which sent them to prison. Yet some sources (and even more people on Reddit, Tiktok etc) are treating it like it's a reason to free them. (I mean okay, if they were acquitted in the first trial, there could be no second trial, but AFAIK that it's.) When searching for this, I also found suggestions it was technically true in terms of the legal definition of rape until 2012 in California which while I didn't confirm I expect to be correct which seems to be the bigger reason for outrage yet we have what we have. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Court TV has the full video archive of the first trial available here. I can check the prosecution's opening and closing arguments to see if it was mentioned there, as that's the most likely time that they would make such a statement. Pinguinn 🐧 00:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinguinn, this was already established in comments higher on the page by Caeciliusinhorto. The sentence appears in a discussion between lawyers and the judge regarding jury instructions and terminology, not in front of the jury. Zenomonoz (talk) Zenomonoz (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah thanks, you just saved me a good bit of time. Even if the quote was accurate though, it's probably not DUE as mentioned. I still think Iimitlessyou is POV-pushing on this topic, but perhaps the remedy should be a TBAN rather than an indef. Pinguinn 🐧 00:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zenomonoz - if the quote is to remain in the article, we should change that sentence to reflect this was said during jury instructions - Lyle's prosecutor, Pam Bozanich, argued during jury instructions that..... - and even then I wonder if it is DUE, since it is still missing the context of why she said it in the first place, which was in relation to the laws at that time. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it seems undue and confusing for the reader, because it’s in the midst of an extended conversation. Perhaps some RS will cover this quote more clearly in future. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Any objections to moving this to WP:ANI? This is the sort of issue that belongs there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am thinking that this should be in ANI as well. – robertsky (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought so too, so I made an ANI thread linking to this one, but Bbb23 reverted me, saying it was "completely unnecessary" [45]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging participants so they're aware of the new location. @Zenomonoz, Robertsky, LakesideMiners, Miminity, Void if removed, Hemiauchenia, Caeciliusinhorto-public, and Nil Einne:. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I had evaluated on these range of edits and found minor causes of concerns, of which I have removed from the article. While I wish for more time to check on the earlier edits further, I cannot commit myself to it due to upcoming offline activities this weekend and next week. Any other admins may take over on this issue if need be. However, from the editing by Iimitlessyou (i.e. at Special:Diff/1250104254) and the findings of misattribution of sources above, one may have think that the editor have had gone through the court videos and then find relevant sources as close as possible to support the statements here. The usage of CourtTV videos and/or transcripts, which categorically is a primary source should be done with care, especially for BLPs as it can drive POV editing in any directions. At the moment, to me, this seems to be a content dispute with an unresponsive (at talk pages) editor at play. A warning to Iimitlessyou might be warranted to be careful with their editing with respect to WP:NPOV and the use/attribution of sources. I would also urge Iimitlessyou to partake in the talk page discussions. To prevent further disruptive editing for the time being, especially with many of the current editors on the article being extended-confirmed, the full-protection of the article will remain. Please put request for changes on the talk page appropriately in the meantime. – robertsky (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your help Robert. The source material is huge, and the article is currently receiving 100,000 views a day. There look to be additional misrepresentations of sources by Imitlessyou, so this could take a while to fix via the talk page. Probably easier to wait until PP changes in future before I attempt a tidy up. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering they have never edited their talk page, I feel that a p-block from article soacemight be worth it for them to draw their attention to this discussion. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 10:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yamla has p-blocked them from the article space. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 12:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was unclear to me if they had even seen the notification. Any admin is free to lift the partial block once they start engaging here. --Yamla (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect non response is intentional, because:
    • I pinged them on the article talk page.
    • I requested they come to the talk page in this edit summary [46] and here [47] which they reverted and ignored
    • Meanwhile, they blanked their user page [48]
    • I pinged them again for brazenly misrepresenting a source [49]
    • I added a 'Not in source' tag to the misrepresentation [50]
    • They deleted the tag [51] within an edit in which they added other content, so it doesn’t appear to be haphazard editing. It appears to be quite intentional.
    The WP:ADVOCACY editing isn't new. In this 2021 edit, Iimitlessyou says they "fixed information the the media is twisting", by changing the terminlogy from "alleged" to "revealed".
    Iimitlessyou may be more inclined to respond when some basic tidy up occurs after the admin-only PP is lifted (and they remain blocked). I raised one example of the POV pushing tone Iimitlessyou injected here.
    Zenomonoz (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Response from Iimitlessyou:
    [edit]

    The quote by Bozanich can be found on the actual trial tape from Court TV, which I cited on the page but was removed by Zenomonoz because he did not bother to check the actual source and wasn't willing to watch through the trial to make sure that this claim was true. Zenomonoz has also edited much of the prosecution's arguments in their favor without noting the rebuttals present and validated in the trial (see Dr. Oziel's cross-examination on Court TV), and they unnecessarily included most of those statements in the introduction paragraph which was meant to summarize the trials. Zenomonoz also fails to include important testimonies from Ann Burgess, Judalon Smyth, and Oziel's secretary that were used to argue with his tape recordings. Zonomonoz also purposely ignored and excluded another crucial evidence of a tape recording of Donovan Goodreau's interview with journalist Robert Rand (There is a clip on YouTube of the exact part where Goodreau was caught for possible perjury, in case Zenomonoz is not willing to go through the actual trial archives from Court TV), where he revealed that Lyle Menendez had told him about the abuse months before the murders, contrary to the focus of argument being made by Zenomonoz that the motives are "hatred" or "financial gain" (the latter of which has been excluded by the Grand Jury in the trial because of the lack of evidences). —  Iimitlessyou (talk • contribs) 04:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Iimitlessyou, we are discussing an article in an encyclopedia which is a summary article based on reliable, secondary sources. It's not expected to include every detail that is mentioned in primary sources. This isn't an investigation book on one of the trials, it's a BLP article on two subjects. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Zenomonoz has also edited much of the prosecution's arguments in their favor without noting the rebuttals present and validated in the trial" – reflecting what is reported in WP:RS isn't editing in somebody's favor.
    • "...where he revealed that Lyle Menendez had told him about the abuse months before the murders" – you are WP:RGW using allegations. Others allege that Lyle asked them to fabricate stories for the case (see page 12477) – which you scrubbed from the article. Editors beliefs are irrelevant here.
    • Zonomonoz also purposely ignored and excluded another crucial evidence of a tape recording of Donovan Goodreau's interview with journalist Robert Rand – I could not "purposely ignore" anything if you never replied on the talk page. I'm not seeing any explanation for that here.
    • ...contrary to the focus of argument being made by Zenomonoz that the motives are "hatred" or "financial gain, the latter of which has been excluded by the Grand Jury in the trial because of the lack of evidences – this isn't my argument, it is the prosecution's argument. Speaking of which; you put this claim about exclusion into the Wiki page (see citation 65 see the current page), but that isn't mentioned in the source you used?
    • The U.S. Ninth Court review says they were convicted of murder, partly on these grounds. The pair hired a computer expert to delete their father's updated will, which they had been written out of.
    Zenomonoz (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I also would like to take note that Zenomonoz only included Alan Dershowitz's The Abuse Excuse book in the "In popular culture" part of the page, which may suggest that his contributions are based on this book. From what I see, their edits are mainly psych-related, which would explain why much of their contributions are about the Oziel tapes. However, it is necessary to include crucial evidences and valid rebuttals (just as they included the rebuttals about the abuse in the form of the tapes where neither Lyle nor Erik mentioned the abuse). I do acknowledge that I made a mistake in removing important information that he contributed, and I tried to shorten it as most of it are repetitions of quotes that were already present in the page. I included sources based on other books, including The Menendez Murders by Robert Rand (journalist who has been covering the case since August 21, 1989) and Hung Jury by Hazel Thornton (a juror from the first trial). Regarding some of the edits I made 3 years ago, I would like to clarify that English isn't my first language and words like "alleged" and "revealed" were not as clear to me back then as it is now (this may be unnecessary, but I am currently a second-year journalism student and my contributions from 2020-2021 are flawed and unprofessional, to say the least). I understand the encyclopedic information necessary for this page and I am willing to have proper discussions to make this page more neutral with the right sources. However, I do stand by my statement that much of Zenomonos' contributions lean towards the prosecution's case, but I still acknowledge my own mistakes in the edits.— Iimitlessyou (talk • contribs) 05:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I will no longer add any more information regarding this page but I do wish to continue editing it in the case that there are harmful, unverified information. If I do find a necessary update, what I would do is discuss it with other editors first so they can help me verify it. What prompted me to make major edits in the first place is that the construction of the sentences and testimonies had too much focus on the pro-prosecution stance, and I tried to balance the neutrality of the page but I am aware of the mistakes I made. Perhaps I could just include my contributions in the talk page and let other editors verify/reconstruct it for me? Whatever is necessary. — Iimitlessyou (talk • contribs) 06:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I am opposed to you editing the article, and any other article related to the Menendez brothers, broadly construed. It's clear from your reply above that you still think it is okay to watch video clips on Court TV and YouTube, and include information in the article based on your analysis and interpretation of those videos. If you don't understand that there is important context missing from that quote by Pam Bozanich, then you have no business editing the article. This edit, dating back to May 2021, clearly shows that you misrepresented sourcing and are not neutral when it comes to editing the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of fabrication and WP:CITOGENESIS

    [edit]

    Users above have accused me of fabricating a quote from Pam Bozanich, as sourced below, that somehow made its way to mainstream media. Her claim and quote that "men can't be raped..." can be found on the primary source here (time stamp: 1:12:23), and there are multiple secondary sources discussing that quote, as stated above. Examples: Independent, People, Fox News. Users have also falsely made claims that the short clips posted about this quote are edited, but the primary source cited above is proof that it was indeed stated by Bozanich.— Iimitlessyou (talk • contribs) 07:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't read the responses. Bozanich's is discussing the legal definition of rape before the trial had even begun. She seems to be discussing that rape is defined as vaginal penetration, and that it may be a case of forcible sodomy instead.
    You quote-mined and took it out of context. She never "argued" this as part of the prosecutions case. Yes, the secondary sources you cite appear to have copied the quote from Wikipedia that you inserted back in 2021. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then Bozanich is stating a legal definition to help the prosecution's case. They argued against the defense by using this legal definition, which had a significant impact on the prosecution's case (eg: "sodomy" and "sex with father" being used instead of "rape"), suggesting that the alleged sexual abuse was consensual (as argued by Erik's prosecutor, Lester Kuriyama, in his cross-examination where he emphasized Erik's confusion with his sexuality). Perhaps it would be necessary to take note that the prosecution suggested different motives for the murders in the first trial. — Iimitlessyou (talk • contribs) 07:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not gonna argue with you. You keep repeating a libellous claim ("suggesting that the alleged sexual abuse was consensual"). Kuriyama never said that. Wait patiently for an admin, they are volunteers. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban of Iimitlessyou from the Menendez brothers, broadly construed

    [edit]

    I propose that for battleground editing and misuse of sources, that Iimitlessyou be indefinitely topic banned from the Lyle and Erik Menendez article, as well as related articles like the recent Netflix documentary Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry PROD removal

    [edit]

    So I just came across Ledja Liku via the New Pages feed, and I prodded it. The prod was removed by Alb0077 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Ira Leviton (talk · contribs) then re-prodded the article, to which Gle007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (suspiciously similar to Alb0077) then removed the prod again. I then reverted that as there was no reason given for removing it, to which 81.26.202.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again removed it. I'm almost 100% sure this is sockpuppetry, both of the non-IP user(s) have also been doing the same thing on the Albanian Wikipedia. :) SirMemeGod  17:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a question about this, I hope it's ok to ask here. The answer might be obvious, but wouldn't this have been easier as CSD request. Knitsey (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have CSDd it, but one of them would have just removed it. SirMemeGod  17:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, sorry if I've got this wrong, I thought CSD couldn't be removed? It doesn't matter so much in light of the answer below, it's more for my reference. Knitsey (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK, CSD tags cannot be removed by the author of the article. I'm not sure about users who are not auto-confirmed, but other editors can remove or revert a CSD tag. Tags like G4 shouldn't be removed by editors who are not admins, as they have no way to check the deleted version. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jeraxmoira, I wasn't too sure. Sorry for slightly derailing the discussion. Knitsey (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any editor can object to a WP:PROD by removing the template, and the article cannot be resubmitted for PROD after that. Your next option is WP:AFD. Schazjmd (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here isn't that (which I may have been in the wrong about), it's sockpuppetry. Also, removing a WP:BLPROD without reason and without adding any reliable sources is wrong, hence why it was re-added. SirMemeGod  17:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the PROD is sufficient; supplying a reason is recommended but not required. Schazjmd (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if no such source has been provided, the tag may be re-added. When practical, revert to the original expiration date. BLPROD isn't the same as PROD. SirMemeGod  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir MemeGod (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alb0077 made a number of edits adding sources before removing the BLPPROD. (External links also negate a BLPPROD.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of which are reliable. If you'd read WP:BLPROD, a reliable source is needed to remove the PROD. This user added Instagram, YouTube, some references not in English which don't link to anything, and IMDb, which isn't considered reliable. SirMemeGod  17:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking. Either way, the sources support nothing in the actual article. SirMemeGod  17:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For a BLPPROD tag to be removed it "requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography" - a link to a Facebook account doesn't cut it. AusLondonder (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to policy that only applies if the tag was properly placed though. Since it wasn't properly placed as the links which don't have to be reliable were there before the article was tagged [52] and they do mention Albania, the BLPPROD tag should be removable. The policy doesn't make this explicit except for admins, but it always emphasises that the tag needs to be properly placed including that admins cannot delete it if it's not properly placed. Perhaps this is intentional and only admins are allowed to judge if a tag was properly placed but even if this is the case, it seems pointless to edit war over it when all that's going to happen is in 7 days an admin will do it themselves. Instead it's best to take it to AFD where it can be deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir MemeGod, are you talking about PROD or BLPPROD? As you say, they are different, so you should clarify which you are talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLPPROD. SirMemeGod  17:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody removes a PROD/CSD in most cases (i.e. not article recreation) its usually best to just AfD the article, rather than contest the PROD/CSD. AfDs are a more "thorough" deletion than PROD/CSD, so if a user wants to keep an article by removing it, they are often shooting themselves in the foot by making go through AfD (which will delete it harder). Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly if it's a paid creation (I can't tell what they tried to declare on their user page) I wouldn't bother with PROD, 99% of the time it would just be deprodded for no reason anyway. Just go straight to AFD and save a few days. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Up for AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledja Liku. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Obscene personal attacks from a likely sockpuppet - please block

    [edit]

    Reporting: User:Motherofnether

    Please block this editor/sock for leaving obscene comments/personal attacks about me on my user page,[53], [54] their user page,[55] and for their username which mimics my username. I'm pretty sure it is related to the ANI re: the user Gingeksace and their socks in relation to the Menotti Lerro/Empathism promo/spam.[56] (FYI, Gingeksace also left another personal attack on Commons a few days ago.[57]. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've requested CSD on the user page. Knitsey (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, @Knitsey and RickinBaltimore. The comments have been kindly reverted by another editor, Jeraxmoira, they are in my talk page history as a record. Netherzone (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe someone will kindly Rev/del them for you. Nobody needs to see that type of comment. Knitsey (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you were saying that I took care of it. Edits are revdel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to all, what an amazing community! Netherzone (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Told to "burn in hell" and called a "terrorist" by an IP.

    [edit]

    Cannot leave a message on any talk page, but the IP 24.172.154.107 has left a very uncalled for message on my talk page. Zênite (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted, revdel applied, blocked. --Kinu t/c 20:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, appreciate it. Zênite (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the point of revdel when the target user said it here themselves? 107.77.202.69 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW that IP (the blocked one, not the one commenting here) appears to be a long-standing problem editor. After their block is up, may be a good one to keep an eye on given their history of problematic edits. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DotCoder and cut-and-paste copyvios past sixth warning

    [edit]

    User:DotCoder, over the past few months, has had seven warnings for copyright and plagiarism issues: some for copying compatibly licensed material without attribution([58] [59] [60] [61]), but also for introducing standard copyright violations. ([62] [63] [64])

    Today, they set off copypatrol with this edit [65], which contained material cut and paste from this [66] journal article. Interested parties may view the automated flagging of their edit here [67]. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have RD1'd the edit in question. For the benefit of those who can no longer read it, it was a full paragraph (~80 words) of directly copied, clearly "non-basic" prose. Given the repeat violations, and apparent refusal to meaningfully engage with past warnings, I'm afraid I don't see any option but to block them indefinitely, and have done so now. Difficulty understanding copyright is one thing, simply carrying on while warnings about it pile up is another. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive article creations

    [edit]

    So I came across Гриша Андреасяан (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) via the New Pages Feed yesterday, and it appears that a large majority of this user's creations are speedy-deleted or draftified. (Lilit Karapetyan (singer) is a good example, Hey man im josh (talk · contribs) draftified it and the user immediately recreated it). They have also been approached by Velella (talk · contribs), to which they just ignored. Their talk page is enough evidence, it's an absurd amount of CSD and (BL)PROD nomination notices. Maybe it's WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? Either way, it's disruptive. SirMemeGod  15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly support this report. So much time and effort has been expended dealing with articles put into Mainspace and the speedily deleted or Draftified. Worse is the habit of simply creating a new Mainspace article when the original has been draftified as at Anna Grigoryan (actress) and Draft:Anna Grigoryan and Draft:Anna Grigoryan (actress). It reeks of paid editing and a total lack of consideration for other editors' time and effort. If there could be a block on creating new articles, that would be of enormous help.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indef blocked the user from creating new articles as well as moving existing articles. BorgQueen (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They now appear to be CU blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Гриша Андреасян. QwertyForest (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent block evasion

    [edit]

    I'm not sure where I should be reporting this and if this is the right place, but User:2883737hehu72736 appears to be block evading the block of User:91838jeu72737 (note the similarity in username format, the editing areas, and the newer account being created a day after the block of the older account; both have even edited the same page, see the edit history of Shwa). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toweli (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)<diff>[reply]

    Just file at WP:SPI next time. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock blocked.-- Ponyobons mots 19:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Acairain96, uncivil comment

    [edit]

    Hello, Acairain96 has changed 4 times the genre on Joker: Folie à Deux, despite reverts and explanations in edit summaries and they did so a 4th time (with a rather misleading edit summary) despite a message I had left on their talk page. That was disruptive enough but their last reply to me is extremely uncivil. Can this be addressed? Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war, unreliable sources, unsourced text in contentious topic

    [edit]

    TruthfulSpeech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Pushing text not found in sources, non-reliable sources.
    First edit:[68]
    Edit war follows: [69] sources provided, first text is not in source, second source is unreliable.
    Edits are discussed, no confirming quote nor reliability confirmation provided: User talk:TruthfulSpeech#Nazi Stepan Bandera - ManyAreasExpert , Talk:Stepan Bandera#Le Monde an unreliable source
    Edit war continues: [70] .

    Contentious topic alert [71] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're going to put a report, provide a report that's actually valid. Multiple people read the edit, read the sources and agreed that they're valid and the statements can be seen.
    Anyone reading this report, go to my talk page and witness all of the arguments of @Manyareasexpert fail, as they're incorrect and he's simply attempting to portray someone from his nation as a hero. TruthfulSpeech (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, the sources @Manyareasexpert claims to be "unreliable" include "Le Monde" which is the largest and most reliable news source in France. However he fails to post any source that supports his claims of Bandera not involving himself with any Nazi behaviour, not even ones from Ukraine which presumably would have quite a large bias. TruthfulSpeech (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, "One of the most reliable news sources in France"
    Thanks TruthfulSpeech (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the sources @Manyareasexpert claims to be "unreliable" include "Le Monde"
    Wrong, the issue is that LeMonde does not contain what you claim it does.
    The second source, "peoplesdispatch", is an anonymous outlet with hidden credentials, is unreliable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    he's simply attempting to portray someone from his nation as a hero
    Thank you for another personal attack. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unconstructive editing, potentially libelous by 2603:8080:13F0:0:0:0:0:0/48

    [edit]

    2603:8080:13F0:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) is adding unsourced derogatory and potentially libelous content to a number of articles.

    IP changes fairly quickly. Range block needed? Adakiko (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6: WP:BLP & MOS:MOS violations & removing cited material & citations without explanation

    [edit]
    Closed per request. /64 seems to be blocked following a report on AN3 noticeboard.(non-admin closure) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Moved from WP:AIV
     – as per HJ Mitchell & Daniel Case. See this diff Peaceray (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – An admin blocked the /64 range for one week. See WP:AN3#User:2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6 reported by User:Peaceray (Result: /64 range blocked one week). Please archive this discussion. Peaceray (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Doczilla

    [edit]
    There is not just consensus but unanimous agreement that this was a reasonable exercise of administrator discretion, and no tool misuse occurred. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I believe Doczilla (talk · contribs) misused admin rights. in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary voyage. There was a clear consensus to delete, so Doczilla deleted it and closed the AfD. But them on a whim they reopened kit. I pointed out that if the page is deleted then to restore it one has to ask for undeletion. But Doczilla igtored my reminde3r. Please see the history.

    • curprev 16:15, October 10, 2024 Altenmann talk contribs 12,721 bytes +1,010‎ Reverted 1 edit by Doczilla (talk): Please follow the procedure, OK? undo Tags: Twinkle Undo
    • curprev 16:07, October 10, 2024 Doczilla talk contribs 11,711 bytes −1,010‎ I closed it. Based on user request and reasoning, I unclosed it. undothank Tags: Manual revert Reverted

    October 9, 2024

    • curprev 11:03, October 9, 2024 Altenmann talk contribs 12,721 bytes +1,010‎ the page was deleted, so you cannoit relist, but request WP:UNDELETE undo Tags: Manual revert Reverted
    • curprev 10:01, October 9, 2024 Doczilla talk contribs 11,711 bytes +705‎ Relisting discussion (XFDcloser) undothank Tag: Reverted
    • curprev 10:01, October 9, 2024 Doczilla talk contribs 11,006 bytes −1,715‎ Undid revision 1250046732 by Doczilla (talk) undothank Tags: Undo Reverted

    October 7, 2024

    • curprev 22:28, October 7, 2024 Doczilla talk contribs 12,721 bytes +1,715‎ →Imaginary voyage: Closed as delete (XFDcloser) undothank Tag: Reverted

    This is unbecoming of an admin to violate our rules. In fact, admins are supposed to upheld our rules. At theast that's what I was taught 15 years ago. --Altenmann >talk 23:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A closer of an AfD can undo their close within a reasonable time period, should they wish to. You are incorrect to revert them. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (a) What is the policy? I am not aware of one, hence my protest. (b) What is "reasonable time"? It was closed on october 7 and reopened on october 9. --Altenmann >talk 23:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DELPRO specifically says that a deletion discussion can be re-opened by the closing administrator. Two days is a perfectly reasonable time. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It only says that in WP:Deletion process § Non-administrators closing discussions (unless I'm missing it somewhere else?), and the context - particularly the next clause, which says "any uninvolved admin" - is crystal clear it's meant only to apply to those. —Cryptic 01:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If a non-admin can reopen their own close, why wouldn't an administrator be able to do the same? Daniel (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if any uninvolved admin can reopen a non-admin's close, why wouldn't they be able to do the same to an admin's? It's in the same sentence.
    You're the one who said policy allows this, and it's clear that (that part of) policy doesn't. I don't know why it doesn't. If forced to guess, I'd say it's to let someone back out of a bad NAC after they've been convinced on their talk page that an admin should've closed it, so as to discourage other non-admins from reopening it themselves. AFAIK policy's silent on the issue, except in this one circumstance. —Cryptic 01:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I pretty much understand relisting the discussion when consensus is unclear. But reopening the deleted article with clear consensus to delete, and without bothering to write an explanation for the actions, smacks arm-twisting by an admin to favor a certain outcome. --Altenmann >talk 23:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen up, I don't see a clear consensus on that deletion discussion. votes counts: one weak del, 3 comments, two deletes; but the numbers don't matter for the sake of their masses. What does is; not enough discussion occurred there to come to a conclusion. Admin doing delete, then undelete? Who knows. Not "abuse of power", just maybe a realization that consensus wasn't formed? if that's any explanation. Not and Admin, occasionally pop in here BarntToust(Talk) 00:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    also, on Doczilla's talk, you should've added your ANI notification in a new sub-section. BarntToust(Talk) 00:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may, perhaps it could be relisted another week just to make sure what the consensus is? I'll do so if no one objects. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisting would probably just result in the same outcome, though I see nothing wrong with it. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 00:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already relisted it when persuaded to reconsider my original close of the AfD. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it may result in the same outcome, I don't see an inherent harm in giving it more time to play out. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins can undo their own use of the tools, reverting to a state that is basically the same as if they never used the tools, assuming it is in a reasonable time frame, which this is. This is not an abuse of the tools. In fact, it is using the tools to UNuse the tools, to allow someone else to examine. You should never revert an admin who is restoring the status quo before he took action, particularly when it would have required using the tools, which you don't have. Since the status quo was restored, any action on the AFD should be considered a new action, not a revert, and a NAC isn't generally allowed for article deletion. As such, I have reverted you, on your 2nd revert. If you continue to edit war over the closure, another admin is likely to consider this edit warring and may sanction you accordingly. Editors should simply treat this like any other AFD that hasn't been closed yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daranios asked me to reconsider the close, and I came to agree that consensus was perhaps not so clearcut after all, so I did what I'm supposed to do. Altenmann, I would suggest contacting admins and other users directly on their talk pages to ask about such things in case that might clarify things. I might have been able to provide the answers that could have spared other people this trouble here and saved you time, too. I value their time and effort, as well as yours. If escalation does seem necessary (because sometimes it is), please follow procedure and provide proper notice and include a talk page heading. There is no "whim" involved. In 18 years as an admin, there have only been a couple of times when anyone has successfully persuaded me to reconsider my view on consensus, revert a deletion, and relist for further discussion. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is neither unbecoming nor an abuse of admin tools and does not need to be at ANI (or even AN). It's firmly within discretion. If this had been brought to DRV by someone who argued for retention, it would likely have been undeleted for the purposes of DRV anyway per process. (Uninvolved, non participant in that AfD) Star Mississippi 01:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Dennis Brown said. For a closed afd, I agree a day and a half is a reasonable time frame, though it's maybe starting to push it. (I'm put in mind of this disaster from 2019, which fell well on the other side of the line.) —Cryptic 01:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not common but it is also not unusual for a closer to revert a closure and relist an AFD discussion after being presented with a persuasive argument. This closure wasn't an obvious Delete to me when I briefly looked it over. I know I've reverted closures before. My personal rule is that if I've closed an AFD and then reverted the closure, I then become uninvolved with the discussion and do not close it again. But I don't think that is written in policy anywhere. I would just prefer that the discussion is reviewed by a different admin. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Altenmann and Cryptic: With regard to AFAIK policy's silent on the issue, except in this one circumstance: WP:Deletion policy says If you believe that a page was wrongly deleted, ... you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you may be able to request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This suggestion to contact the deleting closer makes little sense to me if the closer were not allowed by policy to undo the deletion. So aside from other arguments above, policy at least seems to imply that this is a possible course of action. Daranios (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not unbecoming of an administrator, I'd argue it's the opposite because they're acknowledging their close may not have been perfect and they're reversing said close in a reasonable timeframe. I don't see an issue with Doczilla's actions here. The only issue I see in this matter is Alternmann reverting Doczilla twice to try to force the AfD closed again, which does come off as edit warring from my POV. Hey man im josh (talk)
    • As others have said there's nothing abusive about this nor is it a misuse of tools. In fact as Daranios mentioned it makes no sense that we tell editors to talk to the closer first before bringing it to DRV (as we ask people to talk to the editor first for virtually anything) if admins cannot unilaterally reverse or otherwise change their close. Further in a case like this where all that happened is they undid their close and relisted, so anyone else could close in the future with this alleged clear consensus very little explanation is needed. Perhaps it would have been useful to say something like "I closed this as delete but relisted based on a request and reasonable rationale I received" but really that's about it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As a matter of fact, my comment when relisting it was very close to that: "I closed it. Based on user request and reasoning, I unclosed it." Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 15:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Undisclosed paid editing at Metropolitan College of New York

    [edit]

    For nearly four years, Tgeorgiou has exclusively edited either Metropolitan College of New York or material related to the college in other articles. Their editing history and the briefest of searches of their username will show that it's highly probable that they work for the college in public relations. They have been warned on their User Talk page by multiple editors that this project's Terms of Service require that they disclose a paid relationship with the college. A discussion was previously held at WP:COIN.

    They have ignored all of these warnings and persisted for years in editing what is almost certainly their employer's article without disclosing their paid editing relationship. I'm afraid that blocking them is the only way to prevent their continued violations of our Terms of Service and community expectations. ElKevbo (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked Tgeorgiou for undisclosed paid editing. I did not just fall off a turnip truck and neither did the other editors who have observed this person's behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) User seems to be disposed of. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AlphaBetaGamma, please remember that there is a human being with feelings behind any account that ends up getting blocked. It is important to be matter-of-fact and informative about the reasons for a block, without "disposed of" comments. There are several paths (admittedly difficult) for this person to return to editing, and therefore we should avoid comments that seem to foreclose those opportunities. Cullen328 (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This reminds me of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 who did edit that article in the past ([72]) EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by 2409:250:3B20:3700::/64

    [edit]

    2409:250:3B20:3700::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Just resumed from a 1 month block for disruptive editing doing the same type of edits. Edits appear to be mechanical and not considered in general and there have been a large number in a short period of time. Most of the edits are minor markup changes mostly changing <br> tags to <br /> tags, a minor but somewhat pointless exercise that could be considered slight improvements to the articles effected. Hidden among the mass of tag updates are multiple cases of adding unsourced information, and more significantly changing the pipes in {{ubl}} templates to <br /> tags. The IP is highly dynamic in the range. Messages have been left and ignored as likely never seen. Checking the edits has become a major task, the minor improvements don't outweigh the significant number of errors being made. See unsourced addition to credits, corrupted ubl template and MOS:BOLD violation for examples. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 6 months EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JustAPoliticsNerd violating WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS

    [edit]

    threatening death penalty on this diff [73]

    14 minutes later, reverts to saying "whoever titled this page this way needs to be seriously investigated" [74]

    as of current revision [75] simply is calling editor "morally despicable" and is linking to some wordpress blog (?) to suggest a politician is editing the article (?) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely by Izno EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did someone forget to revoke his TPA? Ahri Boy (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't that second diff be oversighted? Looks like outing to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oversight also required at User talk:JustAPoliticsNerd where the outing and accusations were repeated after the user was blocked. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please go directly to Wikipedia:Oversight rather than bringing this up on a popular noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Request sent. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent MOS:RETAIN violations from 2607:FEA8:22A0:38F0::/64

    [edit]
    /64 blocked. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Hi, this IP has been blocked twice now for MOS:RETAIN violations: the most recent block expired a day or two ago and they have once again resumed. Pinging Izno given that they placed both previous blocks. Tollens (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Izno (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    SCP-LTF-106 inserting large swaths of uncited text into articles, at least violating WP:OR

    [edit]

    SCP-LTF-106 has inserted six to eight paragraphs without a single citation into these three articles:

    I became aware of this when MayaIn3D wrote on the talk page that: There is a new section of the Aurora page called The Virginian Lights that has no sources, and I'm skeptical that it is entirely AI or a hoax. It has a lot of language that is irrelevant and unscientific for an article of this nature, and all of the images are from June 2024. Online searches yielded no results on the topic-- not even the Wikipedia page itself showed up when using quotations. It's very odd to me, but I could be mistaken.

    I verified that there were no relevant results for "The Virginian Lights" in Google.

    At best, SCP-LTF-106 has engaged in original research. At worst, SCP-LTF-106 has violated the WP:HOAX content guideline. I note that evolving information about AI guidelines can be found at WP:AI. Peaceray (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked them indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since becoming an administrator, vaste swathes of unreferenced content has become one of my most commonly used phrases. Pretty close to the OPs assessment. Cullen328 (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a second, Cullen. When did vaste swathes of unreferenced content become an administrator? EEng 20:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. User:Khalji is likely sock or meat of them, based on tag-team editing of that section and similar uncited-content dumps in another article. DMacks (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also User:173.72.158.124 tag-teaming with SCP-LTF-106. DMacks (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Usernames that include "SCP" in them, especially if they reference urban legends or fringe science, are generally going to be kids and other younger editors who are interested in collaborative fiction. See SCP Foundation. Depending on how young they are, they may have several friends who are also interested in such topics on the same IP (for example: school IPs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oooooo good catch! DMacks (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for looking into my comment! I think this is the first time I've ever noticed something like this on Wikipedia and wanted to do something about it, but didn't know how. Very new to all of this but now I'm eager to contribute more down the line if I ever spot something else. MayaIn3D (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MayaIn3D: thanks for taking the time to report it! DMacks (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sohvyan and History Of Yoruba

    [edit]

    After several months of ethnically-charged POV edits and attacks on other users, I reported Researcherofgreatness on this noticeboard on 19 May. After the discussion, the user was blocked indefinitely citing POV edits (example), WP:NPA (example), WP:NOTHERE (example), WP:EDITWAR (example), and WP:FAKEADMIN (example) in addition to the account's refusal to engage with the evidence presented. An unblock request was rejected on 20 May for being "clearly disingenuous." Unfortunately, the Wiisstlo (talk · contribs) account was created on 21 May and immediately started right where Researcherofgreatness had stopped, continuing to edit war on the Agbada page (examples: 1, 2), repeating the same unsourced editing on the Yoruba people from the Researcherofgreatness' WP:NOTHERE charge, and continuing the personal belligerence from the WP:NPA violations along with editing pages on Yoruba clothing, food, and culture. It was finally blocked as a clear sockpuppet on 30 September after I initiated an investigation. Now, the (now-blocked) History Of Yoruba (talk · contribs) and Sohvyan (talk · contribs) — created on 2 October — have taken up the mantle with near-identical edits on several pages (examples: 1, 2) and continuing with the ethnically-biased POV edits (examples: 1, 2). Like I said in May, the operator of these accounts clearly has a genuine interest on Yoruba culture and history which would be helpful for Wikipedia; however, their conduct is worrying and they are clearly incapable of being objective. Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Watercheetah99, didn't you already file a complaint about this editor on ANI recently? Please provide a link to it. Also, if you suspect sockpuppetry, is there a reason you didn't head to SPI? Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It falls under the remit of this page due to the outlined violations, sockpuppetry is just one part of it. Watercheetah99 (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I thought there was already a discussion on this editor. Please provide a link to it. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again I would just like to state that this is my first Wikipedia account, and I am only editing errors I see to the best of my ability. I have no knowledge of the people I'm being "implicated" with. Sohvyan (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, the previous report on 6 October is here in the archive; Watercheetah99 appears to have just started again with the same wording. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Yngvadottir. It was looking familiar. Watercheetah99, why are you repeating yourself when your previous complaint received no action? If the same thing happens here, will you repost this a third time? Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no response to the original complaint, a look at the substance of the report will show the evidence clearly. This happens somewhat often during disputes about lesser-discussed topics; if we simply gave up every time there was no response, then there would be rampant vandalism. All besides the point, now that we're here please look at the report, it outlines a series of violations and prior disciplinary action — Watercheetah99 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Watercheetah99, when you file a complaint, please include links to any previous noticeboard discussions, dispute resolution cases or other attempts to resolve the situation. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do that in the future. Please could the content of the report get looked at soon? Watercheetah99 (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While reports can be missed, you seem to be assuming no one has looked at this or your earlier report but there's really no way to know this. It's fairly common reports are ignored because editors do look at them but decide it's not clear cut enough for either action against the editor reported nor for a boomerang at least based on what's presented.

    Reports can also get little attention because they're difficult to look in to, another reason it's often unproductive to just repeat the earlier report exactly. For example, while editors can be blocked as socks from ANI reports, it's not very common and even then generally only for simple clear cut cases. You mentioned you didn't open an SPI because it's not just socking you alleged but while true about four fifths of your report deals with other editors already indeffed. This is irrelevant to sanctioning the editors you reported here unless it's there's sufficient evidence they're socks in which case it would be better to open an SPI. Likewise while we could ECP the pages if they keep getting changed by confirmed socks, especially since there's no CTOP area this falls under AFAIK, it would be better to request this at RFPP.

    BTW one of your links is a link to a specific version rather than a diff. While it's trivial to diff the previous version [76] it still adds time.

    I think the biggest thing is that unless there is sufficient evidence for socking, I'm not sure there's anything here for any sort of sanction. I'll give you Sohvyan's account history is fairly suspicious, created, made a bunch of perfunctory edits some or many of which possibly shouldn't have even been made [77] [78], created their user page [79] and starts to edit war but again this is only a problem if they are socking/evading a block.

    You're both accusing each other of vandalism so you're both as bad as each other with that. The edit warring is bad but since you're both engaging in it and it seems to be mostly the two of you again we can't easily say one is worse. The content issue seems to have been largely undiscussed. Talk:Agbada is empty and neither Talk:Sophie Oluwole or Talk:Yoruba people have anything from either of you. So it's not like there's clear consensus on either side.

    History Of Yoruba did do this [80] which you showed which seems to be clearly harmful but also hasn't edited since their block expired. And while they edit sporadically enough that they come back, unless they continue to make such clearly harmful edits we're going to end up with a similar case as Sohyvan where it looks like a content dispute with no side clearly in the wrong unless there is sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry or block evasion.

    Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's what I just said, lesser-known topics like this are regularly bypassed because it's hard to look into them for unfamiliar observers, but that does not mean that violations should just run rampant. This is a perfect example, most users familiar with Nigerian history could quickly identify the ethnically-biased tropes and disinformation that these accounts employ — denial of outside influences on things perceived as core to the editor's own ethnicity (Agbada & Yoruba people), removal of other cultures from figures/things with a complex background (Adesuwa (name) & Sophie Oluwole), the downplaying of the history of other ethnicities (Ehengbuda & Kingdom of Benin), and more along with attacks based on ethnic bigotry (like these account even target certain pages because opposed accounts are from those areas/ethnicites which they can tell from the languages in the our user pages) — it's so patently obvious to us but admins are often completely unfamiliar with this and thus just avoid doing anything; that's not a good thing, these pages will just degrade if nothing is done. The sockpuppetry case here is simple, an account is created that makes the exact same edits with the exact same behavioral issues (WP:NOTHERE, misleading edit summaries, etc.) as an account that had been blocked three days earlier, which itself was a sockpuppet of a previously blocked account along with at least one other account with the same behaviors. That is obvious for all to see; thus, it is vital to bring up previous examples and actions taken by/against the old accounts or observers will not receive a full picture of the situation. Pinging users Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs), Arjayay (talk · contribs) and Reading Beans (talk · contribs) who have also had to deal with these users; I'll throw in some of eerily similar jingoist editors for "balance" — Wiisstlo (talk · contribs), Wiisstlo (talk · contribs), History Of Yoruba (talk · contribs), & EmeritusGuru (talk · contribs). — Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think you are a final authority on the authentic neutrality of Yoruba history? Yoruba people tell a British ethnologist the etymology of "Yoruba" from their own language in 1863, but you Watercheetah99, the all knowing God of Yoruba history, you know better than them. The real root of their name must be what is now used as a slur by their current countrymen, a slur that has no meaning in any language, that started simply as a foreign pronunciation of "Yoruba".
    I've gone through your editing history and I see how you stalk Yoruba pages making sure to frame anything Yoruba in the most disingenuously counterfeit way, and then hide your clear disdain for them to outsiders under the appearance of objectivity. Crude and biased edits from Jingoists exist, as they do for any other ethnic group, but you are simply a bigot when it comes to Yoruba history.
    You will continue encountering "eerily similar jingoists" reversing your edits because any person familiar with the history like I am can see through your anti-Yoruba bias. You can frame every editor that disagrees with you as a vandal or pov pusher, regardless of the reason or proof they provide, but I hope you are ready to do that for eternity without constantly disturbing admins. Sohvyan (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring, personal attack, user space vandalism by user: Jorkdkskakaksjjsk

    [edit]
    Indeffed by RickinBaltimore. (non-admin closure) JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I just reverted user Jorkdkskakaksjjsk's vandalism of user Number 57 personal user page. The vandal has been engaged in non-helpful editing/editing war with WP:UNCIVIL edit summaries and WP:V/ATTACK on pages like 2021 Bulgarian general election. Without commenting on the disputed content, I will argue that the vandal is WP:NOTHERE. Lklundin (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lklundin has prsented very little evidence for calling the editor a "vandal" or requesting a NOTHERE block, but the evidence of personal attacks directed at Number 57 is substantial, so I've blocked the user for one week for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has declared intent to edit war "all day long". 172.56.234.76 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. WP:RBI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible that the person behind this currently suspended account is now attempting to rather conspicuously evade the block with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry via Number57s nightmare: [81]. It could be helpful if someone with ability to execute Wikipedia:Blocking policy could look into this. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC) PS. Edit summary added..[reply]
    Confirmed that Number57s nightmare is a sock of Jorkdkskakaksjjsk, have indeffed both. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bizarre edits

    [edit]
    Resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    There's a series of bizarre edits occurring at The Babylon Bee. An editor has nominated the article for AfD, speedy deletion and added multiple irrelevant tags. This was after multiple false and misleading edits by the same editor. Could someone take a look? AusLondonder (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sock attack

    [edit]
    Nothing left to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    Vanilla Cone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Yet another democrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , Yet another painter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , Salisbury Spire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Soapboxing in contentious topics. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked now. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: Um, the account was globally locked back in July, so there was no need to locally block it, and I don't understand what you mean by "blocked now" because you didn't locally block it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't block the account but they showed up as blocked when I viewed this page (as a crossed-out username). They don't appear that way now so I'm not sure what happened there. Sorry I didn't check to see if they were globally blocked before posting my comment. My mistake. Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Aisxulos

    [edit]

    Aisxulos (talk · contribs) keeps adding the same piece of unsourced content to Interpretatio Graeca without explanation.[82][83][84][85][86][87] I've warned them with templates on their talk page reaching level 4, adding an explanation to one, started an article talk page section[88] and tried to provide clear edit summaries when reverting, trying different phrasing,(e.g.[89][90]) but they've persisted without responding. Is it time for a block, one that's long enough to get their attention given there can be days between edits? NebY (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User constantly re-editing the same page while not participating in talk page discussions and ignoring the user's own talk page. Supporting block for edit war and failure to communicate. 172.56.234.76 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are a very new editor with only 11 edits to their account. They might not even know that they have User pages. I'm not saying that nothing should be done about their disruptive edits but it's important to keep their limited editing experience into account. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, maybe WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Those particular edits also look very hard to justify; I'm guessing they say the two gods are equivalent because they both have ram's horns (one has two, the other has eight). NebY (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WinterSummer11 non-collegial behavior and not heeding NPA warnings

    [edit]

    I nicely asked this user here and here to read and regard the Manual of Style and other guidelines with the respect they deserve. They have also been admonished about NPA here and again here by me and others. Their response has been to claim that others editing is "fixing ridiculous things" and "ruining the page"; revert me; and to argue to another editor "why do you think you are right"? I think they need someone else to tell them that consensus editing is a thing. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • don't worry keep ruining that page i'm quit. You deserved that treatment. Can't not even answer my question. I only went back to wikipedia after 2 months to check and your behaviors still haven't been changed. Ok go on keep ruining i rest my case now ! Good jobs ! No need to report i will not use wikipedia again. Farewell ! WinterSummer11 (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warning: Yet another beauty pageant flag dispute. EEng 20:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on his/her statements, it is more likely that he/she would engage in misbehavior and ruin Wikipedia pages as an act of revenge due to stubbornness and a desire to be right, even when wrong. I strongly agree with permanently banning this user, along with all IP addresses they have used or will use in the future. They have caused a lot of trouble with other users, including harassment. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Rc ramz, we don't pro-actively block editors for what they might do in the future or connect registered accounts with IP addresses. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User running citation bot on others sandbox/draft pages

    [edit]

    I have a concern about @Dominic3203: running the Citation Bot on other users' userspaces/sandboxes/draft pages without being asked to. I noticed that this happened to every single one of the draft articles I have in draft (see User:The C of E/unfa and User:The C of E/tfl for examples) I've had a look at the citation bot logs from the 10th of this month backwards shows he's done it to others too (User:Maxim Masiutin/sandbox/time being one such example @Maxim Masiutin:).

    I've asked him why he did it but seems to have ignored me. I do think this is a little WP:INCIVIL to be doing this without asking editors if they'd like it. Can I ask if this would be something the admins could assist with please? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Less WP:INCIVIL (that's more for if the user responds in disrespectful ways) and more WP:COMMUNICATE (user not responsive). 172.56.234.76 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like he also tried to get AWB privileges, but didn't respond to a question there so it was denied: Special:Permalink/1225165878#User:Dominic3203. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, there's a tremendous number of edits invoked by Dominic3203 on other's userspace pages. I see a few other third-party uses, but it's very sporadic, 1 or 2 edits, unlike what Dominic3203 did. One problem is that Dominic3203 has a pattern of editing for a few days or as much as a week or two, then going away for a month or two, so the user may literally be not here to answer your query. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must be old OLD school because I don't understand how an editor "runs" a bot but it leaves no trace in their own contributions. He otherwise doesn't look like a very active editor. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: I guess because he's using the toolforge expand citation bot so the bot runs on a page but it handily tells us who ran it on the edit description. I think that's why because its the bot making the edit but the bot also points out who's responsible for it.
    @Rsjaffe: I had considered that but given he has edited (and run the bot) after I left him a message, I felt concerned that it best to report here because it feels annoying at best and disruptive at worst to be doing things like that in people's userspaces. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it's your responsibility to do so, but just FYI, for a low drama way to stop this, you can put {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} on your drafts. I agree it's sort of uncool what they're doing, in a hard to define way. Not saying this is necessary at this point, but out of curiosity, is there actually a way to prevent someone from doing this? It's not on-wiki, so a block doesn't work. I don't know that there is a Citation Bot blacklist. Finally, not as an accusation but as a genuine question, did the Citation Bot run actually harm anything? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose not in terms of damage because its easy to just revert it but when its every single draft page page, its more of an irritant and very discourteous to be doing it without asking. I didn't know about the tag but it seems odd because no one expects to have someone to do this. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, concern here is the waste of resources when the citation bot is running from the same common instance https://citations.toolforge.org/ also used by other Wikipedians, who end up with their requests processed slower. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits of my sandbox pages make no harm to anyone, but the excessive use of the bot on non-productive means which effectlively slows down the bot used for legitimate purposes of expanding citations on the main namespace - that is a point of concern. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excessive misuse is a cause for concern in my view. Especially with the aforementioned declinations to engage on wiki with people who have questions. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated creation of articles full of grammar errors

    [edit]

    This user has been repeatedly creating stubs articles on species that have way too many problems of grammar, as well as broken references (examples: [91], [92]). All in all, several of these articles have had to be draftified (Draft:Isurus desori, Draft:Cosmopolitodus xiphodon), and, for those that stay in mainspace, fixing them often takes as much volunteer time as it would have taken to write the article from scratch. The grammar issues are also present in their other contributions, making some of them more disruptive than anything else. I have tried to warn them of this issue on their talk page before, but they have not been responsive. I am honestly not sure what to do other than ANI, as they are still continuing this pattern. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That content should be on WS for now. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "That content should be on WS for now" - please see Wikispecies for context of what "WS" refers to in this context. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of species, shouldn't the rfc Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline be closed now its been over a couple of months since it was opened and has run its course as to whether a consensus exists. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CIR issue

    [edit]

    Lord Ruffy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    I have been assuming good faith of this editor for a long time, but it has become clear that, after more than a year of contributing to Wikipedia, they continue to disrupt the encyclopedia due to their incompetence.
    Hardly anything they write on talk pages makes sense,[93][94][95][96][97][98][99] and most if not all of their edits to articles contain grammatical or spelling errors and proper nouns beginning with lower case letters.[100][101][102][103] Many edits of theirs are non-encyclopedic and rely on unreliable blog sites and online guides for sources.[104] They seem to be completely unaware of WP:Manual of Style.
    They've created Shahid (Algeria), which also contained several errors, such as proper names starting with small letters, randomly conjoined words, and misspelled basic words. They even added French words such as "Littérature" and "Articles de journaux" for some reason. I tried to fix the page, but they insisted on edit warring and restoring their badly written version of the article[105] until they were blocked for violating WP:3RR. It seems to me that they're only on Wikipedia to push some sort of ethnic POV, often adding unsourced or anachronistic WP:OR.[106][107][108][109]
    A week ago, the editor updated their user page to indicate that they're a new user, despite having created their account 13 months ago, which I find odd. I've noticed that they recently created an article in their sandbox, which seemed to lack grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. However, when I checked the content with this AI detector tool, I discovered that there is a 70.6% chance that they used AI to generate all of that text. Skitash (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Skitash, what action are you seeking here? Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uncertain, but this disruption has been ongoing for quite some time. WP:CIR states that editors can be blocked from editing if needed. Also, isn't it prohibited to use AI on Wikipedia? I know of at least one editor that was blocked for doing so. Skitash (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes it helps to know what the OP's expectations are. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe their actions, such as disregarding WP:CIR and WP:MOS, along with disruptive editing and using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to push an ethnic POV, warrant a block. Skitash (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It technically isn't prohibited, although adding AI content to articles nearly always breaks a lot of other policies. Also, AI detector tools are notoriously unreliable, although that format (with a single weirdly formatted reference added at the end but not cited inline) is often indicative of either AI use, or of someone adding a reference without actually having used it as material. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on the AI. Without having looked at any of their other editing, I'd say it is reasonably likely to be AI but not a total dead ringer. If their other editing tends to have grammar errors they've been warned for, I don't think it's all that unreasonable for them to have concluded that they should use AI to help them avoid those errors. They'd be wrong, of course, but it would be understandable. -- asilvering (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sandbox draft isn't AI - it's almost exactly an uncredited Google Translate version of de:Hermann Frahm. If it goes into mainspace, it'll need an Interwiki link and a {{translated page}} acknowledgment. Narky Blert (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that is AI, but evidently not the kind Skitash had in mind. -- asilvering (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good morning everyone. Once again, I find myself having to defend myself against the accusations of a user who has accused me of incompetence. Despite the difficulties, I will try with all my strength to assume these accusations are made in good faith, even though I hope you can understand that is not easy for me.
    Regarding the content:
    The initial references lack solid arguments and seem like a last-minute collection intended to accuse me of something I don't quite understand. Specifically:
    - [84], [85]: I speak here about the bias I perceive against the Berber language, which some users restrict from being used on en.wiki.
    - [86]: I ask for clarification as to why one name is used instead of another.
    - [87]: I didn’t think using a name in Berber would be an issue, as it is not original research but rather the use of a national language to express a name that also exists in Arabic.
    - [88], [89], [90]: I don't see the problem here...
    - [91]–[94]: Again, I don’t see any issue here either. If there’s a grammatical error, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to point it out on the talk page or fix it directly instead of opening a noticeboard? I hope there’s a valid reason for this.
    Regarding [96], we’ve already discussed this: you still haven’t used the talk page to justify your changes, aside from the grammatical errors, most of which I corrected. I was blocked for 24 hours, even though you violated the 3RR rule without consequences. An admin from another wiki explained to me that I was wrong when I undid your edits on your talk page, thinking the rules were the same across all wikis, which I learned was not the case. For this, I apologize. However, regarding the "shahid" page, I don’t believe I did anything wrong. I asked you in good faith to discuss the issue on the talk page, but you continued to revert the edits. Nevertheless, I accepted the admins' decision.
    As for the accusation of adding unsourced or anachronistic content, which you claim violates WP:NOR, not everything requires a source. For example, in the case of Grande Poste d'Alger: where are the sources about the style on the pages of Notre-Dame de Paris, Milan Cathedral, or the Florence Baptistery? None of these have sources, but you still demand them from me for everything I add, even when it’s something self-evident.
    I updated my user page to indicate that I am a novice, because although I created the account over a year ago, I didn’t start using it until late August, when I was studying the manual and making small edits. Over time, I began creating new pages, perhaps with some errors, but other users, which I thank, corrected them. There are no other reasons behind this, and it would have been enough to check my edits to see that the account was not so active before.
    https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec-monthcounts/en.wikipedia.org/Lord%20Ruffy98?format=wikitext
    Regarding the article I’m preparing in the sandbox, it’s still a work in progress and is based on the German version and external bibliographies. I don’t see any connection with AI usage, and frankly, I find this claim surprising, as there’s no reason for it. AI usage of 70%? It’s ironic, considering I haven’t used AI at all, but rather bibliographic sources.
    It is also ironic that the person accusing me of engaging in "WP:BATTLEGROUND" behavior is the same person who reverts every one of my edits on the topic of "Berbers/Amazigh." To justify my ban, they cited edits that have no logical connection. If I’ve made mistakes, please point them out to me, but I don’t believe I have. I’ve always tried to engage in dialogue through the talk page, often without receiving a response.
    On the ethnic/linguistic topic, another user has opened a discussion, to which I have contributed my opinion. This is an important issue, and I’m not the only one who thinks so. I won’t go into detail here, as this isn’t the appropriate place, but I encourage administrators and interested users to take a look. Many pages, starting with the one on Algeria, do not include Berber in the infobox, and I find this problematic as it overlooks the importance of the Berber community, which has been oppressed for a long time. Since 2016, Berber has been recognized as a national language, and as such, it should be included.
    If someone have any questions to ask please tell me. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the accusation of adding unsourced or anachronistic content, which you claim violates WP:NOR, not everything requires a source. For example, in the case of Grande Poste d'Alger: where are the sources about the style on the pages of Notre-Dame de Paris, Milan Cathedral, or the Florence Baptistery? None of these have sources, but you still demand them from me for everything I add, even when it’s something self-evident.
    Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that three types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material: [...] material whose verifiability has been challenged. In this case, if another person challenges the verifiability of your edits, then yes, it absolutely needs a source. And something like architectural style is very much not self-evident, and usually stems from analysis by secondary sources.
    Also, the style of Notre-Dame de Paris is literally sourced after the third sentence of the article. In the first paragraph of the lead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I didn't explain myself well, in which case I apologize. When I speak of requesting sources I mean a direct quote with the apex referring to the source in question.
    When I speak of something self-evident I mean that a specific quote is not needed, even from a source already present in the text, for the single word; rather the information should either be present in the text or in the sources as in this case in the cases I cited.
    As regards the Grande Poste d'Alger the source regarding the style is in the first source of the page placed at the end of the first paragraph. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't see the problem here" This is the issue. While you do not see any problems with your writing, editors such as myself struggle to comprehend. Here, you wrote "That is not the case first of all cause judge others languages inappropriate the arabic version would have been removed too but that did not happened. Also it does mean a thing that in algeria the tifinagh is not the only offical one cause it's used in a lot of cases; road signs, names of companies, websites, even newspapers so this argumentation is pointless". Do you really expect other editors to understand what you wrote?
    Regarding Shahid (Algeria), you claimed that I haven't used the talk page, when I clearly have. Also, why do I need to justify my copyediting efforts to correct errors in the article you created? I corrected several grammatical and spelling mistakes you introduced, such as "Martirs", "proclammation", "theirrelease", "Indipendence", and "algerian". However, you resorted to restoring these errors through edit warring, and you violated WP:3RR with four edits within a 24-hour period.
    "the Berber community, which has been oppressed for a long time" tells me you're here to promote some sort of ethnic POV. The decision to not include Berber text revolves around an RfC that took place in Talk:Algeria. It was decided that such text shouldn't be included because no Berber script has been officially chosen yet, not because of oppression. Skitash (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that you're the only one who had trouble understanding my comment. Even if that weren't the case, you could have simply asked me to clarify or correct it, but instead, you chose to attack me directly. That's not a trustful behavior.
    You didn’t go to the talk page to seek a constructive discussion, but only because you had already initiated a dispute resolution, as is clearly shown by the timing. You weren’t interested in discussing the topic. As I’ve already mentioned, I corrected some of the grammatical mistakes you’re so focused on, but my main criticism was about the use of terms like “Mujahideen ,” whose meaning in the context discussed is different from its religious connotation. I even provided a specific source with the relevant page to help you understand my point, but, just as with the kaftan issue (which isn’t worth revisiting), it seems you completely disregard the content of my edits, as if they hold no value.
    You didn't continued the discussion on the talk page after i get blocked and i was waiting for a reply for days but nothing happened.
    As for the language issue, the discussion you referred to dates back five years, and it seems to me that many didn’t agree with the outcome. It would be appropriate to revisit the terms, as I don’t believe the choice of writing system is a sufficient reason not to include at least one. This is commonly done in most other wikis; I don’t see why it shouldn’t be done here.
    Your accusation of promoting some sort of ethnic WK:POV have no basis as my point is always the same, the use of a national language at the same level as Arabic without placing a preference.
    Apart from these accusations, if I were in bad faith I would have done the same thing with you a long time ago but in reference to an Arab point of view. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "It seems that you're the only one who had trouble understanding my comment." Should we ask the others here if they did?
    "I corrected some of the grammatical mistakes you’re so focused on" "some" is the key word here. Why didn't you correct the rest? Ironically, in your edit where you claimed to have corrected grammar, you've introduced several new grammatical and spelling errors.
    "I don’t believe the choice of writing system is a sufficient reason not to include at least one" Which one would that be and why do you consider it better than all the other scripts?
    "I would have done the same thing with you a long time ago but in reference to an Arab point of view" Contesting your unwarranted and badly written (often unsourced) edits is not POV-pushing. Skitash (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we ask the others here if they did?
    If anyone had trouble understanding, they would have pointed it out to me and asked for clarification.
    P.S.: This behavior seems very much like bullying to me.
    Why didn't you correct the rest?
    Maybe because I missed them? I would have corrected them later if, instead of starting an edit war, you had discussed the issue with me on the talk page specifically the use of certain words like "Mujahideen," which, in my opinion, made no sense to change. You continue to base your arguments on a couple of oversights, which don't seem like such a big issue to me. These could have been easily corrected with a subsequent edit. How should I interpret your continuous attacks?
    Which one would that be and why do you consider it better than all the other scripts?
    It’s not up to me to decide, but rather all the users together. Personally, I think neo-Tifinagh should be the primary script included, as it is a writing system based on the ancient Libyan-Berber language and has been spreading as a Berber language script over the last century. I would also add the Latin version in parentheses (as is often done with Arabic words), which is the most commonly used by those who do not understand the neo-Tifinagh alphabet. The Arabicized version is rarely used, so I’m fine with not including it. However, if other users think it's important, we can discuss it.
    Contesting your unwarranted and badly written (often unsourced) edits is not POV-pushing
    My edits are neither "poorly written" nor unsourced. This is ironic, especially considering the mess you made on the qashabiya page, where you added no solid or academic sources about the Arab origin and rejected those that support the Berber one.
    If this isn’t POV-pushing, I don’t know what is. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaotic Enby:,@Asilvering:,@Narky Blert:,@Liz:, I taked the information from here mainly 1, but i have still to finish it. Yes that was the plan as some sources I took them from the German version but since it has a small amount of sources i wanted to find something else and then finish the work; please have patience, i'll finish it soon( unless the accuser manages to get me banned). Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lord Ruffy98: Ah! that explains the anglicised Blohm & Voß instead of the German Blohm + Voß. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie is an excellent source; I've relied on myself. I applaud your plan of looking for additional sources. When you move the article into mainspace, you'll need to make the Interwiki link, but should not add the translated page template. (From an enwiki POV, I raise an eyebrow at how close the German article is to that source - but that doesn't affect your work, if it's properly referenced.) Happy editing! Narky Blert (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)-[reply]
    Thank you so much, I truly appreciate your kind words.
    May I ask why you believe it's unnecessary to add the translation template in this case? Is it because the majority of the article is based on a single source rather than being a direct translation of the German version? Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Raffelate

    [edit]

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

    I believe that we have an unambiguous and sustained WP:NOTHERE situation with User:Raffelate. It started off with Civil POV pushing on article Talk pages on topics related to Race and Intelligence 1, 2 (not that bad in itself) followed by bad edits to the articles 3, 4, 5. The POV in question is to overstate and legitimise claims of heritability of intelligence, which is a fringe viewpoint associated with the contemporary remnants of Scientific Racism. Following this, they were found to be misrepresenting the source in (5) and waxed indignant when called on it at Talk:Heritability_of_IQ#Consensus. When this didn't work the civility evaporated and it devolved into disruptive behaviour including broad accusations of "corruption" and threats to report people to noticeboards which, thus far, have not been followed through on. e.g. at Talk:Race_(human_categorization)#Modern_science_regards... and User_talk:MrOllie#Not_supported_by_sources. Much of this is clearly intentionally provocative and some of it tips over into outright trolling. There may also be concerns of sockpuppetry. Attempts to talk them down on their Talk page have been unavailing. Warnings have been removed (which is allowed) and gone unheeded (which is not). Even after being told to stop, they remade this edit. Now they are edit warring about having their disruptive Talk page comments removed or rolled up. I think that the politest way to state this is that their objectives are fundamentally incompatible with that of an encyclopaedia.

    As such I suggest an indefinite block. I'd be content with a topic ban but there would be no real difference as they have shown no interest in editing on any other areas. Their sole edit to any other topic area was to reinstate an inflammatory and unhelpful comment here. Were they to be topic banned then the disruption might well shift to other topic areas where issues of race can be used to stir up trouble.

    I'd also suggest a checkuser. The combination of them claiming a twenty year past history of editing here and that they seemed to have more wiki knowledge than the average newbie makes me think that they might well have been blocked before under another account, and maybe even be a returning LTA. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Checkuser needed; assuming that template is in order. If the CU does not lead to a permaban, I would support a topic ban from Race and Intelligence broadly construed, but leave them the ability to edit elsewhere.
    I don't think they've been disruptive enough for a general indef. Besides, this may not be a good reason, but I'm actually interested whether this user is trolling or not. WP:ROPE and all surely applies in such a case. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawing my claim. That IP could have been anybody. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Sorry, given their strange edit here,[110] the answer is clearly yes. Yes, they are merely trolling. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have provided a link to something I know nothing about. Raffelate (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have been somebody else entirely trying to make you look even worse by posting non-sense in various related places. I wouldn't know. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The accusation that I am "trolling" is false. The accusation that I am "POV pushing" is projection. It is people like DanielRigal who are POV pushing. That intelligence is significantly heritable is not only not "fringe", like flat earth or phlogiston, it is a mainstream position. DanielRigal edits sentences like this into Wikipedia: "There is debate about if human intelligence is based on hereditary factors or if it is based on environmental factors. Hereditary intelligence is the theory that intelligence is fixed upon birth and does not grow."[111] This basic failure to understand the nature of the debate is an embarrassment to the project. Literally nobody in any high quality academic source has views remotely like this. It is my opponents that are misrepresenting sources. Earl Hunt is very clear that between group heritability is not a resolved issue, Wikipedia takes this reference to say that it is.[112] If I have not yet reported this misbehavior it is because I am preparing a report for the Fringe Theories Noticeboard to show that the idea that race is a "social construct" is far from universal in academia. The converse thus cannot be "fringe" which are typically ideas that are not even entertained by the relevant discipline, let alone held by notable biology and taxonomy experts such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. I am gathering sources to show this and will post it shortly. However according to DanielRigal "Race is socially constructed".[113] It's my intention to represent the range of views found in academia, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It is DanielRigal's intention to represent his personal opinion. Apparently this involves trying to get people who disagree with him banned with accusations of "trolling" and "POV pushing". That I am the one POV pushing is a piece of breathtaking hypocrisy. Raffelate (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Raffelate received a contentious topic alert on Race and Intelligence at 13:15, 9 October 2024 UTC [114]
    Here are a few things they've done since then:
    • Misrepresented content of source: [115]
    • Commented And what are the criteria for best quality? Perhaps merely cherry picking those that match the personal opinion of editors rather than surveying the field? This is a gross violation of policy. [116]
    • Commented So apparently we're at an impasse where editors here think their personal opinion trumps what is found in the range of academic sources. Of course this is the diametric opposite of Wikipedia policy. I will raise this issue at a noticeboard. [117]
    • Restored an IP's trolling comment at Talk:Transgender_genocide [118] (not R&I, but worth noting)
    • Commented You are implying the admins are also corrupt? Quite possibly. How very sad. [119]
    • Commented It's rather depressing that such brazen liars are allowed free rein around here. [120]
    • Commented you know what else deters editors? Brazen corruption supported by admins. [121]
    • Edit summary: BOLDLY reverting unwarranted self importance [122]
    MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is you that misrepresented the source. Raffelate (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Raffelate, the source you used in MrOllie's first bullet point states There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences. But some issues remain unresolved, such as identification of mechanisms that bring genetic potential to fruition.
    Your edit changed The scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups. to The scientific consensus is that it is currently unknown how much genetics explains average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups.
    Your edit definitely misrepresented the source.
    Support at the least, topic ban from Race and Intelligence, broadly construed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I warned Raffelate here over the brazen liars comment when it occurred. Their response on their Talk page was you know what else deters editors? Brazen corruption supported by admins.[123]. Raffelate removed my warnings (as is their right), but not until after they called my warnings a pathetic display[124].
    Suffice to say, this user clearly has no regard for collaborating, and would rather sling insults and accusations while pushing their preferred POV in a very contentious area of the Wiki. I would also Support a topic ban from Race & Intelligence, broadly construed. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hoffmand002

    [edit]

    Hoffmand002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Serial remover of maintenance templates after many warnings [125], [126], [127], [128] and other, similar disruptive edits at Kidz Bop (original U.S. album), Kidz Bop (Album) and Kidz Bop 2. Previously blocked for 31 hrs in August for this. Wikishovel (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Blocked x 1 week. If this resumes after the block expires, the next stop will likely be an indefinite block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaw1989

    [edit]

    The talkpage of Aaw1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is littered with numerous warnings, despite the fact that they have made thousands of edits. I felt creating this ANI post necessary after seeing this edit [129], which is essentially vandalism and completely unacceptable for an advanced user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



    (AntiDionysius)

    [edit]

    Keeps deleting my edits saying they are unsourced or poorly sourced even though I gave him the link to the sources. I don't know how to cite he does but refuses to cite them. Just seems like extremely troll like reductive behavior and only adding a negative impact to the information provided on here.

    Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate tank battalion

    Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:164.47.225.1

    -unsigned comment by 164.47.225.1 (talk · contribs)

    I provided this user with a link to WP:REFB (several times) and explained WP:BURDEN and that I was unable to do the work of footnoting for them as I did not know where the footnotes would need to be inserted in the large block of text. Their response was to engage in a personal attack and continually re-add their edit without sources. --AntiDionysius (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's your responsibility to cite the sources in the article itself. All of your work is preserved in the page history which can be easily restored, so there's no point in opening this thread and calling AntiDionysius a troll multiple times; you should assume good faith and calm down. I recommend apologizing to AD now, peacefully opening up a thread on the related article's talk page, and asking someone how to create a citation. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1250845280"