Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. 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

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

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 Dympies is currently engaged in the same unfinished task (since the ban is no longer applicable) since the content earlier added by them was removed after their topic ban.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)

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.Here Dympies was agressively edit warring with LukeEmily 1.by including a substandard source and theorising that Rajputs are Son of Nobles ([1]). 2. Putting image of Maharana Pratap, though individuals are not allowed in caste article and the pov statement glorifying Rajput caste.[2]. 3.Smartly removing the sentence from the lead which highlights humble origin of the Rajputs from peasant background [3]. Abhishek0831996 also routinely works on maintaining the list of so called notable people of this particular caste, why not other castes as well?([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Here, his statement well respected and owned by Rajput community, it raises eyebrows as if they are working with some caste organisation of Rajput caste [10] ) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposed topic ban on Adamantine123 from caste topics

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"[11] 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[12] after falsely accusing another editor of canvassing.[13] As such, I propose a topic ban from anything related to caste for Adamantine123. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Not only what has been mentioned above but he has been making reverts by relying on misleading and combative edit summaries.[14] Such WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality should not be tolerated. Dympies (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support — Frivolously tagging a user as being canvassed [15] 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 [16][17] and doubling down on those bad faith aspersions [18][19] "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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

^{(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)

• 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([20]) . 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) [21]. Elsewhere, they moved Gangwar (social group) to Gangwar (surname)[22] and gamed their way into adding unsourced BLP entries onto an obvious caste page.[23] [24] Same thing with [25] Saini (surname) ,which was a left over redirect after a move from Saini (surname) to List of Saini people. [26]. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  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 [27]

  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 [28], 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)

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)

That discussion ended with the comment of Admin I cited above and none of the editors involved reverted the edits or removed the stuff. The page Saini (surname) remained as it was for more than three months, which entails that we ended up on the conclusion that we can mention of a particular surname is used by some X caste groups is supported by sources. However, this is again diversion from the main issue for which this discussion began, i.e the problematic edits on Rajput caste by Dympies. I won't be replying here anymore as I have kept my opinion and the discussion will become long for admins to understand. Adamantine123 (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That does not address your falsification of the comments from Sitush. Yes this complaint (though without any merit) concerned Dympies but you have made it about yourself with your own actions. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Even after seeing so much scrutiny over his behavior, Adamantine123 continues to unnecessarily demand topic ban against others without any evidence of a wrongdoing.[29] A topic ban from caste topics would be a lenient sanction at this stage. Lorstaking (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support - The repeated battleground mentality on this reply by Adamantine123 under this very proposal is concerning. It also doesn't help the fact that Admantine123 is misrepresenting a talk page discussion, where the editor clearly said "Irrelevant. This talk page concerns this article." Citing such a conversation for deflecting concerns over BLP violations is appalling. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support - The user got into trouble over falsely accusing 3 editors of COI and of belonging to a particular caste. Instead of showing any remorse, they have just made more than a dozen of edits to justify that very comment.[30] Surely there is a big WP:CIR issue. Orientls (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Based on the edits that I have seen from @Adamantine123: on caste pages, I think they are quite neutral towards all castes. Their interest seems to be Bihar because of which they edit all castes. I don't understand politics in India but their caste based edits on caste pages are neutral and balanced. BTW, everyone please use "ping" instead of mentioning the user onthe talk page directly. I don't know if it is a bug(or maybe some setting on my side) but somehow I do not get notifications if I am mentioned directly. I was reading the Rajput talk page and clicked on the edit history of a user(to see if there was further discussion elsewhere) and came here. I agree with @Ekdalian:. Please avoid digression from topic and please continue your productive discussion on the talk page of Rajput. Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support : Per diffs presented in and under this proposal, and in particular this diff presented by Orientls. The fact that Adamantine123 continues to display battle ground mentality despite a topic ban proposal and heavy examination of their behaviour in this thread makes it clear to me that Adamantine123 is unable to work collaboratively, and a topic ban is warranted right now to minimise their disruption on caste articles. Nxcrypto Message 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Shahray, POV-pushing and disruptive editing

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".[31]

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)

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)

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 [[32]], 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 [[33]], 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)

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?[34] You were told before to not make unsourced changes like these. Mellk (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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.[35] They clearly do not understand BRD and they now claim I have not provided a reason for reverting them.[36] Mellk (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Asilvering: Their latest comments to me include you are only mad about this because of your russian centric POV and referring to me as my guy. They also now restored their disputed edits completely even though I spent time explaining specifically the issues with their edits. Can we just get an indefinite block instead? I have wasted enough of my time with this editor already. Mellk (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Why won't you address how you violate WP:BRD and WP:Reverts? Why won't we create another report page for administrators that will be focused on you, your violation of this policies, and your POV problems? Because now you purposely refocus all attention on me, asking for block, while continuing to make unreasonable reverts, for Rus' people article, you once again only made explanation for Novgorod, and something about Ruthenia, you didn't tell anything about why you deleted Land of Rus' and other stuff, and in talk page you just told me to "bother other editors". Okay, maybe in Ilya Muromets article you explained something, but here in Rus people article barely anything. I restored the content according to basic policies, so you don't blame me. Shahray (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Yes, I realized soon after this that such edit summaries are generally not helpful. Mellk (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

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".[37] This kind of behavior is not really compatible with the nature of this project. Mellk (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

24-hr block

I've given Shahray a 24hr block for edit warring. Other administrators are free to extend/alter the block as needed. -- asilvering (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring and potential WP:CITOGENESIS by Iimitlessyou

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

 – Moved by @Firefangledfeathers in diff1 and diff2 – 2804:F1...DB:1473 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

• To avoid edit warring, I added a to Iimitlessyou's fabricated claim that prosecutors said Erik was molested consensually. Imitlessyou just deleted it. No responses on talk pages. Blatant disruptive editing/trolling, not here to build an encyclopaedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz have they been notified per that red box at the top of this page? – robertsky (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, my bad missed that. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I accidentally removed yours when I left one. Sorry. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

And I used the wrong notice. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

in the meantime I have protected the page. Will be looking into the edits further. – robertsky (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [38] are completely unacceptable. Given the evident fabrication, and battleground editing I would support indeffing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 11:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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 [39] which seems to be from this movie [40] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Regarding Pam Bozanich's claim about "men can't be raped," the primary source from Court TV can be found here (time stamp: 1:12:23), and there are multiple secondary sources discussing that quote, as stated above. Examples: Independent, People, Fox News. This proves that I did not fabricate such an insensitive claim. — Iimitlessyou (talk • contribs) 07:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• The primary source is on Court TV, 87-CA v. MENENDEZ: OPJ: LYLE MENENDEZ JURY INSTRUCTIONS, at 1:12:23. The "woman" you are referring to is in fact prosecutor Pam Bozanich. No reputable news source should be irresponsible enough to take information from a community-editable website like Wikipedia. Is this still considered a fabrication? — Iimitlessyou (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

I am thinking that this should be in ANI as well. – robertsky (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought so too, so I made an ANI thread linking to this one, but Bbb23 reverted me, saying it was "completely unnecessary" [41]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Moved. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 10:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yamla has p-blocked them from the article space. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 [42] and here [43] which they reverted and ignored
• Meanwhile, they blanked their user page [44]
• I pinged them again for brazenly misrepresenting a source [45]
• I added a 'Not in source' tag to the misrepresentation [46]
• They deleted the tag [47] 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)

Response from Iimitlessyou:

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)

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)

• "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)

• • • I may have taken it as that as the edits are poorly constructed as if it is an editor's belief (in your own words). If it isn't, then clarifications are very much welcome. I apologize for mistaking it, then.— Iimitlessyou (talk • contribs) 06:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    • The testimony denying this allegation is supported by a tape recording (see Court TV link above) where Goodreau mentioned this, making it a possible perjury and further supports the defense's case.— Iimitlessyou (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

      You don't get to make that assertion in Wikivoice. That's WP:OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

    • Yes, I did use the wrong source on the topic of the grand jury excluding "financial gain," but here is another one from Los Angeles Times that supports this information: "A Los Angeles County grand jury issued a murder indictment but declined to include an allegation that the crime was committed for financial gain."— Iimitlessyou (talk • contribs) 06:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Accusations of fabrication and WP:CITOGENESIS

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)

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)

• • 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)

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)

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

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

---

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)

• Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support - in this edit from 9 October 2024, they are still showing a willingness to misrepresent what sources actually state. It's going to be enough of a chore to clean up their misuse of sources, without them adding more misleading content. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support but frankly, I don't think that's anywhere near enough. Given the misuse of sources and their responses here, I'm trying to decide if a topic ban on living people would even be enough, or if a complete site ban is more appropriate. But hey, perhaps it's worth starting small and seeing if they take the hint, read and thoroughly understand WP:NOR and WP:RS, and edit appropriately elsewhere. --Yamla (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Their responses in this thread are less than reassuring. it is necessary to include crucial evidences and valid rebuttals and the fact that in this very thread they are making arguments about what bits of primary sources should be included based on their own idea of what is important testimony is not suggestive of an editor whose primary concern is what reliable sources say about the case. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Lyle and Erik Menendez and associated articles, broadly construed. I have also given the user a CT notification for WP:CT/BLP, which will allow any further instances of issues to be handled by a single administrator as needed. Daniel (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I checked for this earlier, so thanks for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  No problems. I would have pulled the trigger myself if they had previously been alerted, too. Daniel (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a minimum due to the misrepresentation of sources and misuse of primary sources. There seems to be a worrying trend among editors playing sleuth when it comes to criminal cases that are the subject of docutainments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. WP:OR is already bad enough on its own, but when it comes to making these drastic of conclusions, it's absolutely not okay and is damaging to the project.

LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry PROD removal

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

---

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)

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)

I would have CSDd it, but one of them would have just removed it. SirMemeGod  17:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks Jeraxmoira, I wasn't too sure. Sorry for slightly derailing the discussion. Knitsey (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Removing the PROD is sufficient; supplying a reason is recommended but not required. Schazjmd (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Striking. Either way, the sources support nothing in the actual article. SirMemeGod  17:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 [48] 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)

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)

BLPPROD. SirMemeGod  17:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note that I've blocked Alb0077 and Gle007 as  Confirmed socks.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

Reverted, revdel applied, blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate it. Zênite (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

It was not a personal data disclosure, it was empty words. Revert is ok but why revdel? Luhanopi (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Edit war, unreliable sources, unsourced text in contentious topic

TruthfulSpeech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pushing text not found in sources, non-reliable sources.
First edit:[49]
Edit war follows: [50] 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: [51] .

Contentious topic alert [52] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Correction, "One of the most reliable news sources in France"

Thanks TruthfulSpeech (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

"Does not claim what you claim it does."

We discussed this on my talk page, I gave you an exact quote from the LeMonde page i uploaded, and the quote i got from it, If you're unable to read and throw claims that have been already tackled, I apologise, however that's not my problem anymore. TruthfulSpeech (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Not an attack, a statement which I claimed due to your clueless and unbacked arguments. TruthfulSpeech (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit war with text not corresponding to source continues [53] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Sohvyan and History Of Yoruba

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [54] 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 [55] [56], created their user page [57] 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 [58] 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)

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)

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)

Sohvyan, please do not personally attack other editors. Such conduct will lead to a block. And if you are going to make accusations about another editor's conduct, you need to provide "diffs" or linked edits to support your argument with examples. You have to provide evidence so other editors can confirm what is going on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The personal attacks have been going on for months on end (examples: 1, 2) along with WP:FAKEADMIN (examples: 1, 2) while regularly employing projection of ethnic bias on accounts that have years-long histories of reverting bigoted edits for or against all ethnicities (the majority of my activity on this page has been reporting ethnically biased accounts, including in opposition to attacks against Yoruba communities — similarly diligent opposition to this vandalism comes from the aforementioned accounts). And it is clear that they have no intention of stopping unless stopped, just read the above reply where Sohvyan directly threatens to create more sockpuppets when this current account is blocked. This is a pattern of behavioral issues that is negatively affecting the site. Watercheetah99 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies Liz, I'm new to this website so I don't know all the rules, I could only speak on what I was seeing this particular editor doing. I will read up on diffs and how to use the appropriate formats so I can adequately convey my impressions in the future. Sohvyan (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

User running citation bot on others sandbox/draft pages

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agree! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Any excessive use of Citation bot without double checking the results afterwards is cause for concern as well. I don't understand why Citation bot runs in namespaces other than 0 at all, and editors should not be modifying pages in the userspace of another editor without good reason (copyvio, povforks, blpvio, impersonation, etc are all good reasons; "a script might think it can improve citation metadata" is not). imho Folly Mox (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at Citation Bot's edits in User and Draft space and it's not limited to this editor, apparently many editors do this. Now that I've seen experienced editors setting up bot runs, I don't think this editor should be penalized. It's unusual given their level of experience but it's done by other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, you do need to be unblocked to Oauth for the bot to run. However, I am not saying this user needs a block for this, as it is basically harmlessly eccentric. Andre🚐 07:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I wasn't angling for a block for him at all. Just really wanted him to know that that sort of eccentric behaviour is not appropriate for Wikipedia and can be a little disruptive. I was hoping if the admins could impress that on him (as indeed consensus seems to say) and maybe find a way to stop it being used on userspaces without permission (albeit I know that last one might not be technically possible). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

At least the user should reply quickly if they run a bot. Running a bot and not replying I consider a harmful behaviour. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, OAuth was implemented for the bot such that edits did appear assigned to the editor, but there were immediate complaints about that behavior, so it was changed to the current behavior. I would have preferred otherwise, but so it goes. A consensus could conceivably come to another arrangement, but that's a discussion for another page and time for what seems like a minor annoyance... IznoPublic (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Repeated creation of articles full of grammar errors

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

---

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

This user has been repeatedly creating stubs articles on species that have way too many problems of grammar, as well as broken references (examples: [59], [60]). 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)

That content should be on WS for now. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Still continuing today, with, e.g., Cariama santacrucidens. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I have moved that article to Cariama santacrucensis, as that is the correct name according to the cited source. Failure to copy even the name from the source to the article title correctly illustrates the level of WP:COMPETENCE failure involved. William Avery (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There is another case. This user created article Iberolepis, but showing type species as "P. sp." which must not be type species called like. This user surely does not understand about classification of animals, as they created bunch of Otodus species which are considered as invalid now. Probably they are basing on old information in paleobiodb. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Indef block proposal

This user simply lacks good enough command of English and is largely unwilling to communicate and learn from their mistakes. Ultimately WP:CIR and the only viable solution I see unfortunately is to block them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support as they continue to operate as if no one has told them to adjust their behavior. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support - On a related topic, do we have any idea what their mother tongue is, and do we know their status on that particular Wikipedia? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  I assume it's Brazilian Portuguese, given that they say they live in Brazil on their userpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  According to CentralAuth they're indeffed on pt.wp as a Chbrown1023 (talk · contribs) sockpuppet. Chbrown1023 is themselves blocked on pt.wp (but has no undeleted editing history on en.wp) after a discussion at their AN equivalent. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh hey, that's the name I settled on at the SPI that I could trace this to. :D It's so nice when other wikis end up at the same name. Izno (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• The user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockmaster now. This can probably be closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:CIR issue

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,[61][62][63][64][65][66][67] and most if not all of their edits to articles contain grammatical or spelling errors and proper nouns beginning with lower case letters.[68][69][70][71] Many edits of theirs are non-encyclopedic and rely on unreliable blog sites and online guides for sources.[72] 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[73] 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.[74][75][76][77]
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)

Skitash, what action are you seeking here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Sometimes it helps to know what the OP's expectations are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, that is AI, but evidently not the kind Skitash had in mind. -- asilvering (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

In fact Ruffy, several of those posts read as near-gibberish to me. And bear in mind, I have a formal background in comparative linguistics and translation, and a lot of related and unrelated practical experience working with people of varying degrees of facility with their second languages. By which I mean, I've a fairly decent ability to work out what people are trying to say. And yet I could only give vague guesses for a couple of your posts. To be bluntly honest, I don't know what is going on here, but there is something fishy in the massive gulf between the content in some of those diffs and how you are speaking here--which is perfectly fluent and even somewhat ornate and elegant English.

I don't know if you are bouncing between different LLMs and landed on a superb one, or if your account is actually being used by multiple users, but I have a very hard time squaring "That is not the case first of all cause judge others languages inappropriate the arabic version would have been removed too" and "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." The difference in the fluidity, use of punctuation to appropriately align subordinate clauses, and overall cogency is profound. Taken with the rest of the evidence here, I have an extremely hard time believing you are being entirely on the level with us. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. If you need any explanation about any post you didn't understood, tell me and i'll try to explain it more clearly and express myself better.

No, my account is not used by multiple users as it's not a fair thing to do and it doesn't seems to me a good move. I also, don't like the idea of ​​someone using my profile.

For my persective ,it depends from which of my edits you've seen, but i understand your point. I'm not the best at english so when i don't know how to exprime something, i translate it by tools like Google translate. Although this, in a certain way, I don't know whether to be happy for the compliment or sad because you doubt me. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, like the earlier example, I think this second is AI, in that it's Google Translate. I think that's what Lord Ruffy98 is saying in the comment above mine. @Lord Ruffy98, I'm sorry, I do agree that your comments are at times difficult to understand. We also really do not want people translating content from one wiki to another using Google Translate. At least in my personal opinion, I think translations should be done into an editor's native language - so, going by your Babel boxes, for you that would be Italian and Arabic (I don't know if there's a Kabyle wikipedia). It seems to me that you could make valuable contributions on it- and ar-wiki by translating articles from en-wiki. Perhaps you could do that instead? -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion; i'm sorry if any of my comments were not completely understandable. If there are any incomprension you want me to make clear please tell me.

Yes i already doing that. But i would like to clarify my execution process, that I do not want to be misinterpreted. I do not, use tools like Google Translate to translate entire pages or to translate the text of my comments, into English.

As for the translation of pages, I have so far effectuate translations between English and Italian. In the article under consideration, I noticed the main use of only one source (there are 2 others but little used) that I translated with GT and therefore I used those as a starting point to inform myself about it. If reading sources in other languages ​​is not considered a good method, I will stop doing it. However, I would like it to be clear that the tool is not used as a mere translator. In fact, my intention to increase the sources is becoming longer precisely because the sources available in English are few and most are in German. My intention was to insert it as a draft so that other editors who understand German well and who are experts in science can evaluate whether the article is suitable for publication.

As for its use in my comments, it is rare and I use it more as a dictionary for when I can't figure out how to write certain words in an English sentence. I didn't think this would be a problem.

If someone thinks that I used it in a different way from what i explained, i'm sorry for that, I don't know how to change their mind, as I have been completely honest and I don't think that some grammatical errors can be a reason for incompetence on my part and to request a ban.

Beyond everything i will certainly continue to work on improving my language. Thanks again. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that's quite fine. It's very normal to use google translate in the way you've described and that's not a problem. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh, alright; thank you for allowing me to resolve the misunderstanding and make things clearer. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@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)-

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)

@Lord Ruffy98: Yes. You'll need to edit the translation a bit, to put it into your own words; nothing major, there are only so many ways to present facts, especially when there's a historical narrative to follow; but to avoid the WP:COPYVIO problem I hinted at about the German article. Best, Narky Blert (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much for the advice. I will treasure it Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Raffelate

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)

{{checkuser requested}}; 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)

Withdrawing my claim. That IP could have been anybody. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, given their strange edit here,[78] the answer is clearly yes. Yes, they are merely trolling. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC) You have provided a link to something I know nothing about. Raffelate (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC) 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)

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."[79] 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.[80] 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".[81] 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)

Raffelate received a contentious topic alert on Race and Intelligence at 13:15, 9 October 2024 UTC [82]

Here are a few things they've done since then:

• Misrepresented content of source: [83]
• 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. [84]
• 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. [85]
• Restored an IP's trolling comment at Talk:Transgender_genocide [86] (not R&I, but worth noting)
• Commented You are implying the admins are also corrupt? Quite possibly. How very sad. [87]
• Commented It's rather depressing that such brazen liars are allowed free rein around here. [88]
• Commented you know what else deters editors? Brazen corruption supported by admins. [89]
• Edit summary: BOLDLY reverting unwarranted self importance [90]

MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It is you that misrepresented the source. Raffelate (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

The source under discussion[91] (a discussion which has been collapsed by the collegiate Wikipedians who apparently think talk page discussions are only for people who agree with them) was Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence published by Cambridge University Press. This source was used to support the text before I edited it, and currently, after my edits were reverted. The link in the article is currently down for maintenance.[92] Some excerpts from my copy:

Neither I nor anyone else knows the cause of the differences in indices of intelligence among various racial and ethnic groups. Furthermore, there almost certainly is not any single cause, and the causes may vary for different comparisons.

Potential biological causes of racial/ethnic differences in intelligence may be either environmental or genetic.

There is a great deal of contention over the role that genetic differences play in establishing racial/ethnic differences in intelligence.

Plausible cases can be made for both genetic and environmental contributions to differences in intelligence. The evidence required to quantify the relative sizes of these contributions to group differences is lacking. The relative sizes of environmental and genetic influences will vary over time and place. Some of these influences may be amenable to change, while others will be resistant to change. The relevant questions can be studied. Denials or overly precise statements on either the pro-genetic or pro-environmental side do not move the debate forward. They generate heat rather than light. And this is what I really believe!

Are the distinctions inevitable? Some professors and some politicians have proclaimed, loudly, that they know the answer to this question. However, those people who are so certain seem to disagree rather vehemently about whether the answer is “yes” or “no.” I do not expect them to agree with each other, any more than I expect that the Pope and Shiite Islam's Grand Ayatollahs will agree on the nature of God.

The causes of differences in cognition between old and young, men and women, and various racial/ethnic groups should be investigated. We have made legal and practical distinctions between these categories in the past, we do so now, and we probably will do so in the future. Retirement regulations, antidiscrimination policies, social support for mothers and their children, and different forms of affirmative action are all part of a rational society. Demographic differences in intelligence are relevant to these policies, regulations, and programs. It is best if science informs policy makers, so inquiry is appropriate. On the policy makers’ side, scientists should not be restricted in their inquiries because the results might be inconvenient. On the scientist's side, the results must be fully and honestly reported, regardless of the scientists’ personal beliefs about social policy.

MrOllie takes from this that it is (paraphrasing) "settled science" that "genetics are not a factor in race differences in intelligence". Who is misrepresenting the source? Raffelate (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The above quotes leave out several relevant statements, for example: [N]o genes related to the difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence. Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now. Also the several other citations attached to the sentence. If you read the whole thing in context I think it will be clear what's going on here. MrOllie (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie. Frankly, I wouldn't really engage him like this! His interest in these articles and their purported bias is not why he's likely to be sanctioned. It's chiefly his abysmal and confrontative conduct on the user front. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Well some of us are grossly violating policy and others cause editors to complain they "don't like their tone". Which is really the abysmal conduct? Raffelate (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely clear from the context, which I just provided, that Hunt thinks the issue is not resolved. That your cherry picked quote that they haven't "found the genes" yet, which they haven't for a large number of heritable traits due to their highly polygenic and complex nature, proves Hunt thinks otherwise, or proves anything either way, is clearly false, as you can read in Hunt's own words beyond your single quote. I'm genuinely mystified how you can lie so baldly when you have Hunt's words right there saying the opposite of what you claim. Raffelate (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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.[93]. Raffelate removed my warnings (as is their right), but not until after they called my warnings a pathetic display[94].

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)

• Raffelate is likely to be a Mikemikev sock. I have filed some SPI's in the past against this user but the admins are fed up with logging this users socks and he is usually just blocked on site. Every year this user creates new accounts to edit the talk-page of Race (human categorization). For example, Richard Calthrope was one of their last blocked accounts with the same writing style in 2023. In 2022 they used Bogestra Bob and Verena Boddenberg before that Alan B. Samuels. They get bored after 7 or 8 months and do the same thing again and again. This has actually been going on for many many years. Others Cheesecake Denier, Badger Farmer, Redundant Farmhand, Pant Wrangler, Rupert the Frog, Dave Davidson all on the same talk-page at Race (human categorization) going back a decade. It's all the same person as he always calls others "liars" [95] [96] and refers to Blumenbach, Darwin or Jerry Coyne. When this user is not creating new accounts to comment on Race (human categorization), he is known for creating impersonations and parody accounts as his SPI reveals. I would suggest some stronger talk-page protection. This user has been trolling the same talk-page for years. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like for this accusation to be supported by a Checkuser, SPI report or an admin very familiar with this LTA. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Mikemikev was created in 2006 and apparently started editing in 2007. That's not quite the twenty years claimed but its close enough to only be a slight exaggeration if it is him. I have no idea whether that means that it really is him. Their interests are similar but, unfortunately, there is more than one person in the world promoting this nonsense around R&I. If Raffelate is Mikemikev then that might explain the reluctance to follow through on the threats to bring their complaints to the noticeboards. He would have been aware that actually doing so would increase his risk of being recognised as the sockpuppeteer. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It is very reasonable to suspect that this is a Mikemikev sock. But does it matter? I think edits of the account in front of us are enough to show what kind of editor they are. MrOllie (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

SPI case has been filed [97] Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• On the CU point, the best I can say is that they geolocate to the same part of the world as historicals for Mikemikev. No one has recently plopped data in/around SPI for Mikemikev. Izno (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Whether they're a Mikemikev sock is irrelevant to me (though the evidence by Psychologist Guy is pretty persuasive). They should be blocked for their personal attacks and pushing a fringe theory. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you kindly explain what fringe theory I am pushing and how you have established that it is a fringe theory? Raffelate (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

[Fringe Theory]

[You pushing it] 24.126.12.87 (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Admins, please also take a look at this IP and the way it also refers to the long-banned account Deleet by their first name in a related thread.[98]. This is clearly ban evasion. Biohistorian15 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Biohistorian, I just reverted that edit as WP:OUTING. Now that it's been called attention to here, the appropriate thing would be for the edit to be suppressed. Generalrelative (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but would like to add that it is also clear that both of the IPs in that conversation are evading blocks. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Not WP:OUTING as they had their full name on their user page for years. Biohistorian15 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The 64 IP is block evasion, it is very likely to be Captain Occam based on the editing style. I have already filed two SPI's today against different users, I am not filing another. They can't link an IP to an account for privacy reasons so not worth filing. Raffelate was a sock and has been blocked, so it's probably worth closing this section. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Given your history of racialist edits and this, I'm surprised you're accusing people of ban-evasion so willy-nilly. I just recently jumped into the wikipedia R&I rabbit hole and felt like leaving a comment or two. I've never contributed to wikipedia before this. 24.126.12.87 (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I know y'all know this but let's speak precisely so it doesn't get twisted: it's okay to argue in favor of a fringe theory. The issue here is with disruptively tendentious editing, and failure to be civil.

There should also probably be a rule of thumb in place:

Any account sufficiently similar to Mikemikev in tone and tendentiousness as to be indistinguishable can safely be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Generalrelative (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I support that and wish it was that simple, I spent 45 minutes today going through the history of the race article talk-page to show conclusive behavioural evidence that Raffelate is a sock. Being blocked per WP:NOTHERE may save more time. Race (human categorization) talk-page should be protected. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's silly to be wasting this much time playing whack-a-mole with somebody who clearly has nothing better to do. And frankly, Doug Weller has been our champion in dealing with Mikemikev socks for years, but he's recently given up the CU bit due to illness. It won't be so easy to point and kill anymore. Generalrelative (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Generalrelative In any case I don't think CU would work. Here's the latest report on Mikemikev, note where he has edited from[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mikemikev] Doug Weller talk 08:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Aaw1989

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 [99], which is essentially vandalism and completely unacceptable for an advanced user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• You failed to notify them of the discussion here. It clearly says you must do so at the top of the page. I have notified them for you. At this time, I have no comment on the merits of the report. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I did notify them [100] I just didn't bother to give it its own heading. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

They had previously made edits against a long withstanding editor consensus on Journey (band) and any related articles. In List of Journey band members, they had changed a member of the band at the time to being a session member. They were reverted with an edit summary from Dave Golland in the article Raised on Radio acknowledging the editor consensus, and I reverted with an edit summary stating that they should have sought consensus before any of their changes. After a while, they reverted back to their edits on said member being a session member with sources, but failed to discuss their edits on the article's talk page prior to their edits. When I had told them to stop and seek consensus in the edit summary and messaged them on their talk page about their edits, they responded on their talk page, falsely accusing me and other editors of misinformation when it was clear that they should have discussed first on the talk page. HorrorLover555 (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election

Hi there.

@Burns1889 has been racist and ignorant of consensuses, while also being heavily biased in his editing of Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election. He's used Nazi-era phrases, and is refusing to comply with anything, while swearing excessively. Please review his edits and the talk page logs (view history) and please make sure justice is adequately delivered. Thank you! 49.184.140.57 (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I do think that this edit alone (deleted diff) is worthy of an indef. Not someone who's going to work collaboratively. The Moose 03:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This racist and sexist revision deleted edit is beyond the pale. Blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 49.184.140.57 (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz, how am I supposed to learn which racist and sexist edits are beyond the pale, and which are within the pale, if they're always getting refdeled before I can read them? It's very inconsiderate of you. EEng 06:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Shall we just say that, if you were running a course on "Getting Blocked From Wikipedia 101", that deleted posting would be the introductory text :) Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I believe in teaching by example. EEng 13:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Some examples are too beyond the pale for teaching. Conyo14 (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

EEng#s, well, actually, I didn't revision-delete that edit, I just blocked the editor. But I'll just say that I've been an admin for 9 years, have done hundreds of revision-deletions and it was one of the most offensive posts I had ever seen. Racist, sexist, BLP violations everywhere. Even worse than crap I've seen on social media. I have no idea how the editor thought they wouldn't be immediately blocked for that comment. That's what I can say. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

IP Address vandalism

Hi, I would like to report the IP address 115.66.197.156 as they have been doing vandalism repeatedly on the Joker 2 page like repeatedly changing Jackie strangling Ricky to death to an inaccurate action or changing "Joker" to "Yoker". I have already reverted their edits once but they did it again. Please ban them. Thanks. HiGuys69420 (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

HiGuys69420, as it says in multiple places on this page, you have to inform the editor about this discussion. Please do so. Also, this editor has just made three edits. It might have been better to report this at WP:AIV as this doesn't seem like an "intractible" dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Kyiv citizen

I have already told this editor that the consensus is not to change Kiev to Kyiv in historical contexts. However, they are still refusing to follow the consensus and are still making mass changes. See for example this edit to Mikhail Bulgakov. They have no other contributions except changing the spelling. Mellk (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Mellk, if I remember rightly, there was a huge RFC about this a few years ago, I'd present them with a link to this discussion. It was probably in the Talk:Kiev archives but maybe another editor can locate it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I linked WP:KYIV which mentions the RfC and also told them explicitly about that discussion. Their response was their edits have nothing to do with the historical context, but this does not sound accurate. Mellk (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree with Mellk, Kyiv citizens editing seem to be in clear violation of the guidelines and their response to people bringing this up with them has so far been not good. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I've given them a e-e ctop alert [101] which at a minimum might help them better understand the need to take this seriously. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, I do not recall talking to you Nil Einne before. And by the way I just responded to your comment on my Talk page. Please elaborate on how my responses to people were not good Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes precisely. I have never talked to you before but was alerted to this thread about how bad your edits were, a quick review of them confirmed this. I have explained why your edits were bad on your talk page, as have others below although I'd note people have already explained this to you before so it's deeply disappointing you still did not get it. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's call it a rough start than, I will be replying to the accusations about bad edits on the talk page then. And thanks for actually looking into my edits and not just blindly reverting them as did the other user. Kyiv citizen (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Why you don't mention here that you failed to explain how this is a historical context? All my changes so far were done on biographical pages, mostly fixing inconsistencies in Ukrainian cities spellings that according to the same naming convention page are meant to use Ukrainian spelling: The names of cities should be transliterated into Latin letters with the Ukrainian national system Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You're editing articles on people who died in the middle of the 20th century. Clearly anything about the city during the time they were alive are historical contexts. If you don't understand something that basic, it's likely best if you stay away from editing anything remotely contentious since unfortunately being able to understand such basics is needed to edit here. Perhaps edit a wikipedia where you can better understand the language instead? Also the part you highlighted is for "naming of articles on these subdivisions". These are not articles on the subdivision. No one is contesting that our article Kyiv or Kholm Odessa should be named that way. The issue is how we refer to the places in text in other articles. And at least for Kyiv, it's clear that in historical contexts before 1991 we generally use Kiev. While this doesn't deal with other cases like Kholm, it's likely a similar scenario would apply. Definitely the guidelines do not say anything suggesting we should use Kholm in historical contexts. Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't looked properly into Chełm so it was a poor example and I've struck it. I'm not really sure what the correct solution is for that as the Kyiv guidelines are largely irrelevant. It may be that calling it Chełm in our article is the best solution. However that's best discussed in the article talk page in the absence of some existing wider consensus elsewhere on the issue. One thing is for sure, if there's dispute you need to discuss it and if you're going to be making that change in the middle of other inappropriate changes like changing Kiev to Kyiv for someone who died so long ago, you should expect your changes to be reverted even if some of them might be appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this how you welcome all new contributors into your community? Regarding Mikhail Bulgakov, it violates MOS:CONSISTENCY since there're both Kyiv and Kiev variants of spelling.

Also how did you deduce that I didn't make any other contributions? For example, take a look at Kliment Red'ko, my edit was a completely new text added along with the reference. How is it even related to Kiev->Kyiv change? Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Kyiv citizen, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) says For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Principality of Kiev), do not change existing content. At Kliment Red'ko, your edit changed the spelling from Kiev to Kyiv in a description of his activities in 1919, clearly a historical topic. You also changed Odessa to Odesa. It seems strange that you bring this edit to our attention as an uncontroversial edit, when it clearly violated the naming convention. Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The same is true of your edit to Mikhail Bulgakov, Kyiv citizen. You said that that you were making the spelling consistent, which is certainly a good goal. But in the biography of a person who died in 1940, the naming convention calls for consistent use of the Kiev spelling. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not against using Kiev instead for consistency throughout the Mikhail Bulgakov article, but unfortunately, it violates the very convention you're referring to, since there's hard stop at 1991 for usage of Kiev, which is absurd in my opinion. If I were to choose between the 2, it would be Kyiv simply because this not a purely historical topic, like the name of state Principality of Kiev and the article spans both 20th and 21th century. Kyiv citizen (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

At Kliment Red'ko I used the spellings provided by the source which are actually the proper spellings in English, for example: Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, not Kiev Pechersk Lavra Kyiv citizen (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure why we are discussing edits by a user who may not even make them according to WP:RUSUKR. If they continue, even making a single edit, they must be blocked right away. Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello? Are you sure yourself what you are even accusing me of? This baseless allegation out of blue seems like yet another tactic of intimidation for the community newcomers. People, is this type of behavior tolarated here? Because it should not be! Ymblanter, you are not the sole ruler of Wikipedia, so leave your personal hate to yourself. Kyiv citizen (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, now we probably need to block. Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Ron Karlos L. Castillo restoring unreferenced edits from a similar account

User:Ron Karlos L. Castillo restored unreferenced edits from an account – User:RonCastillo1234, an account which is identical to the editor's account name.[102][103][104][105] Both accounts have been warned in their respective talk pages, with zero response from both accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)

• Blocked newer account and warned the primary one. Star Mississippi 18:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Singleton4321

I was alerted off-wiki to a discussion on Talk:Oliver James (psychologist) involving Singleton4321 (talk · contribs) and Martinevans123 (talk · contribs). Singleton4321 has asserted he is Oliver James, and having looked through the discussion, I don't think he can edit in a neutral manner compatible with Wikipedia policies, so I'd like to propose that "Singleton4321 is topic-banned from Oliver James (psychologist), broadly construed'. I've got a feeling that as soon as I start this thread, I'll get an extended reply on exactly why I'm completely wrong and he's completely right, which just strengthens my argument, if I'm honest. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've seen some of this matter. I at first thought that he should be limited to edit requests, but I'm not sure he can even do that neutrally, based on his comments. I can't say I disagree with Ritchie. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The editor in question is also very combative when engaging with people who disagree with them, regularly accusing others of vandalism or secret agendas. And at least once, teetering on the very edge of a legal threat. [106], [107], [108], [109], [110] and so on. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. There was a problematic statement in the article, which has been amended to a positive statement about Mr James's standing. Now, rather than making constructive requests or suggestions, Singleton4321 is repeatedly attacking Martinevans123 for not jumping high enough fast enough. What's more, we don't know that Singleton4321 is the subject and arguably they're now bringing the subject into disrepute. Either way, their involvement is not leading to improvement of the article. NebY (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support Having read through that talk page, this is a textbook example of why we don't encourage subjects to edit their own articles. John (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support This has been going on for literally years. If necessary, semi Talk to protect against logged out edit requests on James' behalf. Star Mississippi 18:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The combative, imperious, bludgeoning behavior and the false accusations of vandalism have gone on far too long. Cullen328 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean imperious, or impervious? EEng 01:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Definition of imperious per Merriam-Webster: marked by arrogant assurance:domineering. Please select your own word, EEng. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Gee, Cullen328, you've sure gotten cranky recently. You missed the pun: impervious as in "impervious to reason or advice". It's like, ya know, one letter off and yet coincidentally gives another applicable ass-holish attribute. EEng 03:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps another editor can explain to me how my reply was cranky, EEng. The next time I think of using the word "imperious", I will consider "impervious" as an alternative. Cullen328 (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I'll take my crankiness detector in for recalibration first thing in the morning. EEng 04:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, although I'm unconvinced this editor is actually the subject of the article. It seems more likely it's an imposter bent on making the subject look like a jerk. A professional as accomplished as this guy keeps telling us he is wouldn't act that way. EEng 13:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And he needs a page block too. I'm just not sure whether it shojuld be for just the article, or the talk page as well. EEng 01:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Singleton4321 has now posted a critique of the article and various editors at Talk:Oliver James (psychologist)#IDEOLOGICAL BIAS OF EDITORS ON THIS PAGE?. NebY (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support and, given the rant here, I'd say a short block for personal attacks should also be considered. Choice quotes:
  • GDX420 (who often seems like evans' mouthy alter ego...)
  • In the case of Evans, this is particularly surprising in that he seems to have an encylopaedic knowledge of anything that might seem critical of me
  • The other is Start The Week Radio 4 programme, of which I am sure Evans will be aware and not want mentioned on here

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, in the face of repeated and wholly unfounded personal attacks. I believe this editor is WP:NOTHERE. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Having to resort to Wall of Text to disguise a WP:NPA simply is off. Borgenland (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think he's probably NOTHERE as well, but for some reason I want to see what he'll do with some rope. EEng 04:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Clarification: is this topic ban intended to also cover Talk:Oliver James (psychologist) or will that be dependent on behaviour there? Thanks.Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  If I was enacting the ban, I would do an indefinite block on the article and the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  A topic ban bans the editor from the topic, and includes any article concerning the topic and anything concerning the topic elsewhere, including talk pages, related parts of other articles, categories and other pages - see WP:TBAN. It might additionally be enforced by blocks on specific pages, as Ritchie333 would. NebY (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. So possibly also e.g. Affluenza, Machiavellianism in the workplace and Psychopathy in the workplace? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  From any future editing concerning Oliver James there or elsewhere. NebY (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Kobzar1917

Kobzar1917 was indefinitely blocked by ToBeFree on 18 August. In the discussion regarding their unblock request, they stated that they would discuss their edits on the talk page in the event that they have been reverted. As a result, they were unblocked on 26 August. Despite this, they refuse to get consensus on the talk page. The latest example is Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus'. They made an initial change on 25 September and have restored their change four times now. I reverted them and explained the reason for the reverts but they have used deceptive edit summaries like "unexplained deletion". I also started a discussion on the talk page but they are not discussing. The edit summary of their latest revert says "your personal opinion does not trump that of reliable sources", except they have already been told about WP:ONUS. Mellk (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• INDEFfed. Clearly has no interest in abiding by the promises around their unblock. Star Mississippi 18:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Sarim Wani

I nominated this article for AfD due to concerns about notability. However, I believe the article creator may have a conflict of interest (COI) with the subject. Unfortunately, during our interactions, the editor has made personal remarks against me on these pages [111] and [112], which I chose to ignore. Recently, they escalated their behavior to what I feel is bullying and harassment. (They are referring to my userpage infobox "Siblings" parameter information Siblings my enemies ayeee we got smt in common well there is a lot more common but this is one of them!).

For instance, they created an unsourced article on "Rather (surname in Kashmir) [113]," which I attempted to improve link. They then falsely accused me of intentionally irritating them link. Furthermore, the editor added promotional and poorly sourced content to the article on the Jammu and Kashmir Awami Ittehad Party link, which I revised to maintain neutrality link.

I am concerned that their behavior has become personal and unconstructive, and I believe it is hampering productive collaboration. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs)

Hi Sarim Wani this side I belive that this is a big mis understanding I am not entirly sure about how can I write here so if someone can gudie me it would be helpful thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarim Wani (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Checks the AFD Oy… Sarim, you need to read WP:BLUDGEON. Considering I’m having to link you that, you know fine well how to reply correctly. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Sarim Wani from the AfD and hatted some of the bludgeoning. Star Mississippi 18:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Another admin should have a look at this edit and decide whether further action is needed. Star Mississippi 14:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

my article forcefully merged into it Exsqueezameesa, what?

Have fight "debate" with a man probably from Pakistan Aspersions for days, and the quoting sounds to me like they’re mocking AGF.

which led the some one else to create the article fist and even though I made the article fist WP:OWN, and interpretable as mockery, again.

This edit summary doesn’t inspire confidence, either.

How close to WP:NOTHERE are we, with this user, realistically? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The user has resumed promotional editing behavior, as seen in this diff. They are adding unnecessary information, such as a list of contesting candidates, which is not relevant and violates Wikipedia's WP:SOAPBOX policy.

Additionally, they removed maintenance tags without adequately addressing the issues, as shown in this diff. They are also adding references that do not support the claims being made. Their editing behaviour seems promotional. I removed it multiple times but seems they are engaged in WP:SOAPBOX and possibly COI editing. TheBirdsShedTears (talk)

User:174.100.101.201

Editor who was blocked for three months in July. This expired recently and for the past two days they have been doing the same kind of edits that got them blocked in the first place. These include the mass deletion of sourced information, usage of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources such as Our Campaigns, and edit warring. I have notified the user that Our Campaigns is not a reliable source, but they continue to use it nevertheless. Jon698 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Issue is mute as the editor has been blocked for six months. Jon698 (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Extensive WP:LOUTSOCK violations by USER:I would be bias if it was allowed/User_talk:27.33.134.168

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

---

This editor has been blocked [114] since May for myriad different reasons, from WP:LOUTSOCK to WP:CIR to WP:EW and so on. They are currently editing Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election and other pages extensively on multiple IPs, most notably this one. The user proudly proclaims that they are evading their ban using that IP in their request to be unblocked [115] as one of the reasons to be unblocked. The IP address in the header has also clearly stated it most notably in the referenced talk page [116] and it's likely there will be more of these. I didn't file at SPI since there's little question about the connection between the account and at least this particular IP address, and the urgency given that the blocked editor is contributing in a "high temperature" area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for one month and revoked TPA for the named user who has an outstanding unblock request (chutzpah). Technicality: it's block evasion, not LOUTSOCK.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, my bad on the header. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128

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

---

See this Teahouse thread. I feel bad for them, but it's clear that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE and even WP:BATTLEGROUND, as all of their edits are either rants or attacks towards good-faith editors trying to help, such as here and here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah uh, Special:Contributions/2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:0:0:0:0/64. Unconstructive edits caused by someone who's not doing well. I feel like warnings wouldn't help at all, especially templates. No threats of harm, but unsure if ANI, a noticeboard viewed by thousands every day, is the right place for this. win8x (talking | spying) 03:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I've alerted the WMF. I'm satisfied that this individual is displaying signs of potentially serious emotional/phycological distress. That's as far as I'm prepared to go. No overt threat of harm so reluctant to block right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel incredibly bad reverting one of their edits no one seemed to notice. Better to leave the experts at WMF deal with it. win8x (talking | spying) 05:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Been regularly checking that range's contributions since they were first mentioned here. It hurts my heart to watch, but even more so to see them actively shoot down other users' attempts to help them. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, Cullen blocked them for 72 hours and many of their edits were influenced by their current outlook and have been reverted. I'm actually surprised that we don't see this more often, considering that Wikipedia is basically "open" 24/7, every day of the week. If someone is in distress and wants to reach a human being, it will happen here pretty quickly (for good or ill). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We can only hope now that they don't do anything drastic after this. If they do come back, I hope they're doing better. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

All social media sites have are chronically online 12 year olds who gatekeep everything and so called “activists” constantly guilt tripping people for existing. They ain’t wrong. Anyway, looks like the conversation has been hatted at the Teahouse, so probably nothing else to do here. I’d close, but me closing ANI threads is just asking for trouble. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

User:197.87.143.164

HAs been blocked before, warned over edit warring but now this [[117][] is about as blatant a MAnifdesato of wp:nothereas I have ever seen. I do not think this use will in fact not continue to be an issue. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm only somewhat surprised this IP address is as rude and as confrontational as they are after having being blocked a couple times, but they're persistent, I'll give them that. Addendum: cross-reported to WP:AIV. Sirocco745 (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I did not know they had been reported there. I would have said no vandalism, just very sure of themselves. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

2601:40:C300:6C30:E9E5:B30A:22EE:A60B

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

---

User:2601:40:C300:6C30:E9E5:B30A:22EE:A60B's edits seem to be similar to the edits made in the blocked IP range User:2601:46:600:0:0:0:0:0/48. Specifically, one of their edits is identical to one I reverted a month ago from User:2601:46:600:6A89:813D:8575:E375:6172 (see here for the current IP's edit, and here for the range-blocked IP's edit.) I have reported this here as I wasn't sure how to use SPI properly with this kind of report. Thank you. AkiyamaKana (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Muhammad Ahsan2233

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

---

• Muhammad Ahsan2233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has only 90 edits, but the talk page of this account is full of warnings for disruption and vandalism. The edit warring and page ownership from this account is thoroughly evident from their own edit summaries[118] and has in fact violated 3RR on Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 where 1RR is imposed.[119]

He has been creating articles solely for pushing a POV and when those articles are moved to draft spaces he edit wars over them as well to move them to article space.[120] This account is a clear case of a WP:NOTHERE. Their only aim is to falsify history on India Vs Pakistan battle pages. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd propose a tban, but I don't think they have any interest other than POV pushing, so I support blocking per NOTHERE. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 17:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• User blocked for sockpuppetry. This thread can be closed now. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Anon. IPs continuously adds maintenance tags without explaination

IPs Involved:

• User talk:36.76.6.183
• User talk:2001:448A:1020:5990:3877:DF64:9E3A:504C
• User talk:2001:448A:1020:5990:112C:511D:68E2:1BFA
• User talk:2001:448A:1020:3F01:112C:511D:68E2:1BFA

Users that might be involved:

• User:Myrealnamm
• User:Jdcooper
• User:Darknipples

Issue:

These anons keep adding maintenance tags (specifically {{cleanup rewrite}}, {{copyedit}}, {{more citations needed}} and {{unreliable sources}}, enabling the pattern to be identified). They were asked to stop, but they seem to continue. Some of their other edits are also disruptive. Both IPs are from Indonesia, it seems.

Diffs

• Special:Diff/1247632313
• Special:Diff/1251100063
• Special:Diff/1250956644
• Special:Diff/1250607697
• Special:Diff/1250607374
• ...and more.

Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 17:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC). Modified by Jdcooper (talk) at 17:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC). Thanks, Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Issue

In addition User:2001:448A:1020:3F01:112C:511D:68E2:1BFA was adding the same tags to a number of articles that seemed related only by the fact that I had edited them all recently, while clearing the backlog at Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates. I could find no explanation for this pattern. To demonstrate the number of articles affected by this editor's tagging, the total number of articles listed at that maintenance page rose from 318 in early September (or late August, I can't remember), to over 380 the next time the report was updated. Most of these articles were topics related to the Filipino television/media industry, or to other topics related to the Philippines or media in other Asian countries. In only very few of them were the issues suggested by those tags even relevant to the article.

Examples

Aggie Jones, Stuart Bowen, James W. Skotchdopole, Privacy-invasive software, Haijian 15, Haijian 26, Haijian 49, Sanjiv N. Sahai, Thomas G. Thibodeau, Active sitting, many others. Jdcooper (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I have never posted at ANI before, I don't know how this works! Jdcooper (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jdcooper Nah, it's not usually like this. I might've broken the rules myself for 'how ANI works' . Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 22:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks to invite me.... But do you know that most of these articles which in topic related to ABS-CBN, Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation, Advanced Media Broadcasting System, Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Philippines Network, GMA Network and TV5 Network along with their respective talents and shows, still don't got fixing for many long years, especially in regarding articles Rico Yan and the Shutdown of ABS-CBN broadcasting... So, I did that on purpose so that someone would fix all those articles along with additional of reliable sources..... 2001:448A:1020:5990:3877:DF64:9E3A:504C (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not anyone else's "job" to fix the problems that you see. DN (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@2001:448A:1020:5990:3877:DF64:9E3A:504C:, thanks for finally engaging. Some advice:

If you can't fix these issues yourself:

• Use specific tags (find them here). {{cleanup rewrite}} and {{copyedit}} are about as general as you can get, and in most cases, they weren't the problem with the articles you tagged. Better would be {{fanpov}} or {{tone}} for the Filipino celebrities, {{original research}} for the media organisations.
• Identify the problem. When you add a very general tag, at least say in the edit summary or on the talk page where/what the problem is. Just adding a copyedit tag on a very long article doesn't help. Every article on wikipedia could use copyediting, probably. And you were adding {rewrite} on articles that were actually pretty good, the work of hundreds of editors over years. It makes it look like you had not even read them. Jdcooper (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by user:Lightburst

Lightburst is disruptively reverting a closed merge discussion and reverting a completed merge because they disagree with the consensus. Revert of uninvolved close and also closers additional talk page comment: [121]. Also reversion of the redirect: [122]. I left a message on their talk page pointing out correct process would be close review, but the close was a valid uninvolved close: [123] I said I would put things back, did so but was immediately reverted. I asked Lightburst to self revert, they refused [124], so here we are.

Brief background: this is a long running saga of a page that was taken to AfD and there was no consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort. The closer of that discussion suggested a merge proposal might be tried. TarnishedPath tried to bold redirect the page and was taken to ANI by Lightburst on 6 September. TarnishedPath apologised for the bold action, agreeing it was out of process.[125] I started a merge discussion per the suggestion of Star Mississippi (the AfD closer) The merge discussion is here: [[126]]. I requested uninvolved closure, and this was actioned by uninvolved editor, Licks-rocks.[127] Although consensus can change or be challenged, there is no doubt that an editor simply reverting a merge and the closure of the discussion by an uninvolved editor is disruptive. Equally it is clear that Lightburst is aware of this, having taken TarnishedPath to ANI for the bold redirect that was also out of process. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Lightburst, if you want someone uninvolved to close the merger, you similarly can't be the one to undo it. All parties should be uninvolved. Take it to a close review, this isn't the place for BRD. I'm Involved as @Sirfurboy notes as AfD closer but am otherwise uninvolved in the discussion and take no position on the actual close itself. Star Mississippi 21:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A controversial close should be handled by an experienced administrator. This looks like a no consensus and it looks like there was an immediate discussion about the close, but the closer did not respond. I reverted and would be satisfied of a non-involved experienced admin closes. Sirfboy wants this article deleted or redirected and has been very vocal but there is WP:NORUSH. Lightburst (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the message @Star Mississippi:. It is a no-consensus and would have been an easy no-merge if not for the WPO involvement. An experienced admin like @Liz: or another could probably sort it quickly. Sad that Sirfurboy thinks we need to ramp it up here. Lightburst (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I keep seeing mention of "WPO involvement". What am I being accused of here, please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Not you. Lightburst, their articles, their entire contribution history, et al, has been the topic of extensive discussion at Wikipediocracy. Users who feel free to dox, threaten, harass and be uncivil there while pretending to be choir singers on-site. Such behavior on WPO uufortunately cannot be linked on-site, because of the result of an RfC that prohibited the linking of such material. This ANI thread is hopefully for the best. Perhaps ArbCom can finally create a policy on-site, holding users to account for their behavior on websites like WPO. The accounts are linked, after all, via the same email address used for their Wikipedia account. Because enough is enough of the toxicity. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

WPO and Wikipedia accounts are not linked by email address unless one specifically chooses to use the same email for both. Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, although I know you know this @Lightburst. I am unaware of whatever the ties to WPO there are in the AfD and subsequent merger discussion. I simply closed it per my read of the discussion and it showing up when I was patrolling AfD that day. Star Mississippi 01:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

but the closer did not respond. The closer responded, but you deleted their response in this edit [128]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed you also deleted the talk page comment of Gidonb in that edit. Another previously uninvolved editor who agreed with the merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• I have reverted the article and the target talk page to their closed status. Note that this is not an admin close but merely reverting to the pre-edit-war status (and restoring the editor comment that was removed by LB). In case of challenges to closures, WP:CLOSE says clearly that it should be discussed with the closer first (this was not done) and only if that is not productive then it can be taken to WP:AN. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Reminding editors of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#AndyTheGrump's (ATG) hostility, editing to favor deletion and canvassing where it was revealed that Lightburst had engaged in sockpuppertry and they had their autoconfirmed autopatrolled right removed as consequence of creation of this article. TarnishedPath^talk 22:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  I see no evidence of Lightburst having been "engaged in sockpuppetry and had their autoconfirmed right removed as a consequence of creation of this article." All I see in that ANI is Lightburst having their autoconfirmed right removed because the article was allegedly of poor quality, not because they were engaged in sockpuppetry on the article. As far as I can make out, the alternate account was made 5 years ago, so that has nothing to do with the current state of affairs. The only part of that ANI discussion that should be incorporated into this discussion, is the other user being blocked for being uncivil at WPO. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  MoneyTrees report was fairly damning. As per the other editor, they recieved a block for uncivil behaviour on Wikipedia and nothing else. TarnishedPath^talk 23:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Correction: autopatrolled removed, not autoconfirmed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, as far as I know you can't remove autoconfirmed. Having autopatrolled removed implies nothing more than that the user's page creations could benefit from being reviewed by others. I was the one who proposed a one-account restriction, based on the fact that they had socked a while back and it was not detected until much later, but there is no real connection betweeen that and the autopatrolled removal. In fact it is a bit odd as it was Tarnished Path who proposed it be removed and I'm not seeing "has socked" anywhere in the language of their proposal. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm referring to MoneyTrees report. Apologies if it came accross that the issues were connected. TarnishedPath^talk 23:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It was revealed that Moneytrees could tarnish my reputation easily with zero evidence. TP your comment above is a kind of PA but I expected it. You came to the article from WPO like several others. And I lost my autopatrolled because another WPO member named JSS started a thread to punish me over my BLP on a guitar player, not this one. I won't comment here anymore as this thread as is about to slide into WPO nonsense and PAs. I will go to AN about the merge no-con. Lightburst (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Funny that you wrote this at the exact same time as I was making my above remarks regarding the revocation of your AP status, and even funnier that you say I I lost my autopatrolled because another WPO member named JSS started a thread to punish me over my BLP on a guitar player which is completely wrong in every single detail. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your claim that I came to the article from WPO is completely lacking in evidence. You need to retract that mistruth. TarnishedPath^talk 23:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not a real issue anyway. There's no rule that says your opinion doesn't count if you found out about the discussion "the wrong way." Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Very apt. TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Could we all possibly stick to the subject in hand rather than raking over old disputes, please? Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Failing that, if LB and TP could both stick to objective, provable reality of what happened in the previous thread, that'd be great. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Alleging that your opponents come from WPO to gang up on you is an aspersion. It's also short-sighted.... they don't need to travel so far. SerialNumber54129 23:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, I arrived at the article precisely becauase of the ANI discussoin that LB started (linked above). I didn't need to see it publized elsewhere. TarnishedPath^talk 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't appreciate users deleting my comments in what —paying all available respect to AGF here— certainly seems to be a transparent attempt to make it look like I responded poorly to a request for clarification. there was an immediate discussion is also false by the way, just look at the timestamps, it took three whole days for anyone to leave a comment. I responded the very next day, approximately 8 hours after I was tagged, on a monday morning. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: User licks-rocks has just over 2000 edits and it is clearly a controversial close. I started a discussion at AN and Licks-rocks, you should not be closing controversial discussions until you get more experience. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Look bud, I was going to strike the above comment because there was a tiny chance you edit conflicted my comment out and just didn't notice somehow. The fact that you didn't even respond to the accusation and instead chose to attack my competence is making it kind of hard to keep that goodwill going. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually no looking again in the morning with a fresh head, my edit was at eleven in the morning, yours deleting mine was a full eight hours later. There is seven other edits between mine and yours, and a further fourteen between my clarification and the close you reverted. What's more, you get warned about edit conflicts. Even if you thought you were just reverting the close, you deleted someone else's comment too, and then you succesfully reverted the actual close immediately after. You only reversed your change as "erroneous" a full two hours later, after someone called you out on it at ANI. You absolutely intentionally deleted that! --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

And you shouldn't be reverting a close just because you didn't like the outcome. An experienced editor knows there is a process to follow when they disagree with a close, and for unexplained reasons you didn't follow that process. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Lightburst, this was a valid close. If you wanted to challenge the closure, which is your right, you should have followed our policy for doing so instead of reverting which is disruptive.

By the way, I don't visit WPO so I have no knowledge of what discussion there has to do with this Merge proposal. I think we can get into dangerous territory when we start guessing at the motivations of other editors that isn't demonstrated in actual comments they have made on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to have been any discussion of the merge proposal on WPO. And regarding the AfD, differing opinions were offered. The alleged 'canvassing' seems, if anything to have actually resulted in improving the chances of the article being kept, since the only WPO contributor I can see who commented on the AfD after it was mentioned there went on to provide more (and better) sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic; more heat than light. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why don't you violate the RfC prohibiting the linking of WPO content by posting a link to the WPO user's comment you mentioned, like you just instructed me to do? You never know... your post may indeed open the floodgates to enable us all to post such content. That would certainly be beneficial to every administrator, bureaucrat, and arbitrator watching these discussions. I'll take your word that "there doesn't appear" to have been any public discussion of the merge proposal on WPO. I have no reason to doubt you, since you currently have over 3,000 posts on WPO and have been an active member there for over a decade. However, there are 8 months worth of other public "discussions" that could indeed be linked. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Please read up on policy regarding submitting private evidence to ArbCom. And then read up on policy regarding making multiple entirely unsubstantiated allegations of misbehaviour on noticeboards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC) If you'd be so obliged, please forward a message on my behalf to the dancing guy of WPO. Tell him to try harder next time. He was off by an entire continent when he tried to dox me earlier this year. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Fuck off with your evidence-free guilt by association smear attempts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC) True colors... shining through. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC) In the interests of preserving Ms Lauper's reputation, I should probably point out that True colors is a love song, despite the bizarre link above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC) @Homeostasis07 and AndyTheGrump: please take this WPO derail elsewhere. It is not helping to find resolution nor does it have bearing on this thread. Star Mississippi 02:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC) I have repeatedly asked Homeostasis07 to do just that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC) AndytheGrump has never asked me to do any such thing. And WPO has everything to do with why Lightburst has been harassed these past 8 months. It's the reason why his every move is being scrutinized in harassing detail. It's the reason his articles have been nominated for deletion, a process that has lead us all here. It does not benefit the community to shove the underlying causes under the rug and attempt to examine this as a singular incident. This has been brewing for 8 months now. @ArbCom: definitely needs to examine everything. Everything. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC) You have just posted a link above to my comment where I told you to take it to ArbCom, where you can submit any evidence you see fit. Do so, and stop spamming multiple pages with the same evidence free insinuations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC) so bring a case to ArbComm with private evidence if needed. This ANI is about Lightburst's revert of a close. You said it wasn't about @Sirfurboy's edits either. So please take that discussion where it belongs, which isn't an ANI about a merger close. That is my point, not that it should be swept under the rug. (Utterly uninvolved although I think I did !vote in the prior ANI between these editors) Star Mississippi 03:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC) @AndytheGrump: I've not posted any link, other than a link to True Colors. And I have become very aware of the ArbCom process these past several months. @Star Mississippi: As I've explained above, all of the above does exist within a vacuum. It's a gradual degradation of the entire Wikipedia process, where people can insult and harass other Wikipedia users on a website like Wikipediocracy for eight months, then come on-site and act like they aren't partaking in such behavior. I'm sure many of the users who contributed to the AfDs and the merge discussion aren't aware of the sheer scale of the harassment thrown Lightburst's way these past several months, but it is clearly the underlying issue here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC) If and when this ArbCom case ever takes place, I suspect they may take a very dim view of your insistence on evidence-free off-topic soapboxing in multiple threads. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC) May also take a very dim view of you telling me to "Fuck off". [129] Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Possibly, Though then again, when one takes into consideration that Wikipediocracy contributors include several current and former ArbCom members, it seems entirely possible that they may sympathise with my sentiments, even if they don't agree with the wording. Guilt by association doesn't tend to work to well when you use a scatter-gun approach that takes down half a dozen innocent bystanders along with the local law enforcement... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC) And with this, it has become clear that you are more concerned with defending Wikipediocracy above all else. For clarification, I have previously communicated with ArbCom my concerns about Wikipediocracy, but have in no way impugned them for their participation on that website. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 04:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC) His articles (at least the one that is the focal point of this discussion) have been nominated for deletion because they are demonstrably deficient. Dial back your unsubstantiated crap about ulterior motives. TarnishedPathtalk 04:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Lightburst's usual diffusionary tactic at play here; when in the wrong, muddy the waters with vague irrelevancies about WPO (AKA bullshit, for the vernacularly-inclined). While that's par for the course, and will doubtless boomerang be addressed at some point, it's a shame to see otherwise respectable editors lose their heads (and not a fair amount of hard-earned respect, I dare say), defending him. SerialNumber54129 13:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN

Related merge review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Merge close Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 01:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 87.192.17.126

87.192.17.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

331dot

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

---

Had a Bit of Banter with a user who talked about a Biased Bigot who needed to stop Blocking people. I enjoyed the alliteration so I asked What is the username of this Biased Bigot who Blocks?. They said they wanted to upload screenshots of their perceived wrongdoings, and I said: ....if you here to WP:RGW you'll just end up blocked (possibly by a Biased Bigoted Bastard).

331dot (talk · contribs), in an incredibly tonedeaf overreaction redacted them as PA's and left a silly warning on my talkpage.

I asked them about it and had a weird conversation where they stated I stand by my actions.

They are an admin and should know what is and isn't a personal attack. Polygnotus (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Bit premature to bring me here. I was about to say, I can accept that you might have just been carrying on what the other user was saying as "fun with alliteration", but that itself is not a good idea with such language, as it's only reinforcing the baseless claims of the other user, aside from the civility aspect. If you say you didn't make a personal attack, okay, but it still wasn't appropriate. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: Not at all premature, you should not have made this mistake, and then to double down when it is pointed out. Oof. Not great. So retract your false accusation, learn what is and isn't a PA, and be silly in fun and interesting ways from now on. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You said you were going to give me a few minutes. I've already said "if you say you didn't make a personal attack, okay". I've been here years and I know darn well what a personal attack is. Some things should not be involved in having "fun". 331dot (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I said "some time" and I did give you some time. I was hoping you'd be a bit embarrassed, revert yourself and I could trout you and we could move on to more productive stuff. I know darn well what a personal attack is then why did you do this? You make 178k excellent edits and then you had a brainfart. So revert yourself and I'll throw a whale on you and we can work on this encyclopedia. Polygnotus (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what sanction you are seeking against me, if you just want a declaration that I was wrong, you could have gone to WP:AARV.

I have other reasons for my action besides the claim of a personal attack, which I stated. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Look, 331dot, I love you, but no one here is going to support your actions here. It was a mistake, we all make mistakes, shit happens. But when everything has been explained to you and you've been dragged to ANI it is really time to say "oops". Polygnotus (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If I just made a mistake there was no need to escalate it to this forum, WP:AARV would be more appropriate. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I've stricken the warning, you may remove it outright if you wish. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. i'll trout you, but in a loving way. Polygnotus (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't feel like a good fit for ANI. WP:TEAHOUSE is an extremely public page (like this one), and newcomer-facing. It's supposed to be friendly. I wouldn't have redacted those comments as PAs, but that's not a great place for them. Folly Mox (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

We worked it out, see above. Polygnotus (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to be directed to some other means of removing them/more accurately identifying them. I truly feel they weren't appropriate for the Teahouse. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. NebY (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

IamNeutrality (the user whose comments were stricken) is an undisclosed but  Confirmed sock of Charlottetown Community Church. The latter was soft-blocked, but this was an illegitimate use of multiple accounts as IamNeutrality tried to indicate they were a separate user. --Yamla (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Lest it go unsaid, Polygnotus, you should not be repeating a personal attack even if you're doing so in fun. It was not ambiguous that the sock was talking about an actual admin, and a brand new account talking about a "biased bigot who blocks" is obviously an angry sock of someone who just got blocked. 331dot's redaction was perfectly fine. That said, the "only warning" for personal attacks for repeating what someone else said strikes me as over the top. So yes, it was repeating a personal attack; no, the formal warning wasn't necessary. Seems like it could've been resolved with a "can we not repeat obvious sock puppets' insults please" in the edit summary. Either way, no great harm has occurred here, and Polygnotus should feel free to get rid of that warning. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong place to explain to a bunch of admins and very experienced users what a personal attack is. Anyone who is unsure can subscribe to my Coursera. Polygnotus (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Reporting a disruptive user & myself

Greetings. I require this board's attention on user RealEricson, who continues to publish disruptive edits while also marking them as 'minor' edits. I have reverted most of them, but the user continues. Now they are also trying to mock me by repeating my edit summaries with their new reverts. Last month [130], they also violated WP:PERSONAL but I did not report it.

Here are some diffs of their recent reverts/changes. Where they remove the sourced text, mostly replacing them with unsourced text, or adding poor quality refs that are not suitable: [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137]

They also appear to be abusing multiple accounts/ban evading. (as per another user @Fylindfotberserk)

RealEricson is currently under investigation for sock puppetry as well.[138]

I request you guys to kindly look into this matter. And do what you think is best regarding the user.

Now about me, I unintentionally violated the 3RR rule at Sindhis today, I kept reverting to the stable ver. I was about to self-revert but it was too late. I would understand being temp-blocked for that as it is well within reason. Sir Calculus (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding your own edit warring issue, you technically didn't violate 3RR (the four reverts were made across two days, and not in a 24-hour span), although it is a "bright-line" rule rather than a formal definition of edit-warring. While you did still edit war, the fact that you stopped and realized the issue shows that (in my non-admin opinion at least) there shouldn't be a need to block you for this, as blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, here is the SPI case in question. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

First thing I want to clear is that I'm not a sockpuppet, my account is old enough to be an indicator for this. The user who edited the sindhi page alongside me isn't related to me, and neither is this Hammad Baloch account.

Secondly, my edits aren't disruptive in any way, in fact atleast in one case one of your revisions of my edit can be considered disruptive, as you removed a genuine source that I added (see edits on Jadgal people page).

None of my revisions seem to be problematic? In the case of the Brahui page I saidd in edit logs that I removed Nazir Shakir Brahui's source as he isnt reliable especially on ethnography, his ideas being controversial.

The only problematic edit I might have made was removing Dravidian people from the related groups box, but I have sources to prove this that I didn't find the need to post (TLDR, dna tests have proved that brahuis have no genetic link to dravidians and are only linked by language, hence linking the brahui ETHNICITY to dravidians as a whole would be completely wrong).

The rest are small changes and there's nothing wrong with them, they are uncited because your own sources confirm the words mentioned (for exampe the gichkis being baloch regardless of their past origins which I also have doubts about).

My previous personal attack was due to my unfound assumption that you were on a spree of cultural appropriation of Baloch tradition and tribes, but im letting that go for a fair and proper debate, since my problem is with the edits not the editor. RealEricson (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

While Brahui's are very similar genetically to Baloch, "no genetic link to dravidians" would be an exaggeration since a large chunk of South Asian ancestry, shared by all, is IVC derived. It is also explained in the research paper linked in the Brahui article alongwith theories on various migration paths of those people. Not to mention Dravidian speakers are quite diverse themselves, varying along caste/coummunity/grographic lines. More importantly, the "related ethnic group" parameter isn't particularly restricted to ancestry, but linguistics as well. For example, the Macedonians (ethnic group) infobox includes Southern Slavic-speaking groups only, despite the fact that Greeks and Albanians are closer to them as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say Brahuis had no links to Dravidians, just that any DNA they shared was not much different from the DNA other neighbouring groups like Balochs shared with Dravidians. There has been a study done on this (L Pagani , 2017) , the researchers coming to the conclusion that Brahuis show no relationship to Dravidians and proposed some theories like total replacement, similar to what happened to the Magyars in Hungary, a stark shift from Finno-Ugric+Turkic Admixture to purely Central European. Just like Hungarians today are most closest to Slavic speaking Slovaks instead of their Finno Ugric ancestors, Brahuis are also closest to Iranic speaking Balochs rather than their supposed dravidian ghost ancestor.

Your example of Macedonians doesn't fit this example as Macedonians do have trace amount of slavic ancestry, more so than Greeks and Albanians. In the case of Brahuis there is no genetic component that makes them more dravidian shifted compared to their neighbours.

Based on this, I think only Baloch people should be placed in the related people section of the info box. If a source needs to be added to the infobox to confirm this, then so be it. RealEricson (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Skyerise, WP:TEND and WP:CIVIL

User:Skyerise has been edit warring over at English Qaballa, which is itself a content dispute for the most part and they didn’t violate WP:3RR, but they’ve got a bit of an WP:OWN issue and seem be weaponizing maintenance templates to continue a talk page content dispute in the article and are abusing warnings, in addition to general civility issues.

They disagreed with "invented" vs "discovered" on a bit of theology in the intro to the article, and when the talk page made it clear that "discovered" was a nonstarter slapped on the word “invented”. I reverted that, and gave them a WP:3RR warning, which they reverted (which they’re of course free to do on their talk page) with “no” and immediately warned me for the removal of the maintanence template. The reason for their pattern of editing is It was perfectly appropriate as I knew it was false.

Also, comments like this:

"Seems you only have 1500 edits. What was your previous username, eh?"

and

Lol! I love how you yourself call it an 'application' in your rebuttal of it being an application. Lol!

and

Lol! I hope you're not planning on warning me for edit warring because I removed a spurious letter.

(I do want to acknowledge that the last one was actually pretty funny)

It’s honestly relatively minor in the grand scheme of ANIs, but at the same time jumping from a content dispute on the talk page, to slapping a citation needed tag on the thing you disagreed with the talk page on, to warning a user who removed it, followed by personal attacks and combative discussion and WP:POV pushing just feels weirdly aggressive and probably warranting a warning or time out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I had a read through the talk page discussion and looked at the reverts (worth also noting that Fram was also getting reverted by Skyerise) and my message to Skyerise is ... this issue is really not worth fighting over, and especially not worth being blocked again for it. Please work on another article for a bit, thanks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

And don't accuse people of being socks because they have only 1500 edits, and don't claim that an occult pupil of an occult writer is a reliable, independent source for controversial claims about her teacher... Fram (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

And don't accuse people of being socks because they have only 1500 edits

And, if you're going to anyways, first check to see if the user you're accusing prominently displays their old username on their user page ;) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Skyerise is skating on very thin ice here, and I advise caution. Cullen328 (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Um, I wasn't accusing the editor of being a sock: they state on their user page "I ... am willing to provide the name of my original account to administrators who may have reason to ask." I may not be an administrator, but I do have reason to ask. They are certainly free to decline to answer. Skyerise (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing the editor of being a sock is not a very plausible claim, given the wording of the evidence Warren provided. Grandpallama (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is fresh off a month-long block for similar behavior at Worship of heavenly bodies. jps (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As long as there’s already an open ANI about @Skyerise, it appears they’re continuing the edits that started this whole thing more widely in other related articles, even since this ANI was opened, using in universe language inappropriately. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• This earlier diff was somewhat more concerning to me, but Skyerise thankfully did not edit war over that after I reverted. My biggest concern is over WP:OWN and WP:SPA tendencies, but I think there is legitimate cause to think that this is more-or-less happening because of WP:Wikidragoning. The effect is for it to come across as WP:POVPUSHing. jps (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I hadn’t seen that. Honestly that edit just makes me think this is a WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE issue more than anything else. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)