Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1142

I've haven't even looked at this, but let me offer some advice, not only to Telecineguy, but everyone: Do not ever check the "minor edit" box. Why? Because no one has ever been dragged to ANI for "not marking a minor edit as minor". Really. I challenge y'all to find a single example. It doesn't happen. Just ignore it, or even hide it with CSS. It's not worth the trouble. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be better if the flag was only available for certain specific edits such as preapproved bots and certain administrative actions. Misusing the flag seems to be too tempting as a way to reduce or avoid peer review. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Minor flag shouldn't even exist for anything, yet page moves and rollbacks are automatically marked as so. Jerium (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Since they continue to mark non-minor edits as minor, I have warned them about continued misuse, and encouraged them to participate in this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Hi Aoidh. This is headed towards being archived, but some additional concerns were raised below. Can you please take a look? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I am sorry of the error, (Please note, that I started the page Battle sled and was editing my own work, not someone's else work. I think this should be noted, you are free to disagree). I have looked over the Help:Minor edit, as I misunderstood some of the rules. Thank you, Telecine Guy (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately, looking at his recent work on Dora Hand, there seem to be deeper issues with Telecineguy's editing. The added prose is poor English. The replacement top image, File:Dora Hand (Fannie Keenan).jpg, was recently uploaded here by the editor but is a duplicate of File:Full-length shot of Dora Hand.png on Commons (the source of the head shot that the editor moved down the page, though Billy Hathorn didn't note that when uploading both). Telecineguy's version is taken from a Legends of America page that he has not cited as a source in his expansion, but it's presumably the source of his uncited addition of the stage name Fannie Keenan, and his uncited passage on how she died is over-close paraphrasing: his addition, "one of the shots hit Hand in the side and killed her instantly", vs. Legends of America, "One shot struck Dora on her right side, killing her instantly." (A source that he does cite, but far too late to cover this sentence and without identifying it properly, has the less similar "One of the 44-caliber slugs pierced her side killing the woman instantly.") Of the citations added in the expansion, the only one with an access date has the same 2014 access date as was previously present for another source in the article. While I haven't made any checks for more close paraphrasing / copyvio, the omission of a source he definitely used and the copying of a 9-year-old access date cast the sourcing into doubt in my mind. (I checked the history for large deletions to see whether he was restoring a previous version, but the possibly copyvio text removed in May 2020, substantially Billy Hathorn's work, was much better.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing issues also extend to the fundamentals of what are reliable sources: diff, diff. Understandable for a new editor, but I'm baffled how someone with almost 50,000 edits ends up citing Reddit or a bare image. Ljleppan (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

And another issue or two. Telecineguy is a prolific article creator (more article creations than me). But looking at a random creation listed on his user page, I found

Chris Wade (real estate broker) so non-notable and dubious on BLP grounds that I have boldly made it into a redirect. That was created in 2007, though, when our notability and referencing standards were different. However, a creation from early this year, Das Boot (novel) (an article we undeniably needed!), is a poor job. It was started as an unattributed translation from German Wikipedia (I've just added the template to the talk page). And with this edit, Telecineguy for some reason added a section on the sequel, Die Festung (de:Die Festung (Buchheim); here, Telecineguy has redirected the title to the section), and in a subsequent edit also added a section on the author's U-Boot-Krieg (no German article, and not a novel). This makes the article a bit of a mess structurally, and I can't see any reason to incorporate those 2 other books. Moreover, Telecineguy linked the article on Wikidata to Die Festung instead of Das Boot (which I've fixed; it was the Wikidata edit that piqued my interest). Rosguill granted him autopatrolled in 2020, at the request of Utopes (link). I think that right should be removed based on the sourcing issues and lack of attribution. And I'm afraid to say his work could use some folks going back and checking it, if only for English and unsourced passages. Both Dora Hand and Das Boot actually need considerable work; if I had time, I'd have started on one or the other already. Yngvadottir (talk

) 08:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking briefly at a recent article, Guillem's Graveyard (initial revision), it looks like some close paraphrases from websites documenting National Park Service plaques, but in the process of paraphrasing it, a number of errors are introduced: the length of the Modoc War is doubled, the creation date of the graveyard is wrong by a year, one of the sources is completely unrelated, and more. One example sentence:

In November, 1875, half of them were moved to the cemetery at Fort Klamath.

is rephrased with broken English and false precision as:

In November, 1875, 50 men bodies were re-interred in a cemetery at Fort Klamath.

At the very least, all of these articles need to be reviewed although the provenance issues may be even harder to tackle. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

An editor being autopatrolled should be because there are no concerns, and a number of valid concerns have been brought up. Looking at the post-autopatrolled deleted articles I'm assuming James George Bell House was meant to be a redirect because the article consisted only of a single wikilink, and SS John Sherman (1870) was speedy deleted because SS John Sherman already existed. @Rosguill: do you have any objection or concern with autopatrolled being removed, at least for now? - Aoidh (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It's surprising to see these kinds of issues in new articles created by an editor with so many edits. I'm not sure it's enough, but putting new articles through

NPP might help highlight these issues more consistently and would allow for better/earlier maintenance tagging, moving to draftspace when needed, and identifying potential copyright and attribution problems. Daniel Quinlan (talk

) 01:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No objections to the removal of the permission, it seems warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In which case I've gone ahead and removed the permission and notified them of the removal. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Makes me sad, and I hope Telecineguy resumes editing, but too many problems for the articles not to be checked. I went back and did a quick and dirty fix-up on the Das Boot article, separating out a rewritten but also hasty article on Die Festung, which as I noted above Telecineguy had created as a redirect. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Garcha1625 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) As you can see from their talk page, a large number of experienced users have had problems with this user and I agree with

Aside from the constant restoring of unsourced content without so much as an edit summary, I am also concerned about the complete lack of any communication. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Also apparent blanking following an AfD nomination. [1]. Not sure if that would qualify for
  WP:G7. TornadoLGS (talk
  ) 16:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Possibly. I always get confused when a creator blanks the article after AfD. I never know whether it's an attempt to disrupt the deletion or whether it's their way of conceding that it isn't notable. @Garcha1625: please can you explain your behaviour? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
    • It's also sometimes a novice frustrately just giving up. Sometimes that's a good thing, when the novice is really not writing suitable articles; sometimes it's a bad thing, and it's the deletion nomination that's wrong. Here, it appears to be a novice that has fallen into the trap of writing unsourced sportsperson biographies of living people and filler empty statistics articles for sports events that haven't happened yet. Addressing 2024 in the past tense is also a problem. Garcha1625, it is still 2023. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I think that my views on this user are clear, there seems to be a clear
        WP:NOTHEARING issue. I note they've created one other article that's been moved to draftspace, and one that's at AFD at the moment. All in all, probably a good faith editor trying to create pages about football in their country, however, their understanding of how Wikipedia works is poor. Joseph2302 (talk
        ) 12:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
      • They've also created Draft:2023 Lao League 1 (2), which is a worse version of Draft:2023 Lao League 1 created by blocked user Yakuzar123 (a sock of LSS 2552 apparently, and another sock of them made substantial edits too). It wouldn't surprise me if it's the same user socking again. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
        • It is the same user by the looks of it. I've started an SPI but it's quite backlogged at the moment so it'll take a while for this user to get dealt with. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What‽

This was really confusing.

• Special:Diff/1182983847 — Garcha1625 (talk · contribs) creates the article at 2023-11-01T15:21:49 complete with AFD notice already in it.
• Special:Diff/1182979483 — ComplexRational (talk · contribs) nominates the article for deletion at 2023-11-01T14:52:49 half an hour before.
• Special:Undelete/2024–25 Lao League 1 — There are no deleted edits.

I was going to say to ComplexRational that xe had to tell us how xe did that, but it turns out that 2024–25 Lao League 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not 2024-25 Lao League 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Possibly the page blanking was to replace the minus with the dash, as a bogus copy and paste page move. This is a bit messy, and might need some administrator tools intervention. Uncle G (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There are two pages 2024-25 Lao League 1 and 2024–25 Lao League 1. The only difference between them is a dash. The second page appears to have been created via copy-paste (including the AfD tag) about 30 minutes after the first was nominated for deletion. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's all a complete mess. If they somehow survive AfD, both should be put through

WP:HISTMERGE and then moved to 2024 Lao League 1, which would be the correct title anyway Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)}

20:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I might be a time traveler. In seriousness, though, please ping me if any cleanup is required in the unlikely event that the AfD does not end with deletion. Complex/_Rational 00:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And they've re-created

WP:CIR issues here. Joseph2302 (talk

) 13:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Indef blocked for disruptive edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Botushali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[2]]

Diffs on recent edit warrings:

1. [[3]]
2. [[4]]
3. [[5]]
4. [[6]]
5. [[7]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[8]]

Diffs on previous edit warring's:

1. [[9]]
2. [[10]]
3. [[11]]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [[12]]

Comments:

Despite being reverted by several editors (5 or even more) editor Botushali keeps engaging in edit war regarding a source that even they acknowledge as reliable source [[13]]. Historian in question is Dejan Djokić (historian) with his book being published in 2023 by Cambridge University Press already mentioned by one editor on tp [[14]]. Botushali′s main excuse to remove it is that they think that Djokic falls under

What is even more concerning is addition of Bedri Muhadri [[17]] by Botushali on the same page, a highly disputed and criticised author who is connected with Al Hadri institute [[18]], [[19]] and whose claims have been heavily criticised by international sources [[20]], [[21]], [[22]]. And yet nobody removed it.

So the main questions are: How is it that Djokic is wp:fringe but Muhadri is not, and how come some claims are inserted without questioning them and others are not?

Being an experienced editor, Botushali knows about 4RR rule in 24 Hours, but still it is obvious that their agenda is edit warring with goal of removing sources which they don′t like, also ignoring

After I removed this excerpt on the grounds of it being

WP:FRINGE, which resulted in an edit war on both sides of the debate, I initiated a discussion on the TP [24] to voice my concerns. After ongoing debate regarding the matter, it became apparent that certain editors began to make claims on what Djokic actually meant using their own abstract interpretations, stating that he still agrees that other groups were present. However, no one can gage that by looking at the quote, as the quote states that it is unlikely they were present at all, which again is a fringe theory. I then went on to ask these editors to provide a quote that evidences their claim that Djokic still accepts the established fact of non-Serb groups participating on the side of the Christian coalition multiple times, both in edit summaries [25] and on the TP (beginning from here [26]

), but to date, every editor who has argued against this particular excerpt being a fringe theory has failed to do so.

Theonewithreason became involved with the dispute here and posted a TP comment [27] which clearly highlights how they seem to have ignored all of the concerns I raised in the TP discussion and in my edit summaries. Somehow, this editor seems to think my issue lies with Djokic's entire book, even though I have stated very clearly on multiple occasions that my issue is with a particular excerpt from the book and not the source in general.

I understand we shouldn't edit war, and after the initial dispute I actually held off so that we may discuss the situation at hand. However, when it became clear that none of the editors could prove that the excerpt wasn't a fringe theory and began to make their own claims on Djokic's work that aren't present in the quote, I decided to remove it yet again and wait for a quote to prove that Djokic actually acknowledges that non-Serb groups were involved in the battle. Again, no one has provided such a quote.

I understand that it looks bad when multiple editors are engaged in an edit war against me, but I want to make it clear to the admins that I am constantly involved in regular content disputes with practically all of those editors across a vast number of Balkan articles, and they in-turn are involved in content disputes with another set of editors and so forth. That's the volatile nature of Balkan Wikipedia articles, it seems. I don't want to point fingers and act like I am a victim of some big conspiracy against me as an editor, but I have been reverted by many of these editors on previous occasions simply for the sake of reverting me (and I can provide proof). As such, when editors are

WP:FRINGE

, then what am I to do? If it was the entire source, then I could definitely pursue an RSN-mediated solution, but that's not the case here. I do not think I can go to the RSN over a small excerpt, and I believe that content disputes on Wikipedia should be regulated by the strength of the arguments and policies given, not by strength in numbers.

Also, I just noticed that the title includes "basically since August". I want to bring to the admin's attention that admins have previously intervened on the article, resulting in a block for an editor who was propagating a slow and cyclical edit-war which was the result of the drama on the article in previous months (it is unrelated to the current content dispute). That same editor is on the opposing end of this content dispute.

All the other points regarding sources on the article unrelated to Djokic are content disputes and have no place here. Sure, I can argue against the claims, but that's not what this page is for. It's a place to discuss behaviour, not sources.

Until the admins make their decision (and if they could please inform me of how to best approach the matter at hand when a group of editors are stone-walling to keep a piece of fringe information on an article), I will refrain from making any further RV's surrounding the content dispute in question. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment In the past, Botushali had clearly stated his intention to continue reverting, [28], and he has done exactly that [29]. Now that they have been reported to ANI, they are all of a sudden conciliatory (I will refrain from making further RV's...), but I'm wondering if this is purely tactical and the reverting will resume once this thread is archived.
  Khirurg (talk
  ) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  "but I'm wondering if this is purely tactical and the reverting will resume once this thread is archived". It's not like he gets an immunity deal after this thread. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  While we were just looking at the quote on the article and not paraphrasing the source, some users think that this is a poem analysis. Botushali's concerns were absolutely justified regarding the quote. On the other hand, the same users continue WP:Stonewalling and demanding for consensus to remove WP:FRINGE content. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  As explained to you numerous times in the talkpage, a book by one of the top scholars of the region, published by Cambridge University Press is not

  Khirurg (talk

  ) 20:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Again, you are mixing the entire book with a single excerpt. Nobody is calling the entire book

  WP:FRINGE, only the excerpt, stop confusing the arguments of others and misusing policies to discredit fellow editors. Botushali (talk

  ) 21:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not discrediting anyone, you are discrediting yourself, first by calling a top-notch academic source fringe, and then on top of that by misunderstanding

  Khirurg (talk

  ) 22:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thing is, the source does not revolve around the Battle of Kosovo. The rest of the source doesn’t discuss it, only that excerpt I’m assuming, and what is cited is

  WP:RS standards and at the same time contain something which can be considered a fringe theory. I see no reason why that’s not possible, this shouldn’t be an either-or. Find me the exact Wiki policy that states either the whole source is fringe or not fringe at all. Botushali (talk

  ) 22:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  A source cannot both be

  Khirurg (talk

  ) 00:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  It’s as though you

  WP:FRINGE - again, the whole book is not fringe, rather, a footnote from the book is pushing a fringe theory. Please stop confusing the two by intentionally ignoring my concern regarding a particular footnote, rather than the whole book. Botushali (talk

  ) 00:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment on Khirurg's Intervention: I want to bring to the admin's attention that Khirurg here has been actively attempting to slander my name and get me sanctioned as part of a
    WP:WITCHHUNT ever since a failed and untrue "tag-teaming" report filed against me and a number of other editors I have no ties to back in September of 2022 [30]
    . Obviously, the report failed.

  Now, me and Khirurg are regularly engaged in content disputes across a number of articles revolving around Albanians and Greeks, and he has even followed me to pages revolving around Albanian articles that have nothing to do with Greece (by that, I mean articles which he has never edited on or shown interest in). There is a lot of back and forth, incivility, bad blood etc, particularly from Khirurg who tries to slander my name at every corner and turns every discussion into a you vs. me

  WP:BATTLEGROUND

  . Of course, diffs of all of these things can be provided, but this report isn't about Khirurg. I am simply stating this so that admins are aware of Khirurg's particular distaste for me and take his words with a grain of salt.

  It is no surprise to see him here, as he is always looking for ways to get me sanctioned and can regularly be found at any incident I am involved in on the Administrators' noticeboard. In fact, even after his failed tag-teaming report, he continues to hold an "evidence" page documenting what he thinks is tag-teaming. To help paint himself as a victim even though he treats fellow editors with much incivility and disrespect, he also created a collection of what he calls taunts. As you can see on both pages, I (along with a number of other editors) can be found there. There is also evidence of him reverting me on articles just for the sake of it, such as here [31], where it was apparent that he didn’t read the source and just RV’ed for the sake of it. After that, I opened up a TP discussion, where he admitted that the source was falsified in the past [32] but he clearly hadn’t checked up until that discussion despite the reverts. Another noteworthy example of Khirurg reverting me without looking at the sources (or intentionally falsifying content, that's the only alternative) can be found here [33], and I brought it to his attention both in the edit summary and my subsequent comments on the TP [34][35].

  So, the reason why I bring all of these instances up (the failed reports, the

  WP:PITCHFORKS to try and get me sanctioned and punished because we are regularly on opposing ends of content disputes. As such, his comments here should be viewed with suspicion and an understanding that his involvement here comes down to something deeper than this particular incident. Thanks. Botushali (talk

  ) 23:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  How long did it take you to write that torrent of

  Khirurg (talk

  ) 00:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding the source on Massacres of Albanians, as I said on the relevant TP, “Barbaritë” in Albanian is more akin to the word ‘atrocities’ than ‘barbarities’ - you’ll also notice I said the plausible issue with the respective source is

  WP:AGEMATTERS

  . I want the admins to understand that the issue regarding “Greek Barbarities” has nothing to do with the content dispute at hand. That’s part of a separate content dispute, stop trying to link them to make a point for this content dispute.

  Again, nothing you or any other editor has said or done on the TP has proved that the excerpt (not the whole book, stop ignoring that crucial distinction as if you

  just don’t like what Djokić is saying in that excerpt; rather, it’s against the scholarly consensus and ignores mounds of primary and secondary sources. It’s a fringe theory, plain and simple. Botushali (talk

  ) 00:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have been following the edits on the article and the whole issue is one quote that goes against a wide consensus in the literature. In my opinion, simply including this counter-consensus quote next to the widely approved statement before it, would give it undue weight. But regardless of the merit of the point, this certainly does not call for a discussion here. Çerçok (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed there is a disruptive pattern with numerous instances of

wp:RS. I propose the specific editor to be placed in 1RR restriction. This will probably calm things down. Alexikoua (talk

) 05:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear exactly how I've breached

WP:PEACOCK language I didn't actually use [39]. It would indeed be in this user's interests to have me sanctioned under a 1RR restriction to limit my ability to oppose them in content disputes. That hardly seems fair considering this editor's history with me and other editors in general. If I am to be subjected to a 1RR restriction, then so should they. Botushali (talk

) 06:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I am uninvolved in the dispute, but I first added the source [40] a few months earlier which has become the point of dispute. There's a lack of discussion about the source itself and what it proposes and it seems that there are many debates which are unrelated to the core principles of wikipedia. The series "A Concise History of..." published by Cambridge University Press is intended to provide textbook material for undergrad/MsC/MA courses. The authors who were selected are all distinguished in their field. These works are intended to provide exactly what the title states: a concise overview of the history of specific countries. They're not extensive works about the history of specific countries and they don't focus on details of particular events like the Battle of Kosovo. The author discusses the impact of the battle and the narratives about it. One of them is that Serbia led a multinational Christian coalition. This is a narrative which the author disputes - rightly so, IMO. In itself, this is unrelated to the participation of specific feudal rulers like Muzaka or to the participation of contingents from Hungarians or Vlachs. The author disputes the narrative of grand coalitions in Serbian historiography and its bulwark of Christianity connotations. Hence the point of dispute between those who support inclusion or exclusion isn't discussed by the source itself. Both sides are involved in WP:SYNTH by interpreting it as something very different to what it proposes. More broadly, this problem arises from the way historiography is cited and often abused in wikipedia debates. The report itself doesn't describe any 3RR violation or any editing beyond the scope of what is permissible and because BRD applies to editors who want to include content, it doesn't apply to Botushali who opposes inclusion but to Alexikoua (who mentioned BRD) and all others who have edit-warred to include a statement which wasn't previously in the article. Another problem with such reports is that editors cite policies and practices which either apply to both parties or in some cases apply exclusively to them - like BRD. The article's history itself highlights low-level edit-warring [41] by all sides in the context of a content dispute. All sides should return to the article's talkpage and focus on discussing bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was writing up this comment while Maleschreiber was posting, so excuse me for any redundancy.

  As best I can tell, the contentious sentence was added 16 August. On 2 Nov, AlexBachmann reverted it, citing

  WP:FRINGE

  . Over the week that followed:

• 2 Nov: Khirurg restored it
• 2 Nov: Botushali removed it
• 2 Nov: Krisitor restored it
• 2 Nov: Botushali removed it
• 2 Nov: Krisitor restored it <--at this point, Botushali began talk page discussion
• 6 Nov: Botushali removed it
• 6 Nov: Theonewithreason restored it
• 6 Nov: AlexBachmann removed it
• 6 Nov: Theonewithreason restored it
• 7 Nov: AlexBachmann removed it
• 7 Nov: Khirurg restored it
• 7 Nov: Botushali removed it
• 7 Nov: Alexikoua restored it
• 7 Nov: Botushali removed it
• 8 Nov: Azorzal restored it

This complaint was opened complaining about "persistent edit warring" by Botushali, but this war involves multiple editors on both sides. Nobody has breached

WP:ONUS states The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Schazjmd (talk)

14:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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

My attention was recently called to articles created and edited by Hypersite, as some of their expansions appeared on my watchlist. The articles appear to be well-written and well-sourced, but on further review, they are very problematic.

Today, they created Pennsylvania Rite. The first source used in this brand-new article gives a 404, and indeed, the article states that the ritual they purport to cite is never actually written down, and therefore would appear uncitable.

In their expansion of Operative Masonry, they place sources with access dates that were not anywhere close to the date they edited the article. Chamber of Reflection has many sources that failed verification when I actually looked at them.

I'm not sure what the best way to handle this would be, but I would prefer not to jump straight to a block, if possible. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Another article which I just found, Philosophical Scottish Rite, contained a lengthy copyvio of a French text translated to English, and a Legacy section which was not supported by the cite given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, my preference has changed. This edit has the following ref template (most of which they deleted two minutes later, but...)

{{cite book
 | title = Rite Ecossais Primitif - Complete Rituals
 | isbn = 9782352130840
 | author = Castelli Joseph
 | publisher = Maconniques
 | publication-date = 01/11/2008
 | genre = Esotericism
 | page = Out of stock
 | access-date = 07/11/2023
 | quote = No summary available
 | id = 9782352130840
 | location = Paperback Version
 | pages = 280 g
 | height = 250 mm
 | width = 140 mm
 | thickness = 18 mm
}}

Page=Out of stock? Quote=No summary available? Location=Paperback version? This is not good. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If this is hoaxing, it seems like the point is to either be caught immediately or to continue existing for just long enough that you can point to it like it's a scandal. Remsense聊 21:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea why the thickness, dimensions and weight would matter for a book citation. Some books may be smaller than others due to there being a miniature version for example. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at their latest creation, Adonhiramite Rite, they use for the section "Influence in the World" these sources: this book which doesn't seem to mention "adonhiramite" or something similar at all (not found through search, and not in the index); this book, which doesn't mention adonhiramite (also checked volume 2), and this old book which does have infomation about the rite, but doesn't support the claims in the section at all.

I propose to block them from the mainspace until they have come here and explained these issues.

I agree with

Fram. It's not blatant hoaxing, as the Adoniramite Rite is/was real and discussed in sources, but there seems to be some original research or wishful thinking in the sourcing. Fences&Windows

14:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I know that under regular circumstances IPs aren’t people, but looking at the IPs contribs, practically all of the edits made by this IP over a span of two years have been reverted as being unconstructive, which leads me to suspect that the IP in question is static and should be dealt with as such.

The IP has also been warned about half a dozen times on their talk page, but they haven’t stopped making unconstructive edits. — Mugtheboss (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably a school. They've made one edit since coming off their most recent block and haven't edited in two days. Nothing to do here but observe. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Add 2a02:b121:12:93e9:20cb:af1:5fc9:c529 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to this based on this edit[43] (not to mention this[44]) — Czello ^(music) 14:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked. I assume this is a fabrication and that Mr. Wales does not have a criminal complaint against him in Italy? 331dot (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the claim is that a person whose Wikipedia article contains the disambiguator "fraudster" and explains in the lede that he is barred from practicing law in Italy and the UK has nonetheless posted a notice of claim on a social media website, rather than contacting WMF Legal directly as any competent lawyer would probably know to do. I'd call the post doubtful at best. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that the latest Google News search result for "jimmy wales italy" is from 2019, I do not think we need to worry too much about the founder going to jail. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As well as falling foul of

Phil Bridger (talk

) 18:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

According to a (plausible but not very reliable) link on the talk page, as of April. I'll add a couple of things while we're on the topic. One is Special:AbuseLog/36319536. Another is to note that someone using the same range as one of these IPs has been doing vandalism to the article since August (see history for details). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The IPs also geolocate to Italy, which is where the text the IP added (without a source) claims he moved to after being released from prison at the end of April this year, which is right about when the vandalism started. I'm sure that's all just coincidence. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Today I saw on my watchlist that Rtkat3 had added unsourced content into a sourced sentence. I went to their talk page to leave them a notice, only to see that the talk page and its archives already have dozens of warnings regarding the addition of unsourced material, the creation of articles without sourcing, copying without attribution, and failing to leave edit summaries, among other issues. These warnings go back to 2005 and are as recent as a few days ago. This editor was also brought to ANI last year for repeated copying without attribution and lost autopatrolled in 2020 for repeated policy violations. I don't believe that another warning is going to be sufficient to prevent this editor from adding unsourced content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In my defense of

List of Marvel Comics characters: 0-9, I was sorting the different characters named 8-Ball so that they would remain separate from each other as they just kept running into each other and made it look confusing. The issue where a revived 8-Ball was Moon Knight's cell mate and was revived by Hood occurred in Devil's Reign: Moon Knight #1 which I forgot to add the reference to. I just wanted to let you people know that and apologize for this incident. --Rtkat3 (talk

) 20:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have had it with this user’s chronic harassment and intimidation. They have been warned three times:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1135611961

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1135673658

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1162779567

After their last visit to my talk-page, I told them that one more incident of harassment would result in being brought here. Lo and behold, they dropped another inappropriate nonsense template on my talk-page again this morning – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1184284507 – so here we are as promised. I am tired of this user’s hounding, non-constructive edits, and misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The warning is completely appropriate. The edit in question was reverted four times by you without a discussion. That is simply edit warring and when reporting edit warring you must show the user was reported if the behaviour is continuing. Where else do you expect me to warn you about your edit warring

Diffs of the reverts (on the exact same edit) on the article The Amazing Race 19:

• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

''Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR): "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period."'' I didn’t realize that May was within 24 hours of today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

3RR is not the same thing as edit warring. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You are not obligated to warn anybody about edit-warring unless 3RR has been broken, and a report there does require a warning. Since I had not broken 3RR, your intrusion on my talk-page, despite being advised three times to stay off, constitutes hounding and harassment. Perhaps other users let you get away with your constant bullying, but your days of bullying me are over. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

While I don't appreciate the way that Bgsu98 responded in their third diff, I think you should respect when someone asks you to stay off of their talk page if you ask others to do the same (1, 2, 3). If a user does not want you to post on their talk page and you believe they're edit warring then you should, in the future, go to

WP:AN3 and make a report. Frankly a discussion on the article talk page would have been more appropriate than the two of you communicating through edit summary. Hey man im josh (talk

) 16:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll echo Josh's comment above, but add to Bgsu98 that it's not really necessary to be angry with someone for notifying you of a discussion at

WP:ANI, as it is required to notify an editor that such a discussion has been started. Sportsfan and Bgsu should consider staying away from each other, given the apparent hostility between each other. EggRoll97 ^(talk

) 03:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Sportsfan's talk page history (2), there seems to be a lot of hostility between them and others (some them being hostile, some others). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If people don't want you to post on their talkpage, don't do it. That being said,

WP:ANI notifications are exempt from that. Does this really need any admin action? Joseph2302 (talk

) 19:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@EggRoll97, I don’t recall responding with hostility to any ANI notifications I’ve received because I understand they are required, It’s SF’s other nonsense (and generally unwarranted) warning templates that irk me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The only really problematic edit summary I see is this one, [49]... The edit summary "Pot meet kettle" isn't great especially as it is false... ANI notification is required, its not the same at all. Its not terribly civil, its certainly not nice... But its not awful and could certainly be the result of a misunderstanding about policy/guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: (edit conflict) My comment is referring to Special:Diff/1135673658 where you reiterated a demand to stay off your talk page in response to Sportsfan notifying you of an ANI discussion. While I understand (but do not agree with) the hostility in the other reverts, the repeat of the demand isn't really necessary in that instance, given that they're just following the instructions on this page to notify you properly. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User continues to add undersourced content to football pages, and remove indications of sourced vacated wins. User has multiple past warnings and does not engage on talk page. Example of removal of vacated wins [50], example of addition of unsourced content [51] glman (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[52].

I blocked the IP for a month with a notice asking them to respond at User talk:208.175.138.112. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Continues to make uncited edits to pages, despite multiple warnings from editors this month. User has not responded and continues to make unsourced, disruptive edits. glman (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I blocked for 48 hours and will watch User talk:71.219.49.187 for a while. Post there with an explanation if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Can an administrator please look into User:(a)nnihilation97s editing behavior at List of Spider-Man film cast members. They are mass removing references as seen here and here at List of Spider-Man film cast members. They have not left any edit summaries whatsoever as the reason why for these mass removals. I left a couple of messages on their talk page and reverted some edits, but they are not communicating and Talk:List of Spider-Man film cast members is blank with no discussions. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 01:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that this issue was also raised in February 2023 with this editor. Is there a community consensus somewhere I'm not aware of that these types of List articles don't have to include references? Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 01:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that being part of a cast is usually a yes-or-no proposition, I think that the list inclusion criteria should be that either there is a Wikipedia biography of the actor that verifies that they played the role, or a reference to a reliable source is provided in the list article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That discussion can certainly be had somewhere sometime. But I am reporting their behavior for editing an article that is reliably sourced with 120 references and removing 92 of them, and their lack of an explanation or discussion as to why they have removed all these references. They don't seem willing to

WP:ENGAGE with anyone as evidenced by their talk page, and they are not leaving any edit summaries to explain their edits. Isaidnoway (talk)

🍁 08:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This editor has been disruptive for as long as I can remember. He constantly goes around cast members lists for comic book movie franchises and keeps adding the same unnecessary stylistic changes, he mostly doesn't answer to either talk messages or edit summaries. —El Millo (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. This user has a long history of being unwilling to collaborate and communicate with others. The constant radio silence from them is especially frustrating when editors are seeking to form consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like they are right back to editing the article again, only leaving 5 edit summaries out of 11 edits on November 6. And left this message on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 20:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I've done a partial block on that article for a month. I'll also warn them that continued failure to use edit summaries will result in further sanctions. Fences&Windows 12:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Any editor that refuses to communicate when other editors object to their edits should be indef blocked until they actually start communicating. Mutism is not acceptable behaviour. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes to that; the timesink of a) making another editor miserable and b) taking admin time to evaluate the issue, and c) with a history of same "radio silence" = block. Not pblock, as they'll do same elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)