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

New user continued disruption

Baraniscool (talk · contribs · count)

Despite multiple warnings and an expired block, user continues to disrupt Pink Floyd articles. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

{{resolved}} No, not resolved El_C 03:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User blocked by Ponyo - FlightTime (open channel) 21:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'be blocked for two weeks. Perhaps in that time Baraniscool will come to realize that they need to communicate with editors raising valid concerns regarding their edits.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

FlightTime You've also disrupted these related articles. I see you were also edit warring without communication on Fat Old Sun (an article I have been fixing up at the moment and improving sourcing), so you deserve at least an admonishment if not some other WP:BOOMERANG-based sanction. As I write, Machine Head (album) says it was released on 31 March 1972, but the infobox says it was released on 25 March 1972. Which is it? And this is supposed to be a good article. Can you please fix your errors? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: @FlightTime has also been warned very recently about edit warring and being disruptive on other articles as discussed at El C's talk page. This appears to be, at the very least, a recent pattern. --ARoseWolf 13:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think FlightTime has been almost but not been quite disruptive for some time, but I can't remember a (recent) time they had sanction-worthy behaviour, always stopping short of it. I do recall blocking them once years ago, but it was reversed as being draconian. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Ponyo and Ritchie333: as linked by ARoseWolf above (live, permalink), the brazen expectation on FlightTime's part that they are owed special treatment in an edit war, and their immediate attack against myself when I obviously declined this — that's concerning to me. Concern which I believe FlightTime needs to address. Since, if this is their modus operandi, it's a serious issue. El_C 16:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@El C: if you review the history and think additional action needs to be taken, the by all means, do as you see fit.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing recent activity, I note FlightTime edit warring with an IP on Rhandy Rhoads, who they then dragged to AN3. The IP's complaint was reverted for no obvious reason (I could accept a blind revert if it was a screed of personal attacks, but not that - it should have been reformatted), and the thread was closed as "no violation". Is it worth putting FlightTime under a 1RR restriction? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Ritchie333 let's not go down that road again. Two reverts in two days, suprised you haven't blocked me again. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Briefly: I'm unimpressed with FlightTime's response to this (including the utter failure to address any of my notes), but I'm writing in haste, so I'll leave this comment as placeholder and will return to this soon (probably a few days). In the meantime, non-admins need to stop trying to archive this report. Twice is enough. And though the first time was understandable, this latest (2nd) one most certainly is not. What are you doing, Mattdaviesfsic? Are you even reviewing the threads that you're WP:NAC-archiving? Anyway, I highlighted No, not resolved above, so hopefully, we can avoid a 3rd NAC. El_C 09:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Sincere apologies if that was wrong in retrospect, but in fairness, the thread has been open for 9 days, and as I closed it the last comment was 2-3 days ago (which in my mind says "done and dusted"). Not only that but the first close/archive was not my doing - that was Softlavender - which I never saw in any case. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe leave clerking to uninvolved admins if you are unable to correctly review threads at the admin noticeboard. There is no clock and if the thread remains open for a couple more weeks, so be it. That is not your call to make. El_C 10:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Problematic edits on Shia-Sunni topics

• Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor mostly edits Shia-Sunni related topics but they have a problematic history in this topic area. They apply a clear double standard on how they present Sunni groups in comparison to Shia groups. They minimise the actions of Sunni groups against Shia while making articles about Shia groups very negative. They often make large single edits with multiple changes throughout the article using vague, generic and unspecific edit summaries which are misleading or even untrue. This masks many problematic changes like removing sourced content. Most editors are not going to check every change in these large edits. They often misrepresent sources and their edits are fulll of non neutral language. I have highlighted numerous examples that illustrate this problematic pattern of editing:

• On Shia-Sunni divide they removed mention of genocide against Shia using the edit summary of "Grammar" which is clearly deceptive insincere.
• On Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian civil war, they inexplicably deleted mention of the Hatla massacre of Shia villagers hidden among a typical large single edit.
• On Yemeni Civil War, in another very large edit, they stealthy changed the first line of a paragraph which stated that "The international community has condemned the Saudi Arabian-led bombing campaign" to "The international community has strongly condemned Houthi drone attacks,". This related edit on Yemen removed a sentence from the lead and inserted a ridiculous amount of weasel words and also scare quotes to further minimise accusations against the Saudi government.
• I've linked some typical edits on Syria related articles they're very active on and which they have made very negative towards Shia groups: Human rights in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Syrian civil war, Syrian revolution and Anti-Sunnism.
• On Persecution of Christians, they removed the only mention of genocide by ISIS using a dubious edit summary.
• On Al-Qaeda in Iraq, they added (alleged) next to Anti-Shi'ism with no explanation. They have also systematically removed Al-Qaeda's responsibility for bombings against Shia. For example on List of bombings during the Iraq War.
• On September 11 attacks, they have made multiple problematic edits. In one particularly egregious edit, they absurdly called the attacks a military attack instead of a terrorist attack using another insincere edit summary of "Grammar". Similarly on Letter to America, they removed the only mention of 9/11 and its description as a terrorist attack with an ironic edit summary of "Removed Repetition". Another edit with a misleading edit summary of "Quote box alignment" misrepresents the cited source to change the language to describe Bin Laden's views of non-Muslims in Arabia as being correct according to Islam.
• On Al-Qaeda, they made multiple changes throughout the article in one edit using a typical unspecific edit summary. They removed Islamic extremism and Takfirism from ideology, both well sourced, while adding Sunni–Shia alliance and Muslim unity. This edit also removed the sourced statement that "As Salafist jihadists, members of Al-Qaeda believe that killing non-combatants is religiously sanctioned." A subsequent edit removed all remaining mentions of Al-Qaeda's Takfir. This is in striking contrast to their editing on Hezbollah and Takfir. 217.40.96.193 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  While the editor might be biased and their use of edit summaries should be improved, in some of these diffs what is being removed is poorly sourced or unsourced content. In the Human rights in Syria diff, the countent added to the article looks mostly well sourced to a Routledge book. (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I linked the Human rights in Syria diff more so to iillustrate the contrast in their edits towards Shia groups compared to Sunni groups like Al-Qaeda. In the linked edit on Al-Qaeda they removed multiple pieces of well sourced content that was negative to the group. 217.40.96.193 (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I edit on a wide range of topics. LoL

  You've simply compiled a personal collection of a lot of my edits on a particular topic you care about, personally analysed my edit history, (without checking the references and my edit summaries) and have made a lot of allegations which are not backed up by reliable sources.

  It looks more like you are the one behaving like a single-purpose IP obsessed with somebody?

  All of my edits are well-sourced. Contents which I have removed are all unsourced or original research. Maybe you should try to assume good faith.

  You have done absolutely nothing other than linking some of my edits (which are all publicly accessible in my editing history) which you personally find to be problematic.

  Since I dont have the time to expose the obvious shallowness of each and every claim compiled in your list, I am simply going to dismantle your first allegation alone.

  • Regarding this edit, I improved the grammar of the contents and clearly wrote in edit summary "Grammar". Also, there are no references claiming that the Islamic State perpetrated a "genocide against Shias". Infact the page itself is titled "Persecution of Shias by the Islamic State". I simply made that correction. "Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." MOS:LABEL

  Onus is on the editor who wants to insert content. Maybe you have your own POV, but you havent backed up any of your claims and complaints with reliable, academic sources. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have checked the references and your edit summaries and that's exactly why I reported you. What reliable academic sources am I supposed to provide when I am specifically reporting YOU for removing well sourced content and misrepresenting sources and have linked and explained numerous examples of you doing this. You have used dubious edit summaries like "Grammar" on other occasions to remove information critical of Sunni extremist groups. Can you also dismantle my other allegation where you used "Grammar" regarding this edit to September 11 attacks? Was your change backed up by reliable academic sources? Is calling 911 the deadliest terrorist attack bad grammar or is it original research? No reliable academic sources call it the "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history". Fortunately this blatantly egregious edit was quickly reverted.217.40.96.193 (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  If you are claiming that I allegedly removed "well sourced content" or that I "misrepresented sources" (I didnt), it is you who have to provide the inline citations to insert the content. Onus is on the editors who want to back up their claims.

  "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." WP:ONUS

  You havent provided any inline citations to back-up your allegations. So far, you've only resorted to dontlikeit-style of argumentations throughout this entire conversation. The entire premise of your complaint is your accusation of bias against me. Also, your personal view of me as biased doesnt mean you can censor my edits. It doesnt mean anything, infact.

  "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." WP:POVDELETION

  You accuse me of being biased, but your recent comments and edit summaries very explicitly demonstrate your biases and POV-pushing, if anything.

  As for this edit on the "September 11 attacks" page, I changed the wording from "deadliest terrorist act in human history" to "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history".

  I specified the reason for this minor edit in the edit summary. "Grammar". I think my wording is more grammatically precise and has an impartial tone in that particular sentence, which describes these attacks as the "deadliest" amongst a certain category of attacks. The attacks have been described as terrorist attacks throughout the page, so I think the new term "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history" is more appropriate in that context. MOS:TERROR

  Either way, another editor soon reverted that change after that user disagreed with my view. The content I inserted has been erased. Then why are you making a big fuss about that edit? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"I specified the reason for this minor edit in the edit summary. "Grammar". I think my wording is more grammatically precise and has an impartial tone in that particular sentence, which describes these attacks as the "deadliest" amongst a certain category of attacks. The attacks have been described as terrorist attacks throughout the page, so I think the new term "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history" is more appropriate in that context. MOS:TERROR.

Shadowwarrior, if that is in fact how you view that situation, I'm afraid that your explanation raises more substantail concerns than did the IP's reference to the edit itself, at least for me. The distinction between those two differing modes of description is clearly more factual than it is anything that can reasonably said to be "grammatical", and the description you inserted was clearly not appropriate without a proper citation. Nothing in MOS:TERROR contradicts WP:V or WP:NPOV#WEIGHT (and even should they conflict, the latter, being pillar policies, could not be overriden by the former, being a piece of a style guidance). Countless sources clearly support the "deadliest terror attack" language, whereas, unless I am missing something, you have presented no source for your "military strike" language. That is, to put it mildly, more a matter of semantics than syntax, and you would have done better here to own up to the inadequate edit summary. Because at present it is clear that this is at a minimum an issue of insufficient care and/or lack of accurate policy language, but it also would not be unreasonable to suspect an effort at outright obfuscation here. So it doesn't help us to assume the more innocent explanation when you deny that this was a misleading/inaccurate edit summary at the least: it clearly is.

I haven't looked at all of the other edits presented here so far, but the first one I chose to investigate also shows issues with proper framing: the matter of changing the meaning of what the international community supposedly supports in the Yemeni civil war article. Now, to your credit, you do have some sources on this one. But rather than use an additive approach and trying to demonstrate that different elements of the international community and international institutions had condemned different parties to the warfare at various times, you instead chose to change the entire meaning of an existing statement, presumptively representing previous editorial consensus, to virtually the diametric opposite of what it previously said (at least in terms of the "side" that the international community holds most responsible for the conflict), thus masking what amounts to a deletion of sourced content (complete with the source itself), simultaneous with your own addition. And this too was accompanied by an edit summary of dubious accuracy, as it refers only to supplying info, and not at all to any changes or removals of statments from the previous status quo.

Now, as an uninvolved party who is a big advocate for a healthy application of AGF, I am trying to see these attempted changes in the best possible light, but I must tell you that it's hard not to feel the IP has identified some real issues here, because the choice to replace rather than compliment the existing coverage does suggest a bias (willful or implicit) in how you are approaching some edits, and the way you describe these edits suggests either an effort to obscure them or (hopefully) just a lack of an appropriate level of care for properly labeling them. Either way, things need to change in your approach. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, this seems like a very good edit. The previous statement, "The international community has condemned the Saudi Arabian-led bombing campaign, which has included widespread bombing of civilian areas inside the Houthi-controlled western part of Yemen." was cited only to a Huffington Post blog which says "Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site." That's not a reliable source. In contrast, @Shadowwarrior8's version is sourced to news coverage of a UN Security Council resolution. The edit summary included the point "refs" which I think covers this. 2600:1702:E80:1880:3802:4E7A:578A:412E (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise "Countless sources clearly support the "deadliest terror attack" language"

I am not disputing that, Snow Rise. Numerous academic sources do support "deadliest terror attack" language. What I meant here was that, "deadliest terror attack" and "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history" are not mutually exclusive (as you well know). In that particular sentence in the lede, describing it as something "largest" within a category of attacks launched by a non-state organization may have been appropriate in the lede, considering the fact that it is already well-acknowledged as a terrorist attack throughout the article. So in that context I felt such a description may have been appropriate to improve the lede.

MOS:LEDE

That edit got quickly removed. And upon further investigating sources, I couldnt find my wording anywhere. So I left it. What I'm trying to say here is that, there is nothing unusual about my edit, when you look in that context. So, there is no point in making a big fuss about this edit.

• Regarding the issue you raised related to the "Yemeni civil war" page, this was my edit a few months ago.

Snow Rise: "Now, to your credit, you do have some sources on this one. But rather than use an additive approach and trying to demonstrate that different elements of the international community and international institutions had condemned different parties to the warfare at various times, you instead chose to change the entire meaning of an existing statement"

Yeah, there was a mistake in my editing, (not sourcing), which lead to a bias. It was a long edit, as can be seen from the contents that were inserted in that edit.

But I later noticed this bias and improved that wording in this edit, making it more impartial.

The IP was only referring to an older edit which I personally corrected later on. Meanwhile, the IP is explicitly asserting in his latest edit summaries that he edits because he personally advocates for something (here, here). I mean, this is the individual who is accusing me of bias. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Providing some variance in descriptions may be a reasonable principle of elegant writing for unrestrcited prose, but it is not a sufficient reason on this project to ignore WP:V; "deadliest terrorist attack" and "largest military strike by a non-state organization" are nowhere near the same description, and you simply should not have been trying to force the latter into the place of the former without a source supporting this novel description of your own creation (WP:OR), especially considering the WP:CTOP context.

The fact that the two descriptions are not factually mutually exclusive is completely irrelevant to the very justifiable concern the IP is raising in respect to this edit: you still have to be able to source your novel wording. And quite the opposite of the WP:LEAD being the best place to experiment with the wording, it actually adds an extra layer of inappropriateness, because the lead is meant to accurately summarize and reflect the content in the rest of the article. All of which is to say that it is a good thing that you dropped the matter after being reverted and moved on. Honestly, I would just stick with that in terms of defending your approach on this issue, because your attempt to minimize/explain away the edit itself is not really supported by policy or good editorial practice.

"Yeah, there was a mistake in my editing, (not sourcing), which lead to a bias. It was a long edit, as can be seen from the contents that were inserted in that edit.

But I later noticed this bias and improved that wording in this edit, making it more impartial."

Ok, but unless I am missing something, the edit you are describing as ameliorative doesn't at all address the issue that you deleted a sourced statement (and the source itself) from the status quo version of a CTOP article, then added a statement supporting an entirely different view, and didn't reflect any of this in your edit summary. The fact that you later massaged other content in the article to be more neutral, to your eye, doesn't eliminate any of those concerns. Again, it would be more helpful to hear you acknowledge the issue with removing content that easily could have stayed when you added your own, rather than replacing a very specific cited fact in a fashion that looks calculated the completely flip the perspective presented and hide deletion of sourced material.

"The IP was only referring to an older edit which I personally corrected later on. Meanwhile, the IP is explicitly asserting in his latest edit summaries that he edits because he personally advocates for something ([here], [here])"

The only thing I see the IP advocating for in those two edit summaries is WP:WEIGHT:

• "Saudi bombing needs first mention. It has received way more coverage than Houthi drone strikes.";
• "The Saudi bombing has killed significantly more people and received far more public condemnation than Houthi drone attacks."

Now you may disagree with their assessment and are free to argue the relevant strength of condemnation by various elements of the international community for the actions of the various parties connected to the conflict, but I don't see where the IP has declared an an intention to contribute in a fashion contrary NPOV or any other policy. And even if they had, it wouldn't necessarily obviate you of the need to recognize and address any of your own biases or any lack of compliance with policy and transparency, at least some of which they have been justified in raising here. I've only checked into three of the articles mentioned above, but in each of those cases, I am finding their concerns at least somewhat justified, and I'm a little worried that you are being somewhat WP:IDHT about hearing what those issues are. I think this discussion could very easily result in nothing more than a recommendation to be more careful in your edits and forthright in your edit summaries, but that's less likely to be the outcome if you don't recognize the significance of some of the issues discussed above. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

SnowRise: "unless I am missing something,... the issue that you deleted a sourced statement"

I didnt delete any sourced content; I rephrased the sourced statement with better wording after editing the new contents above it. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well are of that; the specifics of that edit have already been discussed in detail immediately above. But the very specific issue here is that you think that the approach you employed here should ameliorate concerns. On the contrary, it is especially problematic. It would be a dubious course of action to merely delete a longstanding, sourced statement in the status quo version of a CTOP article, along with the source itself, without giving a compelling policy reason as to the removal. But what you did instead was delete part of the statement in question (along with the source supporting the general thrust of the sentence as it existed), then replace it with content that changed the meaning of the altered sentence to something that is very close to the diametric opposite of what it said before--and then source that new statement.

So, yes, in every functional sense, and every way that matters under policy, you did in fact delete a sourced statement without explanation. It's just that you simultaneously replaced it with a grammatically similar statement located in the exact same place in the article...that just happens to now say the exact opposite of the statement you effectively removed. And then you reflected none of this in the slightest in your edit summary that reads "Info, refs, Para, Spacing, Links" and says nothing about deleting or altering existing sourced content. And all of this despite the fact that nothing stopped you from simply adding the new perspectives/sources in addition to the existing ones.

All of that would be a dubious course of action on any article, let alone a CTOP-designated article. And the fact that this feedback keeps leading to a circular discussion wherein you don't acknowledge why any of that is problematic is increasingly causing me to worry about whether this switch-a-roo approach was intentionally employed or if you just are not hearing why such an approach is an issue, and is drawing attention--either of which options is a concern. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with SnowRise on the merits of their commentary, I just popped on to review this thread out of interest, and it seems like a content, not a behavioral dispute. It's also very hard to figure out what the behavioral allegations are here. It seems that Shadowwarrior is changing the wording in a way that the MOS recommends to do, to water stuff down, which is a valid editorial position on some of these things, and the IP doesn't agree. Is there anything red flaggy on the behavioral side from anyone, or should this conversation move to the article or maybe the NPOV noticeboard? It's not an adminnable issue, I don't think, correct me if I'm wrong anyone. Andre🚐 02:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

additionally, the IP never attempted to discuss concerns in my talk page and opted to directly insert some allegations here (with a misleading sub-heading), which is not the procedure.

"Before posting a grievance about a user please consider discussing the issue on the user's talk page." WP:DRR/ANI

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I have provided multiple examples above and explained them above but I will explain a couple examples further. One example of you removing well sourced content is on Al-Qaeda. Among the very large edit numerous pieces of well sourced content were deleted. Every mention of Takfirism was deleted in this edit and a subsequent edit. This is well sourced so why remove it among the large edit with an unspecific edit summary? For this other edit to the September 11 attacks, the cited source on the third page says: "In his view, the Prophet Muhammad had banned the permanent presence of infidels in Arabia". The original text stated that "Bin Laden interpreted Muhammad as having banned the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia"." which was changed with an edit summary of "Quote box alignment" to "As an adherent of Islam, bin Laden believed that non-Muslims are forbidden from having a permanent presence in the Arabian Peninsula." An obvious misrepresenting of the source. 217.40.96.193 (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Right, what is the rationale to remove this:

According to a number of sources, a "wave of revulsion" has been expressed against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates by "religious scholars, former fighters and militants" who are alarmed by Al-Qaeda's takfir and its killing of Muslims in Muslim countries, especially in Iraq.

That seems to be going beyond a simple MOS:TERRORIST. I'm sure there's a good faith editorial explanation, but I'd like to ask for what it is, @Shadowwarrior8:. Andre🚐 08:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan

As can be seen in that edit, I simply paraphrased the contents in the same sources with proper attribution and a bit more detail.

I elucidated that content into two sentences:

1st: "According to CNN journalists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, a number of "religious scholars, former fighters and militants" who previously supported Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) had turned against the Al-Qaeda-supported Iraqi insurgency in 2008; due to ISI's indiscriminate attacks against civilians while targeting US-led coalition forces."

2nd: "American military analyst Bruce Reidel wrote in 2008 that "a wave of revulsion" arose against ISI, which enabled US-allied Sons of Iraq faction to turn various tribal leaders in the Anbar region against the Iraqi insurgency. In response, Bin Laden and Zawahiri issued public statements urging Muslims to rally behind ISI leadership and support the armed struggle against American forces."

Again, I can also back these up with inline citations from these sources, but that would make this comment lengthier and would obscure from the crux of the issue here.

The IP has not initiated any normal proceedings of dispute resolution with me in my talk page or in the talk pages of the relevant pages. Instead, the IP opted to bludgeon in the ANI notice board without any due procedure. The IP accused me of various things, after bombarding a compilation of numerous edits the IP didnt like. IP made several POV commentaries of these edits, without even attempting to communicate to me beforehand or even initiating discussion in the talk pages of the relevant pages. Forget about assuming good faith, how is this behaviour even acceptable? And that too in the noticeboard?

Personally, I was beginning a full-break from editing, since I have a lot of important duties & deadlines coming up in real life. I am busy right now. Then on 24th December, I got suddenly notified of a bludgeon of smears in the noticeboard, out of literally nowhere, by some random newly-popped up IP account who never communicated with me before or ever commented in any talk page! And I have been here writing essays against a bombardment of accusations by some random single-purpose IP who doesnt like my edits.

Editors are human beings. If I had an issue with an edit, I'd attempt to resolve disputes by initiating discussions in the talk page. The question here is, can anon IPs collect their personal compilation of edits of other users, suddenly bombard various accusations into the admin noticeboard without any previous discussion, and then attempt to smear other editors in a negative way? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I do understand your objection that the OP did not try to broach these concerns with you prior to the filing here. That's a reasonable source of frustration for you, imo. And I'm sure many of us here can relate to being dragged into an on-project dispute just when other, more pressing responsibilities are minimizing our ability to engage. You have my sympathies about that, let me tell you. That said, having only looked into a subset of the issues the OP opened this thread with (or that have been otherwise discussed above so far), there are, beyond doubt, some real issues in your approach to these topics, including some misapplications of pillar policies. What you regard as fairplay "paraphrasing" of a source (or reasonable and accurate re-wording of existing consensus language) are real issues in places, while many of your edit summaries seems to vary from problematic to blatantly misleading. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Dismissed report regarding User:Keremmaarda

Hello,

some weeks ago I've opened a report regarding the user Keremmaarda, however, it was moved into IncidentArchive1144 [1] and no action was taken. There were several users that were concerned about the uncivil demeanor that Keremmaarda was exhibiting himself. Everyone who criticized his behaviour was accused of being unneutral. I don't want to ping everyone that's been involved because that would go too far, but those are only some of the uncivil comments (disregarding the actual article the report was about):

Are you practicing nationalism?

all the editors who object are Albanian

Am I to blame here?

Now tell those who deleted the same things before a consensus was reached. Thanks (in response to Ostalgia, who criticized his behaviour)

You are not impartial (in response to PoliticDude, who criticized his behaviour)

But I think reading the report will suffice. Thank you. AlexBachmann (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs would be important for folks to verify those posts & their context. That's probably why it wound up getting archived instead of having action taken. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No, these quotes are from the discussion that developed in the previous report, which was backed by diffs. It got archived due to lack of activity after a few days. I tried to mediate in the discussion but was less than impressed with the response I got from the user in question. Ostalgia (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

All the quotes are from the archived discussion. You also made some comments there but as Ostalgia correctly states, I think it was an accident that it was moved. Thanks AlexBachmann (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Sections auto-archive after a period of inactivity. So if no admin was willing to take action, that's it. Unless you can show improper behavior that has continued since then, we'll likely see the same outcome. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, this user breached every guideline on Wikipedia that can be breached and that’s it? @Super Dromaeosaurus has already noticed that they continue with this behavior. Every participant in the previous report was absolutely shocked by his attitude towards everyone. How can such clear breaches of the most basic Wikipedia guidelines can simply be dismissed? AlexBachmann (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, while guidelines and rules are usually respected, and while those who flout them are usually punished, people breaking the rules and getting away with it is something that happens all the time, and I've seen worse from established users, even from administrators. Even more importantly, while I would endorse a block of the user in question, and it's likely that an admin would as well, lots of things just fall through the cracks at ANI, and you should not be surprised if this ends up getting shelved due to lack of admin involvement (to give you a personal and recent example, I reported someone about a week ago after they continued breaking the rules in spite of three warnings and two temporary blocks, yet the report got allost no attention and was simply archived - it happens). Ostalgia (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

RedundancyAdvocate/SurferSquall behavior

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

---

Not super familiar with Wikipedia noticeboards but this appears to be the most appropriate venue to raise attention to this issue. I've recently been involved in a bit of a heated back and forth with @RedundancyAdvocate. This started when he re-added links to Simple Flying, an unreliable aviation blog, which I've made a point of removing (there's now a discussion about this website on the reliable sources noticeboard).

In this discussion, he has argued that this blog (Simple Flying) is more reliable than The Nikkei then defended that position after he edit warred to include his preferred blog over Nikkei as a citation.

Unfortunately, I believe their behavior has fallen far short of civil. Aside from accusing me of vandalism for removing citations to this unreliable source (repeatedly, see reliable sources noticeboard), the editor has spammed my page with warning templates even re-adding them when I removed them (admittedly, I responded with some warnings too after he posted rather rudely with the seeming belief that their misguided "warnings" using templates were proof that I were vandalizing). Vaguely threatening language like "we might have a problem" is unhelpful in my opinion, and their repeated rudeness led another editor to suggest they stop. I wasn't planning to do anything beyond attempting to avoid them going forward but another issue raised my interest.

A comment in the reliable sources noticeboard suggested that RedundancyAdvocate's behavior in this matter matched prior discussions (which I was not a part of) involving a user called SurferSquall.

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

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

Interestingly, when RedundancyAdvocate began editing, @Ckfasdf brought it up on their talk page. RedundancyAdvocate began most of its editing around the time that SurferSquall was blocked for one week for disruptive editing. They picked up right where SurferSquall left off, even redoing the same edit. [1] [2]

I also note the similarities in their editing styles and they even both use their sandboxes in similar ways.

User:RedundancyAdvocate/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:SurferSquall/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ckfasdf says it may be an appropriate use of multiple accounts but it seems as though the new account is attempting to avoid scrutiny from the many warnings, blocks + discussions about the old account. I'm not sure but felt this user's behavior deserves wider attention. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely not a valid use of an alternate account, should it be confirmed that they are the same person. Editing when blocked, evading scrutiny, and then situations like this: [3] [4] (only one example of many, I suspect) is clearly abusive sockpuppetry - again, if it is confirmed that the editors are the same person. Can I suggest filing a WP:SPI and asking for a checkuser to review? Daniel (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Also found this: [5] [6] [7] I have to run now and don't know what SPI is but will try to look into it later. Thank you for the suggestion! Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're mad that I warned you, just say that. No reason to warn me back twice and then open an ANI. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

If you want help with opening the SPI case, I can help set it up with Twinkle. Just give me the links to anything relevant you find! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 11:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate this offer but seems it's already been resolved! Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I already went over this with Ckfasdf. I follow aviation topics on Wikipedia closely and edit accordingly. If I had the same judgement as another user, that's hardly justification for accusing me of being a sockpuppet. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

My problem is not with you removing Simple Flying. That is the right thing to do, because it's not an entirely reliable source. My problem is that you removed Simple Flying links before giving a reason why. You eventually did give a reason why, and that's great, but you needed to do that before you removed all of those SF citations. I never said SF is more reliable than Nikkei- only that it seemed so when I quickly read through it. You also left two warns on my talk page that made zero sense given the chronological order of events in this situation. You ALSO claimed my warn to you was harassment, when it doesn't meet that definition at all. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Avgeekamfotread above. I suggest you actually read what I say before responding as if I said something entirely different. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: RedundancyAdvocate and ForeignClimber5 (formerly SurferSquall) are unambiguously  Confirmed to each other. firefly ( t · c ) 23:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Firefly, will block both indefinitely. Have also undeleted the U1 deletions of redirects from SurferSquall to ForeignClimber5, sockpuppeteers don't get to evade scruitiny like that. Daniel (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving this. To confirm, I think I've seen comments by blocked sockpuppets removed before. Is there a guideline for that somewhere? Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Normally they get struck (like this) with a note saying "blocked sockpuppet" if they commented before they were blocked, and only reverted if they evade their subsequent block after being caught. Daniel (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I found WP:SOCKSTRIKE afterward. Avgeekamfot (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

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

s201050066

Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1138#S201050066, yet again

User:S201050066 has gotten hold of another IP address. He made a threat on my talk page. Andykatib (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

He has also made a threat on @Tenryuu:'s talk page as well. Andykatib (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to submit a report myself. I'm going to add a previous discussion template at the top of this section for more context. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, S201050066 certainly doesn't know how to let go of the past or to control his emotions. At least he had some small amount of decency to wait until after Christmas and Boxing Day. Andykatib (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Update: A new IP, 2001:56B:3FE2:3A57:0:58:29FA:2D01, has emerged to send some more vitriol to both my talk page and Andykatib's. Some choice diffs. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Editor falsely pressing charges for block evasion

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hello, I have a problem. An editor is attempting to press charges on me for block evasion when I never evaded any block. He has me confused with a different editor but refuses to listen. He tells everyone I am a troll and to not interact with me. If you look at my contributions you will see that this is not the case. I made a mistake in the past and did my time. I accept that I made a mistake and would like to move forward but no one will let me. Part of this project is AGF. I get it that disagreements happen but if you press charges every time someone looks at you cross eyed it is bad for the project and unfair to me because everyone looks at me like I am a criminal. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:A5E3:2339:6344:1CDA (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Since you are editing from a different IP address than from the one was blocked, User:Generalrelative is correct. You are evading your block, and any further attempts at block evasion will result in this ip address being blocked from editing as well. Cheers ‍ Relativity 23:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for piping up, Relativity. Hopefully you and I are not caught in a twin paradox! Generalrelative (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative :) Cheers ‍ Relativity 23:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Hi all, the IP here is referring to me. This user is an LTA who uses an array of ranges and has been blocked multiple times on both 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 and 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64. See this hatted discussion for detailed evidence that they are the same user. Under the /40 they were recently blocked for 2 years by Widr, so they are indeed currently evading a block. The entire situation is detailed on Widr's talk page, where the IP followed me. Generalrelative (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You guys are confused. I am editing from a diffrent IP address because the other IP address is NOT MINE. Thats what I keep trying to tell everyone!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:A5E3:2339:6344:1CDA (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be strange then to call the block my block [8] when you are saying that you were not the one who was blocked. See [9] Cheers ‍ Relativity 02:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake, here is one diff where this IP user unambiguously identifies themselves as being both 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 and 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64. There is plenty of other behavioral evidence available but this one edit alone is dispositive.

Here's how the conversation went down, on the subject of another recently blocked editor:

1) 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64 comments to say (in part) So I have no idea how you would think he is a single-purpose account.

2) JayBeeEll objects: Well over 300 of his < 500 edits concern the single subject.

3) 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 responds: Right. And most of those edits were made to TALK. So as I said, not a single-purpose account.

There is no ambiguity there at all, given the use of the phrase "as I said". The lying by this IP just compounds their other disruption. I dislike going to ANI but it may be required in this case. Generalrelative (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I'll move this conversation over there. Cheers ‍ Relativity 04:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Note: This was posted to the Teahouse after I moved the discussion here due to an edit conflict. Cheers ‍ Relativity 04:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

break: now that we're at ANI, let's continue below

Synopsis: I initially thought I could avoid a circus by bringing this issue to the most recently blocking admin, Widr, who had given the 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 range a two-year block a couple weeks ago. I informed them on their talk page that this LTA is still editing as 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64 and also under a previously unsanctioned /64: 2603:8002:73F:1FCF:0:0:0:0/64 (note the previous range identifying as the author of posts by this final range in this discussion). The IP user then followed me to Widr's talk page and opened up a thread of their own at Teahouse. Relativity was kind enough to bring the case here after I suggested it may be necessary. There is plenty of evidence that these IP ranges are the same user, so if anyone has any questions about what's provided above or would like to see more, just let me know. Generalrelative (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support a range-block - There's too much evading going on. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, evading and then lying about it, despite having admitted to being the same user multiple times in the past. For the sake of convenience, here's another piece of dispositive evidence: In this comment, 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64 wrote "I attempted - several times - to explain..." and each of those links leads to a diff by the 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 range. Generalrelative (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 to match the /40 rangeblock. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Acroterion. Just to clarify, there is still another /64 where this user is currently operating: 2603:8002:73F:1FCF:0:0:0:0/64. In this discussion the same user switches between that range and the one you just blocked. In order to stop the block evasion we'll likely need to take care of this third range too. Generalrelative (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

That's blocked too now. I expect we;ll find other ranges and either block them or expand the scope of the rangeblocks. Acroterion (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I wouldn't be surprised. Thanks for being on it! Generalrelative (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Hmkelly, copyright violations, and promotional writing

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

---

• Hmkelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• PolyU School of Hotel and Tourism Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hmkelly was created in 2010 and appears to have had a sole interest in the PolyU School of Hotel and Tourism Management since then. The user's first undeleted edit was to that page in 2016, and the user has edited exclusively about that school (and its affiliated hotel).

The user has repeatedly added material copied-and-pasted from the website of the school, despite multiple warnings on the user's talk page that go back as far as 2020, after an IP removed material the user had inserted in this edit that was copied and pasted from the University website (here, for example) and promptly warned the user. The user has proceeded to ignore warnings and remove copyvio-revdel template from the page, even though the template explicitly states Please do not remove this template before an administrator has reviewed it.

Because the user has been repeatedly copy-pasting ad copy from the University website into the article without regard for copyright or compliance with Wikipedia's style guide, and because this was done in spite of multiple warnings, I ask that the user be (at minimum) partially blocked from the PolyU School of Hotel and Tourism Management article until they demonstrate better understanding of our policies and guidelines related to copyright, as well as our style guidance related to promotional tone. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely pageblocked Hmkelly from PolyU School of Hotel and Tourism Management and Hotel Icon (Hong Kong). Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • And we have the usual set of confusing-to-the-recipient responses to Special:Diff/1192033965. ☺ One person tells the accountholder that xe can provide the text. Another person tells that accountholder that we don't want the text at all. Uncle G (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Edit wars on the article Milan Tepić; distruption on a contentious topic

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

---

For a while, there has been a disruptive edit war on the article Milan Tepić, since one user keeps removing sourced content.

The original text contained both sides, which was also well sourced, [10] contained the sentence: »In Croatia he is perceived as a war criminal (...)« and that the person is viewed a »hero« by Serbia and Republika Srpska. No claims were made, just the two different opinions without any WP:POV. Two of the sources were Radio Free Europe and Balkan Insight, which are well written and WP:RELIABLE sources. To repeat: The statements are well sourced and do not make claims, just mention two different diplomatic views on one person.

However, user Kanikosen started to remove the sourced sentence that contains the opinion of the Croatian diplomacy (but kept the other opinion). This revert was reverted by user Ponor and well explained on the talk page, but the discussion on the talk page between the two users led to no where aswell obv., since Kanikosen continued to remove the sourced content. Another user (Karl Oblique) reverted Kanikosen's revert (because as many times explained) adequately sourced statements were removed) and left him the message and his talk page – to be exact, Kanikosen recieved the first alert message about distrupting editing on contentious topics (Template:Contentious topics/alert/first) but Kanikosen decided to simply remove it from his talk page and once again(!) removed the sourced content.

Today, another WP:EW broke out, this time between user Silverije – and once again Kanikosen.

Silverije reverted to the version with sourced statements, Kanikosen multiple times reverted these edits with sources (see last few edits) and in the last revert, Kanikosen called the sourced content »vandalism«.

This is seriously disruptive editing (WP:BALKANS) and constant edit warring that leads to no where. Please intervene. Koreanovsky (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Although I won't comment on the content itself, people are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page to acknowledge they recieved them. Regarding what appears to be a content dispute, an admin on the relevant talk page already suggested dispute resolution for all editors involved, which appears to be a more productive option. In any case, Kanikosen should stop their behavior of edit warring. Extended or full protection could be an option, with any further changes being discussed on the talk page to achieve consensus first. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 14:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like it should be taken to WP:AE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• It's fairly clear that the original version contained the views of both sides about Tepic, and Kanikosen is edit-warring to remove one of those sides - i.e. to whitewash the article. I have therefore blocked Kanikosen from editing the article. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• FYI, Kanikosen has already submitted an unblock request. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

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

OJIV

OJIV (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that focuses on articles related to Radhika Sarathkumar, including the production company they founded (Radaan Mediaworks) and of late, the television show Ponni C/O Rani. Their edits on that article are generally helpful, but they massively overlink terms related to Sarathkumar [11] and ignores the MOS for using italics for television shows [12]. I've been leaving messages on their talk page about this starting in early December [13] starting at polite messages and leading to final warnings [14] with messages on how they need to change their editing style.[15] They have not responded to any messages nor adjusted the problematic edits. I'd like an admin to review this and consider a partial block on either the Pooni C/O page, or article space entirely to get them to discuss and follow the MOS. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Any help here? Ravensfire (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Biased editing on contentious topic

It seems to me that the editing practices of users Homerethegreat and Marokwitz are both biased and disruptive. Specifically these users appear to be editing with a pro-Israel bias, and making these edits on pages directly related to the Arab–Israeli conflict — a designated contentious topic.

Levivich recently warned both editors here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nakba_denial#Concerns_regarding_Neutrality and I myself have warned Homerethegreat previously about biased editing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#Whitewashing_concerns.

Additionally, both users have been making a high number of edits, with number of edits made since Oct 7th being over 2,500 for Homerethegreat and over 1,000 for Marokwitz, almost all of these edits directly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I personally don't think this can or should be tolerated or ignored if their editing is consistently low effort, biased, disruptive, and pushing a WP:POV — which it seems to me that it is.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Go to AE with way more diffs if you want something done, maybe. Arkon (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

You are a user with a total of 622 edits, focusing on the ARBPIA topics since November 5, which is interesting since you have only received edit confirmed rights two weeks ago [16]. Be aware that this could very easily lead to a WP:BOOMERANG, with your EC rights being revoked.

Before complaining here, you have made a false accusation of "disruptive editing" against me here [17], failing to provide evidence, failing to assume good faith, and casting aspersions even though all I did was reply to a discussion on the talk page.

Consider taking a brief break to cool down . Marokwitz (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Since it is a WP:CTOP topic area, you're more likely to get a rapid response if you take it to WP:AE. It'd be important to have specific diffs demonstrating the problem, though. Remember that simply having a bias is not in and of itself actionable (most editors who edit articles on contentious topics do have opinions on them; it would be hard to be fully informed without forming opinions of some sort.) What you'd have to demonstrate is that their biases are affecting their edits in a way that leads to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing or WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

So before anything, Joyeux Noël! (it means Merry Christmas in French) Hope you're having a good holiday. Just on a personal note I think it's always best to begin in positivity which is an important part of the holiday spirit, so basically hope you're having good holidays wherever you are :).

So regarding the diffs you presented, I think it's important to note that I believe we are all here to improve Wikipedia and at times we have differences which is understandable. As I do recall I think in one of the diffs you showed I explained to you the issue and I do not recall you answering or addressing the issues I raised...

I saw the statement written by @Marokwitz and I think it is possible that a wp:boomerang can happen and indeed there is an issue here regarding you having edited in the topic without being an EC. I must say I feel that I have tried to act in goodfaith in the talk discussions and I do not feel the same goodfaith has been enacted with me.

I hope that we can progress beyond this and work together as I have indicated in one the diffs where you haven't answered (I assume in this age when we are peckered with info it is difficult to keep track). Again, happy holidays and Joyeux Noël! Homerethegreat (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Homerethegreat appears to be WP:NOTHERE to build a WP:CONSENSUS. He is currently holding 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States WP:HOSTAGE. Despite multiple users asking for an explanation consistent with Template:POV, he just says there is a NPOV issue and won't let the template be removed because he says he explained it already but all he did was copy and paste long sections from the article and declared the problem obvious. An NPOV noticeboard discussion has been opened here. This discussion at Talk:Bethlehem also appears to be WP:SEALIONING. Kire1975 (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm currently waiting for them to respond here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War#1948_Arab–Israeli_War#First_phase:_15_May_–_11_June_1948 as well, where they have reverted changes [18] with little to no explanation. [19] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  This person is past due for a WP:TBAN. Kire1975 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  I find it troubling that @Arkon recommended @IOHANNVSVERVS take this up with AE, yet user @Kire1975 instead took the initiative to do so, and is now canvassing both this post and the NPOV post on an uninvolved noticeboard. I'm with @Marokwitz, I think some jets need to cool off here. Mistamystery (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  which one is the uninvolved noticeboard? what is this canvassing you speak of? can you provide diffs? cooling off is fine, but there is still a legitimate problem here. Kire1975 (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is the uninvolved page and this is clear canvassing: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Kire1975

  I'm confused. You already acknowledged the overreach and thought this matter was settled. Outside of commenting on another user's appeal, the user you are targeting was not involved in any fashion with the topic ban matter pertaining to nableezy and the other users.

  Perhaps you missed this response post on that board: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Mistamystery (in response to Kire1975)

  Also be careful not to WP:TAGTEAM. I was trying to be civil and understated with my first post above, but to be abundantly clear, it's what it looks like here. Mistamystery (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• An instance of WP:Canvassing/WP:VOTESTACKING between users Homerethegreat and Marokwitz can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marokwitz&oldid=1182347355#Help_in_a_page. IOHANNVSVERVS

(talk) 17:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously inappropriate WP:CANVASSING deserving of at least a warning. VR _talk 22:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Homerethegreat is now here seeking sanctions against User:Nableezy at WP:AE because he feels "disrespected" by legitimate, evidence based accusations of tagteaming and edit warring. Kire1975 (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There's always more WP:ROPE EvergreenFir (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Patience will out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

"Homerethegreat is now here seeking sanctions against User:Nableezy at WP:AE" is not an accurate representation of what has occurred. Nableezy received a 90 day TBAN from the Arab-Israeli Conflict topic. They appealed. Homerethegreat made a comment as an involved editor, expressing their views on the appeal. They're allowed to do this; there is nothing wrong with that. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:Chuckstablers, User:Mistamystery and User:Isabelle_Belato for providing the bigger picture I was not aware of at the time. Apologies. Kire1975 (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologizing is appropriate, but you should also strike out the incorrect assertions. Marokwitz (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Which assertions? What's incorrect about them? Kire1975 (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, I appreciate it. I understand it's tough at times and that's alright. I would be happy if you could also point out the apology and clarify the matter in the other report which you opened on me. I won't lie, I do feel hurt, but I hope we can turn a new page and start anew. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Partial block for JackkBrown

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

I did not want to come here as I do believe this editor is acting in good faith, but as they appear to lack the skills to edit in a collaborative environment, I think it's time to consider p-blocking them from the Help Desk and Teahouse. Wikipedia:Help_desk#Questions shows the exact same repetition in questions that came up in this prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:JackkBrown, which also includes information on their November block for much of the same disruption. this discussion is also fraught with issues we've seen before from this editor.

They ask many many questions which exhaust editors' time, resources and patience especially since they do not seem to take the answers on board and just ask again. I don't think this is a factor of their language skills as they can contribute productively in article space, which is why I'm hoping this can be resolved with just a p-block. Thoughts? Suggestions for other outcomes? Note they do not edit the Teahouse as often, but I would not want to see this as an invitation to raise the same questions in a different forum which is why I suggest a p-block from both and encourage them to make use of article Talk, which has been asked of them many times. Star Mississippi 22:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I agree with whatever decision you make (I don't understand why the Teahouse, I never posted there); I know it will be the right choice whatever it is. A good night. JackkBrown (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. While I am loathe to penalise people for asking questions they don't know the answers to, JackkBrown has been essentially posing the same questions over and over for a good nine months without demonstrating an application of what they've learned to later questions. On a daily average we can expect to see one or two questions from them, to the point where I don't bother answering anymore. While I'm a little leery of a p-block in the event that there is a question that is novel and not related to the MoS, it seems to be the best decision, unless there's a way to guarantee that questions relating to the MOS are forbidden. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment. We have other editors that ask repeated questions that don't get blocked (re: Middleton family). If you don't want to answer the question, skip it and let someone else answer. Or, perhaps a T-Ban on MOS questions (anywhere) instead of an outright block? RudolfRed (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think *everyone* who use the Help Desk wishes we could limit Srbernadette. But they just log out and ask anyway and refuse to address the basics like wrong info/date in the field, so unless there was an edit filter on the Middleton family, I'm not sure it's possible. Also, User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_3#Srbernadette so I'm very much consistent in the "these are a drain on limited volunteer resources". I would be fine with a T-Ban, but when they inevitably break the T-Ban ( based on history, no bad faith), they'll end up blocked. I'm trying to avoid that. Star Mississippi 02:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It might be possible to reduce that editor's pestering the Help Desk by wrapping Middleton family in span style=".mw-parser-output span.cs1-visible-error {display: none;} ". Might be against a rule somewhere though. Folly Mox (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's another question from Srbernadette today. Doesn't help that we've other users enabling them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy if the Middleton editor learned to use edit requests instead of coming by the help desk every five or six days. I seem to recall other users instructing them on how to fix things, to which they claim they are unable to do it themselves. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Support reluctantly. I too am loathe to sanction editors for asking questions, but JackkBrown's behavior is pretty egregious. It's a difficult decision because I have absoutely no doubt that they are acting in good faith and want to improve the encyclopedia. They have been quite prolific, making over 40,000 edits in just over a year. Unfortunately, 1,387 of those edits have been questions to the Help Desk, and which, as noted above, have mostly been asking the same small set of questions over and over again, mostly about whether a particular word should be italicized and/or capitalized. This fixation on small typographical issues would not be an issue if they didn't keep cluttering the Help Desk with these questions. Right at this moment there are 36 threads on the Help Desk; four of them were started by JackkBrown, which is not an unusual situation. CodeTalker (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Support The repetitive questions about trivial italicization and capitalization matters waste volunteer time. The editor has been repeatedly advised to use their own best judgment. Their focus of attention is Italy and the Italian language and they expect volunteers who do not speak Italian to provide judgments on obscure issues related to Italian usage and vocabulary. Most irritating is that they repeatedly insist that Help Desk volunteers explain why some random other editor did some trivial thing like italicizing or not italicizing some specific word. It has gotten ridiculous. Cullen328 (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Support, this time around. They have been offered an abundance of friendly help and advice to avoid falling foul but, despite acknowledgement and thanks, seldom puts it into practice. Their attitude to anything is to expect other users to do the leg-work for them, particularly when it comes to looking up simple MOS policies or guidelines. I should assume good faith, but I think they're following their own personal agenda and targets, rather than considering the collaborative improvement of WP as the primary goal. As well as the issues mentioned above, they've stretched the limit when it comes to lecturing people on what they should be editing; ignoring basic policies (especially WP:BRD and WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS) when they don't fit with their way of working; and filling up page histories (and their personal edit count) with rapid miniscule edits, often with no effect on content, about which they have been offered advice previously. Apologies for seeming to rant: patience has been stretched rather thin by this user. Bazza (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Rather than an outright ban/block, how about a limit on the number of questions they can ask, such as "JackkBrown is limited to a maximum of 2 questions per week at wikipedia help forums (including the help desk and teahouse)"? That way they can still use these forums, but it should reduce the volume of questions to a more reasonable level. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Support (this proposal). JackkBrown (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I did not want to pile on in this ANI thread, so I'm not officially "voting" on the above, but I would support this proposal if it came with some promise from JackkBrown to consult the various policy and MOS entries that are being used to answer their questions before they may ask again. The overall issue is more than just quantity: less frequent instances of trouble working with others and blanket refusal to engage with specific norms are instances nonetheless. The communication and time of other editors is still being intently disregarded for what are still very unclear reasons.
I would not say it's acceptable, for example, to be wholly tendentious and dismissive of another editor's dignity if one limits themselves to doing it only twice a year—while these issues are much more minor than that, rate-limiting is still an inadequate solution to an underlying problem that may manifest elsewhere. Remsense留 10:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Abuse of editing privileges by 2600:8805:918B:9B00:48EE:78C8:FF35:A1A

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

---

This IP Address has been making repeated disruptive edits to articles on wikipedia, including the removal of content on articles without adequate explanation and adding inappropriate external links to articles. Also, they are harassing and trolling other users who have warned them on their talk page. I think that their talk page access should also be revoked if they get blocked. Snices (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by Ad Orientem following a report at WP:AIV. TPA can be handled if the need arises. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees

After I removed Siouxsie Sioux's solo chronology from several Siouxsie and the Banshees and the Creatures album articles, Carliertwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted me, citing David Bowie/Tin Machine, Paul McCartney/Wings and "many other similar cases" as examples of album articles that grouped band chronologies with solo chronologies ([20] [21] [22]). I explained that those are isolated cases, that it is not common practice to list band chronologies alongside solo chronologies, and that there's no consensus for such ([23] [24] [25]). I remarked that the user had yet to provide a valid argument for including solo chronologies alongside band chronologies ([26] [27]). I pointed out their unexplained reversions ([28] [29]). I insisted that Carliertwo hadn't yet provided a single valid argument to revert my edits or restore the chronologies ([30] [31] [32]).

Nevertheless, Carliertwo reverted me three more times, repeating the same "argument" ([33] [34]), neglecting to provide an edit summary ([35] [36] [37] [38]), claiming that "domestic changes" (whatever that means) are unnecessary, and randomly bringing up that Siouxsie Sioux was the first headliner of some festival ([39] [40] [41]). The user's edits removed valid formatting-related edits I had made to those pages, which were properly explained in my edit summaries ([42] [43] [44]). The fourth time Carliertwo reverted me included a verbose edit summary that honestly came across as grasping at straws ([45] [46]).

It should probably be noted that Carliertwo's unconstructive behavior (and gatekeeping of Siouxsie and the Banshees articles) has repeatedly been the subject of previous ANI threads, starting in 2017 ([47] [48] [49]). snapsnap ^(talk) 03:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Flag of Kyrgyzstan - repeated reverting.

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

---

In case my report in the Edit warring noticeboard is incorrect, I'm also reporting it here in case it doesn't fall under 3R. 108.160.120.91 (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This concerns an edit war at Flag of Kyrgyzstan where 108.160.120.91 wants File:Flag of Kyrgyzstan (2023).svg and EnderKutokuari (talk · contribs) wants File:Flag of Kyrgyzstan (1992-2023).svg. I have fully protected the article for three days while this is sorted out. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I've given EnderKutokuari a notice about edit warring, as they may not be aware of the 3RR rule. Normally this should be done before reporting someone to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. – bradv 19:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Summerdays1 and WP:HOUNDING

Summerdays1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting unnecessary, trivial, and deliberately unconstructive edits on pages out of bad-faith on pages by singling out ones I've contributed to and edit-warring them in. On 25 December and 26 December, they restored WP:BOOSTER material I removed then moved onto pages I either recently edited, substantially contributed to, or promoted to GA Status, starting with the judge Elizabeth Branch then John Hart Ely, Dumas Malone, Quintin Johnstone and Joshua Katz, and continued with my more recent pages (all listed on their user log). These pages are wholly unrelated to the pages they've previously edited except the fact that they are the ones I've substantially contributed to.

User:Summerdays1 has made it clear that his edits are meant to be obstructive and in bad-faith. After reaching out on my talk page, he left a message that he later covertly deleted and followed it up:

To begin, are you able to show me places where you either made mistakes on here or where you learned something? You give the impression that you know something or more than most. I doubt you even know as much as I do.Summerdays1 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently you won't listen to me so I'll find an admin. You are a "wrecking ball"; if you feel you need to crusade "one man style" to remove information from colleges and "justifying it" with the few same Wikipedia principles... I'll point out that you have been reverted numerous times going back more than a year. I agree some university pages have "fluff". You aren't trying to correct stuff. You're removing too much material and you don't even attempt to remedy or fix articles. Be pro-active and less reactive. You damage this site and it has to end.Summerdays1 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Then they've reached out to editors to WP:CANVASS, and the messages show the same pattern. First to Rrsimone, then to admin Favonian:

Guardian H has edited articles for about a year in political thought, judicial, and college topics. This user has been heavily reverted at times (Boethius, etc.) and still does not seek consensus or adapt in any fashion.
I saw you are bilingual, cool. I will guess you can understand these nuances, perspectives, and topics. As I told GH no one I know is pro-boosterism. At the same time left unchecked, GH will wreak holy havoc on any academic article they see.Summerdays1 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Summerdays1 has not gone out to try and reach any sort of consensus on the pages I contributed to nor even to try to build a consensus on the pages regarding higher education. I've reverted some of these edits; as of today, they have reverted them back. They aren't here to improve articles and no longer here to build an encyclopedia. GuardianH (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, I previously warned User:Summerdays1 about edit-warring, but they promptly removed that notice today from their talk page. GuardianH (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

An "Israeli IDF wikipedia farm"

IP personal attack at Talk:Supreme Court of Israel#Criticism of Court in CTopics area (Israeli-Palestinian conflict). I think this talk post shows this editor isn't attempting a NPOV and shouldn't be editing in this area. I checked in the mirror this morning and I can confirm I am not an "Israeli IDF wikipedia farm", just a grumpy old man in Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  22:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If 'not attempting a NPOV' with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was sufficient grounds to exclude people from commenting on such topics, there would be very few editors available. As comments go, I'd say it was pretty tame. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That is in fact sufficient grounds to exclude someone from such a topic... But it doesn't describe the vast majority of people who comment on AIPAC related topics (the POV warriors are a relatively small minority of editors after all). Surely you are being hyperbolic or sarcastic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately he's not entirely; without naming names, in my limited experience in the I-P topic area a large percentage of frequent/active editors treat whatever issue is at hand with a specific POV in mind that they prefer to have the article confirm. The Kip 07:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I have given them an ARBPIA welcome template and CTOP notice. If they continue to violate ECR they'll be blocked. In the future you don't have to respond, you can just revert their edit noting that it's an ECR violation, unless it is an edit request that isn't asking someone to revert an EC editor's edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Tagishsimon incivility at teahouse and unresponsiveness on talk page

Can someone please address Tagishsimon’s ongoing incivility, biting, and failure to assume good faith towards people asking questions at the teahouse? I notice looking through his talk page that he has never once responded to a concern raised there regarding his conduct. I hope I’m reporting this properly, and I think there is a policy requiring me to notify Tagishsimon, which I’ll do but I don’t know the right template (hopefully someone can fix it for me). Cynidens (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, some diffs would be helpful to give clear examples of this. What particular instances demonstrate this? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Cynidens - I assume you refer to Wikipedia:Teahouse#Self-styled editor moving pages illicitly and issuing threats? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not want to involve myself in this thread too much, but I recently joined as a Teahouse host, and have noticed the same thing.

Here are some diffs I think are relevant, all of which I've pulled from the Teahouse as it currently stands, so they're all within the last ~3 days:
"Two seconds of thought"
"There's no good faith to assume"
"So, look, start your COI infested article"
"Maybe never. That's volunteers for you."

Here are some diffs of people politely asking Tagashsimon to be friendlier on the Teahouse, all of which went ignored, unless noted otherwise:
Polyamorph's message and Tagashsimon's response
ColinFine's message
Bsoyka's message
Sdkb's message
Ca's message about his lack of responsiveness

I didn't want to go back too far, but this has been ongoing for at least a few years:
Robert McClenon's message (2021)
"I really appreciate your feedback, although some of your language did upset me, I'm only trying to bring value to Wikipedia, and not annoy you!" (2020)
Firestar464's message (2020) - for some reason the diff links wouldn't work
Fram's message (2018)

Going through his talk page, there are dozens upon dozens of unanswered messages from newcomers, draft writers, and people who were apparently directed to his talk page for help with other things. sawyer * he/they * talk 01:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic sawyer * he/they * talk 01:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:DENY.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I don't understand how that's relevant to the diffs I've sent. I of course completely agree with WP:DENY, but the diffs I've presented show that quite a few people have expressed concern about his bitey conduct towards people at the Teahouse or at AfC. No one expects him to respond to the obviously NOTHERE & troll messages, but there are plenty of good-faith editors, or at least people who we ought to assume good faith of, in those links. I'm sorry if this is causing trouble or wasting time or anything; I've never made a comment at ANI before (thankfully). I'm just trying to address Mattdaviesfsic's request for diffs, and I don't wish to be involved further. sawyer * he/they * talk 01:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

First, I want to keep in mind I'm relatively new and certainly imperfect in comparable ways, and I don't want to dissuade Tagishsimon; I think they are very good in their work in the Teahouse overall.

That said, having seen patterns represented by the above examples, it often feels like they do not particularly enjoy volunteering at the Teahouse. If they have tone problems that need to be addressed—I don't feel comfortable saying whether they do—they are of a sort where the line is never crossed in any given thread, but perhaps it is often straddled when one zooms out. Sometimes, it may seem hostile or bite-y from the perspective of a total newcomer. Remsense留 07:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Remsense: may seem hostile or bite-y from the perspective of a total newcomer - well it clearly seems hostile and bite-y from the perspective of experienced editors too. Also, see my comment below. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

(I've tried to phrase my specific thoughts in as unassuming a way as possible, I don't mean for them to detract from anything anyone else has to say.) Remsense留 12:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to provide this not-so-friendly message that User:Tagishsimon left on my talk page a week ago: User_talk:Deltaspace42#Teahouse. The diff. I don't think this behavior is acceptable here on Wikipedia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That message seems completely appropriate; your post was indeed pointless. After you discovered your idea didn't work, you had nothing useful to contribute; yet you did so anyhow. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, TS's answer didn't provide a solution, either. I've often wished people at Teahouse wouldn't answer questions they can't provide an actual solution for, as other hosts may assume they can skip over that question because they see it's received responses and assume its been resolved. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's a fair point. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23, can you clarify that by DENY you mean "this clearly is a troll making baseless complaints"? Because I could absolutely see someone, especially someone new, feel reluctant to complain here because of possible repercussions. The base problem seems to have some validity, to me, and @Tagishsimon appears to be ignoring this. Am I missing something? Valereee (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Not precisely. I was accusing the OP of being a troll/sock whose first and only real edit (their second edit was to notify Tagishsimon) was to post a complaint at ANI about an editor with no diffs and yet wikilinking policies and guidelines. My assumption is they have something against Tagishsimon but can't do anything about it because they are already blocked. I have no comment about the complaints of others about Tagishsimon's conduct at the Teahouse, but the OP has achieved their purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

hey i actually kinda have a horse in this gba barbie game

from what i've seen, i don't think tagishsimon's big issue in the teahouse is outright unhelpfulness, but a lack of civility and a tendency of telling people that they've done wrong in one message, and only telling them what they've done wrong later on, if ever

except in a question i asked about changing my signature that is in archive 1206, but i can't get that archive to load for some reason, but tagishsimon's answer was "the colors are bad, change it", which while true (i checked, the contrast was kinda not good), was admittedly really unhelpful as that was already step 2 of fixing the sig, but i'm not a helpful asker myself, so i won't really hold it against them

that aside, i think tagishsimon would be fine if they answered questions right away and a bit more bluntly, and went to their talk page sometimes

if hoary happens to be reading this, sorry, i didn't figure out how to fix it cogsan _{(give me attention) (see my deeds)} 13:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

found out how to make the archive load, sorry for the inconvenience cogsan _{(give me attention) (see my deeds)} 13:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I've always taken the approach that the Teahouse should be a place where, as annoying as you may think a question is, a host or editor should always respond in a knowledgeable and kind way. It has been an honor to be a host at the Teahouse though I haven't been there as much lately. It's very important to keep that page free of bite-y and snide comments. New and inexperienced editors are always looking for help and we advertise the Teahouse as a place to go to receive advice in a relaxed environment where hosts and good faith editors are ready to help them. Regardless of what happens with this I would encourage anyone responding at the Teahouse and reading my words to remember that every user is a human being and most think they are doing what's right (good faith). If you are feeling like you can't respond with knowledge and kindness then take a break and let someone else respond. It's okay to not respond. --ARoseWolf 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with ARoseWolf here. Teahouse responses should be both informative and kind. Sometimes editors burn out dealing with similar stripes of ignorance over and over (this happened to a very long-term and respected ex-admin not too long ago). This is the converse of the related problem of relatively new editors giving inaccurate advice to extremely new editors, which also manifests at the Teahouse.

Tagishsimon's tone isn't something I'd start an ANI about, but I have considered on multiple occasions making a request on their usertalk to practice a little more kindness. Folly Mox (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that multiple users have done that, and been ignored.

Teahouse can become very frustrating because those working there respond to the same things over and over again. But for the people coming in there to ask that same tedious question you've answered 1000 times, it's not their 1000th time asking it. When you start to feel like you can't answer that same tedious question one more time without BITING, when multiple people have raised the same concern, it's time to take a break from hosting. Valereee (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has a horse in this race, i had a draft decline today by him/her/they for "bullshit-citing" which is wholy unusefull for me and i disagree as the citations are accurate for the draft in my persepective. I beleive he/she/it might have declined it souly on the basis there are alot of citaitons. TagKnife (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Their diagnosis of your article appears to be entirely correct. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The manner Tagishimon did so is in no way appropriate. Being right isn't a license to say something like This seems to be a full-on WP:SYNTHspam article for someone's new code, replete with huge roster of bullshit-baffles-brains cites. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this comment was really unhelpful for me, and I had a discussion with deadspace who helped me understand what changes were needed and the issue with the citations.

Along with that Tagishsimon dropped by a left and another unhelpful comment in the Teahouse where me and deadspace discussed said topic. His comments carry an unhelpful nature and a belittling attitude. TagKnife (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I admit it: I am ok with people being slightly rude to people who have as their sole contributions to Wikipedia self-promotional cryptospam. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You're entitled to your tastes, but we're not concerned with your tastes. The (class of) behavior still contravenes site guidelines. Remsense留 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It is better to be honest. Sometimes the 'teahouse style' of supportive communication fails because the new editor comes away with the impression that they can make a few small changes and get their improper article approved. That seems to be what TagKnife has just said above. It is more kind to be clear and get them to stop wasting their time on what will almost certainly be a fruitless endeavor. MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, so I won't belabor the question, but—I suppose I don't understand at all the point that's being made here. I wish this sounded less glib, but if you don't think the Teahouse approach is worthwhile, then isn't the correct position "don't volunteer at the Teahouse"? It's not like there's some larger issue that's radiating from it. Not liking the way the Teahouse is meant to handle new users isn't an excuse to try to "tough love" newcomers within. If that's not the point, then it's a point that's irrelevant for this discussion. Remsense留 17:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: I believe it is always possible to be both honest and polite at the same time, without resorting to more aggressive tone. "...almost certainly be a fruitless endeavor" - you never know, you can't say that before you thoroughly search for the sources yourself and come to the conclusion that the subject is not notable and it would be a waste of time to try and create an article about the subject. And even if you know that there are not enough reliable sources on the Internet to support the notability, you could just say something like "I've searched for reliable sources, but wasn't able to find enough coverage and came to the conclusion that the subject might not meet notability criteria. Feel free to search the sources yourself, but bear in mind that this task would be very difficult." I think the response like this would be both honest and polite at the same time. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As a Teahouse regular, I can say that I'm not impressed by some of Tagishsimon's behaviour displayed at the Teahouse, a lot of which straddles on WP:CIVIL. I can accept occasional blatant tactlessness over at the Help Desk, but that's something I think we should shy away from at the Teahouse. This isn't the first time someone's been dragged over their behaviour at the venue on here, though I certainly hope this is the last time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I have made 10,598 edits to the Teahouse, and take that welcoming space very seriously. We should bend over backwards to welcome, assist and gently correct good faith new editors who make commonplace errors. It is also true that Teahouse hosts as a group need to deal with new editors who are here to promote either themselves or an employer/client, or to non-neutrally push a point of view. The challenging task for the Teahouse host is to craft a response to such new editors that is both polite and firm. The new editor must be informed in clear, unambiguous terms that they are welcome to contribute neutral, verifiable content, but that they will simply not be permitted to promote anything or grind any axes. I think that Tagishsimon has a good understanding of our policies and guidelines, but too often. the editor forgets the "polite" aspect of the "polite but firm" formula. I hope that the editor gets the message. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

2A05:87C7:9008:2C00:A839:6080:4248:D58B

2A05:87C7:9008:2C00:A839:6080:4248:D58B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – I started an investigation into a banned paid-editing company at WP:COIN, several AfDs are launched and out-of-nowhere appears this IP, without prior contributions, but indeed with some experience (as you can see from the comments) to comment solely on AfDs related to the investigated company. Clearly undisclosed paid editing. Janhrach (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Mr Anonymous 699

Mr Anonymous 699 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The vast majority of this users edits have been reverted, and with good reason, they're disruptive (click here [50] and Ctrl + F "reverted", your screen will turn yellow).

There are also suspicions of them acting as a meatpuppet for other (new) users (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr Anonymous 699/Archive and especially Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonharojjashi). As seen in the SPIs, they randomly revert in favour of the listed users, often with no edit summary and manually reverted, probably to lessen the chance of someone else seeing it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I only reverted your edits from 3 articles only after it I didn't.. Last time I only reverted an edit it chola invasion of Kedah only once, I didn't revert it after you gave me the reason for removing them

Also I don't know the people you're mentioning.. I've made edits on multiple articles in which they could have made edits too? Mr Anonymous 699 (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

IP User

2001:FB1:5F:F3A7:616F:1E32:ABB9:E7DF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP is constantly removing content (my edits specifically) at Chiangrai United F.C., I warned them still they reverted one of my edits. Reviewing administrator is requested to take some concrete action. Thanks! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 13:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

IP user's edits to presidential election articles

This user, who was discussed in the above thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Consensus-less editing on Presidential elections by IP user, is editing under a new IP address. Scoutguy138 (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a month. I think it'd be best if, in the future, you added these reports to WP:AIV, noting they are block-evading. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary "Username does not conform to policy" messages from IP

This afternoon, an IP of 197.26.103.153 made several messages to seemingly random Arabic (?) users (see Special:Contributions/197.26.103.153), telling them that their usernames do not conform to WP policies. None of these "users" seem to have ever made edits, so I wonder whether these are purely tests and that none of these users actually exist? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for 72h and deleted the user talk pages they created.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Checking in Google Translate, a lot of those usernames appear to be on the same template ("furniture transfer in XXX", although the translation might be approximate), while other appear to have names of museums (and thus not necessarily conform to username policy). Some of them also appear to have user pages (e.g. User:نقل عفش بالرياض, apparently describing itself as a furniture transfer company in Riyadh), so there might be more to it. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Chaotic Enby: I just CSD-tagged that one reported its owner to WP:UAA. Here's a full list of user talks created by this IP, in reverse chronological order:

  1. User talk:هههههههههه ههههههههه
  2. User talk:هههههههههههه
  3. User talk:ويبقى الامل بالله متصلا
  4. User talk:نرتبط بزيكيطالكل بظلكلطب
  5. User talk:ياسين اهلي طرابلس
  6. User talk:مضلات المصعبي
  7. User talk:محمد رجب بطل العجب
  8. User talk:متحف ال غرسان
  9. User talk:متحف الضويحي للتراث بالزلفي
  10. User talk:متحف اللوفر في فرنسا
  11. User talk:نقل عفش بشري
  12. User talk:نقل عفش بالرياض
  13. User talk:نقل عفش اهل كايرو
  14. User talk:نقل اثاث بالرياض
  15. User talk:نقل اثاث بالدمام
  16. User talk:معلم الحاسوب 444
  17. User talk:يوسف محمد احمد محمد علي الوحده الوطنيه

  –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  At least some of these users have edits in foreign-language wikis, such as ar:User talk:متحف الضويحي للتراث بالزلفي, which says the user was blocked in 2018 for spam and copyright infringement. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Apparently, a lot of these actually don't fit the username policy. It would be great to have an Arabic-speaking admin look at them (and, if possible, review the IP block if it turns out the warnings were indeed legitimate). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  I do not think that an Arabic speaking administrator is required here, but rather that the help of any editor fluent in Arabic and willing to assist an administrator would be very useful in this situation. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  That could work too, didn't think of this! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 12:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Possibly coincidence, but up to at least 2016 there was a persistent commercial spammer on English-language Yahoo! Answers who posted ads in Arabic for a removals company in Riyadh. Most were caught by a filter, but 1 or 2 a day might get through. Narky Blert (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Riposte97: user with extremely fishy history

• Riposte97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have half a mind to block this 734-edit user (at time of writing) as a clear sockpuppet (though I don't know who they could be) per the duck test and I may well be too involved at this point. Here's a summary of this user's history per their edit count statistics and their contributions:

• In 2017, they created their account and made their first edits. They made a couple of edits (since deleted) in 2018 to Talk:Tiger versus lion and one in 2019, but all their other edits were made in 2023.
• In October 2023, they made hundreds upon hundreds of edits and became extended-confirmed, often to articles/talk pages of extremely controversial articles such as 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum (77 edits, including ) a proposed merger (highly uncharacteristic of a new user) and an edit summary involving attribution (even more so]] and Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war (192 edits ... though some were suppressed probably due to problems in the edit history unrelated to this user so the relevant tool doesn't show all of them).
• On 23 December 2023, they made two proposals to remove significant content at Talk:Valediction and Talk:Valediction. Fair enough, but they only waited less than a day and a half (during a holiday period in many parts of the world!), showing extreme disrespect towards readers and the people who made the content.
• Just yesterday (my time), they re-created the template "Copy to Wiktionary" which had been deleted in 2021 per a TFD (which I deleted as a re-creation) and tried to implement it at substantial articles like Hello. Their grand pronouncements about their opinions on the scope of Wikipedia in the links above and in this one are highly uncharacteristic of a new user.

Any review would be appreciated. Graham87 (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is anything specifically fishy going on here but I was not best pleased when they reinstated an anonymous troll edit here which I had removed. What I see here is a possible example of a pattern that is becoming worryingly common: An account is registered several years ago and makes a few uncontroversial edits before the drifting away. It becomes active again several years later and starts making a lot of bold edits to articles on controversial topics. This can indicate people who have been radicalised in the intervening period but I also wonder whether some older inactive accounts are being compromised and taken over by bad actors. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here but maybe the possibility is enough to justify a checkuser, particularly if there are any other indications of sockpuppetry? DanielRigal (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Graham87, @DanielRigal.

I’m not entirely sure what I may have done that indicates to you that I may be a sockpuppet.

I have worked hard to try to ensure all my edits have followed WP policies to the letter. I’m somewhat flattered that I’ve apparently been so successful as to pass for a more experienced editor. However, I would note that errors I’ve made have been pointed out before, as in your own observation.

The straightforward answer to the large uptick in my editing is that I finished a large project earlier this year. I found myself with some free time and edited the page Red Scare - and became hooked.

To the content objections you have both raised, which I don’t believe are directly relevant to the sock puppet accusation:

1. Regarding the removed content at Valediction and Salutation, large parts of both pages were just translations into other languages. This seemed like a legacy issue from the 2000s. Applying WP:NOTDICTIONARY, I didn’t think the removals would be controversial.

2. Having edited those pages, I came across Hello, Ciao, and several other pages. Again, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, it seemed to me that these pages did not belong on Wikipedia. I have never done an AfD before, and while I was reading Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, I came across the term 'Transwiki', and followed that to the Transwiki guides. It seemed like transferring some of the content across to Wiktionary would be more respectful of the work people had clearly put into these pages than deleting them outright.

I had no idea that the Wiktionary template had previously been deleted, and thought it was merely missing. So, I created it, and placed it at the top of both pages.

3. I maintain it is poor form to remove the comments of a person with whom you are disagreeing on a talk page. I do not believe that makes me 'radicalised' as may be inferred from Daniel's comment.

I will make myself available to satisfy any further questions you may have about my account. Riposte97 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Riposte97: Thanks for your response. One of the most important policies on Wikipedia is actually ignore all rules; it is a tool that makes Wikipedia work more flexibly when necessary (especially in unusual circumstances, which often arise with controversial articles). Policies are not cudgels to beat people with, especially in the case of more experienced editors. Re the idea that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there is actually a dedicated page devoted to the concept, which contains a section about words or phrases as article subjects, which applies to the Hello and Ciao articles. Extreme black-and-white application of policy/guideline text is highly disruptive and will eventually get you blocked.

Also, I tried following your link trail about transwikiing above and I can't figure out how you went from there to thinking that Wikipedia needed a "Copy to Wiktionary" template. Could you possibly outline your thought process in more detail? Graham87 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Graham87 - At Wikipedia:Guide to Deletion, under the 'Shorthands' heading, is an entry entitled 'Transwiki'. A link in that paragraph takes one here. I skimmed the linked help page. It then occurred to me that I ought to tag the pages which I intended to transwiki, rather than simply go ahead immediately. I checked to see if a tag existed for an intention to transwiki to Wiktionary. Tag templates did exist for that purpose referencing Wikiquote, Commons, etc, but not Wiktionary. So, I created the template myself.

Can I take it from your response that I have satisfied you I am not a sock? Riposte97 (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The transwiki process is almost dead. There may be a use for it once in a blue moon, but when that does happen it's very unlikely to be on a high-visibility word-as-word article like Hello. Beyond that, Graham is right about overzealous application of WP:NOT's section names without considering the sections' nuanced contents. In fact, reading through the "Wikipedia is not..." headings, I don't see a single one that is categorically true. "Not a soapbox" comes closest if you only count content pages, but it still allows a partial exception in userspace and projectspace. Everything else, from "not a dictionary" to "not a social network" to "not censored", is only a broad statement of principles, not a universal rule, and WP:NOT doesn't pretend otherwise, listing all sorts of caveats and exceptions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. @Riposte97:, your reply makes a bit more sense; the short answer to your question about being satisfied that you're not a sock is ... I don't know. I wouldn't feel comfortable taking administrative action on you at this point, at any rate. Graham87 (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Very well. Let’s leave it there, then. Riposte97 (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced data

User:Shaan Sengupta added an unsourced wrong data in Indian Secular Front. He claimed a communal party as far-left without specifying source. It violets Wikipedia's policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Secular_Front&diff=prev&oldid=1191840670 Happyjit Singh (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ANI you are required to notify the user on their talk page about this discussion. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Just did it for them. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I suspect this is at least somewhat in retaliation for the SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marxist Economist. Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Although the user is now blocked for sockpuppetry, I would still clarify. Indian Secular Front#Ideology says Despite claiming to be 'secular', the party has been described as 'communal' by political analyst Prasenjit Bose. And this is cited. I took jlit from there since Far-left politics says that The term does not have a single, coherent definition; some scholars consider it to represent the left of social democracy, while others limit it to the left of communist parties. Far left has been associated with some forms of authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, and Marxism, or are characterized as groups that advocate for revolutionary socialism and related communist ideologies, or anti-capitalism and anti-globalization. Far-left terrorism consists of extremist, militant, or insurgent groups that attempt to realize their ideals through political violence rather than using democratic processes. And the reporting user himself says that the party is communal and just to tell its founder Abbas Siddiqui is a Muslim cleric and party chairperson is his brother Nawsad Siddique. ShaanSengupta^Talk 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to this noticeboard but the article in the Hindu is talking about communal as in Muslim or peasant communities, not communism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nonsensical talk page comments

2001:5B0:4600:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

An IP user from Hulen, Kentucky, is posting talk page comments that don't make any sense at talk pages and user talk pages. All of the comments end with emojis, and many of them are abusive toward random users.

• At Talk:Alphabet, December 19: Comment that got RD2'd
• At Talk:Earth, December 19: "Earth war report": Stop rape
• At Talk:LGBT, December 19: Comment that got RD2'd
• At User talk:Panamitsu, December 20: Claiming that the user is Satan
• At Talk:Switzerland, December 20: Racist comment about the country
• At User talk:Blubewwy, December 20: Cryptic comment about "LGBT furry"
• At User talk:Joeyconnick: December 21: Warning that a "dog will eat you"
• At User talk:UtherSRG, December 21: A "You can't block me!" comment
• At Talk:Wikipedia, December 22: "I am sorry"
• At Talk:Alphabet, December 22: Incomprehensible comment that seems to accuse Fedfed2 (talk · contribs) of raping underage girls
• At User talk:Fedfed2, December 22: Another accusation of child rape toward the user
• At Talk:Gay, December 22: Accusation toward Fram (talk · contribs) of raping underage girls
• At User talk:LaundryPizza03, December 27: Plead for help because "my mom hated Wikipedia"
• At User talk:Blubewwy, December 29: What's this?
• At User talk:LaundryPizza03, December 29: Follow-up comment pleading for help

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked a handful of /64s for now, as really these have been confined to a single/couple of connections — a /40 would be much too wide. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: The edit at Fedfed2's talk page seems to be RD2'd now, have you checked the other edits (especially those that mention rape) for possible revdel? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It is possible that earlier talk-namespace edits need to be inspected as well; they made similar comments like this one in the past. It's a bit hard to tell which edits are from the troll. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit wars

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

---

Super Dromaeosaurus This user is entering an editing battle on the Battle of Valea Albă page without replying to the discussion page. Since the existing source was deleted, I corrected it, but he continues to add the other editor's unsubstantiated claim without any source being provided by this editor. Keremmaarda (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you trying to waste as much of my time as possible? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Seems to me like a normal content issue. There were two reverts and discussion has already started at the talk page. No need to escalate the issue at this time. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Willbb234

User:Willbb234 who has been blocked twice for edit warring this year is once again edit warring. I left a warning on his talk page to go to the articles talk page, and he went straight to the Joseph James DeAngelo talk page to make a homophobic slur at me. which is unacceptable. Just straight up told me (Redacted) Fruitloop11 (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Willbb234 for two weeks for the personal attack. Any administrator is free to increase or decrease the length of the block without consulting with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I've redacted and rev/deleted the personal attack on the article Talk page and here. Fruitloop11, please don't note what was said again - thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    • The redacted remark constitutes sexual harassment, even if not meant literally. Willbb's most recent prior block was over an article I was editing in the same time period, so I'll err on the side of caution and call myself involved, but I would support another administrator extending the block to indefinite. This is the sort of statement that demands an immediate halt to someone's editing until they can apologize and make a credible commitment to it never happening again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

      I agree. That kind of behaviour has no place on Wikipedia. I would indef them myself, but I'm also potentially involved here so I'll leave it to someone else. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

      I've upgraded the block to indefinite after a thoroughly insufficient response to being told that sexual harassment is not a joke. – bradv 03:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

      Another casual comment from a somewhat-involved user, but Willbb234 has, as I'm sure you've all noticed, a long and storied history of considering any block or even criticism of their edits as a personal slight and accusing those who do it of being personally against them. Combined with an apparent mentality that they can revert others at will (repeatedly edit warring without discussing despite however many warnings and blocks) but that anyone reverting them is, again, committing a personal slight, I wonder if further steps should be taken than just another block? Some restrictions for when they return to editing or something? Kingsif (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Controversial edits by IP 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:0:0:0:0/64

See the last report here: [51] (section "Block evasion of Nguyentrongphu by using 2600:6C44:117C:0:0:0:0:0/46"). 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) is a narrower IP range, which I'm pretty sure is Nguyentrongphu, according to WP:DUCK:

• Most edits are unnecessary changes to the grammar
• Controversial changes to wordings, for example: [52], [53], [54] (somewhat similar to [55], [56], [57])
• The wordings in the edit summaries and the article topics: movies and politics.

Đại Việt quốc (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor9500

WikiEditor9500 doesn't seem to "get" WP. They've already moved an article because they thought it was a misspelling, and have then proceded to keep changing the name within the article after the move was reverted. Almost all their other prior edits have been reverted, and now they're working on some oddball draft. I'm going to say they're NOTHERE, or at least have CIR issues. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like they stopped editing the music.ly page after your warning. You're coming to AN/I because of a strange userspace draft? --Onorem (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"This page is for chronic and unmanageable behavioral problems" – It's just what I'm seeing based on their editing. If they carry on with Musical.ly, I'll go to AIV. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

On second look I don't think AFC drafts can be CSD'd, but I don't see it surviving, so I will leave it be. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 02:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Kanikosen

Non-EC user Kanikosen (talk · contribs) is violating WP:GS/RUSUKR by making non-constructive comments on pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian war.[58][59][60][61]When I reverted their edit[62] with a link to the general sanction, they restored it [63]and argued about it on my talk page (User talk:Mzajac#Ukrainian counteroffensive), refusing to abide by the sanction. —Michael Z. 17:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• User Michael Z. Is trying to silence everyone that post sources that Ukrainian counter offensive of 2023 failed. I understand that he is Hero of Ukraine with the Order of the State, but still.

In WP:GS/RUSUKR is quite clear That Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments. Now, to explain my comments. ISW made so many claims on start of Counteroffensive, how it will be smashing win, Russians will take one look at Leopards and run awy. What we got is failed counteroffensive, and ISW blaiming uncut grass for fall of Counteroffensive. If you are insulted by that Michael, I am sorry.

Next comment, same. ISW made numerous claims that offensive is doing great, and had to backtrack to those statements multiple times. From [https://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-counteroffensive-breakthrough-what-does-it-mean/a-66728055] claiming to

'' Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has therefore concluded that the situation has worsened fur Russia.

The ISW report went on to state that Russian soldiers were under constant Ukrainian artillery fire, and that Khodakovsky was unsure "whether distressed and exhausted Russian forces will be able to defend against a future Ukrainian offensive in this sector of the front."

What do we get now, [https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2023-11-03/ukraine-confirms-its-counter-offensive-has-failed-day-617-war] confirmation that offensive failled.

3 Zaluzhny did send his army into one of most dense minefields in the world, with minimal aircover, how is that despuited fact (response was to line ''. Did not the Ukrainian command, who had every bit of information about their own resources, knew that? Well, Zaluzhy would be an incompetent idiot if he did not.''

4. Prime example of what I am trying to say, Michael Z. Unless Ukraine destroy Russian missile ships/subs, then you don't have strategical victory. Kanikosen (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've been following those 2 pages closely for a while. Although I agree that the 2 cases in the Battle of Marinka page were not helpful (questioning the reliability of a clearly reliable, albeit somewhat biased, source), I strongly disagree with your judgement and reverts in the counteroffensive page. Both examples (3rd and 4th) are legitimate concerns. The concern about soldiers going on a "suicide mission" in Krynky is backed by the NYT article in a previous section of that page (there's also a publication from Odessa media, which I heard, that calls the operation "criminal" [I still have to find the article though]). The other comment about the Black Sea Fleet is actually a good argument which I haven't really thought of. None of his comments were particularly disruptive, therefore, I urge you to self-revert the latter 2 cases, especially since you've arguably been involved in WP:FORUM yourself. I also don't believe his actions in general warrant another sanction. Simply giving him a well rounded response in the battle of Marinka page convinced him. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me elaborate on clearly reliable, albeit somewhat biased, source: clearly reliable for reporting facts and covering the territorial changes, the analyses are another story. And about the "suicide mission", haha, I thought you meant the battle of Krynky, not the counteroffensive in general. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point, though. Kanikosen is not ECP and therefore limited by "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." I'm not going to take any action here, because I've already partially blocked this editor for disruption in a separate area, but those talkpage comments don't strike me as "constructive", more WP:BATTLEGROUND. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Why are they battleground? As pro Ukrainian users don't like them? Kanikosen (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This one doesn't address the content, but attacks the editor. Also, this comment was made in an RfC discussion, which is a violation of WP:GS/RUSUKR ("However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions (which) include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.") and which they could be blocked for. At this point, they just need to back away from the topic area. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

👍 Yeah, I can't defend Kanikosen in the RfC case (I thought that comment was on a random section). About the "attack on editor" comment, I don't think it was actually an attack, but simply a case of not WP:AGF. It could also have been a criticism to multiple people in general. You could consider him "lucky" that he said that to me, who understood his frustration and tried to "explain the game" in a well rounded way. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This very reply by Kanikosen show battleground behavior. While they might be right about the content, it would probably be best if they were removed from this topic. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

People do these "oopsies" all the time. Everyone can get heated and "loose faith" in editors and think they're just trying to push their POV. I've seen a bunch of heated discussions already with ECP editors calling each other pro-Russian/Ukrainian or calling that they're pushing propaganda. At the end of the day, we just have to take a break, and chill out with some fresh air for some hours. I don't see a need to punish this editor even more. He's already shown some acceptance by letting other editors erase his comments if they think they are disruptive. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hm, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Marinka_(2022%E2%80%932023)&diff=prev&oldid=1187954834] I am not attacking any editor or wikipedia user, but responding to ISW comment above me. 2 years in the war ISW to me is in rang of Russian TAS. They made to many mistakes and predictions, and they wait weeks to admit when situation is not favoring Ukraine. For RFC comment, I didn't see it's RFC topic, I saw high praise of Zaluzhny from one editor and responded that he is the one who ordered counteroffensive, and that he knew minefield that waited his lads. And he still send them there with no air cover. There I am guity as charged. I am fine with me being blocked as rule was broken. Kanikosen (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not attacking any editor or wikipedia user Yeah. For RFC comment, I didn't see it's RFC topic, I saw high praise of Zaluzhny from one editor and responded that he is the one who ordered counteroffensive 👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that editors who disagree with you are "pro Ukrainian" is battleground behavior and not conducive for improving the project. While it's understandable that a newish editor cannot see why that is, your replies here worry me, Alexis Coutinho. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hm, did you see his user page and edits? To say he is pro Ukraine, that would be understatement [64] . Or I am wrong? This is NPOV? Kanikosen (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

your replies here worry me Huh? Saying that editors who disagree with you are "pro Ukrainian" is battleground behavior I didn't deny that nor justify it. I just disagreed with your suggestion to "remove him from this topic". Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

those talkpage comments don't strike me as "constructive" At least one of them is, a bit. I mean, I've seen much more disruptive comments coming from other non-ECP users before. Compared to those, Kanikosen's comments are quite "tame", though, yeah, still not above (the constructiveness) average (which is what I think you would expect from to post constructive comments). At least they weren't insistant (a well rounded response by me seemed to "have done the trick" in the battle of Marinka page). In my opinion though, what's more disruptive are walls of text from ECP users engaging in WP:FORUM, something that I might not be exempt from either. Still, with all due respect, I don't think Michael Z would be the most adequate person to engage in deleting his comments. I wonder what the other editors in those pages think of this and if any of them indeed consider those few comments as disruptive. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

to me, and I can mention plenty of military officers from western counties and Nato, offensive was doomed to fail from the start. No airforce. And when they encountered first minefields, they knew that Tokmak plan will not work. I am just saying what everyone who was not in school of Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon knew, Russian will not take one look at Leopards and run away. Entire offensive was based on Russians looking at Nato gear and running away. If my comments are disruptive or against rules, then delete them. Kanikosen (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Editing against consensus and status quo ante

Translations

• Alaska4Me2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has a pattern of trying to use constant reverting to force through her preferred edits. At present, she is involved in edit warring to force a particular edit on The Chosen (TV series), while casting aspersions that there is some sort of collusion going on to avoid 3RR rules.

• Prior to the reversion cycle, the cast list descriptions of certain characters referred to them as "apostles". [65]
• Her preference is "disciples".[66]
• I reverted her change, noting in the edit summary that the term was actually used in the show [67]
• She reverted back to her preferred change [68]
• At this point, she did open discussion on the TP.
• Her change was reverted by RadiantFellow (talk · contribs) [69]
• She again reverted to her preferred change, this time accusing me in her edit summary of colluding to avoid 3RR [70]
• I explained to her via the talk page that consensus via editing was to the version status quo ante and asked her to leave it as such while WP:BRD ensued and reverted to status quo ante [71].
• At that point, she reverted a third time [72] and insists there is no consensus until discussion is complete.
• I pointed out that two separate editors have reverted her changes and asked her to put the article back to status quo ante until a discussion determines a change in editing consensus [73].

My issue is twofold - first, this user has a tendency to try to force through edits in this type of manner and seems to believe that a given change is valid until a discussion determines otherwise, ignoring existing consensus that has been arrived at both through editing (previous and current) as well as previous discussions. And second, using edit summaries in a manner disparaging to other editors (WP:ESDONTS). I will grant that her statement may come across as relatively mild (Tag team reverting so one editor is not dinged for edit warring is not kosher), and I've certainly been called worse in the past. Ordinarily, I'd simply ignore that part of it. However, when taken in context of the whole, what she is suggesting here out in the open is that there is collusion going on when in fact it is specifically two separate and unrelated editors voicing the opinion that her edit is not accepted at present. That's exactly what consensus through editing is, and she's using it to make accusations that are simply untrue. NOTE: I want to make clear, this is about the behavioral issue and not the content dispute. Were it simply the content itself, it would be inappropriate to bring to this forum. I also did not take it to the edit warring forum as there were other issues involved. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Unless asked specific questions, I will only add to this discussion with what I put at the article talk page, beginning with the first entry when I started the talk topic:

"Disciples, not Apostles

The 12 men following Jesus in the show are not Apostles. They are not referred to as Apostles. "Apostles" as a label was not given to the 12 Disciples until after Jesus' death, resurrection, and the Holy Spirit descended on all of them, as recorded in the Book of Acts. The Chosen is a show based on the Gospels of Jesus Christ. Acts is not one of the Gospel books. The cast/character descriptions need to match what's happening in the show and the literature the show is based on, not what was written about the Disciples/Apostles in books not included in the Gospels or in the show's content. Butlerblog, for whatever reason, is set on keeping the description of the 12 students/followers of Jesus as "Apostles", but not once have the writers referred to the Disciples in the show as Apostles, nor has that been reflected in the script. In fact, there was no such thing AS an apostle in Christendom until after the events of the Book of Acts took place. I believe using "Apostles" in this article isn't just incorrect, is anachronistic and changes the narrative of the show. A4M2 02:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Radiant Fellow & Butlerblog: Yes, Jesus chose them to be His Apostles, but for the future, for a later time. The 11 (not 12 because of Judas' betrayal and suicide) became apostles later, after the death and resurrection of Jesus. They could not be apostles while Jesus was still on earth because while He was there, they were his students, His disciples. Apostles are emissaries. Jesus commissioned the disciples to be His emissaries AFTER He had resurrected. Even in the body of this article, they are referred to repeatedly as disciples, not apostles. Dallas Jenkins, in interviews, refers to them as disciples, not apostles. The actors themselves, refer to their characters as disciples, not apostles. This link to Angel Studios' list of the cast in the show refers to them as disciples, not apostles. [74] Their characters are disciples in the show, therefore, they need to be referred to as disciples in this article as well. The article is about the show, so we need to stick to the facts of and about the show based on sources (like the cast list from Angel Studios - and others elsewhere online). We can't justify using "apostle" because it was uttered once in the show. Repeated use of "disciples" to describe the 12's characters in cast lists, scripts, and by the writers themselves is evidence enough that "disciples" is correct and "apostles" is not. A4M2 16:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: and @Radiant Fellow:, you are reverting without discussing. Your repeated reverts are not the way to come to a consensus, so why you claimed in an edit summary there was already consensus makes no sense. Your quote of one instance in the show and script where "apostles" was used vs. the multiple times "disciple(s)" is used in the show, as well as the multiple cast lists found online that say "disciple" (including from Angel Studios, see link in my previous comments above) is not persuasive. Attacking me in your last comments and trying to make a case against me as an editor is not discussing the issue and topic at hand. Please stick with the facts of the show, the actual scripts and cast lists that refer to the characters of the 12 as disciples (not apostles), and go from there. If you revert again without actual discussion and consideration of the very valid points I made above, I will have no choice but to report you for edit warring and just being plain stubborn in a POV manner. I don't want to do that, but at this point feel as if you are intentionally forcing my hand that direction. Please, if you have strong evidence other than one utterance of "apostles" during the three seasons and 24 episodes that "disciples" isn't accurate, then bring it here so we can talk about it. Thank you. A4M2 17:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)"

ButlerBlog is insisting "apostles" is correct when it's not. Every cast list online, including the originating studio that helped produce the show itself, names each of the 12 men as "disciples". Other cast lists online show the same. I included a link in my comments above to Angel Studios as a reliable source that can be used to support use of "Disciple(s)". The director of the show calls them disciples, the actors themselves refer to their characters as disciples, the script repeatedly refers to them as disciples. Can someone explain to me why one instance of the Jesus character referring to the 12, in future tense/context, as "apostles" makes for a good argument that the cast list in the article should also refer to them as "apostles"? I'm willing to change my mind, but I can't find anything that brings me to the place of consensus "apostle" is accurate for the sake of the article. And why I'm now blocked for the first time ever is astounding to me. I'm pinging the blocking administrator (@Black Kite:) to also, hopefully, read my commentary here and possibly reconsider. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You could have accomplished that by just linking to the appropriate diffs. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have partially blocked Alaska4me2 from this article only for a short while, as their latest edit took them over WP:3RR. They need to remember that even if they believe they're correct in the content dispute, "being right" does not mean you can edit-war. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, I'm not at all familiar with what's reasonable or usual and customary when blocking someone with no previous blocks over about four years' time of editing. Is two weeks typical and considered a short while in Wikipedia? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, sure; I certainly wouldn't block someone completely for two weeks for a first offence, but when it's a partial block from one article only the length is saying "have a break from this article, please" which of course wouldn't really be useful if it were a very short block. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I could see it for a day or two. Two weeks seems excessive and overkill to me. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

What is "reasonable or usual and customary" is to wait until a talk page conversation has concluded before changing article content. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

True, @Phil Bridger:. I started the conversation after the first revert back to the incorrect wording. When claiming consensus that didn't actually exist, the other individual reverted back again. I'm not defending my use of another reversion, far from it. I'm defending that the incorrect wording shouldn't have been reverted back and reasons for keeping it that way were weak. E.g., non-existing consensus, and one instance of the word "apostle" being used in a completely different context. Also, saying the status quo version is correct (even when it's wrong) solely BECAUSE it's the long standing status quo seems like a strange argument for not instituting an appropriate correction. Especially for an article being considered for Goof Article status. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But you should wait until the talk page discussion has concluded. By definition, in any dispute each "side" thinks that they are right. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger:, I see that now. But please realize, I'm not taking a side for my benefit, for the benefit of winning an argument. My intent was never that. It was to make a needed correction because the evidence and at least one reliable source supports the correction. After ButlerBlog named me at his own talk page as the source of the problem at the article and article talk page, I just asked them whether they would have made the change in the wording because of the evidence I was able to provide that adequately supported that change IF the reversion hadn't occurred and a good conversation was truly attempted on their part. It will be interesting to see what their response is to that legitimate and important question. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alaska4Me2: RE: After ButlerBlog named me at his own talk page as the source of the problem at the article and article talk page... You mean in the discussion where you accused me of making personal attacks without evidence?[75] Please note that making accusations of personal attacks without supporting evidence is itself a form of personal attack (WP:WIAPA). You made a similar accusation on the article talk page.[76] It's one thing to address editor behavior on a user talk page; it is quite something else (inappropriate) to do on the article talk page. Your unfounded accusations are not helping to de-escalate this in the least. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

User creating many French-language advert pages in a row

User:Azadmiles created today 4 different pages (on the English Wikipedia, but written in French) all written like unambiguous advertisements rather than articles. Three of them (Groupe Gibault, Privilégiés and Groupe Investiir) were previously deleted, leading to suspicions of sockpuppetry being at play. The last one, Stuga.ca, is in the same format but appears to be a new creation. What should be done? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: it seems this user has now been blocked by Justlettersandnumbers. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I still have doubts about the user possibly being involved in sockpuppetry given these pages had a history of being deleted. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, CycloneYoris. Yes, I blocked the user as a spam/ad-only account, but Chaotic Enby is right, this is apparently the same user as KhalidKhanu and thus part of this case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Would the creator of Anthony Gibault (a different account, User:Gael1210, although Azadmiles moved the page around) also warrant a check? (PS: Should I also leave them a talk page note for mentioning them in this conversation?) ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Personal Attack by BraceUlysses on User talk:FMSky

I am reporting a personal attack by BraceUlysses that occurred on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FMSky. On 30 December 2023, while discussing the Clint Eastwood editing matter on this page, BraceUlysses posted an offensive comment directed at me. This comment, referring to me as a "douchebag," is a clear violation of Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy and breaches both the Civility guidelines and the standards of Etiquette expected in discussions.

Here is the diff of the offensive comment: Revision as of 23:28, 30 December 2023‎ BraceUlysses talk contribs‎

The use of such language is unacceptable and undermines the collaborative and respectful environment that Wikipedia strives for. I request that this matter be reviewed and appropriate actions be taken in line with Wikipedia's policies on user conduct.

Sleeplessmason (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them. Feel free to report cases like this to WP:AIV. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I am learning. Sleeplessmason (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

RayofLightning and Theosophy-related articles

I've come to the conclusion that RayofLightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is fundamentally not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. Their writing regarding Theosophy and related thinkers (which appears to be the only subject they are interested in writing about) is fundamentally unencyclopedic, written from an implicit perspecitve that claims by theosophical writers are true, and they rely almost exclusively on primary sources by theosophical writers, rather than academic literature analysing it. They have refused to take criticism of their approach onboard [77], and have engaged in edit-warring to restore their preferred versions of articles [78] [79]. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Sanat_Kumara and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Initiation_(Theosophy) for discussions about problematic articles they have largely written. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of sources by User:GoutComplex

Over the last year I and other editors have tried to get @GoutComplex to understand how to use sources and what kind of sources are appropriate on Wikipedia. These interventions can be seen on GoutComplex's talk page.

I recently had to revert two edits by GoutComplex, which I think illustrate the problem. The first was on the article for Ancestor veneration in China. His edit reads: Ancestors and the Mandate of Heaven were thought to emanate from the Dao, especially in the Song dynasty.[80] This claim is supported with a citation from page 272 of the book Empires of the Steppes: A History of the Nomadic Tribes Who Shaped Civilization by Kenneth W. Harl. The relevant section on that page reads: This emperor Taizu, the third to take the name in the tenth century, imposed unity over southern China and forged an imperial order based on Neo-Confucian precepts.⁴⁵ He aimed to break the power of the Tang regional elites who had monopolized office and ruled as regional hereditary dukes (li). Civilian bureaucrats henceforth were chosen by merit upon passing an examination system based on the Confucian classics . The wide dissemination of block printing of Confucian classics enabled many men of humbler origin to study the texts, pass the examinations, and so enter imperial service.⁴⁶ Mandarin officials from the highest to lowest levels shared a set of philosophical precepts that put correct rule (zheng) at a premium. All were expected to master the canonical texts in order to achieve harmony with the way (dao), especially the proper conduct and veneration of the ancestors. The source does not say that ancestors and/or the mandate of heaven "emanate[d] from the Dao", nor does it say this phenomenon was particular to the Song dynasty.

The second edit was on the article for Taoism, which reads: Chinese Manichaeism took inspiration from Taoism throughout both of their histories as well as forms of Buddhism, including Chinese Buddhism.[81] This edit cited page 231 in the same book by Harl. That page reads: The faith, while an imperially recognized religion in China, never won over a Chinese emperor. Many Chinese would have viewed Manichaeism as a pale imitation of Buddhism or Daoism, the two most popular faiths among the Chinese masses. Manichaeism, just like Judaism for the Khazars, offered an advantage that it was not the faith of a neighboring imperial rival, but this advantage was likely a benefit rather than a reason for the kaghan’s conversion. Again, the source does not at all back up the claim being made in the edit.

Harl is a scholar, and while he is not an expert on China, his sources are standard English-language secondary works on Chinese history. While this is an improvement on GoutComplex's previous use of poor quality sources, the discrepancies between what is claimed in his edits and what actually is contained in his sources are disturbing. Finally, Harl's book is not on Daoism nor Chinese ancestor worship, so it is a poor choice of source for claims on those subjects.

Many of GoutComplex's edits have been reverted by other users, and it takes time to check his sources to see if they back up his claims. I am not confident that GoutComplex is able to produce encyclopaedic content that is properly grounded in reliable sources. I would note that a week ago GoutComplex added a citation to a book titled History of Art: The Western Tradition to a section on ethics in the article for Stoicism,[82] so unfortunately I don't see any sign of improvement. Retinalsummer (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Afghan.Records

Afghan.Records (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talk page is full of warnings by different users, which they don't seem to have paid much attention too, as their edits really haven't changed. If you click here [83] and Ctrl + F "reverted", you'll see a lot of yellow on your screen.

They just recently made more disruption at Pashtuns. They made a edit [84] under the edit summary "Added some more crucial information about the origin if Khalaj" - except they forgot to mention the part where they removed sourced info about scholarship currently considering the Hephthalites to have been Turks. Another edit just right afterwards [85], where they added the info "This believe has been further supported by The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 2 which attests the Bactrian tribes to be ancestors of Pashtuns." And suspiciously with no page, so I did a quick Ctrl + F on that source (page 771), and it did not fully support what Afghan.Records added; "The Panjshir then provided a route to the Paropamisadae mountains and to Kabul. The district of this route was Fo-li-shi-sa-t'angna, i.e., *Parshistan. Its inhabitants were probably the Parsii and Parsietae tribesmen - possibly Pashtuns." No mention of Bactrians, and it only says "possibly". Didn't check the rest of the info added, nor the two other edits, they might pose the same issues. EDIT: Their response to this ANI report makes it hard to have WP:GF imo, the evidence is literally right here; "Previously forgot to add the page of one of the 4 sources. Now fixed, if you have any objections go to talk page. Also, accusing me of miss representing sources is a claim and shows one inability to read properly without being biased."

So in other words, they tried to push the same stuff about the Khalaj (minimizing Turkic connection, increasing Iranian/Bactrian connection) when they first started editing and edit warring at Khalji dynasty back in April 2023 [86] (down below), which led to their block [87]. See also [88]

And there was also these episodes;

1. Another citation wrongly used again [89]
2. On 24 June where they randomly commented on others background and tried to back up their own statement with badly cited non-WP:RS [90]
3. On 13 September at Ghurid dynasty [91] they added (cherry-picked) a bunch of non-expert and non-WP:RS citations to push an Afghan/Pashtun origin, completely ignoring the current scholarly consensus mentioned in the article.
4. On 29 November [92] and 10 December [93], they randomly removed sourced info at Ghilji, no edit summary either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)