Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TCN7JM (talk | contribs) at 06:03, 5 January 2024 (→‎Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior: One and only comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    New user continued disruption

    Reported user blocked indef, but unrelated (?) to that, the OP (FlightTime) is formally warned against WP:EW and WP:BITE. IP editors are not lesser than veteran editors, the latter of which do not get special exemptions or allowances due to their tenure or for any other non-policy reason. El_C 15:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

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

    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.-- Ponyobons mots 21:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
    @El C: if you review the history and think additional action needs to be taken, the by all means, do as you see fit.-- Ponyobons mots 17:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I never closed the thread. FlightTime marked it "resolved" on 21:21 21 December [1], and I one-click moved it to the archive at 03:09 24 December [2], as there had been no activity on the thread for a day a half and the question about FlightTime had been responded to by Ritchie333 without further response. I was fine with El C reviving it and marking it not resolved, and I thanked him via the thank button [3]. I agree that Mattdaviesfsic should not be closing or archiving threads when they are clearly not resolved. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So, El C, do you want to do anything more with this thread, or has it run its course? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure, but no, it has not run its course. But it still gonna be a day or two till I'm more available. If there is a pattern of FlightTime not only edit warring, but edit warring with extra-WP:BITE against IP editors (as shown in the link I gave above), then that needs to be addressed and remedied. Them stonewalling me here falls short, in my view. El_C 11:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked FlightTime's edits for the past week or so since I saw the edit-warring as reported above. They stopped edit-warring then and I've not seen any sanction-worthy behaviour since that time. Ritchie333 (talk) Iam(cont) 14:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your metric? A single week? I mean, I get you might wanna get on their good side, but I, at least, am not intimidated by their aggression. El_C 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On further thought, I'll strike that and close with a formal warning. FlightTime might have chosen to ignore me here, but if it is found, in a few weeks or months, that they are violating WP:BITE and WP:EW—regardless if they also attack admins who stand against that misconduct—sanctions will come into effect. El_C 15:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Is correcting incorrect sources and information used in articles a violation of the rules? Keremmaarda (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I was going to just let this go since you didn't seem to be initiating any problems since the last report. But the above WP:IDHT snarky response is exactly what you've been dragged to ANI. You seriously need to dial back the rhetoric and assumptions that you're always right, and everyone else is wrong. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I'm tired of all this. You find an answer to every reaction and declare me guilty. I don't understand what topic this discussion is continuing on. If I said anything bad or violated any rules, I apologize and request that the topic not be prolonged any further. (I don't even know which rule I broke, in fact I don't think I broke any rules). I'm sorry if I made any wrong moves. Keremmaarda (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I did not respond to any of your claims or continue to defend myself, I just left it to the opinions of other editors and admins. I also stopped defending. If the problem is that I think I'm right, if that's really the problem, I won't talk any more. (I had already stopped talking) Keremmaarda (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keremmaarda, can you clarify whether you're using a machine translator to participate in discussions and/or edit on English Wikipedia? Your edit summaries in this thread raise this concern. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Keremmaarda (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why your edit summary included not just a comment in Turkish, but a translation of the section title into Turkish as well? signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand what you mean. Keremmaarda (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you are saying. iPhone has automatic page translation. That's why it translates the page to Turkish and Turkish appears in the edit history. Keremmaarda (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it looks like this thread is finally getting attention, I will put my two cents. This has wasted me a lot of time because they do not understand well many of Wikipedia's policies. On this page [4] they've added a source claiming a very small size (15,000) for the Ottoman army which contradicts every single contemporary source and cited source on the article. This user lacks an understanding of what primary and secondary sources are. They've stated that Wikipedia does not care about primary sources and is not used [5]. They also reject all contemporary sources in the article and call them exaggerated without any foundation [6]. I can say a lot more, they've also engaged in WP:Original research (arguing why they think the other numbers are unrealistic and failing to provide a source for their personal analysis when I asked them to, also OR comments like It is not possible to provide logistical support for 250,000 people., Where will you march 250,000 people? They need food, [7]) and WP:SYNTH (used a source talking about 1476 to argue their point regarding this 1462 battle [8]). I've been dragged into starting a DRN report, which they are not talking in [9].
    As the article features some numbers for Ottoman losses, they've stated I would remove the military losses of the Ottoman army and add that "military losses were insignificant, but many supply animals such as horses and seves died" [10]. This is POV-pushing. They've done this in other articles. On this one, they've reduced the size of the Ottoman army from 80,000 to 15,000 [11]. They claim that Demetrio Francione, who was a 16th-century historian that lived one century after the event of this article, is not a proper historian and added their own preferred source instead [12]. They reject the sources they dislike in order to argue their point. I can't help but be worried about this edit from them [13] according to which a 3,000-strong army defeated a 50,000-strong one. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added sources for all of them, what's wrong? Even other editors admitted that Francione was unreliable. Keremmaarda (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keremmaarda, could you please continue the DRN? You need to state here [14] that you agree with what it is said here [15]. If you do not reply I will have to proceed with WP:DISCFAIL which can end in the block of a nonresponsive user. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Super Dromaeosaurus, User:Keremmaarda - I have closed the DRN because the dispute is also at this WP:ANI thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for my silence Robert McClenon, I stopped replying at the DRN as soon as I saw that the discussion was leading towards a topic ban believing it would happen sooner. Thank you for your efforts. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok now tell me what mistake I made in the Siege of Svetigrad and Battle of Qarabagh articles. Keremmaarda (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having reviewed the dispute at Night attack at Târgoviște, I believe that a topic ban from Ottoman history for Kerenmmaarda is an appropriate sanction. I am particularly concerned by edits such as Special:Diff/1188021822, where a source is given that describes the forces of a different battle than the one that is actually the subject of the article. Similarly, arguing that we cannot cite secondary sources because those secondary sources cite primary sources is a misreading of policy. Taken together with the consistent POV perspective that accompanies these errors, this behavior becomes tendentious. Had Kerenmmaarda been properly notified of WP:CTOPS, I would have imposed this as an arbitration enforcement measure. I have left them a CTOPS alert notice for future reference. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Rosguill and others - I had notified them of the Eastern Europe contentious topic when I started the now-failed mediation, and they agreed to the mediation rules. ArbCom did clarify that parties to mediation at DRN have been notified of a contentious topic if they agree to mediation rules that refer to the contentious topic. However, that may have been about two hours before Rosguill alerted them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support a topic ban and, if the behavior continues, a complete ban. I previously warned Keremmaarda for his behavior on October 25 (see this diff). It's also worth noting that Keremmaarda deleted this warning and our subsequent discussion from his talk page (see this diff) so others may not be aware he has officially been warned months ago about his behavior.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support a topic ban, per everything said above. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban. Keremmaarda's comments towards other editors with differing views/sources has been a problem for months. Blocked once for disruptive editing, blocked again for personal attacks against Beshogur. I would have to agree with SouthernNights, that if Keremmaarda's behavior continues, a complete ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Support a topic ban. It’s finally getting the attention it absolutely needs. Thank you to all participants of this discussion. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I was wrong about this and that's why I got a 1-week ban. I was punished for this. Keremmaarda (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Worth noting that this person does not seem to understand the weight and purpose of ANI. They've recently started two reports over content disputes. The first was against me [16] [17]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ll just keep commenting so it won’t get archived again. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This dispute was also at DRN. Maybe I should have closed the DRN case a few days ago, but I hadn't reviewed this WP:ANI thread until Rosguill called it to my attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, I think this is a user working right on the edge of their competence linguistically-speaking, who is pushed over the edge into WP:CIR when controversial topics they feel strongly about are involved. I am particularly concerned by this comment, which, if analysed with the maximum generosity possible, shows something quite fundamentally wrong with their understanding of historical sources. On balance of probabilities, it shows something much worse.
    I would urge an admin to take action now, this user is going to become a time sink and is likely to be back here before long. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (here from RSN) the diff mentioned by Boynamedsue at least shows a poor understanding of how to judge a reliable source. Some time editing in other areas to build competence would be a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [18] and ignores the MOS for using italics for television shows [19]. I've been leaving messages on their talk page about this starting in early December [20] starting at polite messages and leading to final warnings [21] with messages on how they need to change their editing style.[22] 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)[reply]

    Any help here? Ravensfire (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OJIV doesn't strike me as an SPA. They don't adhere to the MOS, but crucially they're failing to WP:COMMUNICATE. The only talk page they've edited was Talk:Thayamma (TV series) (apparently by mistake). SWinxy (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Though this edit comes off as too hostile. Have more patience with uncommunicative editors.) SWinxy (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Zero response to any messages for quite a while and they've been around for 6 months or so. Polite messaging, as you can tell, has gotten zero response, hence a more direct message and hopefully something that would get them to communicate. All that's needed here is for OJIV to say they will start following the MOS and respond to concerns. Their editing shows their either don't see the messages about this or don't care. This is when a block is needed to get them to discuss their edits. Ravensfire (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And still happening [23], no communication from OJIV. Ravensfire (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, a continual refusal to communicate. Their contributions at this point is 75% reverted edits. SWinxy (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Go to AE with way more diffs if you want something done, maybe. Arkon (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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 [24]. 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 [25], 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    There's always more WP:ROPE EvergreenFir (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Patience will out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Apologizing is appropriate, but you should also strike out the incorrect assertions. Marokwitz (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which assertions? What's incorrect about them? Kire1975 (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (Personal attack removed) Kire1975 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, so much for the apology. You really should've just dropped the stick, Kire. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to wonder if the TAGTEAM and incivility accusations might WP:BOOMERANG back to Kire in this case. The Kip 00:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an administrators' noticeboard - where are you, administrators? Are you okay with this behavior? A user started editing contentious pages without EC, repeatedly casting aspersions and personal attacks in multiple forums. Another user is making alternate apologies, personal attacks, and mocking people for being polite.
    What's going on here? Is this a page where no rules apply? Marokwitz (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the offensive comment. See also my message at User talk:Kire1975#ANI. – bradv 21:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [28] 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 [29] 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 [30], 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 [31] (down below), which led to their block [32]. See also [33]

    And there was also these episodes;

    1. Another citation wrongly used again [34]
    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 [35]
    3. On 13 September at Ghurid dynasty [36] 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 [37] and 10 December [38], they randomly removed sourced info at Ghilji, no edit summary either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They're also edit warring by adding non-WP:RS [39] [40], completely ignoring WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:AGEMATTERS. It seems those rules only count when it's information that Afghan.Records doesn't agree with it [41]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Death Editor 2 and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (again)

    Death Editor 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Follow up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#User:Death Editor 2, this ANI was archived without a resolution and the problem has continued.

    Death Editor 2 has refused again to find a clear consensus or engage in DR, and has reverted the infobox to their preferred version.

    • First change without consensus [42], rv by Super Dromaeosaurus [43]
    • Second change without consensus [44], rv by TimothyBlue [45], referred to talk page discussion Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#Is the conflict over?.
    • Third change again after failing to get consensus on talk page discussion [46]
    • Fourth change today again after failing to get consensus on talk page discussion [47]

    The talk page discussion shows this has been opposed by multiple editors, a consensus has not been reached to change the article. This is an area covered by three ARBs – E-E, Infoboxes, and A-A.

    Previously Death Editor 2 problems in AE areas include:

    The above is for an account only ~8 months old, with 1,413 edits.

    Their previous account User talk:Death editor shows similar problems and should be considered.

    I've rv't this twice (November 12, 2023 [49] and December 23, 2023 [50]), five weeks apart but someone else can rv them this time, either way this conduct in an 3xAE area needs to be resolved.  // Timothy :: talk  05:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    'Political disputes over borders and refugees between Armenia and Azerbaijan may persist, and another war could break out between them - but not over Nagorno-Karabakh. There the dispute was between Artsakh and Azerbaijan. Artsakh no longer exists and all of Nagorno-Karabakh is under the undisputed control of Azerbaijan. Sources and consensus reflect this - there are six or seven other editors who have weighed in against you now. Sorry you just don't like it' -@PrimaPrime. You are entirely alone in your opinion that the conflict is somehow ongoing and you are engaged in a frankly bizarre campaign to keep the article that away. Your own sources say it ended, the other editors say it ended, it's just you and only you. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Continued problems: The problems have continued on the page.
    MarcusTraianus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Currently @MarcusTraianus: has made significant undiscussed changes, including restoring the previous content Death Editor was blocked for without attempting meaningful discussion on talk page or DR.
    • They posted Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#Is the conflict over? so they are aware this is a CTopic and that this change is being discussed/disputed and another editor @KhndzorUtogh: objected (see four messages on talk [51]) and reverted the changes lacking consensus [52], [53] (this was two edits in the same rv't).
    • MarcusTrainanus then reverted to their changes after KhndzorUtogh objected without meaningful discussion or consensus [54].
    • Two other changes MarcusTrainanus made were reverted [55], [56] by @Nicat49: but the changes were restored by MarcusTrainanus without discussion or consensus by MarcusTrainanus [57]
    The above shows MarcusTrainanus is 2x over 1RR and has ignored the previous objections to these edits.
    Neither KhndzorUtogh or Nicat49 has violated 1RR.
    Dispite violating 1RR and other editors objections, I have not reverted the changes made by MarcusTrainanus. Requesting rollback to point prior to MarcusTrainanus making undiscussed changes (and restoring their changes after objection) and consideration of full protection unless a consensus is reached for the changes on the talk page.
    The players and chronology of the changes in the article are hard to follow, let me know if I have made a mistake.  // Timothy :: talk  02:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting indefinite editing ban for User:Cookiemonster1618

    User:Cookiemonster1618 has been under a three-month topic ban for 'all pages and discussions related to eastern and northeastern African peoples and languages, broadly construed' since 23 November 2023 [58]. In the ensuing five weeks, the user has made more than 180 edits relating to languages or peoples of northeast Africa (list [59]), & a further 90 that are questionably in violation. On 27 November, Cookiemonster1618 was reminded once of the ban [60], & stated that they had forgotten & would observe the ban for the future [61]. They now apparently dispute the meaningfulness of the core terms of the ban—Northeast Africa is not a region [62].

    The initial ban arose from disputes between Cookiemonster1618 & other users. I should note for full transparency that a dispute with me was included in the reasoning for Cookiemonster1618's temporary ban, tho I did not participate in the ANI process & did not seek any sanctions of this user at that time. These problems included a failure to take other editors' interactions in Talk pages in good faith, unjustifiable accusations of vandalism, threats, & generally argumentative interactions with other editors. In the time since the ban was effected, Cookiemonster1618 has become involved in another personal dispute with user Michael Effiong, for which they came to ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144#User:MichaelI_Effiong). Admin User:Star Mississippi warned Cookiemonster1618 that a failure to change their style of editing might lead to a broader topic ban. Several times in this period, they have posted generic disruptive editing warnings (Template:Uw-disruptive1 to the pages of new users when the edits appear to be in good faith, if problematic in ways that are typical of new editors ([63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]).

    Today, I made a comment on Cookiemonster1618's page concerning edits that I believed to be in violation of the topic ban. They accused me of stalking them & trying to find excuses to blame them. User:ScottishFinnishRadish placed an editing block on Cookiemonster1618 for a period of 53 days, in accordance with the terms of the original ban: 'A violation will result in a block for the remainder of the topic ban duration or one month, whichever is longer.' This of course makes sense as a first step. However, given that Cookiemonster1618 has violated the topic ban so egregiously (an average of four times a day at a conservative reckoning) & has not been able to engage other editors more civilly, I request that they be banned indefinitely, pending a proposal for how they would engage Wikipedia differently. Pathawi (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User was blocked for 53 days by ScottishFinnishRadish. I was going to close this section, but since Pathawi is requesting indef, I'll leave that for admins to consider. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping. I am still limited in on wiki time and do not have time to explore the continuing issue. I support whatever action is necessary here. Star Mississippi 14:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cookiemonster1618 requested an unblock following SFR's 53 day block. I have declined the unblock request. See User_talk:Cookiemonster1618#December_2023 for rationale. As to an indefinite block, I'm a bit on the fence. I believe Cookiemonster1618 to be a productive editor based on cursory review. But, the problematic behaviors need to stop. If they are incapable of understanding that Eritrea is in northeast Africa, when the topic ban is to be "broadly construed", and there is nothing in Africa that is more northeast than Eritrea, then there is a potential CIR issue at hand. I'm hoping for improvement. Hoping. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think (& hope) that Cookiemonster1618 can become a productive editor, & I agree that on balance they've got mostly productive edits tho they're overwhelmingly of one nature: bringing Wikipedia into line with Ethnologue. However, problems like that which led to this editing ban have been occurring consistently for their entire editing history. They've been involved in Wikipedia since May. In early edits, they had very normal new editor troubles with appropriate sourcing & citation, but responded to questions & suggestions on their Talk page with exasperation & sarcasm [69]. In June, they were involved in a number of conflicts & edit wars—see the several different conflicts at [70], during which they were resistant to recognising verifiability criteria, threatened other editors, & repeatedly made personal attacks. The first of these problems has improved dramatically in the ensuing months—largely because they've stuck so closely to Ethnologue as a source—but not consistently (note this in September [71], where they are insistent on using a perennially unreliable source, despite having discussed the source with me three times). The other two issues have not improved at all. There is also a common pattern from June thru the present:
    1. Cookiemonster1618 lashes out at other editors with accusations or threats,
    2. states that a problem does not exist in the first place (23 June 'And what conflict? I haven't had a conflict with other users.' [72]; 31 December 'there is no such thing as a region called Northeast Africa' [73], then
    3. becomes apologetic when an admin gets involved [74].
    In July, Cookiemonster1618 was blocked for consistent addition of unsourced content [75]. While blocked, they solicited edits from another editor [76]. Again, this is of a cloth with the more recent pattern of just ignoring the Northeast Africa topic ban.
    Throughout the months, there are repeat fairly wild accusations of vandalism (often in cases where other editors are in the wrong, but not vandalising) & a fair bit of edit-warring. This is obscured from a cursory overview by Cookiemonster1618's practice—as is their right—of removing discussion of conflicts from their Talk page. If you check before each major blanking of that page, you'll find a record of edit-warring or other problematic editor interactions. I don't think that this is going to improve by just waiting 52 days. Pathawi (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not, but I'm willing to WP:AGF for now. Given this thread, I think it likely that visibility about the situation has risen. If problems arise again, we can address it then. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing a second block appeal does not instill me with much confidence that we won't see this behaviour again when unblocked. They appear to display signs of WP:OWN in the articles they're interested in. In one of the brief interactions I had with them, they demonstrated tunnel vision when they accused an anonymous editor of adding unsourced content when all said editor did was remove an extraneous ref tag; Cookiemonster1618 only apologised when prompted to (full discussion).
    ScottishFinnishRadish has already blocked them for the remainder of the topic ban, which I think is enough. If they do get unblocked early, perhaps a wider topic ban involving any article about languages or peoples (unsure if broad construal is needed) for a month is in order? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ARBPIA EC gaming?

    User:FoodforLLMs, created on 12 Oct, gnomed 500 edits followed by a launch on 13 Dec into more serious editing on pages on such as the Axis of Resistance and others related to Hamas & Israel (interspersed with ongoing minor editing elsewhere). Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I did take it upon myself to fix a lot of articles missing short description in the transport space, you can take a look at my contributions and see that I had a lot of other contributions of varying length and complexity.
    You can also take a look at my latest contributions and see many different subjects, including ones that do not relate to history, current events or the Israeli-Arab conflict FoodforLLMs (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's pretty clear WP:PGAMEing. I've revoked their extended-confirmed permission, which they may re-request at WP:PERM/EC after making 500 non-trivial edits. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If adding a short description is considered a worthless change in the eyes of the administration, then who is going to add descriptions to all these articles?
    In my mind it both helps the UX by helping users search, it's a non trivial change because it requires adding 5-6 words which need some thinking, and it aligns with WP:NNH.
    However, I accept your decision and I will re-request EC in the future FoodforLLMs (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mentioned this at the appeal thread on AN, but I should say it here as well. It's chickenshit for us to say that editing certain articles is restricted to users who have 30 days of editing and 500 edits... then when they do that (at a significant investment of time and effort) we say "Nuh uh uh that doesn't count" and become upset and offended and throw a hissy fit and accuse them of some vague malfeasance. They did what we told them to do — have an account for 30 days and make 500 edits! We can't get mad at them for failing to realize that this was a lie and there was a secret additional requirement. If we told them to do something stupid, that is our fault, and we should stop telling them that, and we should instead make a rule that says you have to apply for XC and then an administrator grants it. jp×g🗯️ 09:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A rumor that gets out of control

    OP boomerang indefinitely blocked by Cullen328. Daniel (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Introduction

    The rumors that I am out to delete everything started after I nominated user User:Greg L's page and subpage [77] for deletion as WP:FAKEARTICLE. I was too focused on the policy versus the human, it was ill-received in the discussion and I have not made any similar action in the future and have kept professionalism to a maximum since then. This subsequent rumor has gotten out of control for me, involving a network of users, which is why I am researching and uploading this post.

    I have informed the editors per the talk page notice.

    User:Greg L

    Subsequent to that, Greg L has been exclusively editing pages related to me since 10 days and makes rumor-spreading posts about me on other peoples pages like calling me "single-purpose editor" [78], with little basis in my edits. History of Greg L: [79]

    Editor MLee1957 intervenes, like he did in his previous dispute that led to creation of the fake article. Those two conflicts are the only history of edits by MLee1957. History of MLee1957: [80]

    Mess up my most recent deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative:

    • Coordinated and very similar posts in different places (contribution history has a more exhaustive list):
    • MLee1957: "A company that delivers critical electricity to thousands of customers is far more notable than some random Dairy Queen" [81]
    • Greg L: "many thousands of users is far-cry from some random Dairy Queen or “Al’s Tire-O-Rama” in nearby Belcourt on State Route 10. A utility seems reasonably notable to me" [82]
    • Greg L raises a "motion" to end the AfD early [83]. I was not even the one who started it, rather it was started by another editor after the PROD was undone by MLee1957.

    I presonally made the mistake of renominating this discussion right after it was closed as no consensus with no prejudice, due to ignorance of what "no prejudice" means exactly. The discussion was speedy-closed, again, after participation from Greg L and MLee1957.

    For the next 10 days, all of his edits except one consist in:

    Following me

    Follow me to other deletion discussions I was involved:

    Vexatious revert

    Undoes uncontroversial redirect or merge maintenance actions I performed (random changes, small, old abandoned articles which do not pass standalone notability):

    Attack posts about me on other users talk page

    Makes attack posts on other users pages to spread rumors about me without notification or evidence:

    • On A. B.'s page after I nominate user page for deletion [91].
    • On a AfD closer Liz page [92] [93]
    • Misrepresenting my maintenance activity and links to the other attack post he made above. [94]
    • Racially charged/bigoted comment "he will learn to add value to the Hindi version of Wikipedia" [95]

    User:A. B.

    User A. B. was summoned due to the page deletion and subsequently due to Greg L's rumor posts.

    States intent to go through my edits: [96], which was subsequently reverted by him.

    Reverting uncontroversial merges/redirects (random changes, small, old abandoned articles) after having found the pages in my history:

    • Center for Arkansas History and Culture [97] [98]
    • Vickery Bowles [99]

    Undoing uncontroversial PRODs I have created as a result of my involvment in them:

    • Deșteptarea (trade union) [100]
    • Shieh You-hwa [101]

    In general, I would like to note that User:A. B.'s posts about me on his talk page are really condescending. (User talk:A. B.) I would also like to note history of bigoted comments towards South Asian editors reading up on his talk page, telling someone "In particular, only add content that is unambiguously referenced by a source whose reliability will be obvious to non-South Asian, non-Muslim and non-Hindu editors. Leave no ambiguity to be exploited.". [102]

    For the record:
    I take this spurious accusation of bigotry seriously. For context, here is the entire exchange to which बिनोद थारू is referring:
    This involved a Bangladeshi IP who was being hounded by an Indian editor, Aman.kumar.goel in connection with sectarian disputes. Both turned out to be socks.
    This was a tricky situation and I tried to be as careful as possible in my comments. I think my words speak for themselves. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A. B.: No worries; the link Binod provided (repeated here), didn’t even contain the purported verbiage. Such experiences almost makes you want to become a politician in Washington, D.C., where there is a more professional, collegial atmosphere and no one twists your words out of context. Greg L (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Randykitty

    Their only encounter with me prior were disagreement over standalone notability of journals. [103] [104]

    After I got reverted, I have since then stopped redirecting or merging journals to lists and assured them of that that, [105] this user now threatened me with a ban for what vaguely is redirect as a merge.[106] This is presumably following comments left by A. B., themselves feeding off the rumors by Greg L.

    Misunderstanding

    Finally, I want to seek input to clear up misunderstandings that help fuel this rumor. The misunderstandings are around the policy WP:BLAR requiring a merge tag on the talk page (also I always make my edit comment as "redirect" instead of "merge" in those cases through the merge extension).

    Also the definition of uncontroversial which I hold to mean old, small, not stand alone notable, random articles that are not in a network.

    Conclusion

    I am making this post to help extinguish this rumor about me that I am "out to delete articles" and provide that I can help with article quality maintenance without rumors and threats looming over my head. The cases where my redirects/merges were controversial (Academic Journal), only a revert was sufficient to let me know. More generally after a AfD conversation with BeanieFan11, I have learned it is not useful touching networks of identical articles (like sports events), rather a wider discussion than AfD like RfC or project is needed. I now use the random article button exclusively to edit instead of a chain of posts, as the latter provides an incentive towards bias and misjudgment.

    I follow any suggestion of further improvement. I disagree with any punishment towards me because I have only assumed a passive and collaborative role in my editing since 10 days in spite of constant pressure. Expressions being thrown like "the community is tired of you" are inappropriate in light of 10 days of attack posts made on others talk page by Greg L and dogpiling in discussions by closely-related account MLee1957.

    For the purpose of stopping this rumor, I am seeking for:

    • A command to the editor A. B. to stop following my post history and over scrutinizing my posts.
    • A command to the editors Greg L and MLee1957 to cease all contact with me.
    • Prevent Randykitty from banning me because that decision is clouded in bias by two previous arguments about academic journal notability and dogpiles on this rumor campaign.

    - Gaurabh P, Wikipedia maintenance editor बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not reading all of that, but I'm happy for you or sorry it happened. Now could you give us the tl;dr version? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main thing is user Greg L and quasi-identical user MLee1957 only editing on my pages for 10 days straight and spreading attacks/rumors about me on others people's pages. This led to rumors that I am "out to delete" everything amplifying, and overly scrutinous reverts, ban threats from the users affected.
    Action sought as a result of this discussion:
    • A command to the editor A. B. to stop following my post history and over scrutinizing my posts as a result of rumors.
    • A command to the editors Greg L and MLee1957 to cease all contact with me.
    • Prevent Randykitty from banning me because that decision is clouded in bias by two previous arguments about academic journal notability and dogpiles on this rumor campaign.
    बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TL;DR (by someone who has fallen victim to the complainant)
    What this is about is User:बिनोद थारू (his first name translates to “Binod”) has a long history (his contributions) of being a single-purpose editor tendentiously deleting articles from Wikipedia. As for his underlying motivation, it appears to be revenge, as evidenced by this permalink of a discussion on his talk page, in response to Admin:Liz, which shows that one of his first contributions to en.Wikipedia got AfD'd: …because my article do not get reviewed or get nominated for deletion like my first one (where you took sides against me I recall).

    Since then he’s been a single-purpose editor disrupting Wikipedia by rampantly engaging in deletion of content.

    1. First he was using AfDs. After get a track record of failing on those…
    2. He resorted to PRODs, which require no discussion but are for uncontroversial deletions of content. Obviously, he met push-back on that stunt.
    3. Then he started redirecting articles, but in the process, didn’t transfer any of the material and associated citations from the redirected article to the target article. An example of this was redirecting Riding Facility, Riem to 1972_Summer_Olympics, so when readers are in the Venues section and click the link in this line item:
          • Riding Facility, Riem – equestrian (jumping individual, eventing cross-country), modern pentathlon (riding)
      …they were just taken to the top of the article they were on.
    4. He even AfD'd my own user page, talk page, and one of my sandboxes with a very scientific article I’m working on. I have zero idea how he found such obscure places since his edit history shows no interest in science. But that’s how he got on my radar screen and it was obvious that he was annoying large swaths of the wikipedian community by wikilawyering.

    In the process, numerous editors, ex-admins, and admins have gone to his talk page to try to get him to desist but he just deletes their comments (look for the negative reds) with edit comments like Remove comment from my talk page that led to a false rumor and Reverted 1 edit by GDX420 (talk): Misinformation. Both Admin:Liz and User:A. B. (and I and many others) have been trying to get Binod to change his ways to no avail.

    As for User:MLee1957 being a sockpuppet of some sort, MLee1957 responded to a request for feedback I posted on Talk:Neutron star and appears to have taken an interest in Binod’s activities, as do many others who are impacted by Binod’s behavior. A December 2023 sockpuppet investigation concluded, as regards MLee1957 and myself, that the evidence clearly indicates two people in two separate places. Binod opposes anyone who is pushing back (with the exception of Admin:Liz as Binod knows better) at his objectives.

    I’ve told Binod in AfDs that his reasoning for the AfD (lacks citations) is no justification; that’s why we have {{citation needed}} tags. Having been corralled by MLee1957, Liz, A. B., myself, and whoever else he has taken to task here, he has—for the last several days—dedicated himself to simply tagging the blazes out of articles. I can only guess that he finds that unsatisfying and wants to go back to deleting content unimpeded.

    I, for one, had no enthusiasm for initiating an ANI on all of Binod’s behavior, which is disruptive to the project, and I suspect the same goes for Liz and A. B. and the many others impacted by having their labors nominated for deletion or simply deleted. But Binod started this ANI, and I figured I’d give you the background here.

    The community needs to find a better way to put an end to disruption that doesn’t require truly absurd amounts of time to isolate ourselves from destructive editors who refuse to get the point. I’m a now-retired senior mechanical engineer; I didn’t start this ANI and I have no intention of allowing Binod dictate how I must spend my New Years Day and the several days thereafter.

    Greg L (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Your contribution history says that the only thing you have been doing 10 days straight is following me and my edits and making WP:PERSONALATTACK about me on other people's talk pages. बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It occurs to me that if User:बिनोद थारू desires not to have their contributions scrutinized by many other editors, then posting to ANI is not exactly a good way to accomplish that. Beyond the excessive deletionism you discuss, I am seeing a lot of WP:BADNAC warnings on their user talk. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what world is a resolved talk page issue (WP:BADNAC) more worthy of concern than ongoing 10 days of stalking, personal attacks, racism ([107]) and harassment campaigns? बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be a point if we took you at your word that what these editors were doing was stalking you rather than running around putting out all the fires you have started. And I see nothing obviously racist in your link. Also, for someone who wants to be known as not "out to delete everything", you sure have started a lot of deletion discussions in very recent days. Moving on from deleting all past individual Olympians to deleting whole Olympic events, now? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have quit wikipedia per Star Mississippi so this report can be closed. Thanks बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef बिनोद_थारू with a boomerang for disruptive editing which extends far beyond the behavior behind this report. I have not looked into Greg L's editing, but see no reason to at this time. Star Mississippi 21:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To enforce बिनोद थारू's decision to quit Wikipedia, I have indefinitely blocked them. If they change their mind, they can appeal, but they will need to address the serious issues that came up in this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, this search finds a large number of recent blank-and-redirect deletions by the OP. They are mostly marked as "‎Merged content to..." but in many cases no content was merged. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @David Eppstein: Is there an automated (twinkle?) way to undo all of those blank-and-redirect deletions without messing things up even more? Greg L (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Without undoing all the other edits as well? I doubt it, but the number is only in the 50-100 range, small enough to do individually with some patience. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've looked through the redirects they did and reverted the ones where it seems like there's a chance that the article they redirected is actually notable, or where the information is useful and they failed to merge it. Encourage other editors to look through as well as I may have missed some things. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I endorse the indef block per the concerns raised above. I especially am concerned about the false sockpuppet accusations that were levied by बिनोद थारू. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That SPI arose from this ANI discussion based on reasonable concerns about off-wiki canvassing, which the SPI did not rule out. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:StarFish2022 and CoI

    StarFish2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Sangram Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The biography of Sangram Singh, an Indian 'wrestler, actor, and motivational speaker' came to my attention some time back as being poorly written, poorly sourced, and unduly promotional. While I've endeavoured to rectify the worst of it, this has proven somewhat difficult, due largely to the efforts of User:StarFish2022, who has repeatedly restored such content, or added similarly-worded promotional content. Given the promotional editing, and the fact that other than an abortive effort to create an article on an investment company (which seems to have failed through lack of demonstrated notability), StarFish2022 has made no edits to any other article, I recently posted the BLP Introduction to contentious topics template on their talk page, and left a message drawing attention to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, and asked whether they had any connection with the article subject. [108]. This drew no immediate response, and since the problematic editing continued, I left another message on their talk page further advising them of relevant policies, asking them to use the article talk page rather than continued adding the contested material, and once again asking as to whether there was a conflict of interest. [109]

    StarFish2022's only response to this is to today add even more improperly-sourced and badly-written promotional content, [110], and to send me an email where they state that "the edits I am doing is said by himself to post the edits so please don't remove it." This appears to me to be a clear admission to be editing on Singh's behalf, and given the apparent refusal to acknowledge Wikipedia policy (or inability to understand it, which has functionally the same consequences), I thus ask that StarFish2022 be blocked from editing the Sangram Singh article. What further action, if any, that needs to be taken will probably depend on any explanation StarFish2022 offers as to their connection with Singh. Given StarFish2022's behaviour, the subject matter, and apparent evidence of past promotional editing (see the article talk page), it seems entirely possible that undeclared paid editing may involved, in contradiction to WMF terms of use: if this is the case, further sanctions will clearly be needed. I will of course inform StarFish2022 of this thread, and would advise them to take careful note of relevant policy before responding here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have pageblocked StarFish2022 from editing Sangram Singh. AndyTheGrump, please feel free to clean up the article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Careless use of anti-vandalism tools by Geardona

    Good-faith errors identified and acknowledged, rollback voluntarily handed back. The signature issue is/was trivia but fwiw is also resolved. Time to move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Notwithstanding a largely constructive interest in page patrol and reverting vandalism, there are a lot of sloppy judgment calls, mostly the result of haste and apparent lack of discernment--see the thread I've opened at their talk page [111]. My introduction was here [112], followed by an automated warning. Part of what's troubling is that a week later, they're defending the restoration of unsourced WP:BLP fluff [113], presumably after reading edit summaries here [114]. At any event, continuing to defend this is a red flag. Subsequent edits of interest include [115]--again, defended at their talk page with "the edit changed the name of a person with no source, is that also normal?"; entering disruptive arenas and making the wrong reversions without doing research [116]; [117]; reverting a good faith talk page self-edit [118]; kneejerk reversions of editing in progress at a draft [119] with correction [120]; restoring unsourced WP:BLP violation [121]; proper reversion of unsourced trivia [122] followed by restoration of same [123]; quick to react here, without explanation [124], [125]; again, reacting too quickly and without explanation [126], [127]; I don't know why this was reverted and the editor warned [128]; restoring unsourced WP:BLP ethnic designation [129].

    I've looked at several dozen edits out of over 2,000. At any rate, I question the granting of rollback privilege today, and more generally, the continued use of anti-vandalism tools without more evidence of awareness of the road conditions. Too many edits, too quickly and without deliberation over article history and context. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    I appreciate your feedback, and that of the community, please take into account that quick decisions can be the result of misunderstood edits. Please also take into account that many of my reverts were fine. I would appreciate comments/questions.
    Respectfully,
    Geardona (Tech Support) 22:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, here's a comment: that is a lot of bad edits. Your goal cannot be to have "many" of your reverts be fine. It must be that ALL of your reverts are sound. If you are regularly churning out bad edits, then you need to be hands off on things like rollback or tools until such time as you demonstrate that you can exercise the judgment and care for errors to be very rare. Ravenswing 22:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, my goal is perfection, but my reality is most being fine, I am aware I make mistakes, I try not to, but it does happen. Geardona (Tech Support) 22:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Geardona, if "quick decisions" are causing you to make a lot of serious errors, then the solution is to slow down, ponder the situation with more care, and make your edit only when you are highly confident that it improves the encyclopedia. This applies especially to biographies of living people where editors are obligated to get things right. Removing vast swathes of unreferenced BLP content is often a good move. By restoring that unreferenced content, you are giving your personal endorsement of the accuracy of that content, and should be adding references to the reliable sources that you used to verify that content. If you cannot verify unreferenced content, then do not restore it. Cullen328 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As we discuss this, [130], reverting an apparently valid correction, not understanding that plots aren't usually sourced, and bestowing a warning at the IP's talk page. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for the feedback, this seems to reflect consensus, I am done with rollback
    Thank all of you very much. Geardona (Tech Support) 22:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geardona, on the plus side, it's good to see that you regularly warn the editors you revert, so thanks for that. Schazjmd (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not much of a plus when the warnings are erroneous. I suggest someone other than me take some time to look over their edit history. I haven't given much attention to everything prior to December 25. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been going through their contribution history and many of the reverts are appropriate. The pace is awfully rapid though, so Geardona should definitely slow down and be more cautious. Most of the reverts are to IP edits; IPs make a lot of useful and constructive edits as well, often fixing some other editor's malicious changes, so except for obvious vandalism, it's better to check the validity of a change before undoing it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Geardona, Even while this discussion is ongoing you are continuing to make bad reverts. This revert [131] has no basis in policy, plot sections of articles do not require sources per WP:PLOTSOURCE.
    Incorrectly reverting edits is really harmful to the project - it upsets good faith editors, results in vandalism and bad edits being reinstated, and can remove useful content. You need to be getting these reverts near 100% correct. If you want to continue recent changes patrolling you should slow down and focus on reverting blatant vandalism. Before trying to revert edits based on more complex ideas (like WP:V or WP:RS) you probably need to spend some more time learning policy and how editing works (ideally by writing some article content), because it appears that you are attempting to police other people's edits without really understanding how things are supposed to be done. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, are we done with this? I don't want rollback anymore, I will go do something other than RCP. Happy?
    t Geardona (Tech Support) 23:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Geardona, your signature could give new editors the impression that you are part of a formal appointed Tech Support team. Please could you change it? NebY (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh didn't think of that sorry Geardona (Tech Support) 23:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have removed rollback per this thread and this request. They've acknowledged the feedback in requesting removal of the tool, so we might be on the way to calling this resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Geardona (Tech Support) 23:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to see this close, with one addendum: Geardona is understandably concerned for their editing status, and would like to move on to other pastures. But I see little concern for the users they've templated, or an effort to revert misbegotten warnings. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, what needs to happen, revert all of my templates, (or just nuke my contribs) at this point I’ve had enough of this and would like to put it behind me as fast as possible. Thank you, Geardona (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. You say "I’ve had enough of this" as if others are at fault. You could care less about the damage. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had enough of this ani stuff, I now want to fix it and put it behind me. Now, what do you want me to do about the templates? Geardona (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, if a user templates others unjustly, then acts like it's a real pain in the backside to take accountability, the best advice is to not do anything. Let the community draw its conclusions. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, it’s not difficult to undo them, is that what you would like me to do? Geardona (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, im back on my computer, ill get to it now. Geardona (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, think i am done with all of the edits listed here Geardona (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Special:Contributions/2600:8805:918B:9B00:3877:7BEB:5AAA:99EB

    IP (/64) blocked one week. El_C 15:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, this user is damaging the encyclopaedia. In his last two edits to the List of Italian dishes page, he has changed the Italian word "caffè" (in Italian language it's spelled with an accent) for the second time (I warned him the first time) and added a non-Italian pizza ("stromboli"; "place of origin: United States"). I propose an infinite block. JackkBrown (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @JackkBrown, after several warnings, report problems like this to WP:AIV. Also, IP addresses are not blocked "infinitely". Schazjmd (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd: done! Special:Diff/1193093115. JackkBrown (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fridrik2222 and Lades2222

    Fridrik2222 blocked as a sockpuppet, CU confirmed. Daniel (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It appears that User:Lades2222 has asked editing User:Fridrik2222 to stop editing immediately after them but User:Fridrik2222 continues to do so. I'm not sure what/if any action needs to happen here but the behavior seems odd to me. I think it may have something to do with User:Fridrik2222 wanting to obtain extended confirmed permissions per this edit. I had to warn Fridrik2222 for asking Lades2222 what their age and location was. Again, not sure if anything needs to happen here, but it appears this isn't going to stop without intervention. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please forgive me. I didn't mean to hurt anyone. Please study my edits. I didn't do anything criminal. Thank you . Fridrik2222 (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those were minor comments.
    I would appreciate it if you could forgive "Fridrik2222". Lades2222 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I am sorry if I misread the situation. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears @Fridrik2222 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Feel free to close this admins. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Spicy for the CU. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Concern for User:TheAmazingPeanuts

    Hello, I had no idea where to place this. I don’t know exactly what this falls under, and have never had a problem with a user previously.

    I absolutely hate to waste any energy on this, but somebody has to get TheAmazingPeanuts under control. A portion of his edit history is dedicated to policing what does and what doesn’t count as “a single” from full-length record releases, even when the song is very clearly receiving a sustained amount of airplay indicating that the song has been sent to radio as a single. They’ve previously admitted himself that they probably aren’t the best evaluator of this criteria, yet almost daily they continue to revert well-intentioned edits simply trying to provide information about what is being promoted from an album.

    I’ve read up on the criteria on Wikipedia that ascertains whether a song released on an album is a single or not, and I must say that it is highly outdated. AllAccess no longer provides reliable information as to what is a single and what will be released as one in the near future, which can maybe be attributed to Mediabase's recent partnership with Billboard, the magazine behind the flagship singles chart in the US. And if this website truly prides itself in presenting information of ALL branches of knowledge, maybe don’t let one person control the information that gets picked or not. Where is the community? I won’t mention the other behaviors that I noticed in the specific user because it’s simply not necessary, and that would be more of a judgement of their character behind the screen than their actions here on Wikipedia. I’ve assumed good faith previously and fell back, but the user has continued with this behavior which indicates A. they’re stubborn, B. they just haven’t taken the time to determine what defines a single in today’s industry, or C. they’re just a flat out troll, and honestly I’m leaning towards C. This whole debacle makes it very confusing for music fans to, again, keep up with what is being promoted from their favorite albums, and what is to come next. I feel the user is acting in their own self-interest and publishing what they believe is a single.

    I've tried to approach this honestly and as clearly as possible. I hope that the staff is able to understand where I’m coming from and why this frustrates me as a fan of music. And I know I am not the only one that fights for songs to be considered singles judging by the edit history on the articles with such conflict.

    Sincerely, a concerned Wikipedia user.. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any place where you or others have attempted to discuss the matter? This notice board should not be the first step in a content dispute. Zaathras (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, for me this situation originated in September with a dispute regarding what songs were considered singles on Travis Scott's Utopia album. I discussed it then and I will discuss it again, because there comes a point where it seems like the individual is going out their way to blur the lines of what a single is.
    I would rather come to someone with authority than to lead myself into a pointless edit war with another user when again, they have admitted that they do not know how to indicate what is and what isn't a single. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hits is not a reliable source; there's never been a discussion on this website. At WP:SINGLE?, it says a song that was referred to as a single by a random media outlet should not be classified as a single. I have started a discussion on the talk page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HitsDailyDouble is not a random media outlet. The Wikipedia page you provided for it quite literally states that it is (or was referred to in 1997 as) the "most successful tip sheet in the music world". SongQuarters is considered a tip sheet, and even as a defunct website is still listed as a source on various Wikipedia pages I've come across over time. I can understand not using Hits "Rumor Mill" as a source because that's all it is. Gossip. Rumors.
    All in all regardless of sources, the single criteria needs to be revamped, simple as that. Whether that is giving the OK as soon as a track reaches top 40 on a radio format or just indicating the month that it began taking off at radio as when the single was released. The way it is right now just seems extremely fickle. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, a song getting sent to radio in one random country in Europe should not be the sole indicator of whether or not it is a single. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an opinion, not a fact. There's still a need for discussion about whether the website is considered a reliable source; just because you think it's reliable doesn’t mean everybody else thinks it is. That's why we have talk pages. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this discussion should be at WP:SINGLE? instead of here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See, you're missing the point. My goal is not to impose what I think is reliable or not. I'm trying to bring about a serious open discussion about what indicates a single on Wikipedia, and why you feel so responsible to determining what isn't? 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said before, take this to WP:SINGLE? and we will discuss your concerns there instead of here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no. My concerns were placed here for a reason, and I said all I would have needed to say over there right here anyway. Will be sure to head over there if I have anything to add but as it is the inconsistencies speak for themselves. The criteria in general needs to adapt. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While this may not have originated as an intent to have a content dispute, it seems to presently be one (concern over reliable sources, etc.)—so perhaps another venue is presently in order. Remsense留 06:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern was and is with TheAmazingPeanuts continued (and mostly ineffective) vigilant behavior on this site. The single discussion was the origin of me saying something about this. He caught a case of sockaphobia with me because of the edit war brought on by the initial situation. It was bully-like behavior. I'm interested in continuing that discussion as well but I can't really just go off the cuff with it.
    He has a history of being inconsiderate and condescending. It's why he came through so quick to turn these concerns into debate. Eventually Mr. Peanut is gonna go too far and truly crash out on someone here, and when it happens, well... That's all I need to say in this talk page. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment pretty much proves that you don't want to have a discussion; you just want to be disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean I'm just being upfront. That's who I am. But if that's disruptive to you then you do you and I'll keep doing me. Sometimes you need to be disruptive when you're fighting for a cause. I'm sorry if that's something you don't have in you. Stay blessed. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) This really should have gone to a different venue like dispute resolution, because as far as I can tell it's a content dispute. The filer has not provided any diffs of questionable conduct. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tenryuu: This is an edit dispute. I suggested that the editor have a discussion here, but they refused. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that this is likely an attempt at getting retribution for you, but I doubt this is going to end the way they think it will. Not only that, but they also (intentionally?) failed to notify you of this filing; it's like they have little respect for how things work around here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ITZQing and mass changing of city names

    Nearly all edits by ITZQing (talk · contribs) consist of changing spellings e.g. names of cities in Ukraine. This has included changing Kiev to Kyiv in historical contexts despite the current consensus against this as well as changing Kievan Rus' to Kyivan Rus'. I have had to give them several warnings on their talk page about this and after this edit I gave them one last warning. I see now after this there are still issues with this despite the warnings. They said they use regex to make the edits and some of their edits such as this where they replace all instances of "Odessa" with "Odesa" include altering titles, source names and quotes. Mellk (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: They are basically involved in an edit war with consensus. This is pretty clearly NOTHERE, but a block until there is an understanding or a tban might work. While some of their edits conform to consensus, the purpose of this account seems to be to forcably overturn a clear consensus they don't agree with. I think the info on their userpage also indicates they have no intention of working within consensus.  // Timothy :: talk  06:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Their other changes are fine but they are not careful enough with this that it is causing some disruption. Mellk (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My editing is period-specific, including the years in which the character (if this is a biography) lived. But there are many pages that need to be edited, and there will be mistakes in the process, so I will not interfere with others checking me, and I also hope that the wrong edits can be fixed. Alexei (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is from ITZQing signing as Alexei. I left a warning at user talk that there must be no more changes to place names without a link to a discussion showing consensus for the change. According to the comments above (which I haven't investigated), a significant number of changes are against consensus. That would be very disruptive and is not the way Wikipedia works. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When there are pages that require heavy editing (older spellings, such as brand spellings "Ukrayinska Pravda" to "Ukrainska Pravda") where do discussions need to happen? Or ask the administrator to do it? Alexei (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The general procedure is to start at the relevant article talk page. I guess that would be Talk:Ukrainska Pravda where there could be a proposal to find all "Ukrayinska Pravda" in articles and change them to "Ukrainska Pravda", with a couple of example links to articles where that would occur. You would want to first start with Special:WhatLinksHere/Ukrayinska Pravda and propose to change those. It looks like there could be well over a thousand articles given User:ITZQing#Regex for search. In that case, a proposal at WP:VPR would be more appropriate since it would get more attention. If consensus agreed with certain changes, the next step would be to ask for assistance at WP:BOTREQ. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And, to follow on Johnuniq's comments, if you can NOT obtain consensus following a conversation, that doesn't mean to go ahead and make the edits anyway. That means to walk away from the article, and accept that consensus is against you. Ravenswing 22:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wheenkly pierre

    Wheenkly pierre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user seems to only be here to promote themselves. They have persistently tried to create an article about themselves and it was deleted multiple times and when it was EC salted they moved on to the talk page of said deleted page to continue their self promotion. They do not get the point and just will not stop. I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Seawolf35 T--C 08:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Liz blocked for 72 hours, and judging by their subsequent messages on their talk page, I don't hold out hope that an indefinite block isn't in the immediate future for this person. Daniel (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Yotrages

    Content dispute. No personal attacks on the pages linked claiming personal attacks (and no diffs provided). Cannot agree that the charge of disrupting to prove a point is obvious from the diffs provided. As this is a content dispute and no evidence of "chronic and unmanageable behavioral problems" have been provided, parties are directed to the article talk page to resolve. If they are unable to resolve between themselves, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution provides direction on content dispute resolution procedures. Daniel (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User ( @Yotrages) conduct regarding Rema (musician) . e.g. appears to refuse to be civil and consistent personal attacks [132] ,[133] as well as appears to be disruptive to soley prove a point [134], [135], [136]. Qaqaamba (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User is currently entirely deleting and altering their edits [137] , in what appears to be an attempt to Wikipedia:RUNAWAY. Qaqaamba (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All I've been doing is to make the page better, and you think I'm owning the page! I properly asked you not to add it to his article because it's already added to Toya Delazy's page, so there's no need for it to be in Rema's. Those outlets you mentioned are only from South Africa, that's why I said no one knew internationally. You reverted all of my edits and some other editors too, that's what I will call owning the page. and if you think I'm wrong look at Wizkid, Davido's article compared to his, and you'll get what I'm saying. The page doesn't also describe his career sequentially, so I make it better but you reverted it. You also said I'm rude, but you've been lessoning me all day, telling me to look at this and that, that I've seen since the day I started editing, that's really rude and it hurts me. Yotrages (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2024
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Muuse8

    Muuse8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Continued source-less editing and unexplained removals on several pages.[138][139][140][141]

    Does not respond to warnings and attempts to communicate [142][143]. Instead just continues the same [144][145][146].

    Not a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU [147][148]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor has been making significant wholesale changes, including some slow-moving revert wars for a while now, with not once editing an article talk page. Like, literally, has never edited a talk page. I have indefinitely blocked with a message that makes it clear they can request an unblock at a time when they commit, in writing, to using article talk pages to collaborate about their editing when disputed as per WP:BRD/WP:DR. Talk page message here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MEAT again

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#Suspicions of WP:MEAT. It's happening again at Yehud Medinata. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Changes made better represent the historical reality of the region at the time. Suggesting the region was named Palestine would not be historical correct since the region was only named as such by the Roman Empire in the 2nd century CE. ([149]) is WP:DUCK to a banned user. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence: Removing the name "Palestine", not the name of the region until 132 CE as Syria Palestina. Have put this page forward for a protection request due to an edit war and use of the name Palestine for polemic, rather than historical, reasons ([150]).

    And This page was edited to say "Palestine" as a political statement. The name Palestine did not apply to the region until 132CE, when it was changed by the Romans. The name of the province was Judea. This page should be locked to prevent further edits for political points ([151]).

    What has changed is using ''Palestine'' instead of "Palestine". Some editors conflate between '' and ". tgeorgescu (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP blocked as an open proxy. They only started editing when User:Ironcladded was indeffed, and are making basically identical edits except on different articles. Standard WP:RGW sockpuppetry, I'll create a case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    destructive editing

    Content dispute. This isn't a "chronic and unmanageable behavioral problem". Parties are directed to the talk page (Talk:Siege of Svetigrad) to discuss as required. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for content dispute resolution procedures. Note that OP is likely to be topic-banned from this article as per a section above ('Dismissed report regarding User:Keremmaarda') in the coming days, unless consensus significantly changes. Daniel (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On the Siege of Svetigrad page, an anonymous user resorts to a destructive edit. And he's entering the edit war. Keremmaarda (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    EW

    Content dispute. Has literally been two reverts total, so this isn't a "chronic and unmanageable behavioral problem". Neither party has posted on the article talk page (Talk:Flags of the Ottoman Empire) to discuss as required. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as required. Daniel (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User @Beshogur keeps reverting sourced content on Flags of the Ottoman Empire article, the sources in question are both viable and verifiable. I invited this user to take his time checking the sources but it's no use and he seems determined to push his POV rather than respect WP:Verifiability. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Original research, synthesis, and IDHT

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

    @SeriousHist:

    This user has been engaged in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to POVPUSH in the lead of Economy of the Song dynasty. Originally they expanded page numbers of existing sources while adding info on the statements attached, which made it seem as though the source supported the additional info, even though they did not [152]. They then engaged in an edit war with multiple users [153][154][155][156] until they accused me of sockpuppetry [157][158]. They never filed a report against me. Despite warnings about edit warring and original research [159] they have returned to significantly expand the lead specifically to prove that the Song dynasty's economy was not greater than that of Europe's [160]. Not only do the sources not support the user's additions and even contradict them, one of them is an outdated general history text on European history, while the other does not mention China or the Song dynasty at all.

    Ex. User's addition:

    According to another source; while China was a very advanced and prosperous country at that period of time with a steel production of around 100,000 tons plus urban cities with millions of people; it was not particularly superior or more dynamic than the other great civilizations in Europe or India or the Islamic World; Europe who boosted around 100 million people in the 13th century was founding its universities of Cambridge and Oxford, building its great cathedrals , proclaiming the Magna Carta , achieving great wealth with the cites of Pisa and Venise, preparing the Italian Renaissance and the discoveries of the New World plus launching the Crusades and the City of Constantinople was still the center of World Trade between East and West and the capital of the very wealthy Byzantine Empire. [161]

    The source:

    By 1300 the "rise of Europe" was an accomplished fact. The third of the three segments into which the Greco-Roman world had divided, the one which in A.D. 700 had been the most isolated and fragmented, now some 600 years later had a civilization of its own. It was still only one among the several great cultures of the world, such as the Islamic, Byzantine, Indian, and Chinese. It enjoyed no preeminence. The Chinese empire, for example, in the thirteenth century, had cities whose population reached into millions. It had an affluent merchant class, great textile manufacturers, and an iron industry that produced over 100,000 tons a year. The arts and sciences were assiduously pursued. Government was centralized and complex; it issued paper money and employed a civil service recruited by competitive examinations. Books on religious, technical, and agricultural subjects, including whole multivolume encyclopedias, were printed in enormous numbers, even though the lack of an alphabet and the thousands of Chinese characters made it difficult for literacy to become widely spread. The Venetian Marco Polo was dazzled by the China that he livedin from 1275 to 1292. A History of the Modern World to 1815 tenth edition, p. 46 (they misspelled the name)

    The book is a general history text with a particular focus on European history despite its name. The user opted to use an outdated edition (7th) that is over 30 years old. Their edits show lack of competency in grammar as well as citation style, leading to misformatted references and sentences in the current version [162].

    When challenged to provide quotations as support [163], they failed in both cases [164], offering a quotation that is not the same as the added info and no quotation at all for the second source. Besides the OR, SYNTH, and COMPETENCY issues, there is also the WP:COATRACK behavior and the content is simply not DUE in a lead. They are now accusing me of WP:OWN [165]. Qiushufang (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their response and language to warnings about OR also doesn't bode well for continued dialogue - see how they talk about "truth" and puffing themselves up:

    First thing to show you your WP:OWN" which is forbidden 🚫; you removed first my contribution which say your assumption is based on one source which is the truth ; second Palmer is a classic but I m willing to discuss it on the talk page ; but when I described Europe achievements who are facts you removed them also ; third byzantine fiscal revenue are even in Byzantine article in Wikipedia; I simply compare the two empires revenues ; finally as for the comparison with Europe it is already in the article; I showed only respect for China ; I read a lot and see a lot of documents and movies about China like kingdom or qin empire so stop and open yourself to compromise I m ready to discuss [166] - WP:OTHERSTUFF reference to Byzantine article, the comparison between Byzantium and Song dynasty is never made in the source, and references to movies about China as an appeal for compromise on OR and SYNTH.

    Qiushufang (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    After looking at some of their other edits, they aren't any better on other articles, see Pamela Joan Rogers. Continuous unsourced additions with unencyclopedic language: [167][168][169][170]. When challenged, they add sources which do not support the attached info [171]. A Google search doesn't turn up anything either. They are again reverted by others [172], and SeriousHist reverts them again [173] until people give up or don't notice and settle for fixing their shoddy prose [174]. Afterwards they went back again to add in unencyclopedic language [175][176] not supported by the sources provided. Qiushufang (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    hello from the first I asked them Talk:Economy of the Song dynasty to work together; they did not respond ; then a lot of suspicious accounts showed up .
    They removed first
    - the fact that I said they were using one source to claim the song economy was the most prosperous in the world ; they removed it also it is a fact that it is based on one source.
    - Second I used Palmer and common knowledge to show China was not particularly superior to other civilizations.
    - Three I used the Byzantine Empire Fiscal figures in 1025 ( treadgold) and compared them to Song Dynasty fiscal revenues ( Byzantine Empire revenues were higher ; my figures are not contested they are present in my source and also in the Byzantine Empire Economy in Wikipedia) ; they removed everything not even trying to reach consensus, I begged them many times to go to the talk page or to wait for the community to discuss to no avail ; I leave the decision to your wisdom. It is true I m not always very active on Wikipedia but I know when to add important information; for example on Elizabeth Tudor which is a major article I added both the establishment of British Colonies in North America and the Eastern trade company ; both were missed entirely not even mentioned.

    I believe they are behaving as they owned the article WP:OWN" .

    Also if you see their talk page it is full with conflits with other users and war edits which is not the case in my edits in general; it is only in this article that I was faced with such a problem ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qiushufang

    Anyway please be the judge and I thank you in advance; again I m ready to work with all people to make Wikipedia better. I believe in cooperation and good faith; happy new year for all SeriousHist (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_I&diff=prev&oldid=962694806 Here is my important contribution to Elizabeth One accepted by all contributors and this is my second more important contribution about the presence of British presence in the North America for the first time; imagine it was not even mentioned in the article for years https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_I&diff=prev&oldid=960889336 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousHist (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As for Pamela Rogers she is a person still living and the sources are scare ; in spite of that there is a consensus between most contributors there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pamela_Joan_Rogers&action=history

    Plus there is a consensual talk page in Pamela not like their actions in the Song Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pamela_Joan_Rogers

    Finally I have my doubts about meatpuppets accounts who surge from nowhere to support them then they almost disappeared.

    High Regards SeriousHist (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Plus there is a consensual talk page in Pamela not like their actions in the Song Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pamela_Joan_Rogers
    The only talk section involving SeriousHist is two years old and the only response to their contributions is a user stating that a source they provided does not support their claim. The same user reverted them for doing the same thing again in October 2023 [177]. All edits and reverts involving SeriousHist I provided for that page happened in recent months after the brief interaction on talk. This kind of deliberate misdirection has been typical of my experience dealing with them - changing page numbers as though they supported added material, addition of sources as though they support content when they do not, failure to provide quotations from sources that support material added, and ad hominem attacks like OWN or MEAT or SOCK when challenged. Qiushufang (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Facts are facts the difference between us is that I go to the talk page in good faith to try to resolve the issues and I never faced an issue like I faced with you ; sure I m not perfect but I m a team player which you are not ; my talk page prove it ; your talk page prove it ; in spite of all that for the 100 times I m ready to work with you on common ground if you accept to cooperate in good faith and stop WP:OWN which is for me the most disturbing aspect on Wikipedia; I had cooperation on Elizabeth Tudor and we did it unanimously; in Pamela Rogers ; an article changed by many contributors who totally rewrote or deleted my edits sometimes ;we cooperated and we were able to reach some missing information and to find consensus; same on other articles.
    So again here I m offering you my hand ; will you take it to find common ground. SeriousHist (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What "facts" are being referred to here?
    Supporting quotations were requested for the claims made here: "these numbers were relatively higher than the annual income of 500 tons of silver of the Song Empire" and "while China was a very advanced and prosperous country... it was not particularly superior or more dynamic than the other great civilizations in Europe".
    No quotations which support these claims were provided. Neither in the reversion edit summary or talk section: Many have asked why China did not generate as Europe , in these centuries the forces that led to the modern scientific and Industrial world is a completely different sentence from "while China was a very advanced and prosperous country... it was not particularly superior or more dynamic than the other great civilizations in Europe", nor does it support the rest of the additions. Nor is it related to the topic of the article, Economy of the Song dynasty. What does this have to do with the economy of the Song dynasty?
    Here you did not provide a quotation at all for the claim that these numbers were relatively higher than the annual income of 500 tons of silver of the Song Empire. I know you cannot provide a quotation because I checked the source and neither China or the Song dynasty are mentioned even once in the text. The author did not make claims or state anything about the subject of the article. This is what is called an original analysis and antithetical to how Wikipedia works per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
    An editor is not required to cooperate or compromise with another user to find common ground on baseless information created via original analysis while pretending it is not. Qiushufang (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research... This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. @SeriousHist: Do you or do you not understand what this sentence means? That other editors have not taken specific issue with your unencyclopedic language, consistent misrepresentation of sources, and addition of unsourced content is not a badge of approval. It simply means they did not care enough to deal with it beyond reverting you. Which is not even true. You have already been warned for it and reverted multiple times for the same issue. Qiushufang (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again first you reverted the fact that I put your assumption about song dynasty being the most prosperous in the world was based on one source
    - Palmer talk about China in the 13 th century which includes the Song Dynasty specifically with the economic figures
    - The revenue of song dynasty are inside the song article; I simply compared them to the revenue of the Byzantine Empire which are in my source and these numbers are common knowledge
    - Your history of conflict behavior and WP:OWN is seen in your talk page and your behavior with the song article
    - New Accounts appeared suddenly supporting you ; I suspect Meatpuppets which is a very grave situation.

    - I suggested that we go to the talk page many times ; I brought many ideas to solve this ; I even developed new perspectives but all were rejected and reversed by you.

    - Again I call on you to cooperate ; I m sure the arbitration here perhaps prefer that solution; I m not seeing it from a western perspective; I respect China Culture and I m immersing myself in it ; but facts are facts.

    High Regards and Happy New Year by the Way. SeriousHist (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is WP:IDHT or WP:COMPETENCE at this point. Enough explaining has occurred. User does not understand or is unwilling to recognize core Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:VERIFY and deflects when challenged to support their sources with quotations. Qiushufang (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case trusting in the judgment of the competent comity ; I will abide by their judgment and move on ; no need to repeat ourselves so many times.
    Thank you . SeriousHist (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to comment on the meatpuppetry etc but comparing two different sources is WP:SYNTH, you need a specific source that supports your statement.
    I also suggest that you two stop arguing as this the admins will be less likely to respond. 115.188.140.167 (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thank you ; I will take your advice. SeriousHist (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I decided to rest my case but I discovered that they removed information from Pamela Rogers article which was based on two sources and accepted by most users ; anyway I m not the owner of Pamela Rogers and I will not restore the materials which talk about the disparity in sentences between men and women predators; I believe this show the difference in behavior and thinking between us ; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pamela_Joan_Rogers&diff=prev&oldid=1193280117

    Thank you all and sorry for the bothering . SeriousHist (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tagishsimon incivility at teahouse and unresponsiveness on talk page

     – Bringing this out of the archives. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Mattdaviesfsic sawyer * he/they * talk 01:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DENY.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yes that's a fair point. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Their diagnosis of your article appears to be entirely correct. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Tagishsimon - section break

    I am bringing this out of the archives as Tagishsimon has started editing on the Teahouse again after Valereee had gone on their user talk page and asked them not to. It gives the unfortunate appearance of Tagishsimon patiently waiting for the discussion to be archived before continuing with whatever they want to do. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Earlier I decided I wouldn't get too involved in this, but having seen the above discussion and Tagishsimon's subsequent activity, I'm concerned. He never responded, either on his talk page or on here directly, which tracks with his long, consistent pattern of completely ignoring other editors' feedback on his behavior. As Tenryuu stated, he seemingly waited until this discussion was archived and continued on the Teahouse like nothing happened, despite Valereee asking him to take a break from hosting. His attitude has not changed either, looking at this comment on the Teahouse made ~6 hours after Valereee's comment on his talk page. Seems like a textbook case of flying under the radar. sawyer * he/they * talk 03:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested Tagishsimon's participation in this section here, and respectfully recommended that they do so prior to continuing to reply to topics at the Teahouse. (Copy of talk page message) Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well since I was up above saying this didn’t look so bad: that post is again substantively correct, but making it was a dumb and inappropriate response to the situation, and going back to TH at all was a very bad idea. I would support a partial block. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of the same lines, but I was going to wait for a response from Tagishsimon before taking action. I'm disappointed by this, as Simon has been very helpful to me in the past in working on articles, but WP:BITE is still an active guideline. As others have said, if you're getting angry at vandals and spammers, the problem is at your end. Either they're good faith but misguided, or they're bad faith and enjoy watching you taking their bait. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention, even if some are acting in bad faith, which I don't believe is the case for the most part, they are human beings and we have ways to deal with bad faith activity that do not end in a positive contributor to this community and encyclopedia being brought before AN/I. It also does not leave the misguided wondering why they asked anything at the Teahouse and reluctant to ask any more questions they may have. It's bad for the Teahouse and bad for the encyclopedia/community. And worse still, all of the biting, snide and unhelpful comments are not necessary. Most hosts and other editors handle questions quite well and civilly. --ARoseWolf 13:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    valereee tbanned pblocked them from the teahouse a few hours ago
    it seems tagishsimon's comments around the teahouse (and specifically only the teahouse, their contribs in other talk pages have been either templates or not actually uncivil), have been a bit bitier than before, which is a shame, because i believe the answers were correct
    i think this situation can be very easily amended if they just say anything here or in their talk page, but until then, i support keeping the tban cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is certainly not the case that Tagishsimon is only uncivil at the Teahouse. He has been incredibly rude to me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red on numerous occasions, despite other editors reprimanding him. I can't be bothered to dig out the diffs, but they are much worse than any of the links I've followed above. I think he just can't help himself. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    my bad, i was only looking at the most recent examples (as in the ones from after this thread was opened), so consider that support... not actually changed in any way, because this mostly means they have more things to explain
    i'm assuming you're referring to this, by the way. i'm really not sure what that was about, and i joke about engvar more often than i probably should cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile you have been uniformly civil to Tagishsimon, I'm sure. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And definitely no one has ever reprimanded you for your behavior at WiR, either. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oooooh, I wonder who you are! A remarkably partial selection, which doesn't really make your point. Interesting talk page you have. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow it's a good thing you linked my talk-page, otherwise people would have trouble finding it. As far as I know I've never interacted with you before, I just read AN/ANI for a perverse kind of entertainment. Following your comment, I browsed ten sections of the WT:WiR archives for posts by Tagishsimon. They were overwhelmingly polite and constructive in those archives, including several hundred comments. You, on the other hand, post much less there, but in my browsing I found two instances of you being a dick, in ways that specifically indicate the hypocrisy of your complaint here. Please don't be a hypocritical dick. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you stop. We're only keeping this open waiting for TS to come in. No other commentary is needed, and snarky remarks are particularly unhelpful. Valereee (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd better prepare for a long wait then. Valereee, whatever happened to WP:NPA? Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It'll archive again, I'd assume. Sorry, not sure what you're asking about NPA? Valereee (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I forecast Tagishsimon will resume making edits again once this gets archived, with a 10% chance of appealing/complaining the pblock. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that will be less of a problem now that the pblock is in place to prevent them from returning to the Teahouse, but still the refusal to engage here indicates a lack of respect for the concerns of fellow editors. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: Ok, apologies. If you think it would be better, please feel free to remove my previous comment. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nit...valereee pblocked (technical prohibition) not tbanned (requires manual enforcement). DMacks (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Call for help: Removal of Sock puppet misinformation and POV-pushing edits

    OP blocked as a sock. Daniel (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Milktaco, an infamous sockpuppeteer, wrote two sections called “Repression of Chams,” and “Ethnic Minorities” in the Human Rights in Vietnam page. It’s been there since 2014.

    Evidence of Milktaco writing them:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Vietnam&diff=prev&oldid=612402516

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Vietnam&diff=next&oldid=612402516

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Vietnam&diff=next&oldid=612402612

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Vietnam&diff=next&oldid=624221294

    Could someone please remove these two sections? After that, the title "rights of specific groups" should be removed too, since there is no need to have that pluralised title anymore.

    Please read this Talk page to understand Milktaco's awful behaviour. It has been called out before: Talk:Racism_in_Vietnam

    Doyenstand (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question - are you related to Belugajdm, by chance? Daniel (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI alert? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, it's a sock. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Malicious reverter

    Hi, I need help with an individual with a static IP continuously reverting edits without taking part in the discussion, after I and another wikipedian tried to reason with the guy. Article talk page: Talk: 2024 South African general election User: User:165.73.64.6 Janneman27 (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of what else is happening here: your editing their page to personally attack them is completely unacceptable. There is never a reason to do that. Remsense留 09:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, I agree and am sincerely sorry for doing so. I will revert that edit. Janneman27 (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This case is closed for now. An admin helped with the situation. Thank you so much to all those who helped and assisted. Janneman27 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GriffithsTorturer

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

    A new contributor, continuing to add unsourced WP:OR 'motives' to multiple articles on school shootings, [178][179][180] after being informed of policy on their talk page. The comments there clearly suggest WP:NOTHERE applies. Not keen on the username, either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While it would behoove me to watch all of Berserk to figure out whether this is an extremely fucked-up reference or just a normally fucked-up reference, it really does not seem like this person is here to write an encyclopedia. Strange rubbernecking, random OR speculation, and the diffs you linked (including all of the random unsourced accusations about BLPs and BDPs). On their own, any of these edits might be eccentric and a little concerning, but when combined they seem to pretty obviously reflect a fixation on mass murder and on editing about such in a way that runs contrary to the purpose of the project. I'm blocking as WP:NOTHERE and am fine with anyone reviewing my action. jp×g🗯️ 10:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this post from the user's talk page (emphasis mine):
    My friend, I am reliable sourcing. If you my problems persist, then a respective higher up may ban me. Otherwise, I will be honest in stating I have a level of apathy and boredom on the topic, and cannot promise to provide any “reliable” sources any time in the future. Postulation is indeed the base of all information and conceptual standpoints, and considering the extensive research I have done on mass murder, I’d personally argue—while understanding that this is not statistically or reasonably acceptable to expect others to accept—that I am one of the best researchers of this topic in the world, even more so than some first hand articles. I have as much knowledge on mass shootings and other terror attacks to surpass Adam Lanza himself in some people’s view if they knew what I knew, but my extensive arrogance and pontification is sure to be agitating and almost perceived as purposefully arrogant, so at the end of the day, I would simply ask you to be a little more patient, ban me if I get too annoying for you, and most of all, grasp that this is Wikipedia, and not the reliable sourcing you are looking for as inspiration. If someone is doing actual research on a topic, they will go to more places than the English Wikipedia. Sorry if I have not followed the guidelines that I did not look at up to this point for a reason mentioned prior in this paragraph that I do not intend to proof read. I have enough problems in my own life without worrying about the policies of this website. (And no the motive I added—at least the first part—was not garbage; he wasn’t very bright or complicated. If you knew yourself and could replace said motive with something better, then please enlighten me. Because I’m not too sure where your criticism is coming from at least on that point. Ban me whenever you feel the need). GriffithsTorturer (talk) 12:42 am, Today (UTC−8)
    Well, shit on that dumbness. jp×g🗯️ 10:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one bizarre tirade there. ——Serial 11:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-RFA "bad hand" sock?

    Flinction indef blocked as a sock. --Lenticel (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    "Are there any sleepers?"


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

    They only had 2 edits and both involved sending messages to failed RfA candidates, saying "you won’t have any power / community does not trust you". Seems like a "bad hand" sock? I'm not sure if it'd be appropiate to report such cases to SPI since there's only one account or if it would be fishing.--94rain Talk 10:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't really matter whether it is a sock or not. The editor should be blocked for personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Christ, what a person who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Indeffed. If we want to leave this section open for a little longer, it might be condign (this is probably someone, the question is whether it's an established editor or some random LTA). jp×g🗯️ 10:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can ask your favourite checkuser (paging Drmies) to see if there are any sleepers. Otherwise, I think we're done here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Had to look up 'condign', not gonna lie. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated creation of promotional article

    User:RonakJK, despite having a declared conflict of interest with the company, repeatedly creates the obviously promotional article Ethans Tech/Ethan's Tech. The article (under both spellings) has already been speedy deleted many times under G11 and has been flagged for it again. While the user has been informed of the rules to follow under a COI and has declared it on their userpage, they keep recreating the promotional article directly in article space, according to their edit summary with the Permission of the organization. What should be done to prevent further spam? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 11:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also Draft:Ethan's Tech Solutions LLP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've salted the two article titles mentioned above, and I'll have a word with RonakJK now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me the obvious choice of action is to give a final warning and block if they try and do it again. Usually an indef block for WP:NOTHERE would be best, but this editor seems to have at least tried to improve Wikipedia, unlike most of the run-of-the-mill promoters. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Birotron, redux

    The WP:OWNership and problematic editing at Birotron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), mentioned not too long ago in this thread, has carried on after I rewrote it from scratch, with the same IP-hopping chap continuing to add unreferenced content (eg: [181]) Somebody in the previous thread suggested permanent semi-protection; is that still a viable option? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indef not viable yet as this is the page's 1st protection. El_C 15:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pssst! Ritchie333! This may help sort out the Complex 7 versus Birotronics dispute:

      Hidden away in the back streets of High Wycombe are the headquarters of Complex 7, a very new company designed to provide all the necessary services for the aspiring professional musician. […]

      Perhaps in time the most well-known section of the Complex 7 network will be Birotronics, the company that manufactures and markets the Birotron, a new keyboard instrument which was first developed in the U.S. by a keyboard player called Dave Biro.

      — "Complex Seven". Beat Instrumental Magazine. No. 152. January 1976. pp. 62–63.
      Given that it is being quoted almost half a century later when everyone has entirely forgotten Complex 7, because of Wikipedia disruption by someone who cannot cite sources to save xyr own life it seems, this very article seems to be making its own prediction come true. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think the presence of Complex 7 is too much of an issue now, LowSelfEstidle added a source for that. Indeed, LSE is another editor who's had their well-sourced edits reverted by this collection of IPs, who go on to add unsourced content like:

    In 1980 the instrument was subsequently redeveloped again as the Birotron Polyvox in the United States by Rudkin-Wiley (a subsidiary of Air Shield and Pepperidge Farm Foods under Campbells Soup Company but by 1982 the decision was made to abandon production of a half built prototype with demonstration cartridge sounds due to the Early 1980's recession.

    Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor revenge-reverting blocking admin?

    IP address 81.102.123.104 appears to be revenge-reverting Bbb23's edits [182] [183] [184], apparently accusing them of being WP:BKFIP. This after Bbb23 blocked the IP address 149.86.189.197 for being BKFIP. Does this call for a block? Or should this new IP address be checkusered? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP blocked for silly nonsense. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reywas92

    The incident mainly concerns my replacement of the Airlines and Destinations list in the Harry Reid International Airport article with a summary of the airport's operations. I did so per this RFC. Other people said on the talk page that they opposed my edit, including Reywas92, but the editor did not explain why. I ultimately requested dispute resolution a few weeks ago. I invited Reywas92 to participate, but they did not take part beyond providing a summary of the dispute. In accordance with the dispute closure, I removed the list again. Reywas92 then reverted my edit. They added 24 sources to the table; however, 22 of them are WP:PRIMARYNEWS or blogs. Since Reywas92 did not participate in the discussion portion of dispute resolution, I do not know if they do not recognize the need for secondary sources to demonstrate the list meets WP:DUE (per the RFC), or if this is a case of WP:IDHT.

    Reywas92 also reverted my removal of the Statistics section of the article, which I had explained in my edit summary.

    Though editors are not required to participate at WP:DRN, it is my view that Reywas92 has displayed a preference for reverting rather than discussion. This has made it difficult to make edits to the article that I believe abide by the RFC consensus and Wikipedia policy. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I did participate at DRN, I am not obligated to respond to every comment. I did respond at the talk page. Regarding the statistics tables you are unilaterally removing, these are standard across airport articles as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content and perfectly appropriate to include. You have never brought up a valid reason to remove on the talk page, so my revert yesterday with an edit summary that you requested is appropriate, so now it is your job to make the case on the talk page. This one revert is no basis to come here. Regarding the destination tables, I added perfectly appropriate sources, including local news, regional news, and industry news. These are in fact secondary sources. You are simply moving the goalposts and discounting what you just don't like to institute your own goal of removal of information from the article. I did post on the talk page regarding my edit, so why are you coming here instead of actually responding to me there regarding your concerns about the dozens of sources I added? Reywas92Talk 03:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned your reversion of my removal of the statistics tables because I believe it is part of a pattern of disruptive behavior, as outlined in my initial comment.

    Please review WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:SECONDARY. (Links to one or both of these pages were previously provided above, on the article talk page, in the RFC closing summary, and at DRN.) I also recommend you read WhatamIdoing's comment in the RFC that starts with I think you will want to read. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Many of the sources you have used are primary when the consensus is that they need to be secondary, see the close of the recent RFC[185]. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Resources#Common sources to avoid in regard to Simplyflying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sunnya343, I disagree that Reywas92 is engaged in DISRUPTIVE editing worthy of any sanction. See the note at the top of this page: there is not a "chronic and unmanageable behavioral problem" that needs attention at WP:ANI. It's clear that Reywas92 disagrees with your edits and has reverted them. It's also clear that in the recent past, other editors have disagreed with your edits at that same article and also reverted them. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right that multiple editors disagreed with my edit, and I invited all of them to participate at DRN. None besides you took part in the discussion portion of dispute resolution. True, they were not required to do so. However, when one of the editors, Reywas92, does not participate in the discussion and, after the dispute is closed, proceeds to revert my edit, where else am I supposed to go for assistance? Sunnya343 (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    This is a repost from my previous message, which got archived, since problems persist. GuardianH (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguably just this message alone deserves a block of some length. Then there's the blatant canvassing. Summerdays1 clearly deserves some form of block. On the other hand, I am sceptical of the WP:HOUNDING claims. The supposed WP:BOOSTER material that Summerdays1 re-added doesn't seem to actually be booster material at all. The claim, The institution has been ranked 200–300 in the world as one of the best universities, doesn't appear to be BOOSTER. Bar the first sentence in the Yale edit, the content appears to be acceptable. The rest of the edits listed as supposed hounding all seem to be good-faith minor edits that generally make sense. Unless I'm missing something obvious, GuardianH's edits seem to be plain bad faith. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RocketKnightX

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

    I think this editor's contribs need to be looked into. I think they are trying of push their POV by removing information related to Armenia and Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. These are from January 1 and 2, but this has been going on prior to this. I included only diffs from before this editor received a CTopics notice 31 December 2023.

    Making controversial moves and marking as minor edits:

    CTopics notice from 31 December 2023 (prior to the above) [204]

    Recent warnings on talk page, User talk:RocketKnightX#January 2024 regarding changing the names of places without consensus.

    Contribs before January 1 show the same pattern. I think the significant number of reverted edits shows there is a problem.  // Timothy :: talk  08:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think something needs to be done. For example, they have tried to move Stepanakert to some form of Khankendi three times, despite it having had an RM close as "no consensus" on 3 December 2023:
    1. 08:15, 1 January 2024
    2. 20:34, 1 January 2024
    3. 11:43, 4 January 2024
    The third attempt took place both after I warned them and after Timothy opened this ANI thread. Other articles where they have made a repeat attempt to move after this ANI thread was opened include:
    1. Stepanakert Memorial → Victory Monument (Khankendi)
    2. Martuni, Nagorno-Karabakh → Khojavend, Nagorno-Karabakh
    3. Artsakh University → Garabagh University
    I'm not sure what the appropriate long-term response is yet, but given they have continued this behavior rather than respond to this ANI thread I think an article-space block would be appropriate to compel them to stop and respond. BilledMammal (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A few minutes after I made this comment they attempted to move Stepanakert for the second time since this ANI thread was opened, and the fourth time overall. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think it is a suspect that Death Editor 2 was blocked on 11:05, 31 December 2023 (see open ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Death Editor 2 and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (again)) and RocketKnightX started editing this area with very similar POV, two hours later at 13:19 31 December 2023. Looking at their contributions, the switch in topics, and the timing, I think this may merit much closer inspection, I'm not an expert in this area, but someone who is should eval this and see if there is an issue.  // Timothy :: talk  12:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve also noticed recent disruptive behavior from this user, combined with a lack of communication. I can’t say how long it’s been going on since I had not been in the topic area for a few months prior to the past week or two, but this user seems to be everywhere at once, leading to not all their edits being noticed and promptly contested/reverted.
    WP is built on discussion and consensus. Marching in blithely and continuing to push POV despite warnings needs to be dealt with accordingly.
    Their flouting of CT and other policies and guidelines should merit a block. Just since this thread was created, they have made over a dozen edits to the topic area, including unilateral page moves. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I too have seen unhelpful edits from this user. They still continue to make unneeded moves and removal of anything Armenian from relevant pages. Nintentoad125 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a minor point, and I'm not opining about the moves themselves, but all page moves are marked as minor. For whatever reason, this isn't documented in editor-facing docs. (See Wikipedia talk:Moving a page/Archive 2 § Straw poll on allowing users to mark page moves as major edits for example.) (Non-administrator comment) Skynxnex (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass disruptive page creations by IP-hopper

    Hi, I have no idea how deal with these IP ranges, so I’m posting here for assistance. An IP-hopping user is mass creating user talk pages of the IP they’re using, switching IPs, and doing it over and over again. Please see my logged actions for reference. I don’t know how to combat this, so any assistance would be appreciated. ✗plicit 09:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've temp blocked the following range, which appears to be where the disruption is coming from: 2409:408C:8000:0:0:0:0:0/34. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 09:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I never quite got the grasp of blocking IP ranges, but it looks like it took care of that. Thanks you for that. ✗plicit 10:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Aggressive attacks for starting a discussion on an article's talk page | Removal of template

    The user @Fostera12 has made aggressive comments on my talk page and accused me of wasting others time on Wikipedia for opening a discussion on an article's talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThewikizoomer&diff=1193381212&oldid=1191622447

    They made such personal attack possibly due to this discussion opened by me on Vyooham (2024 film) talk page on moving the article to Vyuham (2024 film).

    They also said that I did "vandalism" and they happened to revert that "vandalism" which are personal attacks against me.

    Ironically they were the ones who did what's called vandalism by aggressively removing the move discussion template like they did here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vyooham_%282024_film%29&diff=1193380661&oldid=1193182391

    A bot happened to identify that and reverted their edits and yet again they did the same (removing template) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vyooham_%282024_film%29&diff=1193523545&oldid=1193381656

    Post which they happened to post this message on my talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThewikizoomer&diff=1193381212&oldid=1191622447

    They chose to resort to personal attack because a bot undid their revision and they don't agree with a discussion that's posted on an article's talk page? How uncivil of that.

    Requesting administrators to take action on @Fostera12 for making personal attacks on me, removing move discussion templates and erasing move section on article's talk page. Also how incompetent can an editor be to be calling someone of being abusive for opening a move discussion. - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AVyooham_%282024_film%29&diff=1193381125&oldid=1193180080 Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They said in my talk page that If I'm new to Wikipedia, I should go play around instead, funny thing is they are newer to Wikipedia that I am - Special:Contributions/Fostera12, Special:Contributions/Thewikizoomer
    How can someone remove a discussion template not 1 but 2 times when the template explicitly asks editors to not remove that. Not that I discourage and make attacks against editors on Wikipedia but that explains who's "new" here I guess. WP:NOTHERE applies too. Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When it is Vyooham and you bluff that it is Vyuham in imdb and film poster. This is not personal attack. Misleading wikipedia and putting notification boards just because you created the article as Vyuham is not good practice. And yes it is waste of time for busy editors to review silly things such as these. And putting silly issues in admin noticeboard is another time waste. Thanks Fostera12 (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let the silly thing be taken care by administrators anyways.
    Could you please explain the bluffing part? When did I mention that it's Vyuham in imdb and film poster. I literally said except IMDb, no other source uses Vyuham as the title's spelling. You appear to be not understanding what I said again and resorting to personal attack again on Administrators noticeboard page, it also again displays the uncivil nature that is not expected of an editor here on Wikipedia. Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its Vyooham and not Vyuham. Period Fostera12 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with the title name being Vyooham as per sources, also you failed to explain the bluffing part, so the discussion may be continued at the talk page of Vyooham (2024 film) regarding the title.
    The Administrators' will have look into the issue posted here about the behaviour. Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a joke? They make personal attacks and not expect the warning template on their talk page?
    Just to bring to the notice of administrators, this editor makes personal attacks on me and then proceed to ask me to not "message them" on my talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewikizoomer&diff=prev&oldid=1193553098 Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fostera12 I suggest that you take a walk in the park/have a sip of coffee or tea/do something else that you like and come back to this after you have calmed down and reflect what you have written on @Thewikizoomer's talk page. Would you appreciate such messages if someone going to your talk page with similar messages on what you think is right? This request was originally requested at WP:RM/TR by Thewikizoomer, but it seems that they have decided to open a discussion instead before any pagemovers or admins assessed the request. If you have any concerns on the requested move, add your comments/thoughts in that discussion in a civil manner. – robertsky (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet block evasion

    Resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It appears that User:HetmanWL who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Urabura by administrator Bbb23 is evading the block using IP User:2A00:F41:4C9F:BB52:3577:15DF:312E:6096, as evident here:[205] and [206], and continuing to post comments on the Talk:Poland and Talk:Romania pages. E-960 (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a range block will be required, as the individual will likely continue to evade. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The /64 has now been range-blocked by User:Favonian. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Picanha

    Content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I can't understand the reasoning behind the prohibition of a section called Nutrition and health in the article Picanha. Is this prohibition following procedure? Thanks in advance. A. Landmesser (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @A. Landmesser, that is something to discuss at Talk:Picanha, it's not an issue for administrator action. Schazjmd (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Heymynameiswhat personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE

    User:Heymynameiswhat indef blocked with TPA removed per WP:NOTHERE --Lenticel (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Please see this comment. This was their response to my notice to them about edit-warring and civility ([207]), which I left after seeing this edit summary and these responses to another editor on their talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef with TPA removed. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 17:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent copyvios by RandomRatplay

    User:RandomRatplay indef blocked per WP:COPYVIO --Lenticel (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've had to spend a considerable amount of time cleaning up copyvios added by RandomRatplay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back in December. Examples of the copyvio include: [208] which is copied from this Eartharchives article, [209] which was copied from this blog post [210] which was copied from this page on the PictureInsect website [211] which was copied from this Encyclopaedia Britannica article and [212] which was copied from The US Fish and Wildlife services website. After I warned them about Wikipedia and copyright [213] yesterday they again added a copyvio [214] this time from a page on fossilmuseum.net. A lot of their editing is otherwise incompetent, for example, adding blatantly erroneous links [215]. Given that they have so far not communicated, I would support indefinitely blocking them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocked, per WP:COPYVIO. Cullen328 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    uncommunicative editor racking up reverts

    Would someone pblock User:Andriyiw from mainspace (with as much kindness as you can, please)? As you can see from their contributions, almost all of their edits have been reverted, and they've only ever edited mainspace, usually with no edit summary. Among other things, they've undone a redirect at Battle of Mospyne three times, with no explanation ever given, even in edit summaries, despite reverts, a ping on that article's talk page, and a note on their user talk page. They're editing from mobile so I assume this is a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Hoping a block will help them find their talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And what is this edit summary in response to an edit by User:Olek Novy, supposed to mean? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, if a block is the only way to get the editor's attention. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry User:CollegeMeltdown?

    I would like to inquire about the following case and ask the community for thoughts on whether it constitutes sockpuppetry: user:CollegeMeltdown, via an account named user:Collegemeltdown2, has been engaging in provocative discussions for quite a while now as in, for example, the talk page of Harvard University. While there doesn't seem to be an obvious concealment ("Master" account is CollegeMeltdown and second account is Collegemeltdown2), I still wonder if this nevertheless constitutes sockpuppetry because WP:SOCK also states it is "improper to use multiple accounts to... disrupt discussions" and that "creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions" may be seen as sockpuppetry. In my impression, there is no other rational and plausible explanation that this user uses a second account to engage in those provocative discussions than that he tries to protect his main account from sanctions should he go too far with his provocations. Eventually, CollegeMeltdown should perhaps also provide a rational and plausible explanation as to why he uses two accounts. However, should the conclusion be that this does not constitute sockpuppetry or block evasion of some sort, I think the broader question that would need be looked at is whether an editor who engages in such a dodgy behavior and constant rants (or "crusading") against specific topics on Wikipedia (in this case private schools), whether such an editor can actually contribute credibly and neutrally to corresponding wiki articles.213.55.224.53 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You are supposed to notify the editors. I have done it for you (I notified both because they don't appear to be linked). M.Bitton (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From a procedural standpoint, this isn't socking. CollegeMeltdown's last edit was 26 February 2023, and Collegemeltdown2's first edit was on 28 March 2023, so there's no overlap; the use of accounts here isn't abusive. It's very common for someone to create a new account with "2" appended when they have forgotten their password, as I suspect is the case here (and this scenario is listed as a valid use of multiple accounts), although the link between the two accounts should be made clear. I haven't looked at the substance of their edits, so I have no idea if there's something actionable here beyond the socking allegations. Giraffer (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I forgot my password. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior

    Over the past few months, I've observed a concerning pattern of behavior by Horse Eye's Back ("HEB", formerly Horse Eye Jack) that is characterized by vicious battlegrounding through unnecessarily personalized and deliberately aggressive comments. These issues have been observed and called to HEB's attention at least as far back as 2020, and they have not stopped.

    I'd like to ask the community to issue a formal admonishment or other action, as you all deem appropriate.

    Here's the history:

    • In May 2020, Atsme said that "Horse Eye Jack does demonstrate tendencies to bait users and extend discussions beyond where they should go. I think an admin warning would go a long way in helping to get this editor back on track." In June 2020, HEB was blocked by Floquenbeam for "repeated feuding" with a now-blocked editor, with behavior that included "following each other to articles to revert the other, and near constant bickering and templating and insults and harassment."
    • In 2021, HEB was told by El_C at ANI that "Horse Eye's Back, you need to take a step back, maybe two. [...] It is combative. It is adversarial. It turns the discussion into a battleground, so you need to start reigning it in better. There's no other way."

    In 2023 and 2024, Horse Eye's Back has continued practicing battleground behavior. In recent months, they have done the following:

    • After tagging a swath of articles written by TCN7JM, HEB told them that "I clearly said we had a lot of low quality content from unskilled writers and researchers. You are now complaining about those low quality articles from unskilled writers and researchers being tagged." (i.e. HEB is calling TCN7JM unskilled; August 2023)
    • Told James500 that their comment was a "Good reminder to never let you write a notability guideline. There's common sense on one side here, but its not with you." (September 2023)
    • Called Rschen7754 "a leader of the extremist wing" of WP:ROADS editors. (October 2023)
    • Told BeanieFan11 that they "appreciate how proudly ignorant you are of that though". (December 2023)
    • Went after Simon Harley for a lightly critical blog post about Wikipedia, and then accused Simon of holding a conflict of interest because of edits made about their secondary school 15+ years ago. (Yesterday)

    Last October, HEB told LilianaUwU and Drmies that they would take their feedback about personal attacks "to heart". But I believe that the above evidence, plus a number of fruitless recent attempts to bring concerns to HEB's attention, demonstrate that they will not alter their behavior without formal action. Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Seconded (not independent, as I participated in the discussion on listed buildings noted above, and we've been on opposite sides in a number of AfDs). The critique of Simon Harley is startlingly inappropriate. I'd add that "I appreciate the personal feedback and will take it to heart, do you have any comment on my argument?" reads as aggressive to me, rather than a promise to behave more collegiately in future. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO it reads as frustrated but trying to do my best to stay on track content wise. I can definitely see how it would read as aggressive though. I would note that in the same way my worst edits have been cherrypicked you could also cherry pick collegiality, for example from this very discussion before it blew up "Despite being in an argument with Ed on another page I heartily Agee with them here..."[216] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a now-blocked editor, thats a LTA who was blocked years before I ever interacted with them. I did not attack Harley for a blog post, I pointed out they had gotten our policy/guideline wrong and that the restriction they thought existed actually didn't... We are in fact allowed to use sources which are publicly accessible but not online. I would note that The ed17 has omitted the key context here... They end at Harley, but they only brought this to ANI after this happened [217][218]. I find it baffling that the most important context was omitted from the report. Also just a note I currently have a LTA stalker undoing my contribs en-masse so if my comment disappears its almost certainly them and not a participant in this thread good hand-bad handing, I apologize in advance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, screw the LTAs that decide to revert people for no reason. That's a fair complaint, and may be worth a separate discussion. On the subject of this discussion, though, while there are tons of articles that leave a lot to be desired, I feel like you've been going way too far in the direction that all articles better be fixed right now, which includes the battleground behavior you've exhibited. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean I gave them a reason... I kept opening SPI... Its a poor excuse but I wasn't in a good head space yesterday on account of the LTA. It must have been more than 100 reverts in 24 hours, maybe much more than that (most were repeats and dealt with by other editors who I am forever grateful to). If I may thats never been my editing philosophy, I believe in tagging *right now* but fixing over years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thirded. (Like user Espresso Addict, I am not independent of the situation; I have not participated in the linked discussions, but have interacted with Horse Eye's Back in other talk pages). I have also seen HEB's unnecessarily personalized and aggressive behavior toward editors. Late 2022 they received a warning at this noticeboard for aggressive and inaccurate accusations of COI against an appropriately disclosed paid Wikipedian-in-residence. Over the past month or so, HEB has turned attention to similarly disruptive cross-posting that has involved attempts (1) (2) to make public claims about another the personal information of another user (myself), including expressing belief that I should have "zero expectation of privacy" (this fits the pattern of making disagreements personal, about a user's identity, rather than about the substance of edits or content on Wikipedia); and more inaccurate accusations of COI. Of the inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation, User:DJ Cane said that HEB was "operating on a very liberal reading of WP:COI" and that HEB's "zeal in confronting opinions opposing your own in this discussion is both non-constructive and alarming, and I agree with the discussion provided by @P-Makoto that your cross-discussion comments targeting specific editors is concerning and possibly worth an outside review on its own". Based on this widespread pattern of aggressive, battlegrounding behavior, I support the proposal to issue formal action. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not wish to devote too much energy to this. I was not the kindest person in the world during these discussions and have since moved on to building the new AARoads Wiki and generally doing other stuff with my life. However I was pinged in the initial post, and the reason I was not kind in these discussions is because I feel so strongly about this, so I'll say this much: this is long overdue. The listed jab at me was especially out-of-pocket because my initial diatribe in that RFC did not mention or even name HEB, but not long after it was posted, he found it within himself to go back and tag a buttload of articles I had written and contributed to a decade ago. Just deeply petty and mean to the point that it could not be construed as anything other than a personal attack. It also feels worth mentioning that relentless sealioning is another card in HEB's deck, so if he starts ignoring the crux of your argument to keep asking for more proof/diffs, just know it's a pattern. I decline to answer any questions or comment further on this matter. Good luck. TCN7JM 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    COI clarification

    • On the user talk page @Parsecboy: said "On what planet does having attended a school constitute a WP:COI? Let me be clear: it doesn't."[219] with @The Land: saying "Hello Horse Eye's Back. Like Parsecboy, I can't imagine circumstances where regular, non-controversial editing pages on a school one attended would be a COI requiring declaration."[220] and I just wanted to check whether that was true... Thats not how I've seen COI applied in practice and it certainly clashed directly with what WP:COI says but if Parsecboy and The Land are *right* I am definitely the asshole here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My intuition just from reading WP:COI is that making edits about a school that you are attending is probably a COI, but not a school you attended. I would guess that most edits about otherwise obscure high schools are from people who attended those high schools. Loki (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The context here includes both edits while attending and edits after attending. I agree with you vis-a-vis obscure high schools but I'm not sure that its ok just because a lot of people do/have done it. For me the biggest aspect is self promotion... Lionizing anything which is on your resume is effectively self promotion, but the seriousness of education COI goes in descending order from post-doc lab to pre-school. IMO high school is about the cutoff for where I'm worried about it. We all know the first thing recruiters do when they see a school on a resume is look it up on google... Which takes them straight to wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      HEB, this ANI has been opened about your behavior, and I'm concerned you created this section to distract/deflect from that. If you want a clarification about our COI policies, WP:COIN is available. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP vandal

    It's been ages since I've had to do any vandal fighting. Think someone can look at this and see if anything further needs done? Special:Contributions/189.238.134.151. I've currently just reverted them, though it's... weird they're just blanking random Signpost articles from years back, right? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Noonicarus

    The user @NoonIcarus continues to be involved in move wars (1, 2). Also he continues to drive-by tag for NPOV disputes claiming that "... the article relies heavily on papers that reflect mostly the authors point of view, instead of a mainstream one." (1, 2) In both, when offered to add the sources of information he considers missing he declined.

    He was notified that the simple opinion that an article is not neutral because it does not include mainstream references (who determines that?) is not enough to justify adding tags recklessly.

    Even though he has been warned multiple times and finding that their problems continue, his purpose is not to create an encyclopedia. Ultranuevo (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by IP

    122.171.20.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP dedicating to edit-warring and reverting on the page for the University of Massachusetts Amherst, beginning on 4 January to now. This xenophobic comment made in particular says a lot about their effort. GuardianH (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DonnyReisdorf

    Intially, this started out as a content dispute, but it this has evolved into a WP:SPAM and WP:COI issue. DonnyReisdorf (talk · contribs) keeps adding an entry for, as he claims, a "well known and notable" YouTube personality to a sublist of an article. This YouTuber has no article and DonnyReisdorf has provided no references to support an addition in lieu of an article. DonnyReisdorf has also not attempted any discussion of any kind on why this personality is notable, except through his edit summaries, such as Added again Cav Trooper 19D who has 27,000 subscribers and nearly 8 million views on just youtube. Why someone keeps taken such a notable Cav Scout down. No he doesn't have a Medal of Honor, but to say he's not notable to our gen Z and millennial generation is ridiculous. He deserves to be mentioned as do others like Chief another Cav officer on youtube[221]. However, it's quite obvious from the content and edit summaries that DonnyReisdorf has added on here that he and this YouTube personality are one and same person, which explains his insistence on adding him to the list. I hoped that a warning would get him to stop, but I was wrong. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 05:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1193706957"