Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

New user continued disruption

Baraniscool (talk · contribs · count)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Dismissed report regarding User:Keremmaarda

Hello,

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

Are you practicing nationalism?

all the editors who object are Albanian

Am I to blame here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is correcting incorrect sources and information used in articles a violation of the rules? Keremmaarda (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No. Keremmaarda (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

I do not understand what you mean. Keremmaarda (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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 [16] and ignores the MOS for using italics for television shows [17]. I've been leaving messages on their talk page about this starting in early December [18] starting at polite messages and leading to final warnings [19] with messages on how they need to change their editing style.[20] They have not responded to any messages nor adjusted the problematic edits. I'd like an admin to review this and consider a partial block on either the Pooni C/O page, or article space entirely to get them to discuss and follow the MOS. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

(Though this edit comes off as too hostile. Have more patience with uncommunicative editors.) SWinxy (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Biased editing on contentious topic

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

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

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

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

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

You are a user with a total of 622 edits, focusing on the ARBPIA topics since November 5, which is interesting since you have only received edit confirmed rights two weeks ago [21]. 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 [22], failing to provide evidence, failing to assume good faith, and casting aspersions even though all I did was reply to a discussion on the talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I'm currently waiting for them to respond here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War#1948_Arab–Israeli_War#First_phase:_15_May_–_11_June_1948 as well, where they have reverted changes [23] with little to no explanation. [24] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partial block for JackkBrown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment. In the event of this pblock, I would add Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, as it seems they may be relocating questions there—as opposed to either reading the page itself or asking on individual article talk pages—which does not address or solve the problem. Remsense留 02:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Remsense: I was wrong to ask the last question, I checked it myself and the term should not be written in italics; there was no need to ask it. The other questions I asked are legitimate, in fact there have been some very good discussions (so you aren't right). JackkBrown (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You need to understand: you are WP:BLUDGEONing these pages. The fact it created discussions does not justify your repeatedly asking these questions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: so you can (plural) say whatever you want about me, but I can't say a user isn't right? Sorry, I should shut up otherwise I risk being blocked for expressing, educationally, my point of view, I don't do that anymore, sorry... However, the only two questions I have asked, namely "Capitalisation(z)of ancient" and "Curiosity", are entirely legitimate and, contrary to what you claim, I have never asked them elsewhere. JackkBrown (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You are not at risk of being blocked for expressing [your] point of view, you're at risk for repeatedly asking similar questions over a period of months, and apparently ignoring the answers. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I know (and it's correct, I agree 100%). I thought you were referring to my comment "so you aren't right". JackkBrown (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Tagishsimon incivility at teahouse and unresponsiveness on talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Anonymous 699

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

---

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

The vast majority of this users edits have been reverted, and with good reason, they're disruptive (click here [25] and Ctrl + F "reverted", your screen will turn yellow).

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I've blocked the IP for 72h and deleted the user talk pages they created.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: please unblock the IP and apologize to editor who was using it. The usernames are promotional and therefore do not comply with Wikipedia's policies. The IP editor has done nothing wrong. 2602:FE43:1:4752:DC4D:82EB:465D:5F32 (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Checking in Google Translate, a lot of those usernames appear to be on the same template ("furniture transfer in XXX", although the translation might be approximate), while other appear to have names of museums (and thus not necessarily conform to username policy). Some of them also appear to have user pages (e.g. User:نقل عفش بالرياض, apparently describing itself as a furniture transfer company in Riyadh), so there might be more to it. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riposte97: user with extremely fishy history

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, @Graham87, @DanielRigal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsourced data

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

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

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

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

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

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

Willbb234

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

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

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

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

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

WikiEditor9500

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

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

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

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

User:Kanikosen

Non-EC user Kanikosen (talk · contribs) is violating WP:GS/RUSUKR by making non-constructive comments on pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian war.[26][27][28][29]When I reverted their edit[30] with a link to the general sanction, they restored it [31]and argued about it on my talk page (User talk:Mzajac#Ukrainian counteroffensive), refusing to abide by the sanction. —Michael Z. 17:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hm, did you see his user page and edits? To say he is pro Ukraine, that would be understatement [32] . Or I am wrong? This is NPOV? Kanikosen (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hm. I’ve seen your edits and talk page.

I am pro-NPOV and pro-reliable sources. So is Wikipedia.

• WP:NEWSORG: “ Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.”
• WP:RSBREAKING: “Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution.”

 —Michael Z. 04:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

If you are pro-NPOV why are you blocking other editors to write counteroffensive failed, when there is nothing breaking there, for more than a month all major newspapers, plus leader of Counteroffensive Zaluzhnyi admitted it failed? Kanikosen (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I am pro-NPOV Sorry, but it doesn't look like it when reading some of your comments. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a conversation about enforcing general sanctions, not a place to bring your content dispute (but if you prefer, why are you insisting that the conflict’s result be determined based on only one side’s objectives?).  —Michael Z. 14:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

but if you prefer I don't, the place to discuss that was in that talk page and it's mostly done. This is a conversation about enforcing general sanctions I know, what I'm trying to highlight is that, imo, the discussion started incorrectly. Similar to "the ends don't justify the means", this situation is more like "the means/content don't justify the start". More like a technical argument of wrong venue (I know this is the right venue, I mean the tone/feeling), incorrect judge or improper prosecutor... In other words, while there was indeed an issue (I still don't think it's enough for a sanction), the process shouldn't have been started and carried out like this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I properly deleted violating comments. The violator restored them and made it clear they refuse to abide by the general sanction. If getting uninvolved admins’ opinions at ANI was wrong, then what in your opinion was the right thing to do?

So reviewing the facts of the violation is the wrong “tone/feeling,” but your casting aspersions against non-specific “some of your comments” is supposed to help correct this?

I’m sorry, but I respectfully suggest you accept that I disagree with you when you I deem random complaints like “Didn't Zaluzhny send his army to die in most dense minefield on the planet?” and “So Ukrainians eliminated Russian cruise missile capabilites of Black sea fleet? Black sea is safe for Ukrainian ships? Ukraine got around 10 minutes more warning depending on on ship location and that is all” to be a constructive comment about edits to the article that somehow should be an exception to the rule that non-EC users are not allowed to make edits.

You’ll notice that permissiveness has now led more non-EC users to chime in with non-constructive comments on the same thread, and non-EC users have started a new thread on the exact same topic, amounting to nothing but protests and forum talk, where the subject of this ANI discussion is racking up their record.  —Michael Z. 18:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

[33] as you can see other users find my comment made in constructive manner. You calling people crackpots on other hand... Kanikosen (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I properly deleted violating comments. Not completely. The Black Sea one was at least a good argument which could have been used in the "derailing" RfC discussion by other EC editors, though yeah, he shouldn't have posted in a RfC. The one replying to my Operation Barbarossa comment was a legitimate concern, though potentially lacking WP:AGF, which I'm trying to explore. Yeah, sure, the "suicide mission counteroffensive" one was potentially "toxic" and shouldn't have been posted in a RfC. Thus I agree with 2/3 of your deletions. The violator restored them and made it clear they refuse to abide by the general sanction. Well, he could have thought that you were making a mistake and that his comment didn't violate anything (the reinstated wasn't in the RfC and was the most "tame" one). After having all his comments bluntly deleted it's understandable, though not justifiable, that he would be frustrated/angry and feel potentially challenged, especially if he already know your general POV. If getting uninvolved admins’ opinions at ANI The way you phrased this section doesn't make it seem that you sought others' opinions, instead, it sounded more like a cold and closed accusation. what in your opinion was the right thing to do? When I started writing this comment I thought of: nothing, wait or let other less involved editors do the deletion. But I reconsidered and understand that deleting only the most pressing comments at first and giving more human-like explanations in the deletion edit summaries would be best. You know that everyone hates being "brute forced into submission" with vague explanations of rules. It's just like those automated blocks that don't give any detail pertaining the specific case and the person feels like they can't do anything/they're powerless. In other words, it would have been better to be gentler at first since the editor didn't do anything grave like personal attack to editor, hate speech, swearing, etc. Only then if the editor insists after a human-like, helpful, fellow editor explanation that clearly shows good faith, you would proceed to blunter language and ANI. That's my opinion and it's assuming both of you didn't have any "beef" with each other beforehand.

I’m sorry, but I respectfully suggest you accept that I disagree with you thanks for phrasing it like this, it lets me concur with you in this aspect without making anyone "look worse". You’ll notice that permissiveness has now led more non-EC users to chime in with non-constructive comments on the same thread... Yeah... Though I think it's still manageable. The discussions on these pages are mostly nearing completion. After a while they'll most likely be "chill". But this isn't really an argument against you.

All in all, I think the current version of the talk page is ok (considering the deletions and reverts). But I agree that we should be more attentive to future non-constructive comments, though I believe we should let actions be done a little bit more at other editors' discretion, especially when they are the ones being replied with such comments. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please specifically name those sources you allude to in this comment. Not only their names, but their qualifications which would enable us to publish their opinions (only subject experts can be cited), and the published sources of their opinions. What you know is not sufficient, nor are you opinions or analysis valid sources of information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

From Douglas Macgregor to Markus Reisner, from Scott Ritter to Marinko Ogorec, from Daniel L. Davis to Ray McGovern you have plenty of military officers saying from day 1 of counteroffensive it's sucide as you have no air superiority and worst, 0.8 to 1 numerical disadvantage. I don't claim or claimed they need to be put in article, just stating my point why did I say in comment that Zaluzhnyi kew he don't stand chance in hell for counteroffensive to work, but he sign order to send them into certan death. Same as Michael Z. idea that counteroffensive is stil going strong is not valid opinion or analysis? As he is one using blocking aproved editors to write counteroffensive failed.

When extreme proUkrainian admin and editor delets comments from talk page that Ukrainian offensive failed, and you have sources for that in every major wester newspapers from multiple users on talk page, what should new edditor do? Kanikosen (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The above is not a constructive comment, and prohibited by WP:GS/RUSUKR. The user is hijacking this discussion of their violations by starting a content discussion, and piling on the violations right here on ANI (and I’ll add, citing anti-Ukrainian crackpots that appear on Russian state propaganda broadcasts).

@Kanikosen, I object to the insulting label “extreme proUkrainian”: please apologize and delete or strike this comment.

I deleted violating comments according to the spirit and letter of RUSUKR: “D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.”  —Michael Z. 18:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Really mature to call people you don't like crackpots. Kanikosen (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Careful dude, this isn't the place to be bold. Remember to chill. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The above is not a constructive comment, and prohibited by WP:GS/RUSUKR. The user is hijacking this discussion of their violations by starting a content discussion He was literally replying to a request by Beyond My Ken for sources (partially, he didn't provide their qualifications), and defending his thought process. citing anti-Ukrainian crackpots that appear on Russian state propaganda broadcasts come on man, this is what I'm talking about with you being "too involved" with the subject (Ukraine war). I think it would be more productive if you stepped back and let the other admins handle this, or alternatively if you refrained from making comments that showed significant personal "involvement" with the subject. please apologize and delete or strike this comment. Please don't allude to being an angel. You've also made insulting remarks towards Russians at times. I think both of you should apologize or retract those more insulting/battleground comments. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that several sources, probably majority, do suggest that the counteroffensive failed. The reflist at the bottom of Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive#Comments (ignore the Putin ref) shows examples to name a few. Though I admit that the statement that the general "knew from the start" that the operation was doomed is a bit more delicate and would really benefit from actual citations/quotes here. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That statement is my personal opinion and have no value. Just stating how I see it. Kanikosen (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Editing against consensus and status quo ante

Translations

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

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

• Prior to the reversion cycle, the cast list descriptions of certain characters referred to them as "apostles". [34]
• Her preference is "disciples".[35]
• I reverted her change, noting in the edit summary that the term was actually used in the show [36]
• She reverted back to her preferred change [37]
• At this point, she did open discussion on the TP.
• Her change was reverted by RadiantFellow (talk · contribs) [38]
• She again reverted to her preferred change, this time accusing me in her edit summary of colluding to avoid 3RR [39]
• I explained to her via the talk page that consensus via editing was to the version status quo ante and asked her to leave it as such while WP:BRD ensued and reverted to status quo ante [40].
• At that point, she reverted a third time [41] and insists there is no consensus until discussion is complete.
• I pointed out that two separate editors have reverted her changes and asked her to put the article back to status quo ante until a discussion determines a change in editing consensus [42].

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

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

"Disciples, not Apostles

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

Radiant Fellow & Butlerblog: Yes, Jesus chose them to be His Apostles, but for the future, for a later time. The 11 (not 12 because of Judas' betrayal and suicide) became apostles later, after the death and resurrection of Jesus. They could not be apostles while Jesus was still on earth because while He was there, they were his students, His disciples. Apostles are emissaries. Jesus commissioned the disciples to be His emissaries AFTER He had resurrected. Even in the body of this article, they are referred to repeatedly as disciples, not apostles. Dallas Jenkins, in interviews, refers to them as disciples, not apostles. The actors themselves, refer to their characters as disciples, not apostles. This link to Angel Studios' list of the cast in the show refers to them as disciples, not apostles. [43] Their characters are disciples in the show, therefore, they need to be referred to as disciples in this article as well. The article is about the show, so we need to stick to the facts of and about the show based on sources (like the cast list from Angel Studios - and others elsewhere online). We can't justify using "apostle" because it was uttered once in the show. Repeated use of "disciples" to describe the 12's characters in cast lists, scripts, and by the writers themselves is evidence enough that "disciples" is correct and "apostles" is not. A4M2 16:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Alaska4Me2: RE: After ButlerBlog named me at his own talk page as the source of the problem at the article and article talk page... You mean in the discussion where you accused me of making personal attacks without evidence?[44] Please note that making accusations of personal attacks without supporting evidence is itself a form of personal attack (WP:WIAPA). You made a similar accusation on the article talk page.[45] It's one thing to address editor behavior on a user talk page; it is quite something else (inappropriate) to do on the article talk page. Your unfounded accusations are not helping to de-escalate this in the least. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: I'm genuinely sorry you are so heated about the whole thing, that you think anything needs to be de-escalated. It's been hours and hours now since our disagreement started, and if you are truly escalated (or maybe not now but were when you wrote your last comment a few hours ago), that's a pity and I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe it's the term "edit war" that fires people up; I've never thought calling editing differences expressed through changes in wording and content "edit warring" is a good idea. If the objective is to keep people calm and spending time in Wikipedia enjoyably, then even the disagreements can be a learning experience rather than putting such a negative and fiery label on it that suggests battle. To be clear, I was never escalated or angry, just confused why you would want to revert back to something so obviously incorrect. If you were escalated-angry or even mildly upset-escalated by my actions, please except my humble apology. I never want to cause anyone else to feel that way. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me clarify for you that I'm not heated. While I believe your contrition is in good faith, you're avoiding the issue that you escalated this into. You seem to think that by "escalate", I somehow mean "hurt feelings" or "anger", which is not at all the case. Escalation means that you've taken what started off as a content dispute and escalated it into something else, and it's the "something else" that you continue to avoid and have not addressed. I'm not sure at this point if you're just WP:NOTLISTENING or if it's intentional WP:GASLIGHTING to avoid the issue. It started with your edit summary suggesting there was collusion in reverts to avoid 3RR [46], which was unfounded. You then made multiple unfounded accusations of personal attacks. On my TP and the article TP, you accused me of making personal attacks [47][48], yet when asked, you provided zero evidence. Making accusations of personal attacks without evidence is itself a form of personal attack. The accusation on my personal talk page came after my opening this ANI discussion, in which you also claimed that opening this ANI discussion was a personal attack. ANI is for addressing behavioral issues, not content disputes, and as I pointed out at the very top of this, the unfounded accusations is the behavioral problem that warranted this. Instead of addressing that, you dug in with those additional, after-the-fact accusations. If you're apologizing for anything, it should address your unfounded accusations. While I'm not seeking an apology, some acknowledgement that you understand our WP:CIVILITY policy is warranted so that we know that you actually understand the issue here - and if you don't, then we need to address why. Consider striking your comments on the article TP in which you made specific accusations previously noted per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: As I noted in the above discussion, this user has a pattern of civility issues. Although @Alaska4Me2 is on a partial block from the article for 3RR reasons, she's still commenting on the article talk page in which she continues to cast aspersions regarding my intent. Even though I have pointed out above where she has, without evidence, accused me of personal attacks, she is now doubling down on her accusations of collaborationcollusion followed by overtly accusing me of WP:OWN: It would be great if you actually came here to discuss rather than acting in proxy for another editor who, it now seems from all appearances, feels he has ownership over the article.[49] I don't want to pursue an IBAN, but she really doesn't seem to get the point about the WP:CIVIL issues. Would you consider expanding the current block to include the article talk for now? I want to be optimistic that she'll eventually WP:GETTHEPOINT and hope that we can move forward productively. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawing that last request as I have respectfully requested @Alaska4Me2 self-impose it (whether they do or not is up to them). At this point, I consider the entire matter closed and hopefully we can move forward productively from here. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

User creating many French-language advert pages in a row

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Attack by BraceUlysses on User talk:FMSky

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

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

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

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

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

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

RayofLightning and Theosophy-related articles

I've come to the conclusion that RayofLightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is fundamentally not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. Their writing regarding Theosophy and related thinkers (which appears to be the only subject they are interested in writing about) is fundamentally unencyclopedic, written from an implicit perspecitve that claims by theosophical writers are true, and they rely almost exclusively on primary sources by theosophical writers, rather than academic literature analysing it. They have refused to take criticism of their approach onboard [50], and have engaged in edit-warring to restore their preferred versions of articles [51] [52]. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Sanat_Kumara and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Initiation_(Theosophy) for discussions about problematic articles they have largely written. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, all of my contributions to Wikipedia have been founded on others' writings and have included extensive citations.

I am an award-winning writer who has had 3 books published by an academic press.

I believe that the foundation of all knowledge comes from primary sources, followed by secondary sources. (Before there is criticism, there needs to be something to criticize.)

In the contributions I have made over the last 3 years to Wikipedia, my aim has been to help introduce the Public to Theosophical ideas that remain largely unknown. I contend that these ideas are often quite difficult to understand. While the Wikipedia articles under question would benefit from secondary sources as well, that in no way negates the importance of presenting the ideas of Theosophists themselves, so these ideas can, at the very least, be understood by the diverse people who partake of Wikipedia.

I believe my writing is terse, cogent, and well-researched. Those who have criticized my contributions have failed to contribute anything substantial (i.e., in terms of breadth or length) to the articles Sanat Kumara and Initiation (Theosophy), yet they do not hesitate altering what I have written. Should my critics sincerely wish to help elevate specific articles, rather than dissecting, and dismantling or censoring my contributions, I would encourage them to do research themselves, to come to understand the subject matter more profoundly, and to present secondary sources of their own choosing to expand upon the articles. RayofLightning (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Everything RayofLightning says in the above response indicates someone who is an adherent of the philosophy/religion in question (adherents consider it a philosophy, while scholars of religion consider it a religion because it is based on faith and not facts) who is here to right the great wrong that people don't know enough about their preferred philosophy. They admit to using WP:primary sources -- i.e. the writing of his co-religionists -- in preference to secondary sources; such sources may indeed be used, only with great care, but WP:Reliable sources are meant to be independent, and clearly those sources are not. Being a believer in the subject of an article is not necessarily a reason to be banned from contributing to that article, but the editor must be able to write from outside the subject with a neutral point of view

Further, there is no necessity for critics of RayofLightning's contributions to be contributors to articles about theosophy, indeed, authors with no inherent connection to or deep interest in the subject are probably better positioned to determine when an editor's contributions manifest a WP:POV problem.

I believe that RayofLightning is a pro-Theosophy WP:SPA who is unable to write from a neutral point of view, regardless of his publishing history as an author (not every book is indicative of an ability to write to Wikipedia's specifications), and should be placed under a topic ban regarding Theosophy. I would support such a proposal if someone were to present it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, the above editor declaring that they are "an award-winning writer who has had 3 books published by an academic press" is a blatant Argument from authority, which not only is invalid in Wikipedia's terms, but which is null and void due to the editor using a pseudonym, which makes it impossible for us to evaluate the quality of those books, and the status of those "academic press" publishers, who most likely have a totally different criteria and standard for publication compared to ours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a snippet of one of RayofLightning most recent edits:[53]
In addition, Helena Roerich, like Blavatsky, Bailey, and Creme, was able to receive messages from the Masters of Wisdom telepathically...
Having telepathy stated as fact in wikivoice is concerning, as is the fact it was added without any sourcing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Likewise for "karmon particles" [54]. Plenty of people have tried to put a scientific veneer upon esoteric beliefs, but those attempts should not be repeated in wiki-voice. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

A bit of clarity regarding "the contributions [RayofLightning has] made over the last 3 years": they did indeed start editing three years ago but I hope they haven't made anybody think they have three years' experience here. On May 9th, 2021, they made their first two edits, both inappropriate changes to The New Land that were quickly reverted. They didn't edit again for well over a year, not reappearing until August 7th, 2022. With 319 edits in 32 months, they're averaging less than ten changes a month and should be given the same guidance and treated with the same skepticism as all brand-new users. City of Silver 21:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

RayofLightning's comment above suggest to me a fundamental misunderstanding as to the purpose of wikipedia - a tertiary source, using existing published secondary sources for any analysis - and to the policies the community has agreed on to ensure that articles are suited to that purpose. A topic ban isn't going to rectify that, and I'd have to suggest that if RayofLightning's objective is to "help introduce the Public to Theosophical ideas that remain largely unknown", they would be better off employing their writing talents elsewhere, where they aren't constrained by such requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• There are two issues here. RayofLightning has shown that they either ignore or fundamentally misunderstand our policy on original research. [55][56][57] But over and above that, they are a very obvious 'believer' in theosophy who wishes to write on Wikipedia from a theosophic perspective, not from a neutral point of view as determined by secondary sources. E.g., we have a good article (current revision) on the theosophic concept of Masters of the Ancient Wisdom (to me a GA on WP is anything that is reliably sourced and that gets the gist of a subject across in a neutral way; such articles are rarer than one might think). Now just look at the POV disaster RayofLightning turned it into [58].
  Perhaps the first issue can be solved, since it's common for newcomers (and I agree with City of Silver above that RayofLightning should be treated as a newcomer) to misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia. @RayofLightning: we strictly present the point of view of secondary, independent (in this case, that means academic) sources. Primary sources are only used to illustrate analysis already found in and cited to secondary sources. We do not give editors the freedom to analyze and interpret primary sources for themselves, no matter their expertise. These rules (found in WP:OR and WP:NPOV) are not open for discussion. Do you think you could abide by them when editing Wikipedia?
  As for the second issue, I believe it is very likely to continue causing problems, since apart from turning to primary sources, there are other 'traps' one can fall in on Wikipedia when one wishes to write from a certain philosophical or religious perspective (e.g., failing to observe due weight when reviewing secondary sources). It would probably be a good idea for RayofLightning to edit other topics for a while before coming back to theosophy. I propose a topic ban on theosophy, broadly construed, appealable in one year on WP:AN. I agree with Andy that if RayofLightning wishes to continue writing from primary sources, by far the best solution would be for them to look for another place to publish their writings. However, just in case they choose to stay and agree to follow WP policy re primary sources, the topic ban would be helpful in steering RayofLightning to a subject area where it would perhaps be easier for them to edit in a policy-compliant way and thus learn how things are done on Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Use of sources by User:GoutComplex

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

I recently had to revert two edits by GoutComplex, which I think illustrate the problem. The first was on the article for Ancestor veneration in China. His edit reads: Ancestors and the Mandate of Heaven were thought to emanate from the Dao, especially in the Song dynasty.[59] This claim is supported with a citation from page 272 of the book Empires of the Steppes: A History of the Nomadic Tribes Who Shaped Civilization by Kenneth W. Harl. The relevant section on that page reads: This emperor Taizu, the third to take the name in the tenth century, imposed unity over southern China and forged an imperial order based on Neo-Confucian precepts.⁴⁵ He aimed to break the power of the Tang regional elites who had monopolized office and ruled as regional hereditary dukes (li). Civilian bureaucrats henceforth were chosen by merit upon passing an examination system based on the Confucian classics . The wide dissemination of block printing of Confucian classics enabled many men of humbler origin to study the texts, pass the examinations, and so enter imperial service.⁴⁶ Mandarin officials from the highest to lowest levels shared a set of philosophical precepts that put correct rule (zheng) at a premium. All were expected to master the canonical texts in order to achieve harmony with the way (dao), especially the proper conduct and veneration of the ancestors. The source does not say that ancestors and/or the mandate of heaven "emanate[d] from the Dao", nor does it say this phenomenon was particular to the Song dynasty.

The second edit was on the article for Taoism, which reads: Chinese Manichaeism took inspiration from Taoism throughout both of their histories as well as forms of Buddhism, including Chinese Buddhism.[60] This edit cited page 231 in the same book by Harl. That page reads: The faith, while an imperially recognized religion in China, never won over a Chinese emperor. Many Chinese would have viewed Manichaeism as a pale imitation of Buddhism or Daoism, the two most popular faiths among the Chinese masses. Manichaeism, just like Judaism for the Khazars, offered an advantage that it was not the faith of a neighboring imperial rival, but this advantage was likely a benefit rather than a reason for the kaghan’s conversion. Again, the source does not at all back up the claim being made in the edit.

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

Many of GoutComplex's edits have been reverted by other users, and it takes time to check his sources to see if they back up his claims. I am not confident that GoutComplex is able to produce encyclopaedic content that is properly grounded in reliable sources. I would note that a week ago GoutComplex added a citation to a book titled History of Art: The Western Tradition to a section on ethics in the article for Stoicism,[61] so unfortunately I don't see any sign of improvement. Retinalsummer (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

GoutComplex—it's clear you know how to read and reply on talk pages, but you have only ever made one reply to feedback on your talk page. Is it not rude to ignore the detailed, personalised feedback you have been given by volunteers who have had to put in a lot of work to correct your mistakes? — Bilorv (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Afghan.Records

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

Talk page is full of warnings by different users, which they don't seem to have paid much attention too, as their edits really haven't changed. If you click here [62] 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 [63] 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 [64], 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 [65] (down below), which led to their block [66]. See also [67]

And there was also these episodes;

1. Another citation wrongly used again [68]
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 [69]
3. On 13 September at Ghurid dynasty [70] 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 [71] and 10 December [72], they randomly removed sourced info at Ghilji, no edit summary either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

They're also edit warring by adding non-WP:RS [73] [74], 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 [75]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Afghan.Records is still trying to push the pov that the Khalaj are anything but Turkic [76]. HistoryofIran (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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 [77], rv by Super Dromaeosaurus [78]
• Second change without consensus [79], rv by TimothyBlue [80], 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 [81]
• Fourth change today again after failing to get consensus on talk page discussion [82]

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:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Death editor2 and edit warring under WP:ARBPIA
• User talk:Death Editor 2#November 2023 2 a BLP CT block,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#Death Editor 2 edits
• and their talk page [83] shows a history of problems.

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 [84] and December 23, 2023 [85]), 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)

'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)

• I blocked the user for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

There's an editor who is using both of these ranges for disruptive editing [1] [2]. The editor has a bad of edit warring with other editors in multiple articles [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94]. I don't know if this is blocked editor using multiple IP addresses, but it appears to be. @Binksternet: what your opinion on this matter? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Two different locations involved here. One range is New York City, the other is Detroit. The Detroit IPs sometimes make good-faith changes supported by cites, and sometimes they vandalize. This recent BLP violation stands out, and this one. They have picked sides in some culture war I don't understand, prettying up Ciara and Drake while throwing shade on Megan Thee Stallion, Kim Petras and Keke Palmer.[95]

The NYC range also hates on Kim Petras and Megan Thee Stallion, and puffs up Ciara and Drake. The ranges behave the same. Overall, this person is a net negative to the project. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I am surprised that they are from different areas. If you look at the edits in "First Person Shooter" [96] [97] [98], the edit summaries sound like they came from the same person, but they're not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

This is one person who travels between two cities, or uses computer tricks to appear that way. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Due to the similarities between the edits, I'm convinced that they are using different accounts in different areas to throw us off. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Swans07

Hi, Blocked this user on Commons for insults. I notice he published his bio here. Is it OK? Yann (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: It is not OK, I tagged it under CSD U5 section for speedy deletion. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Well they've recently insulted me here, when I raised their possible vandalism edit to Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water (they reverted a 2022 revert of their original 2022 edit of the same), where they compared the company to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. DankJae 22:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

​​And their removal of other user's comments. But the CSD was rejected as it partly related to their editing on Wikipedia. DankJae 03:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

User spamming my talk page

Borhan Uddin Rabbani has repeatedly spammed my talk page with spam links (1,, 2) and inserting them into mainspace articles, as well as spamming my talk page with a random series of letters, six times. In spite of two warnings, this persists. I hate to have to report a user assigned to me for mentorship but WP:CIR. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Indef blocked for spam. GiantSnowman 11:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Harassing behavior from 79.185.70.5

I've experienced harassing and threatening behavior from 79.185.70.5. Last example is on my talk page, It can be translated as: (Personal attack removed) Previous example is edit description of [99], which roughly translates into: (Personal attack removed) 85.193.204.141 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, regardless of who is correct in this little edit-war (the page has been protected), this isn't acceptable. 79.185.70.5 and 79.185.70.47 blocked for a week. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive cosmetic bot User:DogTraining01

User:DogTraining01 registered 29 December, and since then has made 483 edits, not a single one of which improves an article. They appear to be a program which replaces words with synonyms, or expressions with similar expressions. This could be driven off a dictionary, and run automatically. A few examples:

• rev. 1192801146 at Pfalz D.VIII, as follows:

  −

  The D.VIII was approved for production arising from German initiatives in 1918 to develop superior fighter aircraft.

  +

  The D.VIII was authorized for production as a result of German initiatives in 1918 to create superior fighter aircraft.

• rev. 1192801021 at Maria Grazia Buccella
• rev. 1192800795 at FIBA EuroBasket 2007 qualification
• rev. 1192800742 at Good Calories, Bad Calories
• rev. 1192800659 at Nimero

Afaict, all 483 edits by this user are of the type shown in the first example, without exception. User DT01 neither responds to messages left at their Talk page, nor do they complain about the fact that I've reverted probably one hundred of their edits. Please block. Mathglot (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, this user is WP:NOTHERE and hasn't changed articles for the better. I consider adding euphemisms and fluffy, ineffectual text to be disruptive, and, especially after several warnings, it's hard to assume good faith anymore. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is an instance of WP:PGAME, to achieve extended confirmed rights perhaps. But they'll still would need to wait for a month before automatically gaining the rights. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Almost all of their edits made the article slightly worse, because some words, while being synonymous, are inappropriate in the context, and they also removed some of the wikilinks in the process. We'd need to revert almost all of their edits. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's not true to say that they've never responded to messages on their talk page. They did here, saying ok,i am really sorry, i will not repeat. Then they proceeded to continue doing exactly the same thing. I've blocked from article space indefinitely pending an explanation of what exactly they're trying to achieve here. Spicy (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suspect AI use to do the rephrasing rather than any attempt at actual understanding. The edits come in tight bursts on seemingly randomly chosen articles, something a genuine human editor seems unlikely to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Well, they used the visual editor, and I think that it would be easier for them to automate the edits through some API without using the visual editor. Probably just clicked Special:Random, chose random sentence in the article and rephrased it (without looking at the context). At least that is my impression from skimming through 200 of their edits and reverting roughly 80 of them, because they were changing the content in the quotes or removing wikilinks or just making the text harder to understand (with the same meaning of the content). Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Spicy, David, and DS for correcting the record wrt UTP response and VE use. That implies manual edits, and the theory about "random" + AI seems possible, too. But whatever method they used, the result is what counts, and as it was pointless, problematic, bot-like, and unmotivated by any desire to improve the encyclopedia, it ended as it should. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Levivich and Self-referential humor

Levivich has just undone [100] a close on Talk:Self-referential humor that was specifically requested at WP:CR, with his only stated pretext being that it was not an RfC, even though formal closes are not reserved for RfC's, and in contravention of the normal procedure for undoing closes as outlined at WP:CLOSE. He has now also taken to unwarrantedly removing [101] other users' comments that express a contrary point of view. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

We need actual diffs please, but I have undone this edit removing talk page posts by 2 other editors and look forward to receiving an explanation as to why it was done in the first place. GiantSnowman 15:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page. If you want to enable harassment by restoring those edits, go ahead. Don't ask me to believe that all those different IPs and brand new accounts are anything other than one troll. WP:DENY is the only tool left when RFPP is declined. Levivich (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway... GiantSnowman 15:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Can't SPI IPs and accounts. Ironically, the last time I tried that, Bbb called me an obvious sock, I went to ANI about it, which is when I saw the thread about you and got involved in your arbcom case. That whole series of events was a big mistake by me. And here we are again, small world eh? :-) So no, not doing that again, no SPI. In all seriousness, best way to stop the disruption on that page is to ECP it. Levivich (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

True, although not always, and CUs can confirm whether a named account is editing from a range, see WP:CUIPDISCLOSE. Either way, I suggest we err on the side of AGF for now and keep the talk page posts. GiantSnowman 15:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

My AGF tank is empty on this one, I know other editors' mileage may vary on that. Anyway, it's obvious to me that they know how to beat a CU since they're using a wide variety of (I assume non-public-proxy) IPs. Levivich (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I've honestly no idea what it even is that you're referring to as "harassment", unless your definition of "harassment" is just "voicing a contrary opinion". And my understanding is that the rule is "one person, one account", but not "one person, one IP address". Editing from multiple IP addresses usually isn't considered socking. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you specify which comments here and in that discussion were made by you under other IP’s? BilledMammal (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Here, only 149. There, also the one beginning 2A00 (and I wasn't even aware my address had changed). 149.86.189.197 (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I do have to say that I consider it a little suspicious that D5E6, an IP with no previous contributions, has turned up to participate in this ANI discussion immediately after it was opened with a relatively trollish comment (obviously, Levivich’s objection wasn’t based on the use of the template) BilledMammal (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

If you use Geolocate it appears the other IP edit here was made from Ashburn, Virginia. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's amazing that a hatnote at the bottom of Self-referential humor receives more IP editing from different IPs from all over the world, and brand-new accounts, than anything on the WP:TOP25 (go ahead, compare the page histories and count the different IPs). It's incredible, it's the most popular article for IPs, and they don't want to change anything about the article except for the hatnote. Who wants to buy a bridge in Florida? Levivich (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps because most of those are semi-protected? And it hasn't just been IP's, or even brand-new accounts, if you check the page history. This really just shows what a waste of time the link is as there's been little page activity on anything else for months, and your only real contribution has been to hallucinate a long-term consensus and harassment issues. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth:

• "Ashburn is a major hub for US Internet traffic, due to its many data centers. Andrew Blum characterized it as the 'bullseye of America's Internet'."

I'm not sure an Ashburn geolocation means much. I've seen other geolocates point to Ashburn, a small town outside Washington, DC

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Editing from multiple IP addresses usually isn't considered socking. Incorrect: Editing while logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses, or editing under both a named account and as an IP, when done deceptively or otherwise violating the principles of this policy, may be treated as the same level of disruption as editing under multiple accounts. Using multiple IPs for false consensus or evading 3RR or anything like that is sockpuppetry. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I think your comment speaks for itself. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, particularly "or otherwise violating the principles of this policy". It completely disputes what you said. In fact, anything that would be sockpuppetry with named accounts could be considered so with IP addresses, from my reading. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyone else thinking this is starting to sound more and more like quacking? BilledMammal (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course the same person can edit from multiple IP's, as an IP editor is just anyone not logged into an account. It's only a problem if done deceptively. Which is different for multiple accounts being used simultaneously by the same person, where users are expected to make explicit that they belong to the same person, even if there's no overlap in their editing patterns. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not my reading of it. What it says to me is that anything that would be sockpuppetry with named accounts can be construed as such for IP addresses. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, uh, what? Does he think {{atop}} is reserved for RFCs? 2600:4041:5247:AC00:F640:BD96:78B5:D5E6 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Was there any attempt to discuss this with Levivich before racing to ANI? BilledMammal (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned on the talk page two days ago that if you want to challenge a close you're supposed to take it to AN, and he didn't respond. And his last edit there indicates he's not really amenable to discussion. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

This is probably something that went in the wrong direction from the outset. The advice to make a request for closure was probably unhelpful, and the closure was completely inappropriate (basically one user saying "it could have gone either way, so I will impose my personal opinion as Correct"). Yes, the next step could have been to request that the closure be overturned at AN, but dispute resolution might have been a better approach from the beginning. Bringing Levivich's behaviour here was probably unwise as it now focusses attention on the behaviour of all others in that debate: with the best will in the world, it's hard to believe the debate includes as many participants as it does accounts + IP addresses, and it's difficult not to feel there's been some bludgeoning going on. Elemimele (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not how I interpreted the close. Consensus can also be determined based on guidelines and precedent. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

No it can not be, thats a supervote. The closer can do absolutely nothing novel such as offer their own interpretation of guidelines and precedent. If they want to do that they need to comment, not close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

This was already discussed at the closer's talk page, where he explained that guidelines are explicitly a factor in determining WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, and that some arguments in the discussion were based on blatant misinterpretations of the guidelines. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Your comment appears to be bullshit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not bullshit. See my comment below. I closed the discussion in good faith according to what I believed to be consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

CONSENSUS? Are you fucking kidding? EEng 01:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not fucking kidding, and there's no reason to get aggressive with me for absolutely no reason. An apology would be nice. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No reason other than that you're continuing to waste a lot of people's time. EEng 18:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you 149.86.189.197? Because that is not Voorts' comment... And what 149.86.189.197 said is some of the most incompetent bullshit I've ever seen. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Yeah, I tried to make that exact point at voorts' talk page (poor link, since they have since "archived" the discussion to a page that doesn't exist, but they were absolutely not having it. They stood by their close, and doubled down on it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele I agree, the advice to get closure on that discussion wasn't great. And it was followed up by a terrible close. I'm not sure where to go from here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Although I wouldn't stake my life on it, I suspect 149. is BKFIP.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm really not. Are you sure that's not just you trying to reduce the issue to terms familiar to you? 149.86.189.197 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• The more humour is explained the less funny it becomes. EEng had it right here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your insight would be appreciated on the Talk page of the article, where renewed interest appears to have been taken in the discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: you deleted your comment, but it mentioned that this is some kind of joke. Using Wikipedia to make jokes is disruptive editing and there's a template for warning about it. If there is some kind of joke being made, let's look at warning or blocking the people doing that. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  First of all, the template isn't for warning about "making jokes", but rather for "making joke edits". There's a huge difference. Beyond that, to be disruptive something has to interfere with Wikipedia's mission of informing and educating (or whatever it is we're doing here). Humor, even in an article, that doesn't interfere with that goal isn't disruptive. And in many or most cases well-wrought humor actively promotes the project's goals by increasing the reader's pleasure in reading. Now I'm going to stick this right in your face by telling you that there are three (at least) intentionally amusing turns of the phrase, or verbal juxtaposition, in Sacred Cod: "red herring"; "natural habitat"; "stepladder". (There might be more but I can't bring them to mind.) Now you tell me why they shouldn't be there. (The article's currently under siege so best to use the permalink I just gave.) EEng 01:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  No answer, though there's no question you saw this [102]. Huh. Look, here's a few more to make it easier for you: "unusually large florist's box equipped with protruding decoy lilies"; "House perch"; "arranged fracas"; the "Pilfered Cod" poem; "duration of the crisis"; "Sacred cow". Disruptive? NPOV? Explain to me how. Go one. Let's hear it. EEng 18:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see on examination that EEng supports making jokes in Wikivoice in an article. That's not a lion's den I wish to delve into considering how popular EEng is. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Excuse me, but I do not support "making jokes " in Wikivoice in an article. I do support enjoyable writing that may bring a smile to reader's face now and then. EEng 01:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  User popularity shouldn't be a factor or influence in deciding the weight of an argument. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  True enough. To me, {{uw-joke1}} through {{uw-joke4}} are common sense interpretations of policy and not seriously disputed by anyone. Nobody should be intentionally making jokes in a Wikipedia article. That could be confusing to a reader and is unprofessional. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Popularity was not a factor in my mentioning EEng. I don't know him personally (I believe that I live on a different continent), and sometimes agree with him and sometimes not. I just mentioned him because, in this case, he made a comment that I agreed with. This seems like very large mountains have been made out of very small molehills. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  If I'm warning new editors for making jokes with standard templates, shouldn't the same apply to any editor? There's leeway in talk pages and user space, but I don't see why experienced or popular editors should get a pass to violate things that templates warn against.

  I also wanted to add that recounting a joke for illustration or even humor is not what I would call making a joke. Recounting is ok in an article, having the text of the article be a joke is not ok. If the distinction makes sense. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  

  Gilbert Kerr (right) plays the bagpipes

  This was such a great joke and it fills me with sadness to know that there are people out there who would volunteer their time to remove it. Seriously, the world is such a dark place, I cannot fathom why, why anyone would want to extinguish joy. If it puts a smile on someone's face, even if it's not your face, and is otherwise harmless, just leave it be. We need all the smiles we can gather. Levivich (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, that was indeed a great joke and should've been kept. But there is a line between "puts smiles on people's faces" and "risks confusing new readers", and self-links in what is supposed to be a purely informative section (See Also) risk falling into the second category. If everything might just be a hidden joke, it becomes hard for readers to take the encyclopedia seriously (unlike your example, where the joke doesn't actually add any misleading information). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Does it change your mind that the joke is a hatnote, not a See Also link? It's the hatnote that's at Self-referential humor#Other examples. I don't think that hatnote will confuse anyone; it's just a little gag. Levivich (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry for the misunderstanding, that makes it a little more clear but it's still not ideal, people might just read it and not realize that's already the article title, especially since several have close titles (e.g. Self-reference). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  What you're describing is people not getting the joke; that would be harmless in my view. (Same as people not understanding the "(right)" in the caption.) But I think it's a stretch to imagine that people might not know the title of the article they're reading. It's right at the top of the page even when they scroll down, in giant font. I think pretty much everyone will "get" the "main article" for "other examples" being the same article, given that it's about self-referential humor. And if they click on it, they'll be taken to the same place. (Someone on the talk page made a good point that the link target should be the "Other jokes" subsection and not just the article, to make it truly self-referential.) Levivich (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The article title is not "right at the top of the page" when people scroll down for everyone, that is only the case on specific skins, on specific platforms. Making the link point to the "Other jokes" subsection would be a big improvement, as people won't be sent at a completely different place in the name of a joke. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The specific skin is the default skin for readers. Levivich (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is that not everyone will "get" a joke and this can lead to confusion. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia in my view. I know this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, but we have readers of different levels of intelligence and cultural/linguistic context. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not everyone will "get" any joke. That's not a problem. Because not everyone will smile, no one should smile? That's not my philosophy. Levivich (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  What if someone got a smile from inserting subtle Polish jokes in Polish people? It might even be a Polish person who thinks it is amusing, but that does not mean everyone will. I think we should have a principle and stick to it. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  and is otherwise harmless So obviously hate speech wouldn't count. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Harm is also subjective. Many of the most often retold and funniest Jewish jokes were coined by Jewish comedians. Hardly hate speech. To get to my point, it is that inserting a joke in Wikivoice is fundamentally inserting the editor's own voice and perspective, which is to me a violation of NPOV, and perhaps other policies. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Any choice of words or expression or ordering of material, any image, any quotation, anything, could potentially violate various policies. The question is whether they actually do. inserting a joke in Wikivoice is fundamentally inserting the editor's own voice and perspective – why is that necessarily so? You're just saying that. EEng 19:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well that's the issue. If the role of Wikipedia is to inform people, jokes that might get a smile from a few people but confuse a few other people aren't helpful. In, say, a webcomic, where humor is to be expected, a joke that some people might get but not others is absolutely acceptable (and to be expected, honestly). In something like Wikipedia, where people go expecting information (at least in wikivoice) rather than jokes, it is more distracting than anything. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I just don't agree with equating the benefit of making someone smile, with the supposed detriment of momentary confusion. I will trade 1 smile for 1 momentary confusion any day of the week. Levivich (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  If Wikipedia worked on this principle, we'd have virtually no encyclopedic value pretty soon. "It's okay to confuse people if it's funny" is pretty clearly WP:NOT. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  You can make the same slippery slope claim about allowing anyone to edit. "All or nothing" is poor logic, every time. It's possible to have some jokes without having too many jokes, even if some of the jokes are bad and should be removed, it doesn't mean no jokes. Just like even though some edits are bad and need to be removed, it doesn't mean we should stop all edits. "Slippery slope" is poor logic because it can be applied to any situation at any time. Levivich (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is not the "slippery slope" argument, I am arguing against the principle itself. "Slippery slope" refers to extending the principle further than its current bounds, here, I am talking about applying the same principle, in its current bounds, all across Wikipedia. If all articles have potentially confusing meta-jokes like this one, Wikipedia will be more confusing. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  We do not have to worry about all articles having jokes as there are almost 7 million articles. If any part of your argument involves articles other than the one article at issue here, it's a slippery-slope argument. An argument that if we allow this joke here, we also would have to allow that joke there, is a slippery-slope argument: as you said, extending the principle further than its current bounds (which is one article). Levivich (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, it is the argument of consensus and precedent. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  

  Index page to 'Dr Bentley'. @Levivich: This faux index is from 1698 and takes the piss out of its subject. Mightily. ('Dr Bentley—His singular humanity to—foreigners—p.14' is particularly on the nose...) ——Serial 19:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict) I believe that Samuel Johnson's dictionary of English contained a joke. That doesn't stop it being a serious work. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Again, you're strawmanning my argument. I'm not saying that anything containing jokes isn't a serious work, I'm saying that the jokes introduced here are potentially confusing and do not have encyclopedic value. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't make me look up what the joke was to show that it's relevant, being confusing to the easily confused. I have to go and cook dinner now. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  (1) "Lexicographer - A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words." (2) "Oats - A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people." - Samuel Johnson. Neither joke detracts from the seriousness. Narky Blert (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can't find it now, but I distinctly remember, when the penguin joke hubbub was happening, someone wrote something somewhere (helpful citation, I know) compiling examples of the long history of jokes in reference works, including serious print encyclopedias of yesteryear. (The Samuel Johnson dictionary was on the list.) Levivich (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi! I've change my mind after thinking a little more about it, I think I agree with you now, introducing one self-referential joke into an article isn't equivalent to saying all articles should be riddled in incomprehensible jokes. And, as my username, it's good to embrace a little bit of chaos and whimsy occasionally! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  And even if they don’t get a joke like the penguin one, the most it will do is cause them to wonder for a moment why we felt the need to point out which one was the piper; no harm caused, and for the rest it brings a little joy to their life. BilledMammal (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm still sad that something adorable and with no risk of confusion at all, like the penguin joke, got removed, but that potentially confusing self-referential links are kept under the same principles. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The only people likely to be confused by the self-reference link are the ones who are confused by the entire concept of self-reference. They are exactly the people for whom including this in the article is likely to be the most helpful, because their confusion should be a signpost to their enlightenment. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• lame edit wars are lame. ltbdl (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• After consulting with another administrator, I've blocked 149.86.189.197 for one month for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, it would've been better for an uninvolved administrator to do it, rather than one arguing on the opposite side of the discussion. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't taken any position in this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  My apologies for the misunderstanding. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: I closed the referenced discussion here. After the close, several editors came to my talk page, and after discussion, I declined to undo my close. Levivich undoing my close without discussing it with me, and for the sole reason that it was not an RfC (which would be news to folks who close non-RfCs at CR) is completely inappropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not for the sole reason that it was not an RFC. Levivich (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Even if that is the case, you should not undo a close without discussing with the closing editor. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Other editors had already tried that. An AN appeal would have been feeding the troll. Tbh, I was hoping that in reviewing the total circumstances, you would have come to see that the close should have been undone, because it constituted feeding a troll, among other problems. Levivich (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see how you read that discussion and see trolling. Editors engaged in PAG-based arguments and then one of them requested a close. I obliged and closed the discussion. Overriding that process, and then deleting !votes because you think that one person was trolling is not cool. I have restored my close and you can bring it to AN if you want a close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Smh. Levivich (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well I've unrestored your close. At this point it would be best for you to recognize that at LOT of experienced editors find it was inappropriate, and step back. EEng 01:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  And as an experienced editor, you should know that the reason we have close reviews is so that several involved editors can't decide that they're going to overturn a close outcome that they don't like without broader community input. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  And as an inexperienced editor, you need to stop playing eager beaver and closing discussion's on issues you don't understand. You're not going to get to be an admin this way, trust me. EEng 18:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would appreciate if you could act with civility, stop insulting me, and focus on my edits and contributions, not me as a person. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, but here at ANI we comment on contributors, not on their contributions. EEng 19:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  AN/I is for addressing disruption and getting admin eyes on things that need attention ASAP, not for publicly insulting editors acting in good faith. We are all here to build an encyclopedia. I'm a reasonable person and if you have criticisms of me, I'd appreciate that they be constructive. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for telling me what ANI is for, editor-with-literally-one-fifteenth-the-experience-I-have! My criticism was completely constructive: I told you to stop closing discussions on issues you don't understand, and someone's just gone to your talk page to reinforce that point. But instead of taking that on board, you're fishing at Talk:Closure requests for a "peer review". You've already got your peer review right here in this thread: you screwed up. Now, everyone screws up sometimes, but not everyone keeps denying it despite clear evidence. EEng 21:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• The thread is not an RFC and should never have been closed. And it should have never been listed at WP:CR. If someone wants to establish an official consensus, they are free to create an RFC about including the link. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Special:Diff/1190942167 is where this went wrong. The irony is the IP saying "Any unbiased person who reads the talk page discussion will see that it resulted in no consensus." Levivich (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that was bad advice. He should have suggested a formal RFC. RFCs tend to be a more orderly survey plus separate discussion, and closers can generally see through any BS or socking; plus someone could note to the closing admin if an IP-hopper was posting multiple votes, or canvassing or something of that nature was occurring. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  That is absolutely not true. Non-RfC discussions can be and are routinely closed. Sometimes that's all you need to establish consensus amongst editors having a conflict, and RFCBEFORE makes clear that all alternatives should be tried before opening an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  SL didn't say non-RfCs are never closed; they said this particular discussion should never have been closed. Please pay attention. EEng 18:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• The discussion had petered out on the 8th. It was listed at CR on the 20th, in the section for non-RfC closures. (If only RfCs can be closed, why does that section exist?) On the 29th, three weeks after the last contribution to the discussion, Levivich decided to reopen it, ostensibly because he didn't agree with the outcome. I don't see how DENY is pertinent without evidence that comments were disruptive or made in bad faith, and I find it disingenuous to use WP:RBI as justification for deleting talk page comments without reporting the editor who made them, or at least indicating who the LTA behind them is (there should have been some effort at satisfying the "B" in RBI). Now the discussion has been re-closed, and re-opened again. And yet no editor has started an RfC there despite the lack of one having supposedly been the root of the problem all along.

  I see only two actions to be made here: a trout for Levivich, and a formal RfC at Talk:Self-referential humor. Anything else, and this whole situation is going to be a prime candidate for WP:LAME and/or WP:BJAODN. --Sable232 (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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 [103]. In the ensuing five weeks, the user has made more than 180 edits relating to languages or peoples of northeast Africa (list [104]), & a further 90 that are questionably in violation. On 27 November, Cookiemonster1618 was reminded once of the ban [105], & stated that they had forgotten & would observe the ban for the future [106]. They now apparently dispute the meaningfulness of the core terms of the ban—Northeast Africa is not a region [107].

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 ([108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113]).

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)

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)

• 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)

Arvin Abdollahzadeh

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

---

There seems to be some socking going on at a newly created article titled Arvin Abdollahzadeh. Several "new" users have attempted to remove the CSD tag without adequate explanation. I've reverted all of their attempts, but everything seems highly suspicious in my opinion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Issue has been resolved at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InterestInThing, and users have now been blocked. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption at Linga Balija

The block of a registered account hasn't slowed things down--now it's a team of IPs. See report here from December 26 [114]. More eyes on this, with possible user sanctions, reversion of poorly sourced and/or copied content again, followed by a lock. Thanks and HNY. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Page semiprotected for a month, let me know if any more accounts pop up and I can reset it to extended confirmed. As I'm acting in an admin capacity, I'd encourage anyone who wants to approach this as an editor go through and see if anything should be trimmed from what's currently there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, The Blade of the Northern Lights. If it's established that there's block evasion, someone can revert per WP:REVERTBAN. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

European Union Fan - a new edit-warring account

European Union Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The new account (currently 14 edits) already got a block for edit-warring (5 reverts) in List of countries by Human Development Index, Today, they got out of the block and continued reverting [115]. Probably an indefinite block is needed, given that they do not have a positive contribution. Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• As a PCR, I endorse Ymblanter's concern. After clear explanations in edit summaries, user still seems adamant about what the source is saying versus what they're interpreting. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Polymerase chain reaction? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The new account started Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index#Flag of Afghanistan and HDI in its 5th edit, and none of the other people using edit summaries to carry on a conversation have edited that talk page section.

Ironically, European Union Fan has a point that isn't being answered by the other edit warriors, except to point xem to another talk page after pointing xem to that talk page:

If the Emirate has no U.N. recognition (which this December 2023 report on its face seems to confirm, given that our Recognition of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article cites no sources for the point), how come the other warriors in the edit war are repeatedly putting the Emirate's flag against content that is sourced to the U.N. and then writing edit summaries like "the country is referred to as Afghanistan in the cited report" when it's a U.N. report for the year 2021?

This seems to be a case where someone has followed the advice to take it to the talk page, and been met with Kafkaesque take-it-to-the-talk-page-where-I'll-tell-you-to-take-it-to-another-talk-page responses and silence and reversions with advanced permissions editing tools and templated warnings and blocks. And no-one has stopped to think "Hold on! What's the year being reported on by that U.N. report that we're pointing to, again?"

Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Political POV pushing

DublinDilettante (talk · contribs) has a worrying habit of unsourced political claims, I noticed that they repeatedly edited War against the potato beetle to claims about MOS:TERRORIST despite it not being in the sources amongst other claims and then made hostile remarks about needing to follow sources because of the country it is.

Checking their history suggests similar pattern of inserting unsourced pov for political subjects 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:78E2:8146:4DA1:176F (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I have encountered this user before and would agree they struggle with WP:NPOV and they often insert non-neutral wording into articles in order to either promote a view or invalidate one. A few examples: [116][117][118][119][120]. In each instance the additions aren't representative of the sources; instead they're normally WP:OR based on nationality. We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions. — Czello ^(music) 12:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The David McCullagh one is particularly egregious; adding "in pro-NATO circles" in this diff where there are no mentions of NATO in the citation at all, and upon being reverted, instantly returning it without comment beyond the edit summary. From the diffs you've provided, and from having form for WP:NPA violations such as this, this feels like a case of WP:RGW. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Frenchprotector29

Frenchprotector29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fail to see how this user is a networth to this site. All their edits have been reverted, since they clearly prefer their own personal opinion above that of cited WP:RS (eg [121]).

Also engage in patronising attacks;

"I strongly advise you to study the Ottoman Empire because I don't think you've done it. You probably don't even know the difference between Deylik and Regency. No the term used by ottoman is not Algerians ,I suggest you familiarize yourself with the subject"

"Your knowledge of history is really limited. I advise you to study the history of the aq qoyunlu and kara koyunlu in greater depth."

"Well I'm going to have to point out this article due to your lack of knowledge and on top of that you don't know how to read or in the Sources quoted we're talking about a Georgian victory ignorant, here we're talking about a Safavid victory İsmail shah even defeated the Georgians and the article is false because Qara Yusuf defeated the Georgians Jahan shah of İran too but good and even Uzun Hassan Grandfather of Shah İsmail have you ever opened a book on the subject?..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A rumor that gets out of control

Introduction

The rumors that I am out to delete everything started after I nominated user User:Greg L's page and subpage [122] 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" [123], with little basis in my edits. History of Greg L: [124]

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: [125]

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" [126]
• 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" [127]

• Greg L raises a "motion" to end the AfD early [128]. 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:

• MLee1957: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_of_Anatoly_Klyan [129]
• Greg L: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln Township, Jasper County, Missouri [130]
• MLee1957: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln Township, Jasper County, Missouri [131]

Vexatious revert

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

• Live Lounge Special [132]
• Sugarloaf Mountains-Midland Peak Natural Area [133]
• Committee on International Security and Arms Control [134]
• Riding Facility, Riem [135]

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 [136].
• On a AfD closer Liz page [137] [138]
• Misrepresenting my maintenance activity and links to the other attack post he made above. [139]
• Racially charged/bigoted comment "he will learn to add value to the Hindi version of Wikipedia" [140]

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: [141], 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 [142] [143]
• Vickery Bowles [144]

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

• Deșteptarea (trade union) [145]
• Shieh You-hwa [146]

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.". [147]

User:Randykitty

Their only encounter with me prior were disagreement over standalone notability of journals. [148] [149]

After I got reverted, I have since then stopped redirecting or merging journals to lists and assured them of that that, [150] this user now threatened me with a ban for what vaguely is redirect as a merge.[151] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In what world is a resolved talk page issue (WP:BADNAC) more worthy of concern than ongoing 10 days of stalking, personal attacks, racism ([152]) and harassment campaigns? बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

I have quit wikipedia per Star Mississippi so this report can be closed. Thanks बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

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. [153]. 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. [154]

StarFish2022's only response to this is to today add even more improperly-sourced and badly-written promotional content, [155], 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)