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

Dismissed report regarding User:Keremmaarda

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

---

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 [1] 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 [2]. They also reject all contemporary sources in the article and call them exaggerated without any foundation [3]. 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, [4]) and WP:SYNTH (used a source talking about 1476 to argue their point regarding this 1462 battle [5]). I've been dragged into starting a DRN report, which they are not talking in [6].

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" [7]. 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 [8]. 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 [9]. They reject the sources they dislike in order to argue their point. I can't help but be worried about this edit from them [10] 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 [11] that you agree with what it is said here [12]. 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)

User:Super Dromaeosaurus, User:Keremmaarda - I have closed the DRN because the dispute is also at this WP:ANI thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my silence Robert McClenon, I stopped replying at the DRN as soon as I saw that the discussion was leading towards a topic ban believing it would happen sooner. Thank you for your efforts. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

  User:Rosguill and others - I had notified them of the Eastern Europe contentious topic when I started the now-failed mediation, and they agreed to the mediation rules. ArbCom did clarify that parties to mediation at DRN have been notified of a contentious topic if they agree to mediation rules that refer to the contentious topic. However, that may have been about two hours before Rosguill alerted them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• I support a topic ban, per everything said above. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. Keremmaarda's comments towards other editors with differing views/sources has been a problem for months. Blocked once for disruptive editing, blocked again for personal attacks against Beshogur. I would have to agree with SouthernNights, that if Keremmaarda's behavior continues, a complete ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Support a topic ban. It’s finally getting the attention it absolutely needs. Thank you to all participants of this discussion. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I was wrong about this and that's why I got a 1-week ban. I was punished for this. Keremmaarda (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that this person does not seem to understand the weight and purpose of ANI. They've recently started two reports over content disputes. The first was against me [13] [14]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ll just keep commenting so it won’t get archived again. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This dispute was also at DRN. Maybe I should have closed the DRN case a few days ago, but I hadn't reviewed this WP:ANI thread until Rosguill called it to my attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, I think this is a user working right on the edge of their competence linguistically-speaking, who is pushed over the edge into WP:CIR when controversial topics they feel strongly about are involved. I am particularly concerned by this comment, which, if analysed with the maximum generosity possible, shows something quite fundamentally wrong with their understanding of historical sources. On balance of probabilities, it shows something much worse.

I would urge an admin to take action now, this user is going to become a time sink and is likely to be back here before long. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support (here from RSN) the diff mentioned by Boynamedsue at least shows a poor understanding of how to judge a reliable source. Some time editing in other areas to build competence would be a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

OJIV

OJIV (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that focuses on articles related to Radhika Sarathkumar, including the production company they founded (Radaan Mediaworks) and of late, the television show Ponni C/O Rani. Their edits on that article are generally helpful, but they massively overlink terms related to Sarathkumar [15] and ignores the MOS for using italics for television shows [16]. I've been leaving messages on their talk page about this starting in early December [17] starting at polite messages and leading to final warnings [18] with messages on how they need to change their editing style.[19] 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)

Zero response to any messages for quite a while and they've been around for 6 months or so. Polite messaging, as you can tell, has gotten zero response, hence a more direct message and hopefully something that would get them to communicate. All that's needed here is for OJIV to say they will start following the MOS and respond to concerns. Their editing shows their either don't see the messages about this or don't care. This is when a block is needed to get them to discuss their edits. Ravensfire (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

And still happening [20], no communication from OJIV. Ravensfire (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, a continual refusal to communicate. Their contributions at this point is 75% reverted edits. SWinxy (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think an indef block is necessary. They aren't a mobile editor, so I strongly suspect they are intentionally ignoring their talkpage. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This is still happening [21]. Admins - some attention here would be helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed until they communicate. I will point out Ravensfire that their edits are not vandalism, so please to not say they are in your edit summaries. Canterbury Tail talk 17:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood, that was frustration coming through. Ravensfire (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Canterbury Tail talk 21:58, 5 January 2024 (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 [22]. 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 [23], 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 [24] with little to no explanation. [25] 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)

(Personal attack removed) Kire1975 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, so much for the apology. You really should've just dropped the stick, Kire. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if the TAGTEAM and incivility accusations might WP:BOOMERANG back to Kire in this case. The Kip 00:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an administrators' noticeboard - where are you, administrators? Are you okay with this behavior? A user started editing contentious pages without EC, repeatedly casting aspersions and personal attacks in multiple forums. Another user is making alternate apologies, personal attacks, and mocking people for being polite.

What's going on here? Is this a page where no rules apply? Marokwitz (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the offensive comment. See also my message at User talk:Kire1975#ANI. – bradv 21:10, 4 January 2024 (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 [26] 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 [27] 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 [28], 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 [29] (down below), which led to their block [30]. See also [31]

And there was also these episodes;

1. Another citation wrongly used again [32]
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 [33]
3. On 13 September at Ghurid dynasty [34] 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 [35] and 10 December [36], 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 [37] [38], 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 [39]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (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 [40]. In the ensuing five weeks, the user has made more than 180 edits relating to languages or peoples of northeast Africa (list [41]), & a further 90 that are questionably in violation. On 27 November, Cookiemonster1618 was reminded once of the ban [42], & stated that they had forgotten & would observe the ban for the future [43]. They now apparently dispute the meaningfulness of the core terms of the ban—Northeast Africa is not a region [44].

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 ([45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]).

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)

Cookiemonster1618 requested an unblock following SFR's 53 day block. I have declined the unblock request. See User_talk:Cookiemonster1618#December_2023 for rationale. As to an indefinite block, I'm a bit on the fence. I believe Cookiemonster1618 to be a productive editor based on cursory review. But, the problematic behaviors need to stop. If they are incapable of understanding that Eritrea is in northeast Africa, when the topic ban is to be "broadly construed", and there is nothing in Africa that is more northeast than Eritrea, then there is a potential CIR issue at hand. I'm hoping for improvement. Hoping. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I also think (& hope) that Cookiemonster1618 can become a productive editor, & I agree that on balance they've got mostly productive edits tho they're overwhelmingly of one nature: bringing Wikipedia into line with Ethnologue. However, problems like that which led to this editing ban have been occurring consistently for their entire editing history. They've been involved in Wikipedia since May. In early edits, they had very normal new editor troubles with appropriate sourcing & citation, but responded to questions & suggestions on their Talk page with exasperation & sarcasm [51]. In June, they were involved in a number of conflicts & edit wars—see the several different conflicts at [52], during which they were resistant to recognising verifiability criteria, threatened other editors, & repeatedly made personal attacks. The first of these problems has improved dramatically in the ensuing months—largely because they've stuck so closely to Ethnologue as a source—but not consistently (note this in September [53], where they are insistent on using a perennially unreliable source, despite having discussed the source with me three times). The other two issues have not improved at all. There is also a common pattern from June thru the present:

1. Cookiemonster1618 lashes out at other editors with accusations or threats,
2. states that a problem does not exist in the first place (23 June 'And what conflict? I haven't had a conflict with other users.' [54]; 31 December 'there is no such thing as a region called Northeast Africa' [55], then
3. becomes apologetic when an admin gets involved [56].

In July, Cookiemonster1618 was blocked for consistent addition of unsourced content [57]. While blocked, they solicited edits from another editor [58]. Again, this is of a cloth with the more recent pattern of just ignoring the Northeast Africa topic ban.

Throughout the months, there are repeat fairly wild accusations of vandalism (often in cases where other editors are in the wrong, but not vandalising) & a fair bit of edit-warring. This is obscured from a cursory overview by Cookiemonster1618's practice—as is their right—of removing discussion of conflicts from their Talk page. If you check before each major blanking of that page, you'll find a record of edit-warring or other problematic editor interactions. I don't think that this is going to improve by just waiting 52 days. Pathawi (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I'm willing to WP:AGF for now. Given this thread, I think it likely that visibility about the situation has risen. If problems arise again, we can address it then. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeing a second block appeal does not instill me with much confidence that we won't see this behaviour again when unblocked. They appear to display signs of WP:OWN in the articles they're interested in. In one of the brief interactions I had with them, they demonstrated tunnel vision when they accused an anonymous editor of adding unsourced content when all said editor did was remove an extraneous ref tag; Cookiemonster1618 only apologised when prompted to (full discussion).

ScottishFinnishRadish has already blocked them for the remainder of the topic ban, which I think is enough. If they do get unblocked early, perhaps a wider topic ban involving any article about languages or peoples (unsure if broad construal is needed) for a month is in order? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

I have to agree with JPxG here. It would be one thing if FoodforLLMs was adding and then deleting short descriptions and then reverting and re-reverting those edits until reaching 500 edits. But it seems like FoodforLLMs added genuine short descriptions, which we presumably want added to our articles. If we want short descriptions included in our articles, then adding them is not gaming the system. If we want the 500 article threshold to exclude additions of short descriptions then we should amend the requirements to say so. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, it's almost as if this were one of a significant number of very obvious and inevitable knock-on effects of the very broad and far-reaching policy language that ArbCom created out of whole cloth in the 'non-ECEs are not welcome on CTOP talk pages" decision, where said complications and consequences of such a massive change to our standards for participation in the project should have been considered and vetted by the community at large (over as long a period of time as it took to get the standard right), as opposed to by just twelve editors making an ad-hoc decision by themselves under a much shorter time constraint. Which in turn almost makes one think that the Committee went far, far beyond their traditional remit of reviewing particularly difficult cases or applying additional restraints for discrete topic areas, and straight into the business of declaring policy by fiat for the entire project. Which almost makes one think that the community at large is well overdue to mobilize to put some much more concretely defined guard rails in place to contain the Committee's ever-sprawling, increasingly limitless perception of its own purview, in order to prevent these kinds of oversteps.

And look, I'm sorry for the passive aggressive tone there--I know it's not typically the most helpful method to express concern on an issue like this. And I do appreciate that these steps (ill-advised and beyond the traditional remit of the Committee as I believe them to be) were taken in good faith. But I remain genuinely mystified as to how the current version of that body thought that this kind of all-encompassing decision (which can only be accurately described as WP:Policy creation from the top, in contravention of this project's most basic rules and oldest cultural values with regard to how consensus is formed) was within their remit, and why the community has not moved to walk back this decision and remind ArbCom of its place within our institutional order.

Is it that it's coming at a time of particular exhaustion, disengagement, and even nihilism about our systems by large swaths of our veteran editor base? Is it that this is actually a change which folds neatly into beliefs about restricting editing to registered users, and a minority (but still significant chunk) of editors actually like the sound of these changes enough that they are willing to turn a blind eye to ArbCom flexing new muscles, by expanding its scope arguably more than it has in any previous case? Or is it that we already let the situation get so far out of control that no one knows quite how to bring ArbCom to heel as a procedural matter? Or am I simply somewhere near the extremes when it comes to concerns generated by this decision?

Honestly, I'm really open to perspectives on this one, because I've been checked out for a few months and when I learned about this decision, I just felt it was wrong on so many levels--pertaining both to how the decision was made and the obvious implications (if not longterm infeasability) of the decision itself, and I am really surprised by the lack of agitation against it. If I'm more on the peripheries of this one than I'd expect to be, I'd like to know. And if I'm not, I'd like to talk with anyone who's interested about how we re-conceptualize our institutional order, to put some brakes on ArbCom's currently unfettered growth in authority. Because this feels as much like a watershed moment for that question as any since I joined the project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

@JackkBrown, after several warnings, report problems like this to WP:AIV. Also, IP addresses are not blocked "infinitely". Schazjmd (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: done! Special:Diff/1193093115. JackkBrown (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Concern for User:TheAmazingPeanuts

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

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

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

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

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

Is there any place where you or others have attempted to discuss the matter? This notice board should not be the first step in a content dispute. Zaathras (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, for me this situation originated in September with a dispute regarding what songs were considered singles on Travis Scott's Utopia album. I discussed it then and I will discuss it again, because there comes a point where it seems like the individual is going out their way to blur the lines of what a single is.

I would rather come to someone with authority than to lead myself into a pointless edit war with another user when again, they have admitted that they do not know how to indicate what is and what isn't a single. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hits is not a reliable source; there's never been a discussion on this website. At WP:SINGLE?, it says a song that was referred to as a single by a random media outlet should not be classified as a single. I have started a discussion on the talk page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

HitsDailyDouble is not a random media outlet. The Wikipedia page you provided for it quite literally states that it is (or was referred to in 1997 as) the "most successful tip sheet in the music world". SongQuarters is considered a tip sheet, and even as a defunct website is still listed as a source on various Wikipedia pages I've come across over time. I can understand not using Hits "Rumor Mill" as a source because that's all it is. Gossip. Rumors.

All in all regardless of sources, the single criteria needs to be revamped, simple as that. Whether that is giving the OK as soon as a track reaches top 40 on a radio format or just indicating the month that it began taking off at radio as when the single was released. The way it is right now just seems extremely fickle. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, a song getting sent to radio in one random country in Europe should not be the sole indicator of whether or not it is a single. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion, not a fact. There's still a need for discussion about whether the website is considered a reliable source; just because you think it's reliable doesn’t mean everybody else thinks it is. That's why we have talk pages. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be at WP:SINGLE? instead of here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

See, you're missing the point. My goal is not to impose what I think is reliable or not. I'm trying to bring about a serious open discussion about what indicates a single on Wikipedia, and why you feel so responsible to determining what isn't? 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said before, take this to WP:SINGLE? and we will discuss your concerns there instead of here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Um, no. My concerns were placed here for a reason, and I said all I would have needed to say over there right here anyway. Will be sure to head over there if I have anything to add but as it is the inconsistencies speak for themselves. The criteria in general needs to adapt. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

While this may not have originated as an intent to have a content dispute, it seems to presently be one (concern over reliable sources, etc.)—so perhaps another venue is presently in order. Remsense留 06:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

My concern was and is with TheAmazingPeanuts continued (and mostly ineffective) vigilant behavior on this site. The single discussion was the origin of me saying something about this. He caught a case of sockaphobia with me because of the edit war brought on by the initial situation. It was bully-like behavior. I'm interested in continuing that discussion as well but I can't really just go off the cuff with it.

He has a history of being inconsiderate and condescending. It's why he came through so quick to turn these concerns into debate. Eventually Mr. Peanut is gonna go too far and truly crash out on someone here, and when it happens, well... That's all I need to say in this talk page. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your comment pretty much proves that you don't want to have a discussion; you just want to be disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean I'm just being upfront. That's who I am. But if that's disruptive to you then you do you and I'll keep doing me. Sometimes you need to be disruptive when you're fighting for a cause. I'm sorry if that's something you don't have in you. Stay blessed. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:4C30:3201:11BD:BAF3 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This really should have gone to a different venue like dispute resolution, because as far as I can tell it's a content dispute. The filer has not provided any diffs of questionable conduct. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: This is an edit dispute. I suggested that the editor have a discussion here, but they refused. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems that this is likely an attempt at getting retribution for you, but I doubt this is going to end the way they think it will. Not only that, but they also (intentionally?) failed to notify you of this filing; it's like they have little respect for how things work around here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Original research, synthesis, and IDHT

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

@SeriousHist:

This user has been engaged in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to POVPUSH in the lead of Economy of the Song dynasty. Originally they expanded page numbers of existing sources while adding info on the statements attached, which made it seem as though the source supported the additional info, even though they did not [59]. They then engaged in an edit war with multiple users [60][61][62][63] until they accused me of sockpuppetry [64][65]. They never filed a report against me. Despite warnings about edit warring and original research [66] they have returned to significantly expand the lead specifically to prove that the Song dynasty's economy was not greater than that of Europe's [67]. Not only do the sources not support the user's additions and even contradict them, one of them is an outdated general history text on European history, while the other does not mention China or the Song dynasty at all.

Ex. User's addition:

According to another source; while China was a very advanced and prosperous country at that period of time with a steel production of around 100,000 tons plus urban cities with millions of people; it was not particularly superior or more dynamic than the other great civilizations in Europe or India or the Islamic World; Europe who boosted around 100 million people in the 13th century was founding its universities of Cambridge and Oxford, building its great cathedrals , proclaiming the Magna Carta , achieving great wealth with the cites of Pisa and Venise, preparing the Italian Renaissance and the discoveries of the New World plus launching the Crusades and the City of Constantinople was still the center of World Trade between East and West and the capital of the very wealthy Byzantine Empire. [68]

The source:

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

The book is a general history text with a particular focus on European history despite its name. The user opted to use an outdated edition (7th) that is over 30 years old. Their edits show lack of competency in grammar as well as citation style, leading to misformatted references and sentences in the current version [69].

When challenged to provide quotations as support [70], they failed in both cases [71], offering a quotation that is not the same as the added info and no quotation at all for the second source. Besides the OR, SYNTH, and COMPETENCY issues, there is also the WP:COATRACK behavior and the content is simply not DUE in a lead. They are now accusing me of WP:OWN [72]. Qiushufang (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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

First thing to show you your WP:OWN" which is forbidden 🚫; you removed first my contribution which say your assumption is based on one source which is the truth ; second Palmer is a classic but I m willing to discuss it on the talk page ; but when I described Europe achievements who are facts you removed them also ; third byzantine fiscal revenue are even in Byzantine article in Wikipedia; I simply compare the two empires revenues ; finally as for the comparison with Europe it is already in the article; I showed only respect for China ; I read a lot and see a lot of documents and movies about China like kingdom or qin empire so stop and open yourself to compromise I m ready to discuss [73] - WP:OTHERSTUFF reference to Byzantine article, the comparison between Byzantium and Song dynasty is never made in the source, and references to movies about China as an appeal for compromise on OR and SYNTH.

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

After looking at some of their other edits, they aren't any better on other articles, see Pamela Joan Rogers. Continuous unsourced additions with unencyclopedic language: [74][75][76][77]. When challenged, they add sources which do not support the attached info [78]. A Google search doesn't turn up anything either. They are again reverted by others [79], and SeriousHist reverts them again [80] until people give up or don't notice and settle for fixing their shoddy prose [81]. Afterwards they went back again to add in unencyclopedic language [82][83] not supported by the sources provided. Qiushufang (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

hello from the first I asked them Talk:Economy of the Song dynasty to work together; they did not respond ; then a lot of suspicious accounts showed up .

They removed first

- the fact that I said they were using one source to claim the song economy was the most prosperous in the world ; they removed it also it is a fact that it is based on one source.

- Second I used Palmer and common knowledge to show China was not particularly superior to other civilizations.

- Three I used the Byzantine Empire Fiscal figures in 1025 ( treadgold) and compared them to Song Dynasty fiscal revenues ( Byzantine Empire revenues were higher ; my figures are not contested they are present in my source and also in the Byzantine Empire Economy in Wikipedia) ; they removed everything not even trying to reach consensus, I begged them many times to go to the talk page or to wait for the community to discuss to no avail ; I leave the decision to your wisdom. It is true I m not always very active on Wikipedia but I know when to add important information; for example on Elizabeth Tudor which is a major article I added both the establishment of British Colonies in North America and the Eastern trade company ; both were missed entirely not even mentioned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only talk section involving SeriousHist is two years old and the only response to their contributions is a user stating that a source they provided does not support their claim. The same user reverted them for doing the same thing again in October 2023 [84]. All edits and reverts involving SeriousHist I provided for that page happened in recent months after the brief interaction on talk. This kind of deliberate misdirection has been typical of my experience dealing with them - changing page numbers as though they supported added material, addition of sources as though they support content when they do not, failure to provide quotations from sources that support material added, and ad hominem attacks like OWN or MEAT or SOCK when challenged. Qiushufang (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Facts are facts the difference between us is that I go to the talk page in good faith to try to resolve the issues and I never faced an issue like I faced with you ; sure I m not perfect but I m a team player which you are not ; my talk page prove it ; your talk page prove it ; in spite of all that for the 100 times I m ready to work with you on common ground if you accept to cooperate in good faith and stop WP:OWN which is for me the most disturbing aspect on Wikipedia; I had cooperation on Elizabeth Tudor and we did it unanimously; in Pamela Rogers ; an article changed by many contributors who totally rewrote or deleted my edits sometimes ;we cooperated and we were able to reach some missing information and to find consensus; same on other articles.

So again here I m offering you my hand ; will you take it to find common ground. SeriousHist (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What "facts" are being referred to here?

Supporting quotations were requested for the claims made here: "these numbers were relatively higher than the annual income of 500 tons of silver of the Song Empire" and "while China was a very advanced and prosperous country... it was not particularly superior or more dynamic than the other great civilizations in Europe".

No quotations which support these claims were provided. Neither in the reversion edit summary or talk section: Many have asked why China did not generate as Europe , in these centuries the forces that led to the modern scientific and Industrial world is a completely different sentence from "while China was a very advanced and prosperous country... it was not particularly superior or more dynamic than the other great civilizations in Europe", nor does it support the rest of the additions. Nor is it related to the topic of the article, Economy of the Song dynasty. What does this have to do with the economy of the Song dynasty?

Here you did not provide a quotation at all for the claim that these numbers were relatively higher than the annual income of 500 tons of silver of the Song Empire. I know you cannot provide a quotation because I checked the source and neither China or the Song dynasty are mentioned even once in the text. The author did not make claims or state anything about the subject of the article. This is what is called an original analysis and antithetical to how Wikipedia works per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

An editor is not required to cooperate or compromise with another user to find common ground on baseless information created via original analysis while pretending it is not. Qiushufang (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research... This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. @SeriousHist: Do you or do you not understand what this sentence means? That other editors have not taken specific issue with your unencyclopedic language, consistent misrepresentation of sources, and addition of unsourced content is not a badge of approval. It simply means they did not care enough to deal with it beyond reverting you. Which is not even true. You have already been warned for it and reverted multiple times for the same issue. Qiushufang (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Again first you reverted the fact that I put your assumption about song dynasty being the most prosperous in the world was based on one source

- Palmer talk about China in the 13 th century which includes the Song Dynasty specifically with the economic figures

- The revenue of the Song dynasty are inside the song article; I simply compared them to the revenue of the Byzantine Empire which are in my source and these numbers are common knowledge like saying the Nominal GDP of USA in 2023 is 26 trillion dollars while that of China is 19 trillion dollars; anyway I m ready to present the figures without elaboration leaving each reader to reach his or her own conclusion.

- Your history of conflict behavior and WP:OWN is seen in your talk page and your behavior with the song article

- New Accounts appeared suddenly supporting you ; I suspect Meatpuppets which is a very grave situation.

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

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

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

This is WP:IDHT or WP:COMPETENCE at this point. Enough explaining has occurred. User does not understand or is unwilling to recognize core Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:VERIFY and deflects when challenged to support their sources with quotations. Qiushufang (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I rest my case trusting in the judgment of the competent comity ; I will abide by their judgment and move on ; no need to repeat ourselves so many times.

Thank you . SeriousHist (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not going to comment on the meatpuppetry etc but comparing two different sources is WP:SYNTH, you need a specific source that supports your statement.

I also suggest that you two stop arguing as this the admins will be less likely to respond. 115.188.140.167 (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you ; I will take your advice. SeriousHist (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

User:Tagishsimon incivility at teahouse and unresponsiveness on talk page

FYI

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

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)

Tagishsimon - section break

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

Earlier I decided I wouldn't get too involved in this, but having seen the above discussion and Tagishsimon's subsequent activity, I'm concerned. He never responded, either on his talk page or on here directly, which tracks with his long, consistent pattern of completely ignoring other editors' feedback on his behavior. As Tenryuu stated, he seemingly waited until this discussion was archived and continued on the Teahouse like nothing happened, despite Valereee asking him to take a break from hosting. His attitude has not changed either, looking at this comment on the Teahouse made ~6 hours after Valereee's comment on his talk page. Seems like a textbook case of flying under the radar. sawyer * he/they * talk 03:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have requested Tagishsimon's participation in this section here, and respectfully recommended that they do so prior to continuing to reply to topics at the Teahouse. (Copy of talk page message) Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well since I was up above saying this didn’t look so bad: that post is again substantively correct, but making it was a dumb and inappropriate response to the situation, and going back to TH at all was a very bad idea. I would support a partial block. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of the same lines, but I was going to wait for a response from Tagishsimon before taking action. I'm disappointed by this, as Simon has been very helpful to me in the past in working on articles, but WP:BITE is still an active guideline. As others have said, if you're getting angry at vandals and spammers, the problem is at your end. Either they're good faith but misguided, or they're bad faith and enjoy watching you taking their bait. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention, even if some are acting in bad faith, which I don't believe is the case for the most part, they are human beings and we have ways to deal with bad faith activity that do not end in a positive contributor to this community and encyclopedia being brought before AN/I. It also does not leave the misguided wondering why they asked anything at the Teahouse and reluctant to ask any more questions they may have. It's bad for the Teahouse and bad for the encyclopedia/community. And worse still, all of the biting, snide and unhelpful comments are not necessary. Most hosts and other editors handle questions quite well and civilly. --ARoseWolf 13:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

valereee tbanned pblocked them from the teahouse a few hours ago

it seems tagishsimon's comments around the teahouse (and specifically only the teahouse, their contribs in other talk pages have been either templates or not actually uncivil), have been a bit bitier than before, which is a shame, because i believe the answers were correct

i think this situation can be very easily amended if they just say anything here or in their talk page, but until then, i support keeping the tban cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It is certainly not the case that Tagishsimon is only uncivil at the Teahouse. He has been incredibly rude to me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red on numerous occasions, despite other editors reprimanding him. I can't be bothered to dig out the diffs, but they are much worse than any of the links I've followed above. I think he just can't help himself. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

my bad, i was only looking at the most recent examples (as in the ones from after this thread was opened), so consider that support... not actually changed in any way, because this mostly means they have more things to explain

i'm assuming you're referring to this, by the way. i'm really not sure what that was about, and i joke about engvar more often than i probably should cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile you have been uniformly civil to Tagishsimon, I'm sure. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And definitely no one has ever reprimanded you for your behavior at WiR, either. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Oooooh, I wonder who you are! A remarkably partial selection, which doesn't really make your point. Interesting talk page you have. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow it's a good thing you linked my talk-page, otherwise people would have trouble finding it. As far as I know I've never interacted with you before, I just read AN/ANI for a perverse kind of entertainment. Following your comment, I browsed ten sections of the WT:WiR archives for posts by Tagishsimon. They were overwhelmingly polite and constructive in those archives, including several hundred comments. You, on the other hand, post much less there, but in my browsing I found two instances of you being a dick, in ways that specifically indicate the hypocrisy of your complaint here. Please don't be a hypocritical dick. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Both of you stop. We're only keeping this open waiting for TS to come in. No other commentary is needed, and snarky remarks are particularly unhelpful. Valereee (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You'd better prepare for a long wait then. Valereee, whatever happened to WP:NPA? Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It'll archive again, I'd assume. Sorry, not sure what you're asking about NPA? Valereee (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I forecast Tagishsimon will resume making edits again once this gets archived, with a 10% chance of appealing/complaining the pblock. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that will be less of a problem now that the pblock is in place to prevent them from returning to the Teahouse, but still the refusal to engage here indicates a lack of respect for the concerns of fellow editors. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Ok, apologies. If you think it would be better, please feel free to remove my previous comment. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nit...valereee pblocked (technical prohibition) not tbanned (requires manual enforcement). DMacks (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

Evidence of Milktaco writing them:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question - are you related to Belugajdm, by chance? Daniel (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

SPI alert? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, it's a sock. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Malicious reverter

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

Regardless of what else is happening here: your editing their page to personally attack them is completely unacceptable. There is never a reason to do that. Remsense留 09:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That is true, I agree and am sincerely sorry for doing so. I will revert that edit. Janneman27 (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This case is closed for now. An admin helped with the situation. Thank you so much to all those who helped and assisted. Janneman27 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Post-RFA "bad hand" sock?

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

---

"Are there any sleepers?"

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

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

It doesn't really matter whether it is a sock or not. The editor should be blocked for personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Christ, what a person who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Indeffed. If we want to leave this section open for a little longer, it might be condign (this is probably someone, the question is whether it's an established editor or some random LTA). jp×g🗯️ 10:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You can ask your favourite checkuser (paging Drmies) to see if there are any sleepers. Otherwise, I think we're done here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Had to look up 'condign', not gonna lie. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Repeated creation of promotional article

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

Also Draft:Ethan's Tech Solutions LLP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I've salted the two article titles mentioned above, and I'll have a word with RonakJK now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

To me the obvious choice of action is to give a final warning and block if they try and do it again. Usually an indef block for WP:NOTHERE would be best, but this editor seems to have at least tried to improve Wikipedia, unlike most of the run-of-the-mill promoters. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Birotron, redux

The WP:OWNership and problematic editing at Birotron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), mentioned not too long ago in this thread, has carried on after I rewrote it from scratch, with the same IP-hopping chap continuing to add unreferenced content (eg: [85]) Somebody in the previous thread suggested permanent semi-protection; is that still a viable option? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indef not viable yet as this is the page's 1st protection. El_C 15:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Pssst! Ritchie333! This may help sort out the Complex 7 versus Birotronics dispute:

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

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

  — "Complex Seven". Beat Instrumental Magazine. No. 152. January 1976. pp. 62–63.

  Given that it is being quoted almost half a century later when everyone has entirely forgotten Complex 7, because of Wikipedia disruption by someone who cannot cite sources to save xyr own life it seems, this very article seems to be making its own prediction come true. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the presence of Complex 7 is too much of an issue now, LowSelfEstidle added a source for that. Indeed, LSE is another editor who's had their well-sourced edits reverted by this collection of IPs, who go on to add unsourced content like:

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

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

IP editor revenge-reverting blocking admin?

IP address 81.102.123.104 appears to be revenge-reverting Bbb23's edits [86] [87] [88], apparently accusing them of being WP:BKFIP. This after Bbb23 blocked the IP address 149.86.189.197 for being BKFIP. Does this call for a block? Or should this new IP address be checkusered? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Reywas92

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

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

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

I did participate at DRN, I am not obligated to respond to every comment. I did respond at the talk page. Regarding the statistics tables you are unilaterally removing, these are standard across airport articles as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content and perfectly appropriate to include. You have never brought up a valid reason to remove on the talk page, so my revert yesterday with an edit summary that you requested is appropriate, so now it is your job to make the case on the talk page. This one revert is no basis to come here. Regarding the destination tables, I added perfectly appropriate sources, including local news, regional news, and industry news. These are in fact secondary sources. You are simply moving the goalposts and discounting what you just don't like to institute your own goal of removal of information from the article. I did post on the talk page regarding my edit, so why are you coming here instead of actually responding to me there regarding your concerns about the dozens of sources I added? Reywas92^Talk 03:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned your reversion of my removal of the statistics tables because I believe it is part of a pattern of disruptive behavior, as outlined in my initial comment.

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

This is a poor-faith argument that moves the goalposts in order for you to eliminate the table altogether rather than allow for additional sourcing showing there is due coverage of routes. You specifically said in the RFC, "I would say then that the "Airlines and destinations" section should be based mainly on reliable independent sources." Yet that's exactly what I did! If now you want secondary sources that "involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information", what generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information do you want? Per WP:PRIMARYCARE, "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to Wikipedia articles, but only in the form of straightforward descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." That's exactly the case here for simple facts that an airline serves a route! This is just a provision of basic information about routes, not a critcal review of a something like "the proclamation and the diary", "a work of art", or "a direct witness" as described in "How to classify a source". Neither an airline's scheduling of a flight nor a newspaper's reporting of routes available has the disadvantages of "propaganda...omit...overstate...prejudices...unaware". This is an inappropriate twisting of the actual reasons to use secondary vs. primary sources in various cases. Whether from the airline or an independent reporter, the statements in the articles and the sources used are indeed "authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher" (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), and to discount them serves no valid purpose. You point me to WhatamIdoing's comment, yet conveniently ignore the part where he says "Having said that, I agree with you that this kind of basic information isn't really what we need either a secondary or an independent source for." Reywas92^Talk 17:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The requirement of secondary sourcing is from the RFC, not from Sunnya343. If you want to change that consensus I suggest working with A.B. on the wording of a challenge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Reywas92, we edit by consensus. I believe the RfC outcome was incorrect but it still trumps your and my individual opinions. Please accept the RfC outcome and the deletion of that table until we get the RfC reviewed based on policies and guidelines. Until then, you're just going to lose and you might get sanctioned. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I will hold off on responding to your arguments until the RFC closure challenge is posted. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Many of the sources you have used are primary when the consensus is that they need to be secondary, see the close of the recent RFC[89]. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Resources#Common sources to avoid in regard to Simplyflying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sunnya343, I disagree that Reywas92 is engaged in DISRUPTIVE editing worthy of any sanction. See the note at the top of this page: there is not a "chronic and unmanageable behavioral problem" that needs attention at WP:ANI. It's clear that Reywas92 disagrees with your edits and has reverted them. It's also clear that in the recent past, other editors have disagreed with your edits at that same article and also reverted them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You are right that multiple editors disagreed with my edit, and I invited all of them to participate at DRN. None besides you took part in the discussion portion of dispute resolution. True, they were not required to do so. However, when one of the editors, Reywas92, does not participate in the discussion and, after the dispute is closed, proceeds to revert my edit, where else am I supposed to go for assistance? Sunnya343 (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I was briefly the moderator for the discussion at DRN that is being mentioned. I will summarize what happened at DRN, because not much happened there. The case was Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_240#Harry_Reid_International_Airport. The filing party was Sunnya343, who is also the filing party here. They had removed the lists of airlines and destinations from the article, citing the above RFC, which had been closed by User:ScottishFinnishRadish, and said that lists of airlines and destinations should only be included in airport articles if the lists were supported by reliable secondary sources. Some editors disagreed with the closure of the RFC. It appeared that the other editors wanted either to ignore the RFC or to overturn the RFC. DRN is not the forum to challenge the close of an RFC. WP:AN is the forum for such challenges. I thought that one of the editors said that they would challenge the RFC close at WP:AN. I haven't seen a challenge to the RFC close at WP:AN since then. I closed the DRN thread because there didn't appear to be a content dispute of the sort that is handled at DRN.

I think that there are three options at this point:

• • 1. Remove the lists of airlines and destinations, in accordance with the RFC.
  • 2. Show that the lists of airlines and destinations are supported by secondary sources.
  • 3. Challenge the closure of the RFC at WP:AN.

Anything else is a timesink. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur with those options, and the resulting time sink of another path is chosen. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not indifferent but I have not challenged the close yet. I have been too busy to put together a thorough, well-documented challenge with diffs, policy citations, precedents, etc. I think our process deserves that kind of preparation. In the meantime, that RfC still stands. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If the RFC stands the reinstatement of the table without non-primary sources is disruptive. Editors time is better spent formulating the challenge to the RFC close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, did you mean "without primary sources"? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a fair comment as I had to reread my comment twice, it is correct but confusingly constructed. Saying non-primary makes it sound like a double negative when it isn't. To be clearer the table shouldn't be reinstated without secondary sources, as per the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! (I meant what you knew) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Summerdays1 and WP:HOUNDING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a repost from my previous message, which got archived, since problems persist. GuardianH (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

@JML1148 Summerdays1 said pretty explicitly that I damage this site and it has to end and that I will wreak holy havoc on any academic article. It's hard to see these edits under innocuous summaries as something other than with the aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress (WP:HOUNDING) to provoke a response from me, making them in bad-faith. Why else would they go from singer and songwriters to higher education and legal academics? GuardianH's edits seem to be plain bad faith - I don't see how my edits are bad-faith when I have no agenda against universities in cleaning up boosterism. GuardianH (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@GuardianH: Summerdays1 said pretty explicitly that I damage this site and it has to end and that I will wreak holy havoc on any academic article. I'm not denying that Summerdays1's conduct has been unacceptable, they clearly need to be punished for their blatant violation of WP:CANVASS and WP:CIV. Why else would they go from singer and songwriters to higher education and legal academics? People are allowed to change what articles they edit. Even if they are choosing to solely edit articles that you have had been substantially involved in, the edits in question appear to minor copyedits that appear to be generally positive changes, such as fixing minor grammatical mistakes and clearer language. As I have previously said, I don't see any evidence of Summerdays1 re-adding booster content or hounding you. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@JML1148 Sorry, I was being unclear. A lot of the edits are were not constructive and added, rather than removed, errors:

• Spelling mistakes, reckless formatting mistakes, and grammar mistakes ( [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99])
• Erroneous material ([100] [101])
• Readded boosterism ([102])

These edits made the quality of writing in the article worse and were made without knowledge of citation placements, code format, etc., which is especially frustrating for the articles I worked to write and promote to GA status. Basically, when they said that I damage this site and it has to end and then went and undid/reverted my edits on articles — thats bad-faith and unconstructive. GuardianH (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

RocketKnightX

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

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

• [103], [104], [105], [106], [107],[108],[109],[110],[111], [112], [113], [114], [115]

Making controversial moves and marking as minor edits:

• [116], [117],[118],[119],[120]

CTopics notice from 31 December 2023 (prior to the above) [121]

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

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

I think something needs to be done. For example, they have tried to move Stepanakert to some form of Khankendi three times, despite it having had an RM close as "no consensus" on 3 December 2023:

1. 08:15, 1 January 2024
2. 20:34, 1 January 2024
3. 11:43, 4 January 2024

The third attempt took place both after I warned them and after Timothy opened this ANI thread. Other articles where they have made a repeat attempt to move after this ANI thread was opened include:

1. Stepanakert Memorial → Victory Monument (Khankendi)
2. Martuni, Nagorno-Karabakh → Khojavend, Nagorno-Karabakh
3. Artsakh University → Garabagh University

I'm not sure what the appropriate long-term response is yet, but given they have continued this behavior rather than respond to this ANI thread I think an article-space block would be appropriate to compel them to stop and respond. BilledMammal (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A few minutes after I made this comment they attempted to move Stepanakert for the second time since this ANI thread was opened, and the fourth time overall. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it is a suspect that Death Editor 2 was blocked on 11:05, 31 December 2023 (see open ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Death Editor 2 and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (again)) and RocketKnightX started editing this area with very similar POV, two hours later at 13:19 31 December 2023. Looking at their contributions, the switch in topics, and the timing, I think this may merit much closer inspection, I'm not an expert in this area, but someone who is should eval this and see if there is an issue.  // Timothy :: talk  12:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve also noticed recent disruptive behavior from this user, combined with a lack of communication. I can’t say how long it’s been going on since I had not been in the topic area for a few months prior to the past week or two, but this user seems to be everywhere at once, leading to not all their edits being noticed and promptly contested/reverted.

WP is built on discussion and consensus. Marching in blithely and continuing to push POV despite warnings needs to be dealt with accordingly.

Their flouting of CT and other policies and guidelines should merit a block. Just since this thread was created, they have made over a dozen edits to the topic area, including unilateral page moves. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I too have seen unhelpful edits from this user. They still continue to make unneeded moves and removal of anything Armenian from relevant pages. Nintentoad125 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a minor point, and I'm not opining about the moves themselves, but all page moves are marked as minor. For whatever reason, this isn't documented in editor-facing docs. (See Wikipedia talk:Moving a page/Archive 2 § Straw poll on allowing users to mark page moves as major edits for example.) (Non-administrator comment) Skynxnex (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: This user is now ignoring the WP:CIVIL policy on the memorial article: "deal with it" KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone just indef block them already? It's rather obvious that it's needed. Then we can investigate the duck allegations. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Mass disruptive page creations by IP-hopper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They said in my talk page that If I'm new to Wikipedia, I should go play around instead, funny thing is they are newer to Wikipedia that I am - Special:Contributions/Fostera12, Special:Contributions/Thewikizoomer

How can someone remove a discussion template not 1 but 2 times when the template explicitly asks editors to not remove that. Not that I discourage and make attacks against editors on Wikipedia but that explains who's "new" here I guess. WP:NOTHERE applies too. Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

When it is Vyooham and you bluff that it is Vyuham in imdb and film poster. This is not personal attack. Misleading wikipedia and putting notification boards just because you created the article as Vyuham is not good practice. And yes it is waste of time for busy editors to review silly things such as these. And putting silly issues in admin noticeboard is another time waste. Thanks Fostera12 (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, let the silly thing be taken care by administrators anyways.

Could you please explain the bluffing part? When did I mention that it's Vyuham in imdb and film poster. I literally said except IMDb, no other source uses Vyuham as the title's spelling. You appear to be not understanding what I said again and resorting to personal attack again on Administrators noticeboard page, it also again displays the uncivil nature that is not expected of an editor here on Wikipedia. Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Its Vyooham and not Vyuham. Period Fostera12 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the title name being Vyooham as per sources, also you failed to explain the bluffing part, so the discussion may be continued at the talk page of Vyooham (2024 film) regarding the title.

The Administrators' will have look into the issue posted here about the behaviour. Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this a joke? They make personal attacks and not expect the warning template on their talk page?

Just to bring to the notice of administrators, this editor makes personal attacks on me and then proceed to ask me to not "message them" on my talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewikizoomer&diff=prev&oldid=1193553098 Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Fostera12 I suggest that you take a walk in the park/have a sip of coffee or tea/do something else that you like and come back to this after you have calmed down and reflect what you have written on @Thewikizoomer's talk page. Would you appreciate such messages if someone going to your talk page with similar messages on what you think is right? This request was originally requested at WP:RM/TR by Thewikizoomer, but it seems that they have decided to open a discussion instead before any pagemovers or admins assessed the request. If you have any concerns on the requested move, add your comments/thoughts in that discussion in a civil manner. – robertsky (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

They still haven't struck out their comments on me - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AVyooham_%282024_film%29&diff=1193381125&oldid=1193180080 Thewikizoomer (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Thewikizoomer there's nothing to strike out when you had already removed the comments? Special:Diff/1193565637. Striking out usually means this (editing the text to put a line across). It also gives the opportunity for the other party to leave some additional words, hopefully in contrition.

That being said, @Fostera12, it has been more than a day. Do you acknowledge the issue and that you should not repeat a similar outburst on Thewikizoomer's talk page or elsewhere? – robertsky (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but their disrespect directed towards me isn't still removed from the talk page of an article - Talk:Vyooham (2024 film) Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Also @Fostera12, please do not remove templates when it explicitly asks editors to not remove them. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet block evasion

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

---

It appears that User:HetmanWL who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Urabura by administrator Bbb23 is evading the block using IP User:2A00:F41:4C9F:BB52:3577:15DF:312E:6096, as evident here:[122] and [123], and continuing to post comments on the Talk:Poland and Talk:Romania pages. E-960 (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think a range block will be required, as the individual will likely continue to evade. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The /64 has now been range-blocked by User:Favonian. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Picanha

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

---

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

@A. Landmesser, that is something to discuss at Talk:Picanha, it's not an issue for administrator action. Schazjmd (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Heymynameiswhat personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

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

Please see this comment. This was their response to my notice to them about edit-warring and civility ([124]), which I left after seeing this edit summary and these responses to another editor on their talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indef with TPA removed. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyvios by RandomRatplay

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

---

I've had to spend a considerable amount of time cleaning up copyvios added by RandomRatplay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back in December. Examples of the copyvio include: [125] which is copied from this Eartharchives article, [126] which was copied from this blog post [127] which was copied from this page on the PictureInsect website [128] which was copied from this Encyclopaedia Britannica article and [129] which was copied from The US Fish and Wildlife services website. After I warned them about Wikipedia and copyright [130] yesterday they again added a copyvio [131] this time from a page on fossilmuseum.net. A lot of their editing is otherwise incompetent, for example, adding blatantly erroneous links [132]. Given that they have so far not communicated, I would support indefinitely blocking them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked, per WP:COPYVIO. Cullen328 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

uncommunicative editor racking up reverts

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

And what is this edit summary in response to an edit by User:Olek Novy, supposed to mean? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, if a block is the only way to get the editor's attention. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not so much that WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU but that they do not care. They were using their edit summaries to "communicate" with (read: hurl homophobic abuse at) another editor, and the overwhelming majority of their contributions can be best described as nationalist pov-pushing. I will try to revert some of them later. Anyway, good indef. Ostalgia (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry User:CollegeMeltdown?

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

You are supposed to notify the editors. I have done it for you (I notified both because they don't appear to be linked). M.Bitton (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

From a procedural standpoint, this isn't socking. CollegeMeltdown's last edit was 26 February 2023, and Collegemeltdown2's first edit was on 28 March 2023, so there's no overlap; the use of accounts here isn't abusive. It's very common for someone to create a new account with "2" appended when they have forgotten their password, as I suspect is the case here (and this scenario is listed as a valid use of multiple accounts), although the link between the two accounts should be made clear. I haven't looked at the substance of their edits, so I have no idea if there's something actionable here beyond the socking allegations. Giraffer (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot my password. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior

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

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

Here's the history:

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

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

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

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

• Seconded (not independent, as I participated in the discussion on listed buildings noted above, and we've been on opposite sides in a number of AfDs). The critique of Simon Harley is startlingly inappropriate. I'd add that "I appreciate the personal feedback and will take it to heart, do you have any comment on my argument?" reads as aggressive to me, rather than a promise to behave more collegiately in future. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO it reads as frustrated but trying to do my best to stay on track content wise. I can definitely see how it would read as aggressive though. I would note that in the same way my worst edits have been cherrypicked you could also cherry pick collegiality, for example from this very discussion before it blew up "Despite being in an argument with Ed on another page I heartily Agee with them here..."[133] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• That is not a now-blocked editor, thats a LTA who was blocked years before I ever interacted with them. I did not attack Harley for a blog post, I pointed out they had gotten our policy/guideline wrong and that the restriction they thought existed actually didn't... We are in fact allowed to use sources which are publicly accessible but not online. I would note that The ed17 has omitted the key context here... They end at Harley, but they only brought this to ANI after this happened [134][135]. I find it baffling that the most important context was omitted from the report. Also just a note I currently have a LTA stalker undoing my contribs en-masse so if my comment disappears its almost certainly them and not a participant in this thread good hand-bad handing, I apologize in advance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, screw the LTAs that decide to revert people for no reason. That's a fair complaint, and may be worth a separate discussion. On the subject of this discussion, though, while there are tons of articles that leave a lot to be desired, I feel like you've been going way too far in the direction that all articles better be fixed right now, which includes the battleground behavior you've exhibited. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I mean I gave them a reason... I kept opening SPI... Its a poor excuse but I wasn't in a good head space yesterday on account of the LTA. It must have been more than 100 reverts in 24 hours, maybe much more than that (most were repeats and dealt with by other editors who I am forever grateful to). If I may thats never been my editing philosophy, I believe in tagging *right now* but fixing over years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thirded. (Like user Espresso Addict, I am not independent of the situation; I have not participated in the linked discussions, but have interacted with Horse Eye's Back in other talk pages). I have also seen HEB's unnecessarily personalized and aggressive behavior toward editors. Late 2022 they received a warning at this noticeboard for aggressive and inaccurate accusations of COI against an appropriately disclosed paid Wikipedian-in-residence. Over the past month or so, HEB has turned attention to similarly disruptive cross-posting that has involved attempts (1) (2) to make public claims about another the personal information of another user (myself), including expressing belief that I should have "zero expectation of privacy" (this fits the pattern of making disagreements personal, about a user's identity, rather than about the substance of edits or content on Wikipedia); and more inaccurate accusations of COI. Of the inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation, User:DJ Cane said that HEB was "operating on a very liberal reading of WP:COI" and that HEB's "zeal in confronting opinions opposing your own in this discussion is both non-constructive and alarming, and I agree with the discussion provided by @P-Makoto that your cross-discussion comments targeting specific editors is concerning and possibly worth an outside review on its own". Based on this widespread pattern of aggressive, battlegrounding behavior, I support the proposal to issue formal action. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation"? I don't think it was aggressive and it certainly wasn't inaccurate. Yes they disclosed (but only on their user page, not on affected talk pages and not whenever they discussed the topic)... But they're also the author of 75% of the article on their employer... See [136]. Disclosure doesn't free you from the other restrictions and expectations... For example "you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;" "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" and "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;". Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The "inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation" I linked to has nothing to do with the Harold B. Lee Library page or Rachel Helps (BYU). I linked to an AfD discussion about a different page where you were accosting Heidi Pusey BYU.

In any case, merely to clarify the particular matter you refer to: Rachel Helps (BYU) does in fact openly disclose that on her user page: I wasn't going to edit the page, but a previous copyvio put the page out of commission. I completely rewrote it so a page would exist. My edit history is available for anyone to examine. Other editors looked over the page. Since copyright violation is illegal and should be promptly replaced with non-copyvio content, this—while not ideal—is, I would posit, understandable (as a rare occurrence to not be recommitted), especially since Rachel Helps (BYU) is completely up front about it on her user page, has not repeated that, has made the disclosure on her user page, and has made sure other editors reviewed the contributions.

An occasional, rare questionable moment is understandable amid a long history of responsible editing; Rachel Helps (BYU) has a long history of responsible editing. Frequent, consistent misbehavior is much less understandable, especially when set against the backdrop of a pattern of battlegrounding, sealioning, and hounding; unfortunately, you have a long history of battlegrounding, sealioning, and hounding. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a long history of responsible editing, even my greatest detractor wouldn't argue that more than 1% of my edits are misbehavior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

People aren’t here to call for you to be subject to an outright ban as you do make plenty of good contributions to the project. We’re here because you have a sustained history of aggression, targeting, and tendency to go off topic in discussions when another editor disagrees with you. Additionally your inaccurate interpretation of COI appears to lead to many of these interactions. DJ Cane (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a single person has called for me to be subject to an outright ban unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this notice to my attention @P-Makoto. To expand on what’s quoted of me there, it is clear to me that HEB has decided that any affiliation at all with the subject matter of an article to constitute a COI violation and they defend their opinion on that and any other subject I’ve seen in an aggressive, non good faith manner. DJ Cane (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I do not wish to devote too much energy to this. I was not the kindest person in the world during these discussions and have since moved on to building the new AARoads Wiki and generally doing other stuff with my life. However I was pinged in the initial post, and the reason I was not kind in these discussions is because I feel so strongly about this, so I'll say this much: this is long overdue. The listed jab at me was especially out-of-pocket because my initial diatribe in that RFC did not mention or even name HEB, but not long after it was posted, he found it within himself to go back and tag a buttload of articles I had written and contributed to a decade ago. Just deeply petty and mean to the point that it could not be construed as anything other than a personal attack. It also feels worth mentioning that relentless sealioning is another card in HEB's deck, so if he starts ignoring the crux of your argument to keep asking for more proof/diffs, just know it's a pattern. I decline to answer any questions or comment further on this matter. Good luck. TCN7JM 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thats sealioning? Good grief... I would say more but what's the point if you're not participating further. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have been personally warned by more than one user from interacting with HEB due to what they characterized as trollish behavior. I don't think any of them have commented here yet. My experience with HEB does not deviate far from their descriptions. Qiushufang (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Considering HEB is one of the reasons roads editors forked, you were better off not interacting with them. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have much to say except that in the discussion on Talk:Simon Harley I was concerned by the pattern I was seeing. Hostile posts followed by demands for details and clarification and at every point adding new issues is a pattern I've seen in other users before. It is a very negative one as it makes the conversation exhausting for all concerned. If HEB consistently demonstrates this pattern (and I have not examined all the diffs other people have provided, so I don't exactly know how valid their concerns are) then the community should have very little patience for it. The Land (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• I don't see a great deal here except content disputes. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the difs above extreme enough to warrant ANI involvement. Most users who edit a lot will have edits which display their frustration, and the above difs show nothing more than that. What are we here for? What policies is HEB supposed to have violated? In many cases, established editors are (probably unfairly) given much more leeway than newer users, I don't see that happening here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Huh? Behaviour during content disputes is very much what 'warrants ANI involvement'. For policies, try WP:NPA for a start. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, but my point is that I don't see anything in the behaviour outlined above that would warrant an ANI case.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Then you don't understand ANI. Longterm serial aggression and personal attacks, despite numerous warnings, a block, and promises to change, are very much what ANI is exactly for. Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a massive degree of aggression there. I have seen cases showing lots more evidence of aggression laughed out of here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• (I wrote this last night, but got tired and went to bed before I could proofread and post) I have to say, although I'm biased, this user seems to get into ridiculously long arguments over ridiculous, petty and irrelevant things with just about everyone a LOT. Not to discount any work that Horse Eye's has done, but the majority of his contributions seem to fall under either (i) maintenance tagging and removal of content from articles, (ii) getting into silly battleground arguments with users and (iii) arguing over the reliability of sources (and, now I could be wrong, but his reliability standards seem wildly off view from what is generally accepted, e.g., stating that there's only a few people in the world who can be cited for all articles on American football, a vast, vastly covered subject which has over a hundred million followers - something that result in the deletion of 99% of articles on the subject).
  

His talk history seems to be riddled with other editors pointing out problematic edits, rude behavior, etc. A few that immediately came to mind (I don't have the time to come up with an extensive list):

From the ANI regarding myself from last January, User:Rlendog kept a list: User:Rlendog/Sandbox6

Several WT:NFL sections (see 43 mentions of his name at one NFL archive, even though he seems to have little interest in the sport (no edits there previously), he appears to have watchlisted it after the ANI about me to complicate and oppose actions there).

Especially unhelpful comments like here, where an attempt to defuse a conflict resulted in him calling me "ignorant" and making clearly unhelpful comments such as No. You're wrong and its as simple as that.

Absurdly long stalling of a DYK nomination, including what seems to be suggesting that being religious means one has a COI on religion and are worthy of receiving topic bans / ANI if they do not follow all COI procedures for all religious subjects and suggesting that users with tens of thousands of edits are SPAs for only editing religion-areas: Talk:Coriantumr (son of Omer). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The second half of that statement is key, I said that "You have potential..." and you have largely lived up to that potential in the time since (your editing certainly has improved, you're much less tunnel vision these days) even if I wish you would spend more time in non-NFL topic areas (I love your overwhelming passion for the topic area, but your passion for the topic area is also problematic). The idea that I am only on WikiProject NFL to mess with you doesn't pass the smell test[137]. You are a gifted researcher and there are many areas of the project besides American Football which would benefit from your input. It is news that Rlendog is keeping a dossier on me (complete with calling me a "horses behind"[138]), note that they appear to be misrepresenting the content of a number of those diffs... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: I hadn't seen that HEB had called you a single-purpose account without a firm basis. Saying "note that BeanieFan11 is themselves a SPA" for the frankly ridiculous reason "it all looks like sports to me" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Green is something I'd have added to the OP had I come across it. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have had unpleasant interactions with HEB myself, and the tone of it fits the pattern of what other editors describe above. In this series of edits on a banned editor's user page, HEB seemed to me to have a battleground-y rigidity about wanting to put a "badge of shame" there: [139], [140], [141], [142]. Now I'll say that I know full well that editors disagree on the substance of when to tag or not, but this is a matter of the attitude that HEB brought into that disagreement. One can see a wall of text of editors disagreeing here: [143]. No need to read all of it, but just start at the top and see the attitude adopted by HEB in replying to various editors, not just to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I am gonna say here that while I haven't read the OPs diffs, if they're like these ones I really don't think this deserves to be at ANI. Nothing here seems off even attitude-wise and I read the last diff as the majority of editors agreeing with HEB about the underlying dispute. Loki (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I do sometimes bring a bad attitude to talk pages (we all do sometimes), but that talk page doesn't seem to be among them... I certainly give you attitude in the linked edit summaries (not more than is acceptable), but not on the talk page... That actually looks better than I remember it being. None of those twenty comments are problematic unless I'm missing something (and if I am please link the diff). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a back-and-forth with anyone here, but editors/admins can decide for themselves what they think of the interaction with Tamzin at the very start of that long discussion. I'm not saying that's the only example, just an easy one for other editors and for admins to look at. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The innuendo isn't helping, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the edits there and the same *can not* be said about many of the edits that others have shared... They really are my darkest moments (have I made 50 bad edits? Almost certainly, but its out of 50k)... What you shared just isn't, I would actually present that series of interactions as evidence that I'm a decent editor (I don't seem to disrespect anyone, I don't bludgeon, I don't make sarcastic comments, I don't make jokes, I don't do anything objectionable as far as I can see). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• HEB has been harassing me since last year (see my talk page archive) and the students who work for me(see 1 and 2). He threatened to nominate us for a topic ban on editing pages about the Book of Mormon on Talk:Coriantumr_(son_of_Omer). He told my student that she couldn't vote in an AfD about a Book of Mormon topic she wrote a page on because we work at the BYU Library (and according to his logic, have a COI on all topics related to the LDS Church). In the same AfD, he wrote that the Book of Mormon "describes a religious fantasy world" and that there are "no 'possibly historical elements' in Mormon scripture". Not only were these comments irrelevant to the AfD, but they were also dismissive of my religious beliefs. HEB refuses to escalate to actually nominating pages he tags with notability cleanup banners for deletion, claiming to want to continue discussion. However, discussion with HEB is very frustrating because he continues to try to enforce his own idiosyncratic interpretation of COI and independent sources. Maybe there is an important discussion to be had about what really can be an independent source about religious topics, but I would much prefer that it happen with people who are not going to make me feel like crap. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Additionally, HEB’s insistence that the Book of Mormon should be treated as a work of fiction is not in line with established Wikipedia guidelines (see: WP:MVF and others) but when pointed out HEB aggressively doubles down on their interpretation. DJ Cane (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't think anything being said there is excessively aggressive, I do agree that this series of diffs indicates that HEB's interpretation of COI is way too expansive. The idea that working at BYU (or heck, directly for the LDS church) means you can't vote in an AfD about Mormon scripture is IMO nuts. That would mean that rabbis have a COI about Moses. Loki (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  • @LokiTheLiar: Its not working at BYU, its being a paid editor... "you must not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;" if they're paid to edit pages on Mormon scripture then they can't act as a reviewer for Mormon scripture at AfD. The Rabbi is fine, so is the BYU student or professor who isn't a paid editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    As I noted in this discussion, paid editors by the BYU Library editing subjects related to the LDS faith (including relevant discussions) is not a WP:COI violation per WP:COIE but if they were to edit articles about BYU or its professors that would be. This is a Wikipedian in Residence program and is even listed as such by Wikimedia. Nobody would bat an eye at paid editors from a state university contributing to pages about state government or adjacent topics. This, of course, is not the topic of this conversation but represents an example of how HEB has adopted a standard of their own to hold editors to that lies outside the standards agreed upon by the community. DJ Cane (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    By "articles about BYU or its professors" do you mean articles like Harold B. Lee Library, Hugh Nibley, Leonard J. Arrington, Merrill Bradshaw, Brigham Young University Museum of Art, BYU Family History Library, Ronald W. Walker, Brigham Young University Student Service Association, etc? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, but a quick review of each of those shows only minor edits (spelling, ref fixes, etc.) by a BYU paid account since about 2021 with the exception of on Hugh Nibley who, while he was a BYU professor was also a major figure in LDS apologetics which may or may not constitute COI depending on a deeper review of the content of those edits using systems we have built as a community to counter problems. In either case, COI issues with those articles doesn’t justify targeting or stirring up trouble in other places.

    Note: I acknowledge a more thorough review could show more but I was looking for accounts with BYU in the name, which appears to be the standard these editors are using as part of how they identify themselves. DJ Cane (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The paid editing standards apply to all edits which have been paid for which for these accounts is all their edits. I think you're getting standard COI and PAID confused. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Voting in an AfD (or RFC or similar) is not what that line refers to. It's being a reviewer. Also that line is from WP:COI not WP:PAID, so it only applies if the account has a COI, which the person you were accusing still very much did not. Loki (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:PE says "Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals." We can have a discussion about whether or not AfD is included in "or similar" but AfD is clearly similar to AfC so if its not included some clarification is needed. WP:PAID says "Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This advises that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published." The paid BYU editors edit the articles directly and create the articles directly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• As someone who's sometimes disagreed with Horse and sometimes agreed with him, I think that nonetheless the bedside manner can be a bit lacking. Also, this seems rather bizarre — wtf is that? Homeslice hasn't edited the page in 15 years and has very little current authorship, what could this possibly have had to do with the dispute at hand? jp×g🗯️ 21:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• This thread cited above by Rachel Helps is absolutely bananas, both in terms of HEB's ridiculous interpretation of COI, and his blatant attempts to cow others into submission with threats of topic bans. The gravedancing on Roxie the Dog's user page cited by Tryptofish (and HEB's refusal to either walk away or admit his edits were not helpful) is also troubling. This pattern of behavior seems to be widespread and unlikely to stop, given their history. Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think the fact that this "pattern of behavior seems to be widespread and unlikely to stop" is the nub of what ANI ought to evaluate here. I recognize that HEB also has a long track record of making good contributions, so this gets into a "net positive" versus "net negative" kind of balance. How that balances out, I'm not yet sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think a TBAN on LDS and BYU topics, broadly construed, would possibly be a good starting point. It would at the very least stop one area of targeted harassment and put HEB on notice that more sanctions may follow if the behavior does not improve. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  That might not be the best idea, LDS topics are already heavily-skewed in *favour* of the topic, largely due to the fact that the majority of editors who work on it are mormons. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Having HEB’s aggression/targeting mixed in will not resolve or add any value to that issue. DJ Cane (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced that HEB is being particularly aggressive, and I very much am not convinced that their overly expansive interpretation of COI is worse than POV-pushing. Loki (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Softlavender's proposal that a TBAN on LDS and BYU topics, broadly construed, would possibly be a good starting point. I have seen HEB's behavior become highly disruptive in that part of Wikipedia, since 2022 and up to the present.

  Respectfully, Loki, I disagree with your assessment of HEB's behavior. I think it's important to keep in mind that this is not about these interactions and confrontations in isolation, but how they have accumulated into a disruptive pattern. What most alarms me is how even after receiving a warning for harassing Rachel Helps (BYU), HEB has continued to be sufficiently preoccupied with WP:HOUNDING her that over a year later HEB now is attempting to threaten her students with topic bans. If HEB's behavior were more isolated or didn't have a history behind it, then I could understand not raising it to ANI. However, the extent of it across time, topics, and people lead me to agree with at a minimum Softlavender's proposal.

  Finally, I would say that whether or not HEB's overly expansive interpretation of COI is worse than POV-pushing seems like a potential inadvertent distraction, inasmuch as it may lead us to be dwelling on other people's behavior (POV-pushing) when that can be considered independently of HEB's behavior, and the latter's what this ANI thread is about. If there are concerns about POV-pushing from editors who aren't HEB, then they and their POV-pushing can be taken up in a separate thread or separate threads. For this thread, my comment are about HEB's behavior, and I include the overly expansive interpretation of COI. For what it's worth, if this is referring to Rachel Helps (BYU), my experience has been that she and her students make good-faith efforts to be careful about POV and have been, in the handful of times I have seen missteps, receptive to good-faith feedback on their edits. I've found them much easier and more productive to work alongside than HEB, who so quickly escalates to deploying their overly expansive interpretation of COI to try to disregard and eliminate editors from topics and pages. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  • I've proposed a formal admonishment below but left it generalized because it's difficult to pinpoint the one true concern. HEB's interpretation of COI is at the root of several—but definitely not all—of the problematic behaviors/concerns identified above, which is broader than LDS/BYU. Still, I'm not sure thatthere would be appetite for enforceable editing restrictions that instruct HEB to bring any COI concerns to the COI noticeboard in lieu of a talk page in any namespace. Regardless, I would personally encourage HEB at least ask general questions about their interpretation of COI at COIN. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Like boynamedsue above, I'm struggling to see anything ANI-worthy here. I'm seeing a lot of misrepresented diffs here (the diffs in the OP are not vicious battlegrounding, the COI diffs are not harassment or "going after" anyone), I'm seeing a lot of editors who have previously had content or policy disputes with HEB piling on (in some cases after being pinged here). I would oppose any sanctions on these diffs. Everyone makes snippy remarks now and again, the quality and quantity of HEB's remarks don't seem particularly bad, and while conduct concerns like COI would be better brought to COIN than raised with the COI editors (who will never agree they have a COI), I think this ANI pile-on is worse than the alleged incivility. And FWIW I believe if you put it on your resume you have a COI for it, whether it's education or employment. Levivich (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, in terms of COI, people with a personal connection to a topic, especially potential economic benefit from its positive reputation, have a COI. That may or may not be the mainstream interpretatiob of COI (I almost never edit in fields where this might be relevant) but it surely isn't an ANI matter to be reasonably wrong here?Boynamedsue (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• After reading all the various diffs, the only problematic thing I'm seeing is that HEB has a very expansive idea of what a COI is. I don't think that HEB is being particularly uncivil or aggressive in any of the linked diffs. (Given this, I would also like to object to ScottishFinnishRadish's closing of the COI section above, because I feel that section and not this one has the more meaningful part of this complaint.) Loki (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Admonishment proposal

About a dozen editors above have voiced concerns with HEB's behavior; two editors called it "sealioning", which to me looks to be an apt descriptor in the general internet sense. It's not that HEB is consistently uncivil, but that they frequently exhibit aggressive battlegrounding behavior with individuals who either happen to disagree with them or HEB thinks have violated a Wikipedia policy/guideline.

Unfortunately, HEB is not understanding those concerns, as he has chosen to dispute nearly every negative characterization brought up in the above discussion.

As such, I'd like to move for a formal admonishment. As part of that, HEB would be warned that if their battleground behavior continues, admin action will be taken and/or editing restrictions applied.

Pinging the users who have commented above: Espresso Addict, Horse Eye's Back, LilianaUwU, P-Makoto, DJ Cane, TCN7JM (apologies for pinging per the end of your message, please don't feel like you need to comment again), Qiushufang, The Land, Boynamedsue, Johnbod, Softlavender, BeanieFan11, Tryptofish, LokiTheLiar, Parsecboy, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Aquillion, Rachel Helps (BYU), JPxG, Levivich. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support my own proposal. I'd be thrilled if this formal action curbs HEB's worst impulses and sets them on the path of being a better collegial editing partner. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a matter for ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
COI clarification On the user talk page @Parsecboy: said "On what planet does having attended a school constitute a WP:COI? Let me be clear: it doesn't."[144] with @The Land: saying "Hello Horse Eye's Back. Like Parsecboy, I can't imagine circumstances where regular, non-controversial editing pages on a school one attended would be a COI requiring declaration."[145] and I just wanted to check whether that was true... Thats not how I've seen COI applied in practice and it certainly clashed directly with what WP:COI says but if Parsecboy and The Land are *right* I am definitely the asshole here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC) My intuition just from reading WP:COI is that making edits about a school that you are attending is probably a COI, but not a school you attended. I would guess that most edits about otherwise obscure high schools are from people who attended those high schools. Loki (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) The context here includes both edits while attending and edits after attending. I agree with you vis-a-vis obscure high schools but I'm not sure that its ok just because a lot of people do/have done it. For me the biggest aspect is self promotion... Lionizing anything which is on your resume is effectively self promotion, but the seriousness of education COI goes in descending order from post-doc lab to pre-school. IMO high school is about the cutoff for where I'm worried about it. We all know the first thing recruiters do when they see a school on a resume is look it up on google... Which takes them straight to wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC) HEB, this ANI has been opened about your behavior, and I'm concerned you created this section to distract/deflect from that. If you want a clarification about our COI policies, WP:COIN is available. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Yes, my behavior... Hence "if Parsecboy and The Land are *right* I am definitely the asshole here." What appears to be deflection is pinging in a whole series of editors I've had issues with over the years to dogpile on me while omitting the actual context of the complaint. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) There is absolutely no blanket COI between an individual who attends a school and an article on that school. The argument that it does belies a complete misunderstanding of what a conflict of interest actually is. If the editor works for the school in any capacity, then yes, there's a COI. If Horse Eye's Back's interpretation is correct, you can go through the edit history of probably every article on a school and block all of the editors for violating this conception of what constitutes a COI. You could count on one hand the number of editors who have contributed to schools they didn't attend. Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC) There absolutely is a blanket COI, the only question is whether it’s a concern to wikipedia. I think it might actually be you who misunderstands what a COI is. I don't believe I ever called for blocks, I've only asked for disclosure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Absolute nonsense. Please explain what interests the average student have that conflicts with Wikipedia’s goals (beyond petty vandalism, which isn’t a COI issue). Are you arguing that the average student as a financial interest in how their school is portrayed online? Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOAPBOX points 1, 4, and 5. The only way for them not have a special interest is if school reputation plays no role in hiring or advancement in their field nor do they ever plan on working or seeking employment in such a field... If it’s on your resume you have a conflict of interest with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Still no explanation about how that applies to students of a school (and numbers 1 and 3 have nothing to do with a COI, and would apply equally to non-students as well). As for 4, the editors in question never worked for their schools, nor were they writing articles about themselves. Are you arguing that they benefit by making their school appear better than it was? If so, that’s so damn thin it’s transparent, my friend. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC) 1, 4, and 5 not 1, 3, and 4. #4 covers writing about yourself *and* "projects in which you have a strong personal involvement." Yes that is my argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Then your argument is a joke. The idea that anyone could personally benefit from making their high school seem better on Wikipedia is cosmically absurd. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC) What if you're currently in the college application process? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Lol no. Have you ever worked in an educational system? Heck, even applied to college? Nobody is researching highschools on Wikipedia to make decisions on who gets accepted. We’ve crossed over into parody, right? Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "unnecessarily personalized and deliberately aggressive comments" indeed... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) My comment was in no way aggressive, and the only personalization was questioning your experience in this area, which seems relevant, since you are making an argument that is ludicrous on its face. At what point are you going to stop digging in your heels on this obviously wrong position and admit you have grossly misinterpreted COI? Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I worked in college admissions for two years. We used wikipedia daily, its simply not possible to memorize thousands of highschools. I applied to college. Is there any other personal information you would like to know? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC) And what did you use it for, praytell? Surely you are not seriously suggesting that, for two students who have identical GPAs, ACT/SAT scores, extra-curriculars, etc., you would break the tie by checking the Wikipedia article on their high school. If not, then the student has no particular interest in their school's iamge on Wikipedia. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Not directly but we would assign the school an "academic reputation" score of 1-5 which for prep schools was pretty easy because there are actual rankings but for the random public schools yeah it pretty much was just googling the school and assigning an arbitrary score. We had less than 20 minutes to review their entire file including essays and letters of recommendation. I don't know what you're imagining but its not a terribly fair or scientific process. In my own professional life I have had a recruiter quote the wikipedia page for my college to me so I'm assuming he looked at it. Maybe that is what colors my perception of COI, I know how much it matters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) WP:COI says that it's a policy that should be applied with common sense. To my mind, what school someone attended is only loosely an 'interest', let alone one that is likely to come into conflict with anything else. The idea that editing one's secondary school is effectively self-promotion on the grounds that some future employer might care about what the Wikipedia article about the school says. This would be quite an innovation for our COI policy. As I said, there might be some edge cases where the school or edits about it are particularly controversial. But that's not the case here and there's no justification for jumping on Simon Harley's talk page with threatening messages. The Land (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) When does it become a COI which matters then? When you're editing your thesis advisor's page? Also note that these edits are controversial because the articles (List of headmasters of St. Bees School and History of St. Bees School) don't actually appear notable... Making a page for a non-notable thing you have a COI with strikes me as a problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC) WP:COI says that Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest [emphasis mine] and later How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. I do not think "I previously attended this school" is a conflict of interest which requires disclosing. If it is, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of substantive edits about schools across the entirety of wikipedia are in violation of it! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC) @Caeciliusinhorto-public: what about currently attends or works at the school? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "Works at the school" I would consider the same as working at any other institution; WP:COI explicitly says that being an employee of an institution is (not just can be) a financial conflict of interest. Even if someone is editing an article about their employer off-the-clock and not as part of their job, I would think it should be disclosed, though such editing might still be completely unproblematic. "Currently attends" I think is okay and generally does not require a COI disclosure; I suspect that there might be less community consensus on that though. Fundamentally I just don't think that attending or having attended a school gives the average person any particular interest in presenting a school in a particular way that would conflict with their duties as a Wikipedian. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Is there a difference to you between a public school where education is freely provided and a private school at which the student has a strong financial relationship with the school? (or for that matter a public school which charges tuition) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I can't see how it makes a difference. I can't see how an editor who went to a fee-paying school should have a conflict of interest wrt that school any more than an editor who shops at Walmart has a conflict of interest wrt Walmart. If we consider that a disclosable COI, then Talk:Walmart is improbably light on required COI disclosures! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC) They don't seem to be the same relationship... Surely a business owner has a COI with their employee in the way that a employee has with the business owner? Its not only the employee who has a COI. If the school pays you 45k a year you have a major COI with the school, so why would there be no major COI if you pay the school 45k a year? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) If the school pays you 45k a year you have a major COI with the school, so why would there be no major COI if you pay the school 45k a year? Why should these two situations be equivalent? If you are employed by someone, they have the power to punish you (up to and including firing you) if you do things which reflect negatively upon them, and to reward you with bonuses or promotions if you do things which help them make money (and, of course, if you do things that help them make money then they are more likely to remain solvent, and thus you are more likely to keep your job). If you regularly pay an organisation thousands of dollars, they have no such power over you. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC) So you're saying that employers don't have a COI with their employees? Its only employees who have a COI with their employer? I don't think thats right, if I employ Rudy Giuliani as my lawyer I have a conflict of interest with Rudy Giuliani. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC) No, that's not at all what I said. I haven't got a strong opinion on whether a business owner prima facie has a COI wrt all of their employees (certainly business owners have a COI with respect to at least some of their employees, but would for instance Jeff Bezos have a COI with respect to any random person who happened to work as an Amazon delivery driver? I'm not convinced he would). Even if we accept arguendo that they do, the school you go to is not your employee, even if you are paying them directly through school fees rather than indirectly through your taxes. A fee-paying school is a business and their students are customers. I do not think that people in general have a COI with regards to businesses they patronise which requires disclosure, even if their financial commitment to that business runs into the tens of thousands of dollars. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that simply attending a school could give someone a COI. If we included that, why not include, I don't know... "anyone who lived in town X" or even "anyone who lives in country Y"? Are we going to ban every New Yorker from editing New York? Should every American citizen be considered to have a COI with regards to WP:AP2? Or (and this is the classic example to me), would we consider every citizen of Israel, and every citizen of Gaza and the West Bank, to have a COI with regards to WP:CT/A-I? And maybe every Jew and Muslim to boot? For that matter, what about religious beliefs in other contexts? Could anyone with a strong religious belief (or staunch atheism) be considered to have a COI not just with regards to their own faith, but everyone else's? Should we extend that to everything their faith has weighed in on - which, for some major faiths, could be almost everything? There are clearly some relationships that an observer notionally could conclude could incline someone to bias that don't rise to the level of a COI. While financial COIs are of course not the only ones that exist, I think that it's reasonable to say that something should rise to at least the level of a serious financial COI (ie. something that a reasonable observer would assume is as significant to the editor as large amount of money, just based on whatever detail is known about them.) People could be presumed to have that sort of COI with regards to their family members or the like; but I don't think you'd usually presume that level of COI with regard to your hometown, nation of origin, alma mater, or the like. Even religious belief - which might rise to that level - isn't usually considered sufficient for a COI. (Though that said, I personally don't think it would be amiss to treat people whose nationalistic, political, philosophical or religious beliefs rise to the level of "as important to them as life itself" as having a COI with regards to core articles about those things - but it would be a very difficult thing to practically enforce. And that is stuff that is way more weighty to most people than their alma mater.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Yes all of those people have conflicts of interest, they just aren't significant enough to matter most of the time. Thats the nuance that I think most people miss about conflict of interest, we are all immeshed in a massive web of conflicts of interest. Each of us has nearly innumerable conflicts. I'm interested in where you would draw the line, where does education become a significant COI? Professors you had? Thesis advisor? Former lover/professor? When you donate to your alma matter? When your kids goes there? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

IP vandal

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

• Adam Cuerden, checking the filter log confirmed that this warrants a block. We do have a number of regulars who blank archived content, or screw with old AfDs--I can't tell if this is one of them, and running CU on the range, 189.238.128.0/20, is a bit far-fetched, so I just blocked the IP, with a note, "see filter log". If you don't deal with vandalism much, then God bless you; checking the filter log is a quick way to possibly strengthen your case if you wish to report vandals, at WP:AIV. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Noonicarus

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

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

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

On a review of the above and recent contributions, this does not appear to me to meet the level of needing admin intervention. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ultranuevo's main point of contention is the following: I recently added the {{Disputed}} tags at the Lima Consensus (economy) and Plan Verde articles.

In the case of the former, editors had already expressed issues and the article is currently subject to an AfD, and I have already given reasons for the tags in both talk pages. Ultranuevo has repeatedly removed the cleanup tag ([146][147][148]), and I have warned them about edit warring:[149] --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I highly recommend you to read WP:NPOV dispute. Ultranuevo (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP

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

---

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

Blocked – for a period of 10 days: User talk:122.171.20.30#Block. As mentioned there, telling someone to go back to China isn't acceptable and will not be tolerated. El_C 09:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

DonnyReisdorf

Intially, this started out as a content dispute, but it this has evolved into a WP:SPAM and WP:COI issue. DonnyReisdorf (talk · contribs) keeps adding an entry for, as he claims, a "well known and notable" YouTube personality to a sublist of an article. This YouTuber has no article and DonnyReisdorf has provided no references to support an addition in lieu of an article. DonnyReisdorf has also not attempted any discussion of any kind on why this personality is notable, except through his edit summaries, such as Added again Cav Trooper 19D who has 27,000 subscribers and nearly 8 million views on just youtube. Why someone keeps taken such a notable Cav Scout down. No he doesn't have a Medal of Honor, but to say he's not notable to our gen Z and millennial generation is ridiculous. He deserves to be mentioned as do others like Chief another Cav officer on youtube[150]. However, it's quite obvious from the content and edit summaries that DonnyReisdorf has added on here that he and this YouTube personality are one and same person, which explains his insistence on adding him to the list. I hoped that a warning would get him to stop, but I was wrong. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've p-blocked them from the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've funded Wikipedia many times on top of it all and my wiki entries can be challenged this easily I'm done spending money here. Cab you tell me the threshold when a Cav Scout is notable? There is a line? I currently serve in the Cavalry and to the younger guys serving like myself Cav trooper n Chieftain are notable and known within our branch. Just because some retirees don't think so doesn't make it not true. DonnyReisdorf (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is a line, which is (simplified) the basic notability criteria for individuals. Do you have articles about you in the WaPo or NBC? Have you won a medal of honor? Are you a lieutenant general? Because that's what the other people in the section are. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 03:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Who are you guys to determine who is relevant and who is not? Talk about an autocratic website. Its not like its not true whats i have added. Chieftain belongs on there too. We have no one that represents current Cavalry thats notable and those two guys are. This is bs DonnyReisdorf (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course we believe that someone who adds eight mainspace edits a year has "funded Wikipedia many times." If you do withdraw your "support," somehow I figure we'll manage to survive. In the meantime, you have had an account for nine years, and in that time you ought to have learned that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and that those policies and guidelines are applied through consensus, because to answer your own question, who are YOU to solely determine who is relevant and who is not? While we're talking about autocratic behaviors. Ravenswing 07:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

NOTHERE user

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

---

Roy_sikh has been adding unsourced POV content to caste articles, they have been warned multiple times for their unconstructive edits.[151] Today they re-uploaded an image[152] that was deleted on commons for copyright violations [153]. Aswell as creating a draft article in a non English language [154]. I think a block is warranted at this point to prevent further disruption. Thanks.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Roy sikh#Indefinite block. El_C 09:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Thenightaway

Hello. User Thenightaway has been bulk deleting page contents, especially those related to Azerbaijan. Some of these deletions are done without a problem, but some are really bothering.

For instance, on this article he deleted some redundant information BUT at an expense of helpful and encyclopedic ones. I posted two general notes on his page (Special:Diff/1193130383 Special:Diff/1193131000). Following this, he replied to me as if I was ordered to restore the content by the Azerbaijani government stating Wikipedia is not intended to duplicate the official communications of the Azerbaijan government, even though you and a ring of editors from Azerbaijani Wikipedia for some reason think that's what Wikipedia is for.(Special:Diff/1193354034). I gave him a notification on personal attacks and asked for further details for the deletion in a kind way. At the end, he just blanked his talk page and left my questions unaswered stating Wikipedia is not the forum to discuss this. I respect the rule 3RR so didn't revert it until this issue is settled.

FYI, the user has been reverted by others too, for not giving proper explanation for bulk content removal. as seen from his contributions — Toghrul R (t) 12:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

and they deleted the notice after a minute I posted on his talk page: Special:Diff/1193754668 — Toghrul R (t) 13:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The context for this complaint is that a group of editors from Az.Wikipedia are mass-importing very poor quality articles from Azebaijani Wikipedia into English Wikipedia. These articles are overwhelmingly sourced to official communications by the Azerbaijani government. I have not remarked on whether Toghrul R is a paid editor – I just expressed disagreement that Wikipedia should just regurgitate Azerbaijani government communications, which is the kind of content that Toghrul and a group of Az.Wikipedia editors seem to bring to English Wikipedia. At least one sysops editor from Az.Wikipedia, who has been mass-importing poor articles to English Wikipedia, is a paid employee for the subjects they're writing articles for: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Atakhanli,_a_sysops_from_Az.Wikipedia. I leave it to the COI noticeboard (User:OwenX raised similar complaints) to figure out whether more editors are editing for pay. Thenightaway (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Could someone please convert the OP's links from mobile to desktop? They are effectively unreadable right now. El_C 13:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@El C done. – robertsky (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Thenightaway We are currently discussing about the fact that you delete the text from A to Z without even including certain parts that are notable. ...and the art of discussing, which is critical in such cases. You seem to not reply to the discussions when necessary, but keep reverting the content when you object to it. I'm doing my best to assume good faith in your edits, in return stumble upon some unreasonable ones which lead me to assume these edits are done on purpose.

The group (you think there is) surely is a bad sight for Wikipedia, but it has no relation with the reason you have been reported. If I have added any type of pro-Azerbaijani mass inclusion of content per your which is the kind of content that Toghrul and a group of Az.Wikipedia editors seem to bring to English Wikipedia comment, please, provide them. Either way, this comment is nothing but another personal attack. And the other topic is open for comments in another section, not here. — Toghrul R (t) 13:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What personal attack, Toghrul R? Please quote it directly. Also, we (as in those who review and decide on reports here), look over all evidence provided. A user submitting a complaint is under the same scrutiny as those whom they report on. Obviously, they don't get to dictate the focus or scope of any given investigation. El_C 14:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@El C per highlighted texts in green: The user have indicated that I'm among those who have mass-added pro-Azerbaijani content (puffery as he refers to) and mentioned the users with whom I have no relation.

Also, I wrote to him regarding the article content. I've opened this topic for his approach to the articles in general too. His bulk-deletion, not replying to the question and the deletion the whole discussion, etc. Asking for the reasons for removal (which were not not provided in the first place) shouldn't end up this way — Toghrul R (t) 14:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Toghrul R, I don't see how that's a personal attack. Though, if there's no evidence behind that claim, it could be an WP:ASPERSION — Thenightaway, briefly, what specifically is this evidence? Otherwise, Toghrul R, as mentioned, in any given report scrutiny is a double-edged sword: for the complainant as much as those whom they complain against. El_C 14:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@El C I have no objection to the investigation and aware that you shouldn't shoot yourself in the foot.

My take on this is, swaying from the original purpose (which is the content) to talk about me in general can be taken personal. As the respective policy say, we should comment on content, not on the contributor. — Toghrul R (t) 14:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not recall specifically saying that Toghrul adds pro-government content. I said he added content sourced to Azerbaijan government communications[155] and at least in these two cases[156][157] helped to restore poorly sourced government communications that Az.Wikipedians mass-imported into English Wikipedia. Thenightaway (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Thenightaway I can't even remember that article; nevertheless, if necessary, the article can be deleted. It was a popular event at the time about which I created an article 6 years ago. I've gained more knowledge on the policies over the years, thankfully.

The other reversions were not done to restore the content, but to discuss why you deleted notable parts too.

Of course, as I mentioned in my first sentence in this thread, some of your removals are in tact, but some others do trim the parts that can be kept on Wikipedia. That is the problem I brought up here after not coming to a conclusion — Toghrul R (t) 15:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Didn't we just have an AE case a few months ago where a ring of AZ.wiki editors were caught MEATPUPPETING for a community banned editor to get Azeri propaganda inserted into pages about the conflict in Artsakh? 208.87.236.202 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Was I a part of the discussion? No. So it has nothing to do with me — Toghrul R (t) 04:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Can someone reason with User:Alok 567?

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

---

Alok 567 has been causing significant disruption at Talk:Bhumihar, including making legal threats[158][159][160][161] and repeatedly posting the same complaint multiple times[162][163][164][165] despite several editors undoing them as TPG violation. All while ignoring several warnings given to them by multiple editors on their Talk. They also keep disrupting other articles – most of their edits had to be undone. Can someone reason with them? A level 4 warning unfortunately did not work. Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for making legal threats.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

125.63.8.128

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

---

A case of NOTHERE for IP account 125.63.8.128. First they reinstated removed unsourced info at Juli, then there was a personal attack and now they are disrupting articles I've created in the past. Semsûrî (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

First, the page is Jilu, second...I see Talk:Jilu hasn't had conversation in three years upon it. No comment on the PA assertion, but discussion is required besides 'unsourced sections removed', when a good reason is needed as to why you removed content without checking sources first. Nate • (chatter) 17:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Above IP was blocked a year as a proxy, so that's put to rest, but next time, discussion is advised and a message on the talk page on why the content was removed is welcomed; that way if this happens again you can simply point there. Nate • (chatter) 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

CoastRedwood and 33ABGirl's antagonizing edits

User CoastRedwood began undoing edits I made and used the comment section to try to goad me into an argument with them regarding the edits. (1 2 3) Most of the edits I made were based on consensus or what I believed was consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years and related pages or because they were no longer accurate such as Artemis III being scheduled for end of 2025 but the article being used as a source refuting a 2025 launch date in its title and the Wikipedia article for Artemis 3 also casting doubt on the likelihood of a 2025 date. For other entries, they were entirely unsourced such as 2029 being the year that the International Olympic Committee will vote on which city will host the 2036 event and no source can be found validating that date. Redwood, instead of trying to discuss with me why through good faith WP:EDITCON instead uses reversions to be combative with me instead of collaborating with me.

I engaged the user both on my talk page and their own to explain why these entries were removed but the user continued to make antagonizing edits that amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in regards to what content got removed. In the midst of this, 33ABGirl joins in reverting edits I made without any discretion. While there are some entries which may warrant a discussion on inclusion, this user also reverted the above mentioned entries that were unsourced and accused me of lacking any consensus which is simply not true. A portion of the entries would be removed based on the fact that they are unsourced and no source can be found while consensus can be found regarding the inclusion of public domain related topics and eclispes.

Again, making no discretion about what I removed and why I removed some content, 33ABGirl posts a deprecating and threatening comment on my page telling me to think about my next edits and “warning” me about my conduct. To their credit, I did cite an essay that I falsely believed was being used as a rubric for what gets included in main year articles but that doesn’t mean consensus was reached in the past which was wrong for me to do.

I have created relevant requests for consensus on a few of these topics in WP:Years, but it is exhausting to get threatening and antagonizing comments from other users trying to goad me into edit wars, especially in these instances and I'm looking for a resolution because I should not be worried about reprisals for my edits and I shouldn't have to, in 33ABGirl's words, "think very carefully about what edits you make in the future" — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulRKil (talk • contribs)

• I poked my head into the revision history of a year article recently and it was pretty wild -- people are going very hard over there and the whole area could probably stand to be given some more administrative attention. jp×g🗯️ 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That would be appreciated. In the last week, it has gotten very out of hand which is common during the new year but it has never been at this level in my experience. PaulRKil (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It really does need administrator involvement. I've tried to sound the alarm a few times over the last year and a half at the village pump and here at ANI. WikiProject Years has a walled-garden problem, and this area attracts a lot of editors who attempt to enforce sweeping arbitrary standards in what can and cannot be included in these articles without regard for due weight. The last time it came to a head was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#Long term ownership at WikiProject Years. 33ABGirl was correct to try and shut down the most recent attempt to enforce such arbitrary standards. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that any arbitrary standards are being enforced here. There should not be an “international notability” condition and I personally had clashed with the user that had gotten a T Ban but at the same time there should be guidance on what warrants inclusion in main year articles.

Solar eclipses and video game releases are typically never included in year articles. There’s no mention of them in articles like 2001 where there’s less frequent editing and is objectively of better quality than more recent years.

Also this is aside from the fact that this user reverted all of my edits, including ones I removed for not being reliably sourced per your comment in my RfC.

I find the fact they did that then threatened me on my page to be uncivil not to mention CoastRedwood antagonizing me to begin with and it appeared 33ABGirl had a plan to report me for edit warring if I were to do any further edits on those pages, even if they were edits concerning entries that had no reliable source. PaulRKil (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Eol Gurgwathren: edit-war, personnal attack against me

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

---

User:Eol Gurgwathren been edit-warring at Liberal Catholic Church for two days now. People have tried to explain the user the problem in their behaviour ([166], User_talk:Eol_Gurgwathren#January 2024, Talk:Liberal Catholic Church#Proposed wholesale revision, User talk:Veverve#Your edit of Liberal Catholic Church 4 Jan 2023), to no avail.

The user has called me some ultratraditionalist Catholic who allegedly harassed the user. They also state I am trying to vandalise and article due to ulterior motives (I allegedly have clear intention of keeping the Liberal Church information surpressed and ambiguous). Veverve (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The user has now doubled-down on their attack and their assumption of bad faith, stating:

• I had a suspicion you were editing with malicious intent. I can see a pattern in your preferences and you're not denying your agendum here. It's becoming obvious
• The previous articles you eviscerated were far more informative. This is starting to seem malicious
• You are interpreting Wikipedia's standard in bad faith here. Everyone has preconceptions. Mine happen to not be wrong. You are doing everything you can to suppress content on this topic

Veverve (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Veverve. The other editors have agreed that your revision Liberal Catholic Church is too extreme. You are curt and unhelpful in your criticisms. Anyway I have reassurected an article advised by another editor and put sources in. Please next time you try to delete information, put a "citation needed" so that I can attend to it. It is very difficult to provide information when I have to keep reverting from a stub. Be constructive in your criticism, not dismissive and rude. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not at all an accurate representation of the talk page. As far as I can tell, only AndreasMar agrees wholly with @Eol Gurgwathren's position, and I am not impressed by their rhetoric on the page. Two other users, TSP and RetroCosmos, seem to largely disagree with them, and instead agree with @Veverve. Frankly, the latter largely root their arguments in site policy, and the former respond with "something is better than nothing", which is not a very strong argument in a vacuum, especially for potentially contentious topics:

I have gone through the laborious task of finding as many secondary sources, where appropriate to bring the older page back to life. Please, any further edits, need to be on THIS revision. Simply reverting it back to the stub is unproductive. As per WP:BURDEN, " In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Please respect the work that goes into dredging this up for your perusal BEFORE simply obliterating it.

The above is not really acceptable: Consider adding a citation needed tag should not be conflated with any further edits, need to be on THIS revision. Simply reverting it back to the stub is unproductive. You do not get to decide what is on an article, and there are often good reasons to remove uncited content—you have not provided a reason why it shouldn't be removed other than "I worked hard on it", which is not adequate.

The material can be restored easily from the page history once citations are procured, and no work is lost. Alternatively, you can work on a draft or in your own userspace. Remsense留 00:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Eol Gurgwathren. See the block log for details of the reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ah shucks, I just finished writing all that. Remsense留 00:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Childish vandalism from Seattle IPs

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

---

• 2601:602:B01:3590:30BD:2B16:8DAB:1BFB/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from Seattle has been making nonsensical additions[167][168][169] to many articles. It's childish vandalism that should be blocked from article space. Nothing constructive from this range. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

What's going on here?

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

---

What is going on in this userpage---User:XaotikHP? I'd say they violate self-promotion... but that doesn't seem to make sense... On the other hand, the userpage seems completely inappropriate given its countless undue praises. Can an administrator handle this please? AriTheHorse^{talk to me!} 02:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@AriTheHorse... well... there's no rule that says they can't... and they're not really writing a promotional article about themselves on their userpage... so... ‍ Relativity 03:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hrmm... That's annoying...

One of the awards is actually on three userpages which do not fulfill the criteria for it and on only one which does (see here). It's odd that there's so little that can be done about it.

AriTheHorse^{talk to me!} 03:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Well these awards aren't actually awards, they're just stuff people made up. There are no awards or badges etc that people get to display on Wikipedia for edit counts etc. People just make stuff up and put them on their user pages, no rules against it and they mean zero. Canterbury Tail talk 03:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Whatever is happening — and the rest of the edit history (including Special:Diff/975126020) hints that it's just someone just messing around — it stopped in April of 2023. And the accountholder had made very few edits per year before then. Perhaps — Special:Diff/1018956223 — the accountholder has grown up and left school. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, unmanageable behavioral problems.

Someone threw some banners on their page nearly a year ago. Why is this even here? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Got to think the same. What, so some guy gives himself barnstars nine months ago and hasn't been seen since? This is near-to WP:BOOMERANG level hysteria on the OP's part. Do they fancy themselves the arbiters of propriety on Wikipedia? The time filing this "complaint" could have been better used improving the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 07:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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