Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Vandalism and wikihounding by Dawit S Gondaria

• Dawit S Gondaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cushite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hadiya people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia Admin,

I am writing to bring to your attention a serious issue regarding the actions of user Dawit S Gondaria on the Wikipedia page for Hadiya People. I have noticed that this user has been making edits that include defamation of notable individuals of the Hadiya People, falsification, and manipulation of information, as well as inserting misleading content that is not supported by any published sources. This behavior seriously undermines the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia as a source of information.

Furthermore, the user is abusing me and other users who do not take his deliberate effort to falsify history to fit his own ill-intentioned agenda for truth. He even threatened to get me blocked if I take out any of his unsubstantiated information. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies, which require that all information must be verifiable and that sources must be reliable and secondary.

In light of the above, I am seeking an admin intervention to finally put an end to constant wikihounding by Dawit S Gondaria. I kindly request that you take immediate action to investigate the actions of this user and take corrective measures to address the inaccuracies and violations of policy that have occurred. I have provided evidence of the false and manipulated information, as well as credible sources to support the correct information in my previous comments. I also request that you review all actions and conversations of this user and take appropriate action.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Cushite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cushite (talk • contribs)

Please check all his actions and the conversation and all the sources I provided in response to his previous comment below. Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hadiya people. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

After militarily occupying Hadiya, many kings of Ethiopia and high-ranking members forcefully married Hadiya women; Queen Eleni of Hadiya is one example. This would result in wars with neighboring Adal Sultanate, who did not take kindly to the atrocities committed by Ethiopia against its fellow Muslim state Hadiya. Your quote is not supported (Hassen) by the source and highly misleading. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We take all concerns regarding accuracy and neutrality of our articles seriously. The quote in question is based on published article in per-review academic journal. We have also attached a list of references to our article to support the information provided. 1. ISLAMIC PRINCIPALITIES IN SOUTHEAST ETHIOPIA BETWEEN THE THIRTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES (PART II) https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731322 2. ISLAMIC PRINCIPALITIES IN SOUTHEAST ETHIOPIA BETWEEN THE THIRTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES (PART 1) https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731359 3. A Muslim State in Southern Ethiopia - Geschichte der Hadiya Süd-Äthiopiens. By Ulrich Braukämper. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980. Pp. xv + 463. DM. 87. (The Journal of African History , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 1981 , pp. 558 – 559 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700019952) Cushite (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and wikihounding  by Dawit S Gondaria Cushite (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Another editor reverting your edits in good faith is not vandalism or wikihounding. You might want to read WP:NOTVANDALISM. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cushite: I have seen this ANI and will be responding to it later today. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cushite: Here is one edit where you put back content that wasn't supported by the Hassen source, misleading to begin with, and a fabrication of ties with Adal.[[1]] that was further emphasized with lies by this quote Ethiopian and Adal relations continued to sour after the Hadiya incident and reached its peak at the Ethiopian–Adal war This is not a quote backed by the Jstor journal, which i read. So we have a content dispute, i take issue with all these fabrications.

Secondly after removing the fabrications in the article, you removed my properly sourced and verified content [[2]] with a working link of the pages in google book. sidenote: I also have the physical book in possesion. You then spoke in we terms (speaking in group terms is odd, but not the core issue) in the edit summary [[3]] and claimed i added information that was not supported by credible sources. I challenge that strongly, here or any other forum you like.

Third, provide proof for your serious accusations of wikihounding? I just saw manufactured rubbish at Hadiya people article and decided to improve it, noticed you reverting rubbish back, and warned you for it on your talkpage, that's not hounding or is it?

Fourth, you chose the wrong avenue. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The complaint of vandalism in regard to the deliberate alteration of public figures' names in the society with defamatory terms is of a serious offense. In accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, arguments without credible evidence sourced from peer-reviewed academic journals are not acceptable in these debates. It is imperative to note that the credibility of sources used must be supported by secondary sources published in peer-reviewed academic journals. In this specific case, the information I have included is backed by two journal articles by Ulrich Braukamper in 1977, as well as a secondary journal article published by Roland Oliver in 2009.

The source used by the other user, "The Ethiopian Borderlands" by Richard Pankhurst, is a book that is often written for a general audience and does not have the level of detail or fact-checking as journal articles. It appears that the other user may not be well-versed in the historical context of events in the medieval period in the Horn of Africa. The history of the relationship between the Adal Sultanate and the seven Islamic principalities (Yifat, Dawaro, Arababni, Hadiya, Sharkha, Bale, and Dara) under the Zayla federation is well-documented. The Hadiya Sultanate was known to be the wealthiest and militarily strongest among these principalities. These principalities existed during the medieval period in the Horn of Africa and were significant for their political and economic power in the region. Cushite (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're not going to provide evidence for your accusations of wikihouding? Yet you're going to throw more accusations? You just said The complaint of vandalism in regard to the deliberate alteration of public figures' names in the society with defamatory terms is of a serious. Please show us the diffs where i did that? Deliberately and defamatory at that?

The problem is not the Jstor journal, the problem is you reverting back to a synthesised version with a totally fabricated genesis which was not supported by the Hassen, Trimingham and Jstor Journal sources [[4]] (Hassen source didn't back this qoute After militarily occupying Hadiya, many kings of Ethiopia and high-ranking members forcefully married Hadiya women; Queen Eleni of Hadiya is one example. This would result in wars with neighboring Adal Sultanate, who did not take kindly to the atrocities committed by Ethiopia against its fellow Muslim state Hadiya very misleading, no mention of Eleni, no mention of many kings and high-ranking members, and the main issue, no mention of this being a factor leading to wars with Adal sultanate, a fabricated alliance/genesis. Which is followed by another unrelated quote from Spencer Trimingham Adal Sultanate attempted to invade Ethiopia in response however the campaign was a disaster and led to the death of Sultan Badlay ibn Sa'ad ad-Din at Battle of Gomit, no mention of this being a response of what supposedly happend to Hadiya, another event falsly associated with Hadiya. Thirdly the Braukamper journal quote Ethiopian and Adal relations continued to sour after the Hadiya incident and reached its peak at the Ethiopian–Adal war, Hadiya would join the Adal armies in its invasion of Ethiopia during the sixteenth century. The first part of this quote is fake and refers to a false genesis with a so-called Hadiya incident and a fabricated tale that it played any role between the animosity between Ethiopian Empire and Adal.

Third Richard Pankhurst (Ethiopianist) is one of the most well known scholars on Ethiopian studies, his books are highly regarded including The Ethiopian Borderlands. You didn't seem to have an issue with Pankhurst over the many months you have been editing the article, since an entire piece is still in the article. Cherry picking which content or version of history you like from Pankhurst? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Cushite, please note: using terms like "defamation" could imply that you are invoking legal terms to have a chilling effect. I'd advise not using those terms in this discussion, stick to the facts. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cushite You started this ANI and i you asked for proof, and also answers for the sythesised content you added? Furthermore i noticed there was no page 558-559 [[5]] in the journal, the piece about Hadiya is from page 6 to 11. Here too you added synthesised content.

[[6]] With the outbreak of Imam Ahmad's jihad in 1529, the rulers of Hadiya and Bale identified with the cause of Islam and Adal, slaughtered the Christian garrisons in their midst, and sent their best troops to help in the invasion of the Christian kingdom. The southern frontiers were left unguarded, and the Oromo began to break in. Meanwhile, the Christian reconquest under Galawdewos devastated northern Hadiya, but failed to check the Oromo advance. Crushed between the upper and the nether millstone, Hadiya as a state ceased to exist. Of its very diverse population, some, including most of the Rift valley pastoralists, joined the Oromo, adopting both their language and their gada social organization, which was the basis of their military strength. The rest fled in all directions, but eventually resettled themselves in pockets along the western margin of the Rift valley and in the adjoining highlands. From your edit it looks like they willingly joined the Oromo, not backed by the sources. Where in the article does it say Hadiya as a state/kingdom ceased to exist? The journal (page 9) says scholars where trying to reconstruct historical maps of old state of Hadiya, before the upheavals of the Oromo expansions. It was greatly reduced in size but they still had their own chiefs, one period more vassal than the other as the journal indicates. This and your earlier introduction of factually incorrect content from Hassen, Spencer Trinigham reads like Ethiopian Empire and Hadiya were mortal enemies, and Hadiya joined Oromos when they were in fact conquered by the Oromos and assilimated, with a large territorial reduction for the Hadiya.

You have also removed this some of the Arsi Oromo today claim Hadiya ancestry. [[7]] I did not verify this, it was in the article for quite a while, did you verify it to be incorrect? I might need to verify that too, since assuming good faith has it's limits. Sidenote: in the other Jstor journal of Ulrich Braukamper i did read about Oromos having Hadiya descent on page 11. Anyways i will be removing some of your erronous content from the article. Disagree? I would like to read your arguments. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The Hadiya people have a rich history dating back to at least 1200 AD, as descendants of the Hadiya Sultanate, a once powerful Muslim principality that existed in the Horn of Africa from 1200 to the late 16th century. The Hadiya Sultanate was known for its wealth, agricultural production, trade, and military power. It was located between southern Haragie, southern Arsi, and northern Bale and extended into Sidama province (Braukämper, 1973, 1977a; Hassen, 1983). However, the rise of the Solomonic dynasty in 1270 led by Amda-Siyon resulted in widespread destruction, displacement, and changes in the ethnic makeup of the region. The Hadiya Sultanate was briefly conquered and made tributary by the Solomonic dynasty emperor Amde Siyon in 1329 and later by Zara Yaqob in the 15th century (Köhler, 2018). The Hadiya people formed the backbone of Muslim opposition against Solomonic dynasty domination for almost two centuries but were ultimately defeated by the Solomonic dynasty in the late 16th century (Taddesse, 1968; Aregay, 1980; Hassen, 1983; Braukämper, 2002; Köhler, 2018). In 1531, the victorious Imam Ahmad reached Hadiya and the Muslim ruler of the province submitted to him without resistance. The imam confirmed the Hadiya ruler in his position and the Hadiya chief cemented the alliance by giving his daughter, Muris, as a wife to the imam(Braukämper, 1977b; Oliver, 1981; Hassen, 1983; Braukämper, 1984, 2002; Köhler, 2018). The Solomonic dynasty ultimately defeated Imam Ahmad and the Muslim states, including Hadiya, with support from Portuguese allies and arms imported from Europe in the late 16th century (Burton, 1894). As a result of this defeat, a majority of the Hadiya population joined the Oromo people and adopted their language and social organization -gada system(Hassen, 1983; Köhler, 2018). The rest fled in all directions, but eventually resettled themselves in pockets along the western margin of the Rift valley and in the adjoining highlands. The above information is supported by several reputable sources, including Taddesse (1968), Aregay (1980). Any attempt to distort such historical facts about the Hadiya people and their history should be met with skepticism and the use of credible sources. It appears that the other individual is utilizing a single source, written by a single author, to challenge a well-established historical fact. It is unclear why this individual has such a strong focus on Islam and a particular community, particularly when his claims does not align with widely accepted and credible literature on the subject. Cushite (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

User:That Article Editing Guy

Report by User:Mvcg66b3r

Re-report: Re-adding unneeded non-free files (see [8] and [9]). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment This should be an WP:SPI report for SPWTulsaOK1213. Please file one; ANI isn't a catch-all noticeboard when we have procedures for it. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The files in question were WP:BOLDly removed, thus making them "orphaned non-free use" eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F5. The uploader was notified and they re-added the files to de-orphan them. There's really nothing disruptive about such a thing and it's something that's happens quite a lot. Opinions as to whether a non-free file is needed often differ depending upon who you ask, and often further discussion is needed to sort things out. Trying to have a non-free file deleted per F5 for WP:NFCCP reasons other than WP:NFCC#7 is perhaps OK once, but once the file has been re-added by someone another process should be followed. There are things like {{rfu}}, {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}}, WP:PROD and WP:FFD where files can be tagged or nominated for deletion for more specific reasons that F5. Removing the files for a second time risks edit warring and wouldn't be considered an exception to 3RR per item 5 of WP:3RRNO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment I will agree that some of the pictures are definitely PD (certainly the all-text and minimally-illustrated newspaper ads excerpted from Newspapers.com-acquired microfilm cannot possibly be copyrighted) and should not have been removed (this editorial in the National Archives has had its copyright released just by its being archived by a U.S. government employee), and I should expect them to be re-reviewed and classed as such (some pictures of course violate F-U, but certainly not all of them). Nate • (chatter) 04:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the archiving of a work by a government employee does not erase the copyright of the underlying work. Any additions made by the archivist are, yes, in the public domain. Even the National Archive admits this when they say "The vast majority of the digital images in the National Archives Catalog are in the public domain." The "vast majority" is not all; the reason most of the materials in the Archive are in the public domain is because they were works of the US government. (That's not to say that an editorial from 1962 might not be in the PD for other reasons.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair, which is why I was happy to have the second opinion determine that. Thank you, Nat. Nate • (chatter) 17:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Report by Sammi Brie

In the last three weeks, this new editor has been causing some havoc with TV stations and other pages and has been adding a lot of low-quality non-free images that arguably aren't covered under NFURs and aren't terribly useful in their respective pages (e.g. newspaper clippings of advertisements, such as File:WGRZ call letter announcement.jpg). ANI is, of course, a last resort, but the user so far has not engaged any criticism of their work, mostly reverting removals and "de-orphaning" images. I'm trying to get their attention and get them to engage. I left a user talk message a week ago but never really got a reply. The number of automated talk page notices suggests continued activity at a high volume, as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There already is a discussion about this user above at #User:That Article Editing Guy reported by User:Mvcg66b3r; so, maybe it would be best to combine the two threads to avoid any possible confusion and redundancy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 11:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

JRRobinson

JRRobinson (talk · contribs) - a user with a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, with warnings about this on their talk page from 2007, 2012, 2015...I blocked them in September 2022, their response was just 'I forget to add sources', but they have continued to add unsourced content to BLPs. Posting here for wider review. GiantSnowman 20:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• General Comment if the editor just "forgot" to add sources, it would also track that most of the time the editor would "remember" to add sources. But if it happens a lot (which seems to be the case here), it doesn't really matter -- "forgot" or "did it on purpose" -- the end result is the same. The sources are not in the articles and could easily violate WP:BLP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Where's the evidence of an ongoing problem or discussion about it? I see one example of a good-faith edit lacking sources, and a rather precipitous warning "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material" from an admin that blocked him in the past, but not much else except long ago at multi-year intervals. He bugged me a bit by reverting my case fixes, but I don't see this or the other as a big deal; particularly, a previously involved admin should not be threatening a block where others haven't even tried to talk to the editor. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Like I said, this editor has warnings from numerous editors going back to 2007, 16 years for the same behaviour. It is not a one-off and it is not me solely highlighting this issue. As for ongoing issue, other than the diff above, other recent unsourced edits include this (height not in the source provided) and this. GiantSnowman 16:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• How about back then it wasn't easy to remember sourcing..., and I'd rather try and find sources other than Twitter feeds, like my one with Connor Shanks that I just had to redo. Common sense is also missing from loads of other people on here, with regards to silly "guidelines". If anything, ItsKesha and Lee Vilenski should be held to account for making silly edits which ruin great darts articles.JRRobinson (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose you mean to include me among those ruining darts articles by making edits based on silly guidelines. If you're not going to even give a try to be a better collaborator, which means at least somewhat respecting policies and guidelines, then I retract my defense of you above. Dicklyon (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Bizarre to me that you think following policy and following consensus should make people have to be "held to account". My impression is you have an ownership issue with certain items, especially reverting against policies outlined by Dicklyon above and also things like this. You don't get to simply choose which policies effect certain articles. I would have left it as is without a warning until I was pinged here, but those "silly guidelines" are the consensus of many users. Back to the original topic, you need to provide a source when making changes, especially when on a WP:BLP. Suggesting that "you clearly don't read Twitter much, do you...??" when asked for a source is crazy for such an experienced editor. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Um. "Back then it wasn't easy to remember sourcing?" Sorry, I started on WP before you did, and there hasn't been a time since I arrived when articles did not need to be sourced. I also echo the other editors in reiterating that those same "silly" guidelines are the rules of the road here, ones that all WP editors are bidden to follow. It is a very poor look for an editor with your longevity and edit count not to have wrapped your head around that. Ravenswing 01:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say anyone who is so blasé about adding unsourced content to BLPs should have a topic ban from BLPs. That "silly guideline" is how we prevent making false claims about a living person. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is my point - he just doesn't care, and his edits are disruptive as a result. GiantSnowman 19:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirects created by recently discovered HughD sockpuppet

A few days ago, Lettler was indefinitely banned for being a sockpuppet of HughD following an WP:SPI investigation opened by me regarding another sockpuppet account. Since the ban, I've been nominating articles and redirects created by the Lettler sockpuppet for speedy deletion under WP:G5. Unfortunately, that account was active since March 2020 and has clearly done a lot between that time and the ban. @Shirt58: noticed my speedy deletion requests and suggested that I raise the issue here as well. I agreed given HughD's prolific activity under the Lettler name, so here we are. Love of Corey (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

List of redirects created by Lettler. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, a list! That's useful. Now I can go through and re-make every single one. Since there was no reason to delete them in the first place except our dumb vengeance pact against sockpuppets. Silverseren^C 05:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Per wp:EVADE I think you can just revert those changes with no other justification. From EVADE, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Springee (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of not being a suicide pact, though, please don't delete any that happen to be useful redirects. Most of these seem rather obscure, but if other editors have linked through the redirect after its creation, it should be tagged and kept. BD2412 T 05:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• On a separate note, what was HughD originally banned for? Were there any article-specific issues such as copyvio problems, hoaxes, other things like that? Or were their articles perfectly fine and they were banned for other reasons? Silverseren^C 05:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reading through their talk page, it looks like it was an Arbcom topic ban being violated frequently over editing conservative political topics, yes? So I'll just need to do a read-through for bias. Silverseren^C 05:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Original suggester here. " I think this should possibly be mentioned at WP:ANI - which, whether we like or not, is the default en.wp community noticeboard - if only to get more eyes on this..." is what I wrote. If any or all of this suggestion was a bad idea on my part, I take full responsibility. On reflection, I should probably have suggested WP:AN instead of WP:AN/I, as I guess WP:AN is the more correct noticeboard for people with the delete buttons. But it's here now. --User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  No need for apologies: getting more eyes on an issue is no crime. Ravenswing 00:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Actively harming Wikipedia

Okay, this is beyond extreme. Love of Corey is going through literally all of HughD's edits anywhere and reverting them, no matter the content. How are reversions like this or this beneficial in the slightest? You're just actively making Wikipedia worse on purpose. At this point, I feel like we need a bot to revert all of your edits over the past few days to fix things. But I suppose I'll have to go through and do it myself. Silverseren^C 19:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that the point, though? To undo all the edits that were done by a sockpuppet in evasion of a ban? Love of Corey (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Uh, no. There is absolutely no "point" of that being required. Why do you think it's beneficial to remove actually good additions for this purpose? How does that help anything? Silverseren^C 19:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Springee already described it perfectly from WP:EVADE as seen above. Love of Corey (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyone is free to, not that anyone is required to. Why are you purposefully choosing to make harmful reversions to articles when that isn't required? Silverseren^C 19:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You're accusing me of intentionally committing vandalism and I really, really, REALLY don't appreciate that. Now, I'm sorry for not being as well-informed with my decisions as I thought I was. I'm going to focus on nominating some of the sockpuppets' categories for deletion now; that was the plan for today, anyway. Love of Corey (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe's comment below is correct. If the edits are constructive then it's generally best not to revert. If they are marginal, or if we aren't sure if the content is really DUE etc then you can revert. Do keep in mind that if others are pushing back then it makes sense to slow down. HughD was certainly a very problematic editor but I didn't see anything that looked obviously wrong unlike some of their EVADE edits in the past. Springee (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As another example here, Love of Corey removed a public domain photo of the article subject from the article merely because HughD was the one who added it to the infobox. I can think of no explanation of how that is a beneficial edit. Silverseren^C 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see your response until now, Springee. I guess I'm going to hit the "stop" button on this until I see where exactly this goes. Love of Corey (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's always going to be a balance. Revert on site, and many of HughD's edits have been reverted on site, is meant to not reward socks. The hope is if their efforts are wasted perhaps they won't continue to sock. I think that works well in cases where the edits or talk page comments are relatively neutral overall. Of course a bad edit will be reverted anyway. However, a truly good edit should be left. Part of why EVADE and similar exist is for cases like the following, HughD_sock makes an edit to the article and to the talk page. Normally I shouldn't be allowed to delete someone else's talk page comment. However, because this is an EVADE case I can. Also, if someone wonders why I reverted what might look like an otherwise valid edit with no justification, EVADE is that justification. But, if people, as we are seeing here, are objecting then a pause or a more careful review of the evading edits is in order. Springee (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The relevant text is WP:BANREVERT, which pretty clearly states that while anyone can revert all edits of a banned editor, they do not have to revert all edits. Edits that are clearly helpful can and arguably should be allowed to remain.

In other words, revert the bad edits of a banned user, but you can leave the good ones be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This is one of the much-rarer-than-tends-to-be-the-case instances where WP:IAR applies. Like Silverseren, I've never understood the point behind blanket reverts of sockpuppet edits where those edits are clearly productive and accurate. We do not allow admins to issue purely punitive blocks; what makes purely punitive reverts acceptable? I see that Love of Corey is at the all-caps, bolded level of snarling regarding charges of vandalism, but frankly, reverting otherwise-sound edits of a sock for no other apparent reason than "Take THAT, you bastard! Hahaha!" ... what else would you call that? Ravenswing 21:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user and not the good ones... that's the same thing we are supposed to do with a not-banned user. And thus, there is no actual such thing as "banning". This seems a bad idea in the larger picture. It just encourages "banned" users to continue as they were, and puts additional weight on other editors to sort out their good and bad edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone was banned for something that had nothing to do with making bad edits, but instead for problems with other editors or such things, why would their edits be presumed bad at all? Silverseren^C 22:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Because they are bad edits even if they are factually accurate -- the banned user is stealing from the Wikipedia community our ability to control things here. The person who breaks into my house to wash my dishes is still breaking into my house. I realize that this might not matter to you, given your announced intention to harass another, non-banned user by pointily undoing their every edit, but we do ban people for reasons and it should mean something. If you wish to see an end to banning n Wikipedia, that is a more involved process that should not be started with you targeting an editor who is making permitted edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, "stealing", got it. So this is getting into the whole United States penal system sort of thing where it's about punishing bad people no matter the cost. Even if we burn down the house in the process, so long as the Bad(TM) person is punished, then the goal is accomplished. Because the goal here isn't to make an encyclopedia, it's to make sure people get what they deserve, especially when they defy The Rules(TM).

Also, it was my announced intention to revert the removal of positive content. Because I'm here to actually make an encyclopedia. Unless you see the purpose in things like removing an image from a biography merely because the banned user was the one that added it to the infobox? Silverseren^C 23:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You're comparing apples to oranges here. It's not like a permanent block on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, is grounds for life imprisonment in an actual prison. We're not taking away or violating any actual rights here. HughD is still free to live their life however they please.

Now, I'm not intimately familiar with the situation that led to HughD's permanent block, but a cursory look at their talk page shows me that they were topic-banned for their edits on modern-day U.S. political topics and warned a few times for edit-warring. HughD did not seem to appreciate why they were topic-banned and continued making edits in violation of the topic bans, which led to several temporary blocks, at least one AE discussion, and eventually, a permanent block for sockpuppetry to circumvent the topic bans. I'm also seeing a few talk page discussions about wikihounding and other harassment of users. (If anyone who is more familiar with the HughD situation is seeing this, please feel free to jump in if I'm missing anything or misinterpreting/misrepresenting any of the facts.)

From my observations and understanding, HughD's actions and history leading up to the permanent block shows that they do not get along well with others, they do not appreciate the rules and the warnings and consequences that are handed down for any rule violations, and they are uninterested in working with others to help build this encyclopedia. Their behavior, which is constantly being revisited as evidenced by the recent SPI investigation, has compromised their ability to be a positive contributor. Sockpuppetry itself aside, HughD's sockpuppets have edited articles that center around topics they were topic-banned from, e.g. mass shootings, which is obviously a central topic in the U.S. gun politics debate, a modern-day U.S. political topic. So it doesn't matter how positive or beneficial these newer edits are. These are edits regarding topics that they have a recorded history of issues and trouble with. By permanently leaving these edits up, we are essentially rewarding HughD for skirting a block over a topic they have a recorded history of issues and trouble with. If that's the case, then what's the point of permanent blocks, then? Or overall blocks, for that matter? Surely WP:BLOCKPOL was instituted for a reason, right?

Now, I apologize for the wildly indiscriminate, widespread reversions, especially regarding articles and topics that I don't normally dabble in and therefore don't have an actual understanding of. I obviously did not understand that there's no urgency in addressing all of those edits, and the difference between "can" and "have to". However, it sounds to me that you don't support any sort of reversion happening here in the near-future or in the long term (especially judging by the reversions you're doing for categories that I intend to have deleted), which is why I'm making this argument. Love of Corey (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

ANY editor who watches a page is sorting out good edits vs bad edits, and that's the point of those who make new page or anti-vandalism patrolling their WP work, so gussying that up as some uniquely onerous imposition is garbage. The second heap of the garbage is your line of "if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user ..." No, we are not. The actual wording of WP:BANREVERT -- had you cared to read it -- starts with "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand) ..." You will find nothing in there requiring such reversions.

Beyond that, are you seriously suggesting that failure to revert every edit posted in violation of a socking ban constitutes an incentive to sock? Seriously? That's ... a fairly breathtaking leap of illogic. And irrelevant in any event. Sanctions on Wikipedia are not intended to be punitive. They are intended to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Good edits are not disruptive to the encyclopedia, and eliminating otherwise sound edits out of nothing more than a sense of revenge is senseless. Ravenswing 00:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Sanctions on Wikipedia are not intended to be punitive. They are intended to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Good edits are not disruptive to the encyclopedia..." But wouldn't edits made by a sockpuppet account be inherently disruptive on their own, since the sockpuppet account was created for the purpose of getting around a ban? If we want to get more specific, would a sockpuppet's edits still be good even if they concern the same kind of topics that got the sockmaster blocked in the first place, as I articulated above? No matter how good they actually are? What is the line that we want to draw here based on these arguments? And would that make any sort of policy, useful or otherwise, obsolete? Love of Corey (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Inherently disruptive" on their own? Would you explain that? Disruptive how? We're not going to anthropomorphize them, surely, and claim that the bytes are sneaking around Wikipedia, spreading sockpuppetry oogieness over pure and decent edits, are we? Without looking at an edit history, you have no idea in the world who made what edits. With the vast majority of editors operating off of pseudonyms, you have no idea in the world of the character or qualifications of the editors making edits. All we have to go on is whether the edits themselves are accurate, and are well-sourced.

Beyond that, think for a moment on why we ban people. We don't do it because this is some geeky MMORPG, or to have safe targets upon whom to take out our aggressions. We do so to protect the encyclopedia. "Protect" it why? Because the conduct of banned editors falls under two broad categories: making an environment that's unpleasant for other editors, and introducing problematic edits.

A banned editor is no longer doing the former. Sound edits pose no issue for the latter. There is no active disruption taking place, nor a problem requiring solution. Ravenswing 01:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Without looking at an edit history, you have no idea in the world who made what edits. With the vast majority of editors operating off of pseudonyms, you have no idea in the world of the character or qualifications of the editors making edits." So, what, are you saying that, despite their permanent block, the edits by HughD's sockpuppets should stay up because we have no idea what HughD's character or qualifications are? Even though, judging by what I saw on HughD's talk page, there was clearly some concern about their character, e.g. the discussions about harassment? "We do so to protect the encyclopedia. 'Protect' it why? Because the conduct of banned editors falls under two broad categories: making an environment that's unpleasant for other editors, and introducing problematic edits.

A banned editor is no longer doing the former. Sound edits pose no issue for the latter. There is no active disruption taking place, nor a problem requiring solution." That seriously, literally does not make any sense. What's the point in blocking sockpuppet accounts, then, if they aren't being unpleasant to other editors and making sound edits? What was the point in blocking HughD's latest sockpuppet accounts? They weren't being unpleasant to me or anyone else, and their edits were otherwise sound. If I hadn't become suspicious of how similar their edits were to an IP sockpuppet that I was already aware of, they would've continued editing virtually undetected, at least until someone else got suspicious later on. What would the justification be in blocking them, if they didn't fall under those "two broad categories". Love of Corey (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

But wouldn't edits made by a sockpuppet account be inherently disruptive on their own, since the sockpuppet account was created for the purpose of getting around a ban? In the same way that a bad person can do a good thing, a disruptive editor can (on occasion) make good edits. Where a disruptive editor has been banned for socking, their edits should not be reverted wholesale simply because of their ban. They should only be reverted if they are judged by those familiar with the topic to be disruptive.

The point of the BANREVERT policy is not to punish the disruptive editor. It is there to make it easier to clean up bad edits, hence why it has an opt-out of 3RR as there may be many non-sequential edits that need to be analysed and reverted. But it also warns those cleaning up to exercise care when reverting a banned editor, as the material you may be restoring could breach one or more of the core content policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Then what would the purpose of a topic ban be? Surely a topic ban here means an editor cannot be allowed to edit articles of a certain topic, right? Love of Corey (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If an editor is being disruptive either in the article or talk spaces it generally eats up editorial time. The exact nature of the disruption isn't really relevant, because in the end all forms of it will waste editorial time in some manner or another. Topic bans are there to prevent that disruption in the first instance, by encouraging that editor to edit non-disruptively elsewhere. While yes a topic ban means an editor will not be allowed to edit articles of that topic, that is only the case to prevent harm to other editors and article integrity. And while that may seem like punishment to the person who receives a TBAN, usually followed by complaints of "Why was I topic banned? I was only speaking the truth", that is secondary to the primary purpose; to prevent disruption. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user? We're supposed to revert bad edits in general; it's not commanded of us, but reverting bad edits we see is a fairly standard part of Wikipedia editing. Reverting bad edits is a key tool in improve Wikipedia. Or are you suggesting that banned users have some sort of extra privilege to have their bad edits ignored??? A banned editor editing Wikipedia is inherently disruptive. It is disrupting our banning. What, if anything, does "banning" mean to you if it doesn't mean they're not allowed to edit here? Your demand that we overlook the ban is fighting against a lot of effort that has gone into considering and placing those bans. If all you see in the bans is "revenge", then I suggest you need to look further. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's fine to purposefully make an article worse, such as by removing the primary image for the article subject, so long as doing so is sticking it to a banned user? Apparently the rules behind the banning is more important to you than actually working on improving this encyclopedia? Silverseren^C 00:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Being able to actually ban users and keep them from taking part here is of use in the larger picture of building this encyclopedia, as I see it. If you don't feel that's the case, you are welcome to start an appropriate attempt to change the policies. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Nat what you're arguing for would be a change in policy. BANREVERT already states clearly that edits by users in violation of a ban should not be reverted solely because they were made by a banned editor. The current policy is already to exercise editorial judgement on whether or not the edit by the banned user improves the article. If it improved it, leave it be. If it made it worse, revert it. If you wish to see all edits by banned users reverted solely because they were made by a banned user, then I'm afraid you would need to seek a change to policy in this case, and judging from the comments here I'm not sure that there would be a consensus for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You really are terribly insistent on responding to some conversation going on in your own head, instead of what other people are saying. Let me see if I can simplify this: no one is saying that we are not supposed to revert bad edits. Let me say this as well: no one is saying that banned editors ought to be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Are any of those statements inherently unclear? Socks of banned editors, when found, are banned, and at that point they can make no more edits. So much so is good. What we are saying -- and what is confirmed by the explicit text of WP:BANREVERT -- is that there is neither a need to revert sound edits, nor a requirement to do so. I really have no idea why this simple concept seems to hard to grasp, or why you're kicking and screaming so strenuously against it. If you disagree with the provisions of BANREVERT, and you want a bright line requirement that all edits of banned users need to be stricken at once, then go to the talk page and try to build consensus for your POV. Ravenswing 01:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. So say, hypothetically, I get blocked because I violated a topic ban on mass shooting-related articles. I then create a sockpuppet account and leave a well-sourced, non-vandalistic edit on a mass shooting-related article. My sockpuppet account is discovered and gets blocked, but my edit stays up because it is, by your definition, "sound", despite the topic ban that I originally got blocked for. This is basically what HughD did for at least their recent sockpuppets. Do you see the loophole that this opens?

And yes, I get what you're saying here now, some edits by socks are genuinely good and there is neither a need nor a requirement to revert them. But when genuinely good edits are done at the expense of the genuinely good reasons why the sockmaster was blocked in the first place, I really do think this is where we are sort of obligated to address those genuinely good reasons for the original block and act accordingly. Love of Corey (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The loophole is already there: it is in the plain text of BANREVERT. Does this method require examination and judgment on the part of an editor reviewing the material in your hypothetical, instead of just doing a knee-jerk revert? Yep, it sure does. But that's scarcely different from how that works with any editor. I have a few hundred articles on my watchlist, and I cast an eye over every edit to them, minor or no, unless they're executed by editors whose work I have reason to trust. Ravenswing 01:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Then that is absolutely unfair and completely defeats the purpose of sanctioning people for topic ban violations and getting around previous blocks. Under my hypothetical and your reasoning, as long as I behave well and make good edits, it won't matter how many times my sockpuppet accounts are found. I just have an incentive to just keep making more sockpuppet accounts and continue making edits that circumvent that topic ban, since I have no concerns that my material will keep standing after I am blocked yet again. What would the point be in blocking a sockpuppet account of mine for the millionth time, if I'm not being disruptive? You might as well just unblock the sockmaster account and say, "No harm, no foul, you weren't being disruptive with your sock accounts so I'd say you've learned your lesson." Love of Corey (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A sockpuppet account "behaving well and making good edits" probably won't be discovered. Most banned users continue the behavior that got them banned. But that doesn't mean that typos should be reintroduced or legitimate categories deleted. I find a lot of sock edits, and if their legitimacy is even the slightest bit questionable, I revert them. But if reverting the edit is ultimately disruptive (i.e. if the edit were not a revert and instead made by another editor, it'd be considered vandalism) then reverting the edit is absolutely the wrong action. For a great while, there was an LTA that did nothing but delete whitespace and fix punctuation errors in an effort to get accounts extended confirmed. Reverting those edits would be a fool's errand. To act to the detriment of an article is to validate the disruption of banned users, not the other way around. --Sable232 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Most banned users continue the behavior that got them banned." Which is what HughD did. Edit on articles they had been topic-banned from in the first place, a.k.a. they were not allowed to edit them in the first place, regardless of how genuinely good an edit would otherwise be. Love of Corey (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

HughD was initially topic banned because they were disruptive in the area of American Politics and climate science. They had already been pushing the patience of admins prior to the ban because as an editor they would do what they wanted regardless of consensus. They also frequently made pointy edits. So lots of not bright line things that resulted in a topic ban. They then violated the topic ban and eventually earned a 6 month block. After that they decided to open a large number of sock accounts and continue the disruptive but often not bright line violation edits. When you look back at their long history of socks you see a lot of edits that are either attempts to put pet sources into articles (ie not improvements but typically not vandalism or out right bad edits) or you see edits where they are trying to target other editors. For example, arguing against a proposal only based on who is making the proposal, not the quality of the proposal. Thus the issue wasn't making good edits where they were otherwise tbanned. It was making edits that generally were negative even if not bright line violations. It was trying to target other editors etc. Still, we should think about what is best for Wikipedia. If they are fixing a clear spelling/grammar error of course we wouldn't revert. For most category stuff, so long as it's neutral, I wouldn't worry about it. Springee (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A sockpuppet account "behaving well and making good edits" probably won't be discovered. Exactly this. Lets not forget the case of Eostrix, a sock of who was so successful in "behaving well and making good edits" that they almost had a successful RfA. Even with WP:BEANS in mind, I'm still not sure how they were eventually caught. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the same person who is claiming that no one is saying that we are not supposed to revert bad edits is the same person who wrote The second heap of the garbage is your line of "if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user ..." No, we are not. So unless we're playing one of these logic games where your real name is "no one", it looks like there's some falsehood mixed in with your efforts to be insulting. As fpr no is saying that banned editors ought to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, you've been in effect saying that we have to treat them like they're the equivalent of non-banned editors so long as they get a new sock puppet every once in a while. The idea that edits by banned editors are inherently against policy would seem to be built into the idea of banning. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I get the inclination to revert banned users (I've reverted certain edits by WP:BKFIP in the past), but you have to do it with care. Some edits by banned users are legitimately good, no matter how said user ended up being banned from the site. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I'm beginning to regret opening up that SPI investigation. Wikipedia lost two perfectly fine, non-disruptive, positive contributors because of it, sockpuppetry aside. I'll now have to keep this in mind next time I see an account that looks like a sockpuppet for another user. If their edits are good, then I'll just turn a blind eye. Sorry about that, everyone; I've learned my mistake. Love of Corey (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's entirely the wrong takeaway from this discussion. You did a good thing when filing the SPI case, and it looks like you spotted a connection that many editors would have missed. That is very commendable!

The problem is not that you filed an SPI and two users were blocked as a result. The problem is that because of the block, you reverted good edits that anyone familiar with the topic could have made, but in this instance were made by someone evading their topic ban. Looking at the SPI archive for HughD, it seems as though they have been both socking and loutsocking for years now. In some cases they were being actively disruptive, and in some cases not so actively disruptive. Cleaning up after this sort of editor requires both care and familiarity with the underlying topic at hand. While anyone could clean up active and obvious disruption, only those familiar with the topic could clean up any more subtle examples of disruption.

The takeaway should be to exercise more care when cleaning up after a banned user. Don't revert their contributions just because they are banned. Revert them because they are both banned, and that the contribution was in some way harmful. If you aren't familiar with the topic, leave a message on the article talk page or WikiProject saying Hey, a contributor to this article/set of articles was just blocked for being a sockpuppet. Could someone familiar with the topic please check their contributions for any problems? Thanks. and let someone else handle the rest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Good grief. I can think of several longtime editors whom after longrunning antics (and after multiple ANI threads over several years) I had a part in seeing tbanned and community banned. They were broadly disruptive, they were outright defiant of consensus with which they disagreed, they were wikilawyers to the core, they were often hostile, their word was often not good, they did a lot of damage to the encyclopedia, and the messes they left are not remotely done with being cleaned up. And they were not always wrong. They made many good edits. They created a number of sound articles. They sometimes tendered good advice. None of them came here intending to destroy Wikipedia. I don't regret for an instant that they've been sent packing, but it was scarcely some Manichean struggle between Good and Evil, and I feel no need to undo all their work.

Because the goal here is to build an encyclopedia, not to count coup. One of my catchphrases here is that the nature of a consensus-based environment is that sometimes you're on the wrong side of consensus, in which case the only option is to lose gracefully and move on. If you took this issue to ANI to find out what the community thought, that was for the right reason. If, by contrast, you were seeking an uncritical rubberstamp for your actions, that was for the wrong reason. Ravenswing 10:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I only posted this here on recommendation of an admin more than anything else. Without that recommendation, I wouldn't have taken the topic here. But here I am, and now all of a sudden, I get ganged up on with accusations that I'm intentionally vandalizing and actively harming Wikipedia. And all of this because I took some rules a little too seriously and would've just used some more gentle prodding away from that. Good grief, indeed. So yeah, thanks for the recommendation, Shirt58. Very much appreciated. Love of Corey (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I surely hope you aren't attacking an editor, who wasn't even engaged in this discussion, and blaming them for how this discussion played out. Your last three posts here have been dripping with... a certain kind of tone... and its hard to tell precisely what you meant by this. Do you care to clarify? GabberFlasted (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the same person who is claiming that no one is saying that we are not supposed to revert bad edits is the same person who wrote The second heap of the garbage is your line of "if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user ..." No, we are not. So unless we're playing one of these logic games where your real name is "no one", it looks like there's some falsehood mixed in with your efforts to be insulting.: no, it makes perfect sense, NatGertler. The important part is the "of a banned user" phrase. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said uptopic, it does seem that NatGertler seems to be arguing with what he wants people to be saying, rather than what they actually ARE saying. Ravenswing 08:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry to butt in on this report, I encountered this a while back too. An admin blanket reverted several edits made by a banned/blocked (unsure which because I've forgotten many details of this incident now) User, however, simultaneously reintroduced erroneous information on the pretext of BANREVERT. At what point do we give consideration to WP:ROPE and just give the guy a second chance? They are, from what I can tell, rather reformed. At the same time, they are becoming super frustrated that their constructive contributions to Wikipedia are being undone, much to their chagrin. This frustration is seemingly bringing out incivility issues that may have resulted in their first ousting. Is it appropriate for a user, much less an admin, to blanket revert contributions of an IP sock or registered sock just on the pretext the last account was a bad apple? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 08:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC) It is interesting that HughD has moved exclusively to editing shootings/murders/ect topics with their socks. As far as I'm aware, that isn't relevant to their political conservatism topic ban. SilverserenC 18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the reply, Silver seren, however, this was not quite the answer I was looking for. I was talking more in the broad sense, rather than Hugh specifically. I also agree that this is getting off-topic, as such, I will collapse it. Feel free to pop over to my talk page if you have any further questions. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 05:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• If this current WP:SHITSTORM results in consequences for Love of Corey - who posted my suggestion in obvious good faith - I think it is only fair that those consequences should be visited on me first, and only later on them, if at any time.--User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, I'll bite: why would there be? And where in the above discussion has anyone so much as hinted at any? There's a huge difference between "What you're doing is unnecessary and damaging" and "What you're doing is in violation of policy." The latter is obviously not the case. Ravenswing 12:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. The accusations of intentional vandalism certainly haven't helped matters. Love of Corey (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Marcelus

Marcelus has a clearly WP:NOTHERE, WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:GRUDGE attitude, because of his behaviour on the article Zigmas Zinkevičius, its talk page and the report on No OR. Marcelus has a long-time grudge against this dead man and has repeatedly voiced his hatred of Zinkevičius:

1. Zinkevičius is a chauvinistic pig and I won't pretend he isn't - 11 August 2022 [10]

2. Of course I have, because he was chauvinistic pig, and that's what this part is proving, with sources - 15 January 2023 [11]. This was Marcelus' response to me commenting about the Anti-Polonism section (created by Marcelus): This section was obviously written without caring about WP:NPOV. Marcelus wants to smear the leading Lithuanian linguist of recent times due to Marcelus disliking parts of his work. Marcelus has a grudge against this dead man already for quite some time, considering that Marcelus said (...). ([12])

Turaids noticed this due to the report and then became involved in the talk page. Regardless, Marcelus continued WP:POVPUSHing with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that Zinkevičius is nationalist and anti-Polish, despite no sources naming the foremost Lithuanian linguist of recent times as such. When Turaids said to Marcelus You are the one openly admitting of adding things to the article with the intention of "proving" that "he was chauvinistic pig", Marcelus' response confirmed this with ...my intentions is to describe him as such....

Marcelus is clearly editing in a disruptive manner. I am writing this report because Turaids proposed it on my talk page with the reason being He made his intentions very clear from the beginning and his activities clearly go beyond just original research. We tried resolving it constructively.

Marcelus should be WP:TOPICBANned from the topic "Lithuania" (broadly construed) and all topics covered in Zinkevičius' many works, because WP:ABAN on only Zigmas Zinkevičius would result in nothing considering that he wrote a hundred books and many hundreds of articles, mostly regarding Lithuania, but not only, so banning Marcelus only from that article alone would not stop Marcelus' hate-filled disruptive editing overall.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What exactly should be a reason for my ban? A negative opinion on the subject of the article is not sufficient reason for a ban, does not break any rules and does not exclude you from writing an article on the subject. Let me qoute WP:YESPOV: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. In my opinion, the fact that Zinkevičius was an active politician, and as such pursued what is nationalist politics, belonged to the nationalist anti-Polish organization Vilnija (organization), and his scientific work is tainted by a lack of objectivity and mixing ideology with scientific facts, was an element missing from the article as an important part of the biography. Therefore, I decided to add it. I was accused of WP:SYNTH, but I don't see where in the article there is a problem with it. It was suggested earlier that the first sentence was problematic, so I removed it. The "Anti-polonism" section is based on several works by recognized researchers, Polish, Lithuanian and American. I purposely limited myself to academic sources, and didn't use any journalistic sources.

If I were to be completely honest I would like to see Zinkevičius excluded as a source for articles on Poles in Lithuania, their origins, rights, etc. Because already, if only by virtue of his direct political involvement, he is not reliable. At the same time, I do not undermine his merits for Lithuanian linguistics, or for Lithuania in general, or science in general. But I believe that there are better, newer, more moderate works that achieve a neutral point of view in this field. And they reiterate those of Zinkevičius' findings, which are free of bias and ideology.

At one time, by the way, I already made such a submission to WP:RSN, in which I listed examples of passages from his works that are either misleading or outright false. Here is a link. In fact, it has already been previously established on Wikipedia as the source of the false information that it was illegal to speak Lithuanian on the phone in Poland before 1990. Here is the link. As hard as it is to believe, such information can be found in his works published as scientific. Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence What exactly should be a reason for my ban? and the rest of the response only further prove you WP:DONTGETIT. Turaids and I have repeatedly (!) told you the problems with your editing: [13], [14], [15], [16]. Instead of appropriately addressing them, you disruptively edit. As for your submission to WP:RSN, considering that you made it on 6 April 2022 and no one paid attention to it, this only proves that you have an unjustified WP:GRUDGE against this man and your disruptive editing has been going on unadressed for far too long. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I addressed all of them, but ok, I can do it again. 1st link: he was the member of Vilnija and other also were, as I said I don't inisist on keeping this, but I don't agree that it breaks any rules, or that it is an "association fallacy". It would be the case if they weren't active in the same organisation, but they were. 2nd link: no concrete issue here, but another mention of me being problematic. 3rd link: another mention of me having a "grudge" against Zinkevičius, I adressed it in my first comment here, to sum it up "it's irrelevant". 4th link: I adressed your issues about Jundo-Kaliszewska here, no reposne from you, so my guess is that you were satisfied with the answer.

So out of all 4, only 3 are actual issues, and all of them were addressed by me. So it seems that IDOGETIT. Marcelus (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Casually dismissing concerns is not "addressing" the issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds Which one did I dismiss? We can keep talking about issues with the article, but the other side needs to be willing to cooperate. @Cukrakalnis listed four issues, only two are about article. First ("association fallacy") I don't agree, because it's not aplicable here. It would be if person A would be in a nationalist organisation but also in a, let's say chess club with person B, and by this association I would claim that person B is also nationalist. This isn't the case here, all people mentioned in the article were members of Vilnija. And as I said I don't insist on keeping this part, but I don't agree that it is "association fallacy". Second issue with article is that Jundo-Kaliszewska is according to @Cukrakalnis "controversial", and he said why he thinks that, I addressed his concerns (although as I see now, I didn't provide the link the first time, so here it is). I'm still waiting for his response.

It's unfair to say that I "dismissed" concerns. Marcelus (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You did not adress any of the issues.

There is 0 sources calling Zinkevičius "anti-Polish", but you created an "anti-Polonism" section on the article ([17]). That whole section is WP:SYNTH, which makes it all WP:OR. Instead of removing that section because it is against Wiki's policies, you ignore the issue and sidestep it entirely.

Your whole approach is clearly of doing as you please and ignoring the rules. You yourself admitted that the "Anti-Polonism" section that you wrote went directly against Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV when answering to my message here.

It's impossible to work constructively with Marcelus, because he either ignores what others write, side-steps the issue entirely and claims that he 'adressed' them or fails to understand what is being said to him and agressively edits however he wants to. It's very fair to say that you dismissed these concerns, because you repeatedly fail to understand what is being said to you and then engage in the same behaviour that elicited that criticism in the first place. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis No, I didn't acknowledge that at all. The section is I believe written neutrally with reference to sources. In view of this, it does not break the WP:NPOV rule. My personal attitude towards the subject of the article is irrelevant, if one were to approach it in the way you suggest, it would mean that an article on, say, Hitler could only be written by people with a positive or neutral attitude towards him. This is, of course, absurd.

The section is called "Anti-polonism" because it describes actions against the Polish minority in Lithuania, a name reinforced by the fact that Zinkevičius was associated with Vilnija, which is described as an anti-Polish organization. I believe it is an appropriate name, but am open to changing it. What is your proposal? "Anti-polish sentiment?" "Action against the Polish minority in Lithuania"?

I have already answered why it is not WP:SYNTH, but you keep ignoring what I write and repeating, for the umpteenth time in a row, the same accusations, adding that I am not addressing them.

I get the impression that the only purpose of this submission is to censor the slogan about Zinkevičius and remove information that you find inconvenient. Unfortunately, I cannot agree to that. Marcelus (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No sources call Zinkevičius nationalist or anti-Polish. That section was not neutrally written, because you yourself admitted you wanted to smear him, which could already be inferred from you repeatedly dehumanizing Lithuania's leading linguist of the modern times. That section was written in a manner that breaks numerous Wiki rules, as other users like Turaids already told you. You never answered why it was not WP:SYNTH and keep side-stepping most of what other users point out.

WP:ICANTHEARYOU is a perfect description of your actions, both on the article Zigmas Zinkevičius, its talk page, the report about your original research, as well as here. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No sources call Zinkevičius nationalist or anti-Polish., yes and he isn't called that in the article, only his policies are described as "nationalist" and "anti-Polish". Although this source, which I didn't use actually is doing that: [The appeal to expel the Polish party from parliament] was signed by extreme nationalists known for years: Romualdas Ozolas, Kazimieras Garšva or the former Minister of Education (from the 1990s) prof. Zigmas Zinkevičius, who proclaimed that Poles in the Vilnius region are Polonized Lithuanians and they need to be helped to return to their roots. Also under the appeal is the name of the once moderate political scientist Vytautas Radžvilas.

So let's try work out WP:SYNTH together then. Because you need to say exactly what conclusion is according to you mine own creation, and not based on sources. You already mentioned that "No sources call Zinkevičius nationalist or anti-Polish", I answered to that hopefully in a satisfactory way for you. What else? Marcelus (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That Polish newspaper article is questionable for numerous reasons, most importantly because it said that Dalia Grybauskaitė is a person who willingly refers to nationalism (...a także chętnie odwołująca się do nacjonalizmu prezydent Dalia Grybauskait?, która na wiosnę zapewne wywalczy drugą kadencję.). What's with Polish sources calling the most important Lithuanians of recent times like Vytautas Landsbergis, Dalia Grybauskaitė and Zigmas Zinkevičius (extreme) nationalists? Not to mention that time you cited [18] that Pole Marian Kałuski who literally said "Lithuanians became his [Satan's] instrument in sowing hatred between nations." (just check his article). And notice - that section is under the section "Personal views", not "Anti-Lithuanianism" or etc. Including a person's own quotes is by no means WP:OR. Unfortunately, your section is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, because you gather disparate information and yourself synthesize it into a 'narrative' where you basically smear Zigmas Zinkevičius. SYNTH has no place on Wikipedia and should be removed in keeping with Wikipedia's rules. If you actually read his works, especially his biographies, you would see that your accusation of Anti-Polish sentiment is unfounded. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

1. This article isn't used as a source. 2. Nobody is calling Grybauskaire "nationalist". 3. What Marian Kałuski has to do with all of that? Also you pointed out that his views are problematic, I ackonwledged that, and dind't use or insist on using him a source after. Do you see the difference between my approach and yours?

I don't smear Zinkevičius, I describe his actions and views. If that sounds like smearing to you, it says more about Zinkevičius than me. I have read his works, and you know my personal opinion. Marcelus (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You cannot do that. Sources have to do that, otherwise you are violating WP:SYNTH. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds I'm not doing it, sources (Jundo-Kaliszewska, Weeks, Donskis) are straight forward, they describe his actions and views. None of the conclusions are mine. As I understand at this point, the biggest problem is the title of the section, so I change it to a fully neutral one: "Relations with the Polish minority in Lithuania", will it be ok? If there are any other problems, please indicate them, but I mean literally, individual sentences, constructions, indicate conclusions that are mine in your opinion and do not result from sources. Marcelus (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

What Marcelus is saying is not true. Neither of these sources describes Zinkevičius as anti-Polish, nationalist, etc. What Marcelus is doing is WP:SYNTH of various statements. The problem was never about the section's title but the section itself. Because no source calls Zinkevičius 'anti-Polish' or anything of the sort. Marcelus not understanding after more than a week of interaction with other editors that the section itself is the problem due to, but not only, it going against WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and breaking multiple Wiki rules, is a clear indication that Marcelus is WP:NOTHERE and is WP:NOTGETTINGIT, as Marcelus' behaviour constantly proves. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: Zigmas Zinkevičius is:
  

1) an author of many recognized publications. For example, he was Editor-in-Chief of the first three tomes of the Lithuania Minor Encyclopedia (Lithuanian: Mažosios Lietuvos enciklopedija, online version can be found HERE; see: confirmation about authorship mentioned here). Moreover, he is an author (confirmation) of many articles in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia (the most extensive Lithuanian encyclopedia which is also accessible online and is published by a Lithuanian state-funded publishing house). These sources can be described as the most important, extensive and reliable sources available online in the Lithuanian language and has high quality articles almost about every Lithuanian topic.

2) a famous academic. He had a 72-year academic career, was professor (since 1969) and the head of multiple departments of the Vilnius University.

3) a Lithuanian minister of education and science (1996–1998).

Moreover, Google search gives zero results for "Zigmas Zinkevičius chauvinist" or "Zigmas Zinkevičius nationalist".

That being said, his extensive publications covers many, many Lithuanian topics and I support that such actions by multiple times calling him as chauvinistic pig (1, 2) and saying that your intentions is to describe him as such (3) is strictly against Wikipedia's rules. Mr. Zinkevičius clearly would have not achieved so much recognition in a democratic and recognized European country Lithuania if he was a chauvinist (and chauvinistic content clearly would not be presented in the primary Lithuanian encyclopedias published by the state). So we must evaluate how such claims about him comply with WP:OR.

Moreover, by keeping in mind that Mr. Zinkevičius published extensive articles about many Lithuanian topics we must evaluate how such attitude will comply with Wikipedia's fundamental principle WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHERE by editing Lithuanian content. For example, Mr. Zinkevičius is author of article the origin of the Lithuanian language in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia, so according to Marcelus it is written by a chauvinistic pig? This could easily lead to WP:BATTLEGROUND, but we don't need that and as far as I understand this report happened because of similar circumstances. Such motifs editing Lithuanian content definitely should be carefully examined and evaluated as we are Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, not to insult/discredit sources and publishers, especially such competent and recognized experts in Lithuanian content as Mr. Zinkevičius. -- Pofka (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pofka calling him as "chauvinistic pig" and saying that your "intentions is to describe him as such" is strictly against Wikipedia's rules what rules exactly?

So we must evaluate how such claims about him comply with WP:OR. where do you see such claims in the article? Can you pinpoint exact sentences?

For example, Mr. Zinkevičius is author of article the origin of the Lithuanian language in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia, so according to Marcelus it is written by a chauvinistic pig?, everybody has right to his own personal opinions, including me. Being a great academic doesn't mean being perfect in all areas of life.

I'm sorry, but this slowly starting to be a witchhunt. Seems like the focus is on me instead of an article. And that two users: @Cukrakalnis and @Pofka are doing everything they can to eliminate me from the project. @Pofka even rallies other users against me. Marcelus (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus, the purpose of this noticeboard is to examine the conduct of editors, not the content of articles. (Also, you should provide diffs to support accusations against other editors.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Well then, the main accusation in my direction is that I expressed my opinion about the subject of the article in harsh terms. Is this a breach of any particular rule? Because, after all, it is difficult to require me not to have my own opinions, or to write articles about things to which I have an indifferent attitude, because these are usually things about which I have no idea. That's why we should also talk about the article: is it written according to the rules, in neutral language, using reliable sources, etc.?

For my part, I can promise that I will refrain from expressing my opinions in such a harsh manner in the Wikipedia discussion space. But, as I said, I feel that I am the victim of a vilification. As I said @Pofka is ralliying other users against me and was banned for personal attack against me, and the ban was lifted literally couple days ago. Marcelus (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well then, the main accusation in my direction is that I expressed my opinion about the subject of the article in harsh terms. The main accusation is that you are a disruptive editor, with attitudes and actions that clearly contradict Wikipedia's policies. There is a clear different between "harsh terms" and outright dehumanization, which is what Marcelus did in calling a person a chauvinistic pig.

Your answer further proves you WP:DONTGETIT. No one is saying that having opinions themselves is bad. However, there is a difference between an opinion and repeatedly dehumanizing a human being (see the the quotes in my report). What Marcelus did here absolutely WRONG.

I remind that on that report where Marcelus asked for Pofka to be banned, Marcelus succesfully got Pofka WP:TOPICBANned from Lithuania on the basis of WP:PA, which pale in comparison to what Marcelus is saying of Zigmas Zinkevičius. And Marcelus is now asking for a free pass to continue dehumanizing the leading Lithuanian scholar in linguistics, linguistic history, etc. of recent times.

That's why we should also talk about the article: is it written according to the rules, in neutral language, using reliable sources, etc.? Your answer is obviously WP:IDNHT. When others precisely told that - for example, on the noticeboard on OR and the talk page, you dismissed, side-stepped and ignored what they said. I said on the talk page: "This section was obviously written without caring about WP:NPOV. (...)" [19], Marcelus' first reaction was Of course I have, because he was chauvinistic pig, and that's what this part is proving, with sources. [20]. This a clear admission that Marcelus wrote that section without caring about WP:NPOV, because he is basically saying that he admitted that he wrote the article in the manner that I said he did. And I said that Marcelus went absolutely against the non-negotiable policy of WP:NPOV, to which he agreed. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis, again manipulation: I remind that on that report where Marcelus asked for Pofka to be banned, I never asked for him to be banned. Pofka was banned because he had a long history of getting into conflicts and being generally difficult to work with.

Another dception: for a free pass to continue dehumanizing the leading Lithuanian scholar, which part of the article is dehumanizing Zinkevičius? Marcelus (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What other WP:Sanctions did you expect for Pofka when you said in the report I warned him to stop insulting me or I will report his behavior.? It seems like that was what you were going for.

No one said that within the article you were dehumanizing Zigmas Zinkevičius - the problem is that you did it at all, no matter where and never ever apologized for dehumanizing the leading Lithuanian scholar. NEVER. Instead, you hide behind I have a negative opinion of Zinkevičius, I am entitled to it. [21]. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not true that I asked for him to be blocked. So stop spreading misinformation.

never ever apologized, why would I do that? And who should I apologise to? What rule did I break? Marcelus (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't see any reason to apologize at all for repeatedly and wrongly dehumanizing Lithuania's leading scholar as a chauvinist pig? You broke the rule of basic human decency. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you link me the page description of this rule? Marcelus (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not party to this dispute, nor am I an expert on the subject around which this dispute revolves, but on superficially reading this discussion I found this particular comment to be simultaneously amusing and in incredibly bad taste due to its conntations: Mr. Zinkevičius clearly would have not achieved so much recognition in a democratic and recognized European country Lithuania if he was a chauvinist (and chauvinistic content clearly would not be presented in the primary Lithuanian encyclopedias published by the state). This hits me as a rehash of old Eurocentric tropes that have (fortunately) long been questioned in the West, but in this case being put forward by someone from a "latecomer" to said West, who probably missed out on the "fun" of judging every other nation from the heights of Western ego when it was in vogue. Personally, I am usually loath to use the term "Eurocentrism" as it has (sadly) been much abused to criticise well-grounded, high-quality research on account of it having been produced by "white, Western men" with complete disregard to its content, and often employed to artificially elevate pseudo-scientific and anti-academic mumbo jumbo to the status of scholarship. In this particular case, however, I think Eurocentrism perfectly encapsulates the sense of that sentence. I believe, or would like to believe, that we live in an era where it is absolutely clear that you can most definitely be a chauvinist and "achieve so much recognition" in quite literally any country, and that chauvinistic content can be (and has been) published in state-issued books and encyclopedias all over the world, Western or otherwise. None of this means that Zinkevičius is a chauvinist, and I do not intend to imply that by any stretch of the imagination, but your defense of this person and his work should focus on the latter's quality and content - it can never be "he achieved recognition in a democratic European country, ergo he can't be a chauvinist!" Ostalgia (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The quality and content of Zigmas Zinkevičius' work is the reason why he received recognition in several democratic European countries besides Lithuania, such as Latvia, Sweden and Norway (he was a member of the respective countries' academies - it's in the article's intro). A person of such high standing in late 20th century and early 21st century scientific societies certainly did not exhibit behaviours like chauvinism because that would have immediately ruined any chance of him remaining in such a position of international high standing. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You're doubling down on your countryman's Western exceptionalism argument. You will find plenty of examples of people who have remained in good standing to the very end in spite of having made "regrettable" comments and holding reprehensible views (for one recent example, see Indro Montanelli). Only post mortem were this views challenged, even though they were always in plain sight. I repeat, none of this means the subject of the article was a chauvinist, and the onus is on Marcelus to prove it, but this line of argumentation is laughably naïve at best. Ostalgia (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not about Western exceptionalism - if a person was a member of several African or Asian academies, the same would apply. Academies have standards and people who don't follow them are kicked out. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Both you and your countryman put quite some emphasis on "democratic European" to now claim otherwise, but the point is the same. There are plenty of examples of intellectuals having held abhorrent views (or even engaged in digusting behaviour) that contradict your apparently rosy view of these institutions (and countries). Once again, the onus is on the editor who introduced those changes to prove that those changes are accurate, which he has not done, but you'd do well to drop such a line of argumentation.

Also, as a recommendation, issues with WP:CANVASSING have already been raised here by the accused, and the way this is developing, it is also beginning to look like WP:TAGTEAM. The fact that you answer to every comment made not only in reply to you, but also in reply to every other Lithuanian isn't a good look, and it's also making this section bigger and more unwieldy by the minute, and it might eventually reach the level where no admin will touch it (I have experience with that...). You have a point about the introduction of unsourced, potentially synthesised content (nothing to warrant a TBAN from every topic related to Lithuania, though!), but it's getting buried under an unholy word salad while nothing new is being said. Wait for a bit until an admin reviews this mess and, if anything, add diffs or other concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Ostalgia (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's good taste to describe, in a talk page discussion, a subject of the article using pejoratives, but we don't have a NPA policy against non-editors. BLP can sometimes be an issue, but the subject here is dead. I don't see anything action worthy here, although I'd caution Marcelus to make avoid pejoratives as a general rule, and certainly don't escalate them against editors. At the same time, I'd caution the editor who reported them here that reporting editors for non-policy violation can be seen as a form of WP:BLOCKSHOPPING (huh, really, a red link?) and invoke WP:BOOMERANG. Both parties need to descalate and WP:AGF before someone gets themselves into real trouble. And remember that WP:NOTAFORUM, the talk pages are not for criticizing (or praising) the subject, but discussing how to improve the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus, you don't have a problem with somebody calling a given country's most notable academician, linguist, etc. of recent times a chauvinistic pig and then doing everything in their power to "prove them as such" when no sources call that person 'nationalist' or 'anti-Polonist'? To put it in another perspective, would you have a problem towards someone introducing a whole section of WP:SYNTH calling Józef Piłsudski "anti-..." (could be anything really, 'antisemite', 'anti-Ukrainian', etc.) and then finding random disconnected parts and stringing them into a whole section dedicated just to smearing Piłsudski? Do you not see the problem here? Obviously, both cases are obviously objectionable for any person that values Wikipedia's core policies. Ergo, Marcelus' behaviour is disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

IF Marcelus was edit warring to keep such a section, then I'd see a problem. I see no diffs for that. If he added it (again, diff for that please?), and then defended it (presumably) on talk using some language that is pejorative to the deceased subject, but not to other editors - no, I don't see a problem worth reporting here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thought I'd just give my experience as an initially uninvolved onlooker and the reasons I recommended Cukrakalnis to make a report here. I first joined the discussion after seeing Marcelus insist, I have conviction that I described his views in neutral way. Two immediate red flags: Marcelus' openly strong views on the subject, which he still seems to claim are the only reason multiple users have a problem with his edits, and Marcelus summarizing his own edits as "him describing Zinkevičius' views", which sounds like textbook WP:OR. My suspicions were confirmed in the very first sentence, where a source saying However, it seems to me that the weakness of the work is the lack of objectivity, mixing ideology and scientific facts. was attributed to the blanket statement Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work., which in turn was presented under anti-Polonism. I pointed it out and it was partially resolved, but that's where the constructiveness ended.

My objection that even with his changes it still sounds like a more general criticism of Zinkevičius's work and not anti-Polonism was ignored. My follow-up question on whether any of the used sources actually explicitly call Zinkevičius views and actions "anti-Polonism" was dodged and my request for him to provide corresponding quotes from the other sources so I could see for myself went unanswered. My very first edit to the article where I tried removing a list of seemingly handpicked members of Vilnija as irrelevant was almost immediately reverted by Marcelus with the explanation that naming his collaborators is part of his biography without ellaborating on this supposed collaboration. When I called it out as an example of WP:SYNTH on the basis of association fallacy, Marcelus chose to double down on Zinkevičius' membership status in Vilnija instead.

At this point, I joined the discussion of Cukrakalnis previous report, where I responded to Marcelus repeated argument about his sources being reliable by reiterating that his application of them clearly is not. and voiced a general proposal to move the overlapping content from the Reception and legacy section to a separate subsection Criticism and discard most of the content in the Anti-Polonism section as duplicate and unimprovable., which was then used by Marcelus to do the exact opposite. When I reverted his edit and called him out for twisting my words, Marcelus went to my talk page accusing me of having a "personal grudge" against him and informing that he will not allow me to remove, factual sourced material from Wikipedia. When I referred him to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as the seemingly sole underlying motive of his edits it was reflected back on me. And after he brought up Zinkevičius being nationalist yet again, my response that "nationalist" and "anti-Polonist" is not something that can just be thrown around interchangeably was once again met with confusion, which makes it seem like a hard case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. He repeatedly asks for concrete examples and when they are provided either immediately dismisses them as just someone's opinion or outright ignores them. –Turaids (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Turaids When I called it out as an example of WP:SYNTH on the basis of association fallacy, Marcelus chose to double down on Zinkevičius' membership status in Vilnija instead. Because if they all were members of Vilnija it cannot be association fallacy, that's logically impossible. That was my reasoning for reverting your edit, and something you ignored and not even mentioned now.

which was then used by Marcelus to do the exact opposite., Here you omit the order of events, which is important. After I introduced the "Anti-Polonism" section, Cukrakalnis trying to erase it, and when I stopped it then moved parts of it to other parts of the article, changing their tone and adding things not confirmed by the sources. Such as that Zinkevičius was criticized only "by some Polish scholars" (although I myself quoted Leonidas Donskis, whom Cukrakalnis simply removed because they didn't fit his thesis), or that Jundo-Kaliszewska "strongly disapproved" of Zinkevičius' views (which she doesn't, and certainly not "strongly"), and that she denied the existence of Polonized Lithuanians (which Cukrakalnis based only on use of quotation marks). Cukrakalnis also misquoted Mirosław Jankowiak. It was Cukrakalnis who duplicated the content from the "Anti-Polonism" section, not the other way around. In addition, he did so in WP:BADFAITH.

When I reverted his edit and called him out for twisting my words, Marcelus went to my talk page accusing me of having a "personal grudge" against him and informing that he will not allow me to remove, factual sourced material from Wikipedia. Excuse me, but that's simply untrue. I went to your talk page, to explain you in detail, I removed changes made by @Cukrakalnis, but you simply ignored it, and instead you said to me: "Spare your lengthy ramblings". And only then I replied: "Ok, I'm done with you, it seems you have a personal grudge against me at this point. I just want to let you know that I will not allow you to remove fact-based material from Wikipedia," and this post here has not changed my mind one bit.

He repeatedly asks for concrete examples and when they are provided either immediately dismisses them as just someone's opinion or outright ignores them, Not true, I addressed all the comments, agreed with some and disagreed with others. I have no reason to make all the changes requested if I think they do not improve the article. Marcelus (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you still understand what an association fallacy is, because that's exactly how you describe your motive: I think that the mention of other nationalists with whom he collaborated shows his environment, so it says a lot about himself. or in my simplest paraphrasing: "these people are X and Zinkevičius was also there, therefore that means he is X as well". You keep bringing up Cukrakalnis, but the order of events between you and him and what Cukrakalnis did or did not do is irrelevant to how you interacted with me. Just like who duplicated what first doesn't change the fact that you manipulated my words to continue edit warring with two on-going discussions about you. Even now you're the only one continuing to edit the article for a second day in a row.

And with already two on-going discussions you started a third one in my discussion page where among accusations and warnings you gave me a long essay of how Poles in Lithuania have supposedly been mistreated, which, regardless if true or not, does not justify WP:SYNTH. The few quotes you added just now and only after I called you out for ignoring my initial request show the same pattern of WP:SYNTH on the basis of the said association fallacy. You have one source calling Zinkevičius a Vilnija activist in one place and descibing Vilnija as a "nationalist organization" with "its main goal the earliest possible Lithuanianization of so-called Southeastern Lithuania" that you carry over to Zinkevičius and presented as anti-Polonism. The quote from the other source (Budryte) does not mention Zinkevičius at all. How long do I have to keep on unravelling your WP:SYNTH? –Turaids (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Turaids Everything you have just said shows your prejudice against my person, ignoring my arguments and forcefully presenting my person and my actions in the worst possible light.

First of all, you are the one who does not understand what association fallacy is. The original sentence was: In 1988, he became a member of the nationalist organisation Vilnija (lit. 'Vilnius Region'), whose main goal was to lithuanize the Vilnius region as soon as possible. Members of the organisation included: Kazimieras Garšva (chairman), Alvydas Butkus, Romualdas Ozolas or Arnoldas Piročkinas. There is no fallacy of logic here, as all these individuals were members of the same organisation.

The quote from the other source (Budryte) does not mention Zinkevičius at all Because this quotation is about the Vilnija organisation

How long do I have to keep on unravelling your WP:SYNTH? For you, does WP:SYNTH mean using several sources to write an article? I could confine myself to the Jundo-Kaliszewska article, which explicitly cites Zinkevičius as the crowning example of "late 20th century anti-Polonism", but then you would probably attack that source and demand others. Marcelus (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything you have just said shows your prejudice against my person, ignoring my arguments and forcefully presenting my person and my actions in the worst possible light.

What Turaids wrote is very far from that. Marcelus' response shows that Marcelus doesn't separate between a Wikipedian's criticism of his edits and persistent editing behaviour (formulated in a very neutral manner as well) and somebody having a grudge/being opposed to him. Claiming that a person you never encountered prior, suddenly developed a grudge against you in the matter of days, shows more about the person claiming it than the accused one.

The reliability of Jundo-Kaliszewska's article is under question due to numerous WP:FRINGE statements that she makes that are unconfirmed by any other sources, e.g. Zigmas Zinkevičius being a member of Vilnija. Not even the organization Vilnija itself said that, and they would definitely want to. One of many very doubtful statements on her part.

There is no fallacy of logic here, as all these individuals were members of the same organisation. You still don't seem to understand what Association fallacy is and then you accuse another person that you are the one who does not understand what association fallacy is. That's just plain sad.

Marcelus' WP:NOTGETTINGIT and his WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour is wasting everybody's time. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. It's clear that this is applicable to Marcelus, which is why this report exists at all. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Turaids: thanks for describing Marcelus' actions in detail (from a perspective of an initially uninvolved onlooker = neutral). Multiple users here already point out that Marcelus employ WP:SYNTH (WP:OR) when contributing to Wikipedia and in this Zinkevičius' case he has clearly done that to realize his intentions to describe Mr. Zinkevičius (original text: my intentions is to describe him as such (3) as chauvinistic pig (1, 2). So pay attention that he came to article Zigmas Zinkevičius not to improve this article in a WP:NPOV way, but had an exact initial aim which he openly described in the mentioned quotes.

Excerpt "which often influence his scientific work" proves that Mr. Zinkevičius publications' were targeted by such activity as well (above I described Mr. Zinkevičius works importance in Lithuanian topics). Marcelus accused him as "known for his nationalist views" without any references (1). That is a clear WP:OR (for a context: keep in mind his own words what motivated him to edit Zinkevičius' article). Later we see that the intensive warring continued and culminated with 6 reverts between Cukrakalnis and Marcelus (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). So lets check if claims that Mr. Zinkevičius was a nationalist improved (referencing-wise) and if protection of such claims by aggressively revert warring was justified. In the sixth revert there still is an accusation that Mr. Zinkevičius "was described as anti-Polish", however provided reference's content is not accessible and it is not possible to check the page 163. This raised concern for neutral user Turaids as well, however as he described "My follow-up question on whether any of the used sources actually explicitly call Zinkevičius views and actions "anti-Polonism" was dodged and my request for him to provide corresponding quotes from the other sources so I could see for myself went unanswered." So Marcelus actively accuses Mr. Zinkevičius of being "anti-Polish", but persistently does not provide any direct quotes from accessible sources proving it. The current version still is the same and he ignored complains by Turaids and Cukrakalnis (WP:ICANTHEARYOU). By the way, Google search offers zero results for "Zigmas Zinkevičius anti-polish".

In my opinion, insertion of content without references or with unverifiable references and refusal to remove or improve (verify) content is an example of OR POVPUSHing, especially if it results in a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Marcelus here at AN still demonstrates his personal perception of Mr. Zinkevičius: "Everybody has right to his own personal opinions, including me. Being a great academic doesn't mean being perfect in all areas of life." (1) and I think this is not a big difference from the initial motives to edit Zinkevičius' article: my intentions is to describe him as such (1); chauvinistic pig (2, 3). Judge yourself what are the chances that he would continue identical revert warring (his edits in Zinkevičius' article following this AN report did not remove "anti-Polish" claim).

My final evaluation: this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Lithuanian content in Wikipedia does not become better by inserting personal opinion and refusing to verify it for other contributors with valid sources (accessible quotes). -- Pofka (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pofka

(original text: my intentions is to describe him as such (3) as chauvinistic pig (1, 2); that's a manipulation, I said: Sources clearly describes him as nationalist politican, member of nationalist anti-Polish organisations, and that's what is in the article. And yes my intentions is to describe him as such, because without his biography is incomplete. ([22]); how you can accuse me of coming to article Zigmas Zinkevičius not to improve this article in a WP:NPOV way, but had an exact initial aim which he openly described in the mentioned quotes, if I explicitly said that I wanted to complete the article of source-based information that Zinkevičius was a nationalist politician. Without this information, his biography was incomplete. Please do not manipulate my words or twist them.

Marcelus accused him as "known for his nationalist views" without any references that's untrue; there was several sources that called his views "nationalist", all of them were put in the bibliography.

In the sixth revert there still is an accusation that Mr. Zinkevičius "was described as anti-Polish" that's untrue; the sentence is saying that Vilnija was anti-Polish organisation. Marcelus (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pofka I demand that you remove the accusations against me, in which you twisted my words and made one out of my two statements. This is outrageous manipulation. I will give you 24 hours to do so or I will file a report on you. Marcelus (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• that's a manipulation No. Marcelus' edits from before prove that Marcelus precisely came to the article Zigmas Zinkevičius to do that. Already in August 2022 Marcelus dehumanized Zinkevičius [23], who was Lithuania's leading linguist of recent times. And then on 15 January 2023 Marcelus created a whole section of "anti-Polonism" with the express point of 'proving' that Zinkevičius was 'anti-Polish', 'nationalist', etc., when sources do not say that. When I wrote ([24]) on the article's talk page that the section Marcelus created absolutely disregards WP:NPOV, among other things, Marcelus answered in the affirmitive, in his own words: Of course I have, because he was chauvinistic pig, and that's what this part is proving, with sources [25]. So, the way he uses his 'sources' is purely WP:SYNTH and he is doing so with the intention to smear while absolutely ignoring WP:NPOV.
• I explicitly said that I wanted to complete the article of source-based information that Zinkevičius was a nationalist politician. There are no WP:RS that call Zigmas Zinkevičius a "nationalist policitian", but Marcelus insists on adding WP:SYNTH and WP:OR despite being already told too many times to stop doing so. Marcelus is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT.
• the sentence is saying that Vilnija was anti-Polish organisation. No. What Pofka said is correct. The sentence [26] is that "Zinkevičius in 1988 became a member of (...), and was described as anti-Polish." The "and" means that the statement "was described as anti-Polish" is about Zigmas Zinkevičius, instead of the organization. For your knowledge, I checked the page referenced, and Budrytė is not calling Zigmas Zinkevičius "anti-Polish". This is another case of Marcelus fabricating a reference (please see WP:DNTL) and WP:OR, but what makes it worse is that Marcelus repeatedly keeps doing this sort of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing behaviour and basically engaging in WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Clearly, there's no manipulation on Pofka's part, as I have shown. Instead, Marcelus is making untrue accusations about the conduct of another editor. Which is lying - marked by or containing untrue statements - as defined by Merriam Webster. I remind Marcelus: WP:Don't lie.

Marcelus' statement of I demand that you remove the accusations against me, in which you twisted my words and made one out of my two statements. This is outrageous manipulation. I will give you 24 hours to do so or I will file a report on you. is an obvious case of WP:INTIMIDATION, which is basically a personal attack by Marcelus towards Pofka. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis I never said my intentions is to describe him as such (3) as a chauvinistic pig (1, 2), that is manipulation. I have a negative opinion of Zinkevičius, I am entitled to it. However, the article was written with neutrality and with sources.

Another manipulation is the failure to quote the entire sentence, which reads: Zinkevičius in 1988 became a member of the nationalist organisation Vilnija (lit. 'Vilnius Region'), whose main goal was to lithuanize the Vilnius region as soon as possible, and was described as anti-Polish, the last part referring to the Vilnija Organisation, as suggested by the Budryte reference, which defines Vilnija in this way. Marcelus (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Dehumanizing is not a "negative opinion", you're literally denying a human being their humanity - why are you downplaying that? You are not entitled to dehumanizing others.

However, the article was written with neutrality and with sources. It was not written with neutrality as you yourself admitted at the start [27]. No one denies that you put some sources on the article, the problem is the way you faked references, used different sources in WP:SYNTH manner and did it all with the purpose of smearing Zinkevičius. All of which is WP:OR and has no place on Wikipedia.

I was quoting the sentence in that manner in order to show to you that part of the sentence you wrote 'and was described as anti-Polish' part was referring not to the organization but to the Zinkevičius. It was done to make the sentence structure clear, because otherwise the main components of the sentence could be unclear if the long sentence is kept. You immediately interpreting my attempt of clarification as manipulation shows that you are WP:AOBF. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis No really, I've had enough of; spamming the same accusations over and over again, in a reply to every comment here, ignoring the fact that I've responded to them more than once, exaggerating what I said ("dehumanizing" etc.), for the obvious purpose of giving the impression that the whole topic is full of negative opinions of me, shows that Cukrakalnis has a personal grudge against me, and is part of organising a witchhunt against me. Just because I dared to take up a topic that is uncomfortable for Lithuanians.

This doesn't surprise me at all, as he himself has a history of general nationalist POV-pushing, denial or justification of anti-Semitism and collaboration during World War II in Lithuania and promotion of fringe historical theories on Wikipedia, and has already been blocked for it. Then he didn't stop doing it at all, for example he wrote that Belarusians are actually Slavicized Lithuanians, with reference to Nazi anthropologists.

Cukrakalnis with such an editing history is now full of big words and has the audacity to lecture me on how articles should be written. This is ridiculous. Marcelus (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Calling somebody a pig [28], [29], is not dehumanizing them? Come on, Marcelus.

I do not have a grudge against Marcelus, because I even fulfilled his requests (as late as 20 January 2023) from late March 2022 to find a source he wanted me to find - [30]. I even went out of my way to attempt to collaboratively edit together with Marcelus here in his sandbox some time ago - [31]. Considering that Marcelus has said You have basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus to me, my behaviour is very composed compared to his.

How could I be organising a witchhunt against me if I was asked by another user to report your behaviour here? It seems that Marcelus thinks that everyone that disagrees with him has a grudge against him. Marcelus actually reported me once here, on this noticeboard actually, on July 2022, but it got literally 0 attention, because of how unfounded it was. Marcelus has been accusing me of nationalist POV-pushing ad nauseam, even on one admin's talk page [32]. Suffice to say, what he claims is not true, because it never got any attention, and he is doing it in order to get me banned, because he does have a WP:GRUDGE against me - Marcelus has said Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. ([33] on 21:30, 22 December 2021). More than a year has passed and Marcelus' attitude towards me don't seem to have changed at all. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This looks just like a content dispute. Maybe there’d be some BLPVIO issues with text on the talk page (though not in the article) if the subject hadn’t passed away five years ago. Other than that this seems to be just trying to use an admin notice board to advance a particular side in a routine disagreement over content. Volunteer Marek 02:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Other than that this seems to be just trying to use an admin notice board to advance a particular side in a routine disagreement over content. A report about a certain user consistently ignoring, side-stepping what other users are repeatedly telling him in order to improve Wikipedia and simultaneously engaging in disruptive editing is just a content dispute? Marcelus dehumanizing a notable academician as a chauvinist pig is a clear sign that this is more than 'just' a 'content dispute'. Your comment is a clear misinterpretation of what the report is about. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If there is no edit warring in article's content, what's the problem? I've seen, on occasion, some editors refusing to get the point on talk. Annoying, yes, particularly when they are wrong and I am right :D But they have the right do do so. There is no policy saying one has to agree with others in a discussion, as long as one is not attacking fellow editors and such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Long story short, I don't see any policy violations or behavorial problems by Marcelus. They did an unwise choice of words which at first blush (only) look like a POV warrior. I have a lot of problems with the wording in this thread which tries to assert severe behaviorial problems in inadvertant vague witchunt structure and advocating a severe whack to Marcelus. The latter effort is potentially much more harmful but since Cukrakalnis probably sincerely felt justified I would not advocate a boomerang. Which leaves this as basically a content dispute to be handled accordingly. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus' response of Can you link me the page description of this rule? to me saying: "You don't see any reason to apologize at all for repeatedly and wrongly dehumanizing Lithuania's leading scholar as a chauvinist pig? You broke the rule of basic human decency." clearly indicates that he is disruptive. How is this even allowed on Wikipedia? Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If they had tried to put that in the article then it most definetly would be a violation. But this is an opinion they expressed on a talk page and emphasized that this is just their personal opinion and were not planning on putting anything like that in an article. It's insulting and if this was a BLP then problematic. But it's not a BLP and while expressing such opinions is not especially constructive to forwarding the dialouge it's not anything sanctionable. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting comment on Onetwothreeip's reversion of an edit

Respectfully requesting administrators' comments on User:Onetwothreeip's reversion of an edit I had made. In the edit I had made, I restored and moderately summarized the content that Onetwothreeip previously deleted a few months ago over issues of excessive detail. Unfortunately, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit even though the content included information crucial to the Duterte administration's response to the COVID-19, such as the adoption of "draconian measures", "a local-government unit-led approach" to the COVID-19 pandemic, expansion of COVID-19 testing capacity, and appointing of czars to respond to the pandemic. Any thoughts on how to deal with this? As a side note, Onetwothreeip appears to be focused on trimming articles appearing in Special:LongPages, and have been involved in conflicts with other editors regarding article size. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin but fairly sure nearly every admin will wonder why you're bringing a WP:Content Dispute to ANI rather than continue to discuss it on the article talk page like you should be. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: Not only that, but you haven't even edited Onetwothreeip's talk page at all since July 2022, not even to notify them of this thread, even though the red box both on top of this page and when editing clearly require you to do. I have notified them on your behalf this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:Content Dispute, no? I'm confused as to why it's on ANI. Did you = reach out to Onetwothreeip directly before coming here? I'm also unsure if your edits on that page in the time since would adhere to WP:VOICE, which the reversion looked to be trying to fix about the article. Rhayailaina (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Rafaelosornio reverting permanently my secular editing of the article on Padre Pio

I report the user Rafaelosornio. He reverts my contributions in the article Padre Pio. Although these have a clear source, he deletes content. He is acting from a Catholic fundamentalist understanding of the article on Padre Pio. The user has already been warned several times for his disruptive editing behavior. In particular, he alters religious and psychological topics according to his extreme Catholic POV. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. However, @Mr. bobby:, please do not refer to good-aith edits as vandalism, as you did here and here, even if you personally think that they did not improve the page. Doing so is uncivil and promotes a hostile editing environment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, this is both content and conduct dispute. I post facts here, give cleanly the source and the reported reverts that. The intention of this is clearly recognizable and consists in taking away the criticism of a canonized, extremely controversial person. On the talk page of the reported one can document his behavior and corresponding complaints exactly. His comments on his changes are not understandable. Simply any out of the air statements and assertions. Please take a closer look. The reported one uses permanently hagiographic sources, sources directly from the fundamentalist Catholic environment, worship websites etc...Mr. bobby (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that Mr. Bobby has brought this to ANI twice before in the past 3 months, with neither report resulting in admin action.

I see a reasonable amount of back and forth at the article talk page, which is the appropriate place to resolve a content dispute. I do think Mr. Bobby should be advised to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks; aside from the accusations of vandalism presented by Red-tailed Hawk. Mr. Bobby has twice called Rafaelosornio a fundamentalist. He has also shown some battleground behavior by referring to the version he published as “the correct version”. None of this behavior seems to merit admin action, IMHO, but a firm warning to focus on the content, not the contributor, may be in order. Retracted per this post.

It looks like SanctumRosarium attempted dispute resolution at the end of October 2022, but it was closed as being premature. Perhaps it would be worth trying now? Or if the reliability of the sources involved are in question, WP:RSN seems like a better fit. Either way, this has not been shown by other resolution attempts to be either urgent or intractable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a rehash of the same issue Mr. Bobby reported back on December 30th. It's not even been a month, and you're dragging this back here again, because you didn't get the result you wanted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Behavior_of_an_editor_in_a_catholic-fundamentalist_article_Miracle_of_Lanciano

Of note, Mr. Bobby has been blocked from this article previously for edit warring over it, so I think we may be nearing a topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I was told to bring this in to avoid an edit war. Now I'm being negatively interpreted as wanting to create publicity for simply reverting changes with clean citation of sources. Is anyone here also concerned with the disruptive changes to the one I reported? With its use of purely religious sources to seemingly prove alleged facts?Mr. bobby (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And I add the following:

1. I am not against moderation of change to this article.

2. sanctumrosarium is practically a one-purpose-account. He too has responded disruptively to my secular edits.

3. Much of the article on Padre Pio was developed by me and is based on clear sources. This article is about extreme issues, including that the saint is said to have flown. I ask all reasonable contributors to pay attention to reliable sources here after all. Therefore I cannot even begin to understand the idea of a topic ban: What are the edits to the article that are to be objected to here? From the reported, on the other hand, it was insinuated several times in the editing comments that I would not reproduce the sources correctly: A very serious accusation that is not substantiated anywhere.

4. And finally: what would be the correct side/place to which I can turn with this problem and this conflict? Mr. bobby (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Bobby You cannot modify to your liking what the sources say. The German source in question clearly says: "Veratrine was once used as a paralyzing muscle insecticide, primarily against lice, but was also described by pharmacists as an "external stimulant" that renders you insensitive to pain."

And your modified version says:

Taking the alkaloid mixture resulted in insensitivity to wound pain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelosornio (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, this is exactly typical of Rafaelosornio's work. He himself distorts content and at the same time insinuates distortions to me. In this case (there are numerous others) the quote is: German:

„Veratrin hingegen fand einst als muskellähmendes Insektengift, vorzugsweise gegen Läuse, Verwendung, wird von der Pharmazie aber auch als „äußerlich wirkendes Reizmittel“, das gegen Schmerz unempfindlich macht, beschrieben.“

English translation: „Veratrine, on the other hand, was once used as a muscle paralyzing insecticide, preferably against lice, but is also described by pharmacists as an "externally acting irritant" that desensitizes to pain.“

Source:

The central part is Schürmer's reference to the pain effect. Pio ordered huge quantities of the preparation secretly and without prescription. I found this source and used it in the article.

In Revision as of 13:35, 21 January 2023 he simply deleted this important information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padre_Pio&diff=prev&oldid=1134918987

saying: „Luzzatto is not a chemist, this is not a chemical article, that goes on the corresponding page. And the other cannot be verified. Failed verification.“

Mr. bobby (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to put what veratrine is, that's what the link to the corresponding article is for, let the links do their job, one clicks on veratrine and it takes you to the article and tells you what it is.

And about the source in German, you had not placed the link to where the information was, so there was no way to corroborate what was said. Once you put the link I was able to corroborate that in the Wikipedia article you had put something different.Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be written in a Neutral POV WP:NPOV WP:RNPOV

"Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources".

It may not be reliable to take Luzzato's Padre Pio book as a reliable reference to explain scientific explanations about events associated with Padre Pio since Luzzato is a Historian, not a scientist. Also, there is no need to describe what Veratridine is while a link can explain what it is. Exanx777 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

An extremely secular perspective? Secular is defined as the state of being unrelated or neutral in regards to religion, so that is exactly what we should strive at. But it is true that this is not a question for admins. Rather, it belongs on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The article needs to be neutral, that is, secular. Extremely secular, if possible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The substance is said to be veratrine, not veratridine (which is obtained from veratrine). There isn't much about veratrine per se in the veratridine article; the information about how veratrine was ... described by pharmacists as an "external stimulant" that renders you insensitive to pain is not contained therein. I was notified by Mr. bobby of this discussion and I have a slight WP:INAPPNOTE concern. I feel that I am detached enough from these issues to be able to see things neutrally. —Alalch E. 16:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Almost everything from the above contribution of Exanz 777 is to be judged critically:

1. of course everything in Wikipedia must be described from a neutral point of view. Religious belief cannot be presented as if physical facts were presented here. (Pio, according to his fans, flew for real and fought off bomber pilots...).

2. Luzzatto is a serious historian. He does not have to be a pharmacologist to be able to tell us seriously what Veratrine was used for in Pio's (!) time. (And as already said Veratrine is not the same as Veratridin).

3. An article has to explain certain facts to the reader, so that he understands the context. Blue links are not always enough. In the present case, everything is very meticulously documented with appropriate sources.

4. with the whole cast of catholic believers of these hand wounds, which are held for divine stigmata, the effect of a secretly ordered medicine is of course extremely important and of encyclopedic relevance.Mr. bobby (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Of note, NPOV does not mean we must throw out all the religious beliefs in an article. We do not treat them as factual happenings, but it also does not mean we must go to undue length to debunk them. That's not Wikipedia's purpose.

No, we do not need to go into excessive detail about a blue-linked topic. There's good faith arguments to be had about just how much detail needs to be given, but it is not necessary to go in-depth.

Frankly, it does sound like you're here to debunk religious beliefs, rather than simply documenting the facts surrounding them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything you say here consists of insinuations. As has been said twice now, Veratrine is not Veratridin. So it must be explained what it is about. Nowhere is it about debunking of religious beliefs. Please prove that to me. All it is about is distinguishing (!) a religious belief system and its assumptions from the accounts of secular scholars and historians. That is exactly what is being obstructed here. My work can be seen well in the article Miracle of Lanciano. There, a fantasy system had been compiled from the most obscure and largely falsified sources. Several contributors have worked with me to make the article now meet encyclopedic standards. Mr. bobby (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It comes across that way to me as well, and very emotional at that. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"The Hand That Feeds You" has managed to push the entire discussion here in one direction with his one-sided, distorted and unsubstantiated expression of opinion. Rafaelosornio has in both articles Padre Pio and Miracle of Lanciano my changes constantly reverted. In both articles he leaves in fake, invented, unreliable sources, the main thing is that the claimed miracles are proven by this extremely religious „sources“. In "Miracle of Lanciano" several editors have meticulously proved for years that most of the sources were falsified (see talk page). Nevertheless, for years a fringe theory could hold on in the article. And nevertheless absurdly "The hand" demands a topic ban for me. It would make sense to give him a topic ban for this discussion. Rafelosornio's posts aim to undermine, delay and keep extreme POV sources in the article. Just take a look at his posts for once.Mr. bobby (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I retract my earlier statement that Mr. Bobby only needs a warning; I am now agnostic to that point. After being warned by multiple editors, they have attempted to canvas many different editors, characterizing this thread as a “slanted discussion”, and characatrizing Rafaelsosornio as “a religious user” who is distorting content based on a religious POV. This is after being cautioned to comment on content, not editors. He has referred to User:HandThatFeeds’s post above by claiming “everything you say here consists of insinuations”, particularly odd as HandThatFeeds has insinuated nothing, and outright stated how Mr. Bobby’s actions appear.

I wonder if there’s a language barrier at play. He has said that Rafaelsosornio’s comments are “not understandable”, but I find them easy enough to comprehend. In the disputed edit regarding veratrine above, Mr. Bobby’s preferred language “Taking the alkaloid mixture resulted…” makes it sound as if he’s saying in wikivoice that Padre Pio took the mixture, for which I do not see a reliable source. I could see him intending this to mean, “In that period, the alkaloid mixture could be used to…”, which would be accurately summarizing the source.

This could easily have been resolved on the article talk page, but Mr. Bobby’s conduct comes off as moderate battleground behavior, as seen in this thread, as well as what seems to be some ownership, as shown by statements like “Much of the article on Padre Pio was developed by me…”.

I remain agnostic on the content dispute; religion isn’t my field, and I don’t consider myself qualified to discuss the reliability of sources or what constitutes a neutral point of view on this matter. I will say that, from what I read of Rafaelsornio’s posts, he appears to be making a civil and good faith effort, and doesn’t seem to me to be engaging in battleground behavior. Which is another reason why Mr. Bobby might wish to, as suggested above by Hob Galding, go to the relevant noticeboard for discussing NPOV issues. Repeated restating of the content dispute at this venue reinforces my impression that Mr Bobby is here to win an argument, not to better the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if it's appropriate to go to user's pages to enlist help in support of opposing "religious" users, as if their religion is in itself reason enough to oppose them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&oldid=1135215187#Padre_Pio YouCanDoBetter (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Topic ban proposal

Given the above insistence that other editors are using fake, invented, unreliable sources, and constant aspersions against anyone who disagrees with his stance, I believe Mr. bobby is here to right great wrongs rather than productively edit the encyclopedia. As this is not restricted to a single article, I'm proposing a topic ban on religious articles, broadly construed, in the hopes that he can edit productively in other areas.

• Support as nominator. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I have known Mr. bobby for a long time and he is a very reasonable editor. The key problem here is that the underlying editing pattern seems like a content dispute which it actually is not: Mr. bobby's edits are compliant with WP:RS and WP:V – they are being reverted because of that. Wikipedia is not a place for propagating conspiracy theories (e.g., that Padre Pio was able to fly or bilocate, or that he had other supernatural powers). Forcing a topic ban on an editor who removes nonsense from Wikipedia articles and edits according to Wikipedia's core content policies is unreasonable. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. For a variety of reasons, including the extreme emotionality which he apparently approaches the subject, and the circular reasoning he uses. I'm afraid this won't result in a ban, but I definitely support. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per the below comment. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Here I quote voices of editors on the talk page of "Miracle of Lanciano." No statement here is from me. But it clearly shows that even invented sources were used in the article.

1: „It says that there are 2 stories about the weight: Fella and Valsecca but that they don't contradict (even though they do). It mentions Linoli (and the blood claims) and a mysterious rapport from the WHO from 1976 (that no one has ever been able to show). ( )This source should be removed.“

2. „The extract of the scientific research of WHO’s medical commission was published in New York and Geneva in 1976, confirming science’s inability to explain the phenomenon." I have never seen a source for this, no scientific publications for this miracle that would be the proof that Catholicism is true. I don't think the Higher Council even exists. This source should be removed.“

3. „It is in Italian. I don't know whether it was peer reviewed and I don't know whether it is a prestigous journal. I don't care, it has never been cited in 50 years. (and would only proof Transsubstantiation to be real) It goes against MEDRS. This source should be removed.“

4. „Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20.: is a dead link for me. Google (and google scholar) an Bing gives nothing.“

5. „I have found a copy of "source" 7 on the wayback machine: Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20. This is clearly an unreliable source. No author information. Not printed in a peer reviewed journal.“

Another user:

6. „I removed the paragraphs talking about the WHO study since it's been proven to be, in part, a fraud.“

Mr. bobby (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support. While Mr. Bobby does seem to be on the right side of things in terms of content, the battleground behavior does not seem to have responded to warnings in this thread. Despite claims in this thread, I don’t see the other editors claiming Padre Pio could fly or bilocate; that seems to be an exaggeration. What I do see is escalating battleground behavior, WP:IDHT, WP:CANVAS, and incivility which Mr. Bobby has not acknowledged much less pledged to curtail. If I did see such an acknowledgment and understanding of what behaviors could be improved and how, I would change my !vote to oppose. In the absence of any such indicator, I would be very hesitant to edit anywhere I saw him active for fear of "crossing swords"; this behavior drives away editors. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think the user is able to detach himself from his dislike of the article's subject sufficiently enough to write neutrally about it. He is consistently having the same circular edit wars with other users over and over again - for years now, and to a point where it gets really tedious.--Medusahead (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Artificial-Info22 using AI to produce articles

Artificial-Info22 (talk · contribs · count) appears to be using an AI to produce articles. This was tested using OpenAI's own tool (OpenAI produced ChatGPT). The tool is hosted at https://openai-openai-detector.hf.space/. For each of the three articles Artificial-Info22 has produced, the tool estimated a 99.98% chance that an AI produced the text.

• Draft:The Eternium Element A hoax about element 123.
• Draft:Coral Reef's An essay on coral reefs.
• Draft:Gecko's An essay on geckos.

It is interesting to read them (The Eternium Element will probably be deleted soon as I've tagged it as a hoax). It is that article that clued me in as to the possibility that this was an AI. The text is remarkably "bland" when reading--hard to describe the sensation of reading an AI-generated text, but that's the best I could do.

Recommendation indef the person for hoaxing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Leaving archived versions of Draft:Gecko's and Draft:Coral reef's here for posterity since they'll likely be G3 deletes. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And for abusing apostrophes. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

D'you mean "an' fo' abusin' apostrophe's"? :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Indef for you! Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Comma, abuse, is, much, more, annoying,,, — rsjaffe 🗣️

But; what; about; semi-colon; abuse;;; —Locke Cole • t • c

So they violate various rules regardless of the source of the written material. Seems like our regular systems and requirements work fine. Silverseren^C 03:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not sure using AI is a problem as long as the information is properly vetted. After all, Wikipedia is not the place for original ideas: it is a reprise/summary of knowledge from elsewhere. However, AI is susceptible to abuse if the person doesn't check the correctness of the text. It makes it easy for a person to write a good-sounding article about a subject the person doesn't know anything about, which is a danger. It is also a quick way of producing a good-sounding hoax. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

But the AI apparently doesn't contribute any sources to the articles it writes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. So someone abusing it can simply attach reasonable-looking sources to it to appear legitimate, whether or not the sources actually correspond to the text. That's why I commented above that one of the dangers is having someone without adequate subject knowledge use this tool. Note that Artificial-Info22 added references but didn't footnote anything. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I would also be concerned about copyright; if it could be argued that OpenAI retains copyright on any of ChatGPT's output, then copying and pasting it into a Wikipedia article would be a copyvio for sure. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 07:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

A bit of a tangent, but we have well-established precedent that only a human can be granted copyright. The company cannot claim copyright on works created by a non-human. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(EC) This isn't a new thing since people sometimes use machine translation to translated content. Note that last I checked while simply posting a machine translation is forbidden on en, someone with a good command of both languages is allowed to use such a tool if they manually check and correct the output. It's not generally consider a problem since AFAIK in the US at least, the output of algorithms cannot give copyright to the algorithm creator nor the algorithm, nor for that matter the person using the algorithm (for the raw output, obviously someone could potentially modify it enough that they may have demonstrated creativity to earn copyright). See e.g. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. However one thing which has sort of been discussed at the sidelines but has recently received a lot of attention especially with the ability of such tools to produce 'art', is that such tools generally rely on input from a lot of copyrighted sources. The general view seems to be that it is unlikely they retain enough from any particular work to be consider derivative but this is I think mostly untested in court and may also depend on the output. But see e.g. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. (As might be clear from these, this is likely to be tested more soon although mostly against the producers of such tools and their use of the copyright works for training data which arguably is somewhat disconnected from users of such tools. It's probably going to difficult for cases about the legality of specific outputs because you'd need to find someone who can argue the specific output is produced in violation of their copyright, is willing to put their name and maybe money to a case, and someone distributing the output that they feel is worth suing.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

That US rule doesn't apply everywhere. For example, S.9(3) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 reads: "In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken" (1link). IDK if it's been tested in court. Narky Blert (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Note the "arrangements necessary for the creation of the work" is referring to actually making the music with computers, not letting the computers do it themselves. It's meant to cover the use of things like Logic Pro. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

OpenAI doesn't retain copyright: "OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output." However the model can still output copyrighted content, which can be demonstrated by asking for the lyrics of a song or poem. I'm not aware that safeguards are in place to ensure that it isn't copying content from sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not sure using AI is a problem as long as the information is properly vetted. I get the impression that AI just frankensteins together a bunch of pieces in a fluent-sounding way. For example, who knows if the references it uses correspond to its prose, or are just random. I think using AI to generate articles could be pretty dangerous, and like hoax articles with fake citations, or close paraphrasing copyvio, is subtle and could create an incredible amount of work for whoever ends up checking all the references. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Either one has to put in as much work as it would have taken to write the text acceptably from scratch, or one puts a burden on the rest of the Wikipedia community. XOR'easter (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Generative models predict the most likely next token, given a string of previous tokens; generative pre-trained transformers (that link goes to a comprehensive explanation of the basic architecture) do something much more complicated involving multi-head attention, but the general principle is the same. They are quite capable of many tasks, but if asked to write some big wall of text in the general style of a Wikipedia article, they will do precisely what they are asked to, which is to give you some big wall of text in the general style of a Wikipedia article. The problem is that this is a very stupid and useless thing to ask for, and people should not be doing this with the presumption that it will produce worthwhile output. jp×g 09:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Having now slept on this, I think the biggest problem with AI is GIGO: garbage in garbage out. The accuracy of the information is related to the set of information used to train the AI, and I am sure that no one else is using the same rules for WP:RS that Wikipedia is using. The AI also has no concept of "correctness". This makes it a dangerous tool, particularly for those contributors who are not intimately familiar with the topic they are contributing to. And I suspect that people without deep knowledge of the topic would be the ones relying on an AI for their Wikipedia contributions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the propensity of these things to just make shit up and their inability to provide sources for what they make up, I am worried about the likelihood of unintentional plagiarism and circular reporting (citogenesis) when using them, because they copy their content from somewhere and we don't know where or how well-digested it might have been. In some cases it was copied from Wikipedia itself, in other cases who knows? For example, the "Gecko's" draft contains the phrase "found in warm climates all over the world", which searching reveals to be common to much web content on geckos, and appears to be closely paraphrased from the text "found in warm climates throughout the world" that has been in our gecko article since 2003. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

We have to operate under the assumption that AI generated texts are copyvios. These texts are not written by the AI: the AI is instead taking many (probably thousands) of texts and squishing them together into a coherent-looking chimera. The AI cannot itself create a copyrighted work, and these syntheses are undoubtedly derivative works - ask it to paint a Mark Rothko and it will succeed, because it has been trained on Rothko's oeuvre; ask it to paint a landscape in the style of my work, it can't, because it hasn't seen them. The amount of copyrighted material (from each given source text) in a final text is probably very low (they are effectively unattributed and really unattributable), but it's not zero. Deciding whether (and in what circumstances) the text retains the copyright of the originals is an undecided matter of law, because this is such novel technology. Copyright laws weren't written with this in mind, and only future legal cases will decide how they apply. Several such lawsuits are beginning; surely more will follow. This will take years for courts come to a definitive conclusion, and really no-one knows how they will decide. Until they do, we have to err on the side of fearing they may. In any event, submitting such a text requires agreeing to the statement "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License" - but the submitter definitely doesn't own the copyright (maybe no-one does, maybe the AI's owner does, maybe thousands of people do). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly...ag this point in US law, it is not clear if AI generated works fall under fair use or not or even if they are derivative works. The US Vopyright Office has made clear machine generated works have no new copyright of their own but have not spoken of the issue of copyright of the media used within the engine. And there are now a few cases in the works that will challenge that (notably Gettys v Stable Duffusion). For now we must assume AI text is derivative of the underlying work, and unless the engine used to generate the text has been validated to only use text sources in the public domain/CC world, the text should be taken as a copyright derivative work and not meeting our contribution guidelines. Masem (t) 14:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Not to make it too philosophical, but what is copyvio at this point? If paraphrasing from sources is your definition, then what we are writing at Wikipedia is effectively copyright violation through and through. CactiStaccingCrane 15:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a settled matter of law that what we do, with human editors summarising, aggregating, and synthesising, is legal (otherwise every newspaper, encyclopedia, or reference work would be a copyvio). It's not settled that an AI, which might achieve a similar-looking result but by a very different means, is analogous. I imagine those defending the legality of AI generators will make an argument along the lines of what you've said; they may very well prevail. But those opposed might show the judge generated Radiohead-esque songs or Jeff Koons-ish sculptures, and argue that these are more than just remixes and reinterpretations; they may very well prevail. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter Just notifying you that there is a draft policy/guideline page about this: WP:LLM. About the AI creator, I support incremental warnings as per usual when disruptive editing is concerned; but not really opposed to an indef. —Alalch E. 16:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Note as I sort of hinted above, if courts do rule that these tools can infringe copyright from the training data, we potentially have a reasonable problem with some articles. As I mentioned above AFAIK editors are allowed to use machine translation tools provided they manually check and correct the output. And many of these do use similar techniques even if generally in a lot less sophisticated fashion and are produced in part using copyrighted content as the training data. (Although DeepL is actually very similar I believe.) And this is only en. I'm fairly sure some other projects require very little or even nothing from a human editor before submission. Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

At least this lends credence to the discussion at WP:VPP. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Per very long-standing Commons consensus copyright can't be assigned to algorithm output, and the US copyright office just cancelled a registration for being based on generative model output. While it is certainly possible that future legislation or case law holds differently, it would seem to be pretty firm on the issue as of right now. While it's true that some rando is suing Stability for alleged copyright infringement, it seems quite dubious that it would succeed; even if it does, this is still a long way away, and in general I don't think it's a good idea to vastly limit ourselves on the premise that there could be some hypothetical future situation where it's illegal to say "the" on the Internet. jp×g 09:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Source verification

Is anyone able to verify the existence of the following sources from Draft:Gecko's?

1. Kellaris, G., & Autumn, K. (2008). Gecko adhesion and the van der Waals force. Journal of adhesion science and technology, 22(1), 1-16.
2. Russell, A. P., Denny, M., & Huey, R. B. (2015). Thermal physiology: how lizards survive and thrive in hot environments. Integrative and comparative biology, 55(3), 517-529.
3. Highfield, A. C. (1990). Gecko tails: a study in regenerative biology. Microscopy Research and Technique, 17(2), 132-144.
4. Rösler, H. (2000). Geckos: biology, behavior, and reproduction. Krieger Publishing Company.
5. Gecko Care Sheets. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Care-Sheets/Lizards/Geckos/
6. Gecko Conservation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.geckosociety.org/gecko-conservation/

–dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dlthewave, for one, the websites don't work. I've also attempted to reproduce this - asking ChatGPT to produce a Wikipedia article with a list of references will produce a similar list of bogus, but acceptable on first sight, items. Silikonz💬 03:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Though it's an unlikely coincidence, I suppose the websites could have existed during the model's training phase and gone dead since. However I was able to confirm that the first three journal articles are fabricated - They do not exist in the cited volumes. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The websites needn't have existed in the training corpus; GPT-3 will generate something that seems plausible without checking if it's in fact real, so the URLs look like they could be genuine but don't necessarily point to actual pages that have ever existed. CharredShorthand (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Artificial-Info22 as a hoaxer, given one hoax article and several falsified sources. I leave aside the apostrophe abuse. The AI discussions should continue in the venues linked above. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The first two do not exist. They are in real journals with correctly dated volume and issue numbers, but if you look up those volumes and issues you will find different papers, not those two. The third one has a slightly off date (that volume and issue are dated Feb 1991) but is otherwise the same: not actually published in that issue. If I saw a person doing this I would be very tempted to immediately block as too subtle a vandal to give any slack to. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Superficially plausible, fake citations undermine the project in a way that is time-consuming to detect and to repair. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a new phenomenon. There's actually been a paper published on this: Trout, Kilgore (2007). "Towards a new hermeneutics of falsified citations". Information Integrity. 4 (38). doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2011.12.003. jp×g 10:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

And when humans do it, it's vandalism, hoaxing, POV-pushing, or some other variety of disruptive editing. Automated tools that by their very design make bad output are bad tools. XOR'easter (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Another user using AI

See Draft:Electric Underfloor Heating. This also scores at the 99.98% level. Note the paucity of specific references and the regularity of the language. This was written by LivingHeat (talk · contribs). Judging from the above conversation, I'm going to, for now, not do anything special about this submission related to its provenance, and just judge it on its general merits. Is that correct? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm now tagging these articles with the {{disputed}} tag, as there is no guarantee of accuracy with AI-generated text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a straightforward promotional username block, since they appear to represent a firm of the same name that makes floor heat products. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, given that the sources in these AI drafts seem to be fake (see section above), I think WP:G3 (hoax) might be appropriate for AI-generated articles in general. Thanks to Acroterion and Bbb23 for handling this specific user and draft. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A real hoax using a large language model would have been an article about a made up species or a nonexistent company -- this was a real species and a real firm. The prose was not intended to misinform. Therefore these were not true hoaxes. Fictitious references would indicate a hoax, but here we have more reason than not to believe that the information contained in the drafts is okay, and we know that the LLM generated the junk text references as part of emulating Wikipedia content, as opposed to a human engineering a deception; if it stops being a hoax when you simply remove the references, and becomes a poor draft about Geckos, then it wasn't a hoax in the first place, it's just the standard lack of verifiability problem, characteristic of drafts. —Alalch E. 11:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

With our long-standing love of templates to slap on stuff and walk away, perhaps we need an {{ai-generated}} clean-up notice to go on these things, saying something like “This text appears to have been generated by an AI learning model, which is generally disapproved of on Wikipedia. It requires editing for accuracy, prose and referencing.” — Trey Maturin™ 11:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to split hairs over hoaxing versus falsified sources. They both fall into the realm of making things up, which is incompatible with the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Both instances should result in immediate removal of said article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Might it be possible that LivingHeat is a sockpuppet of Artificial-Info22? I'm highly concerned of a lack of communication from either editor; it seems both are using the WP:RADAR approach to conceal their AI "writings". Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 15:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, one of the articles was an obvious hoax about the ficticitious 123rd element Eternium. And if the AI is fudging the references, how do we know it's not also fudging the facts? This isn't just speculation. Compare these passages from Draft:Gecko's with our Gecko article:

Draft:Gecko's

Geckos are lizards that belong to the family Gekkonidae, which contains over 1,500 different species. They are found in warm climates all over the world, from tropical rainforests to deserts. One of the most notable characteristics of geckos is their ability to climb vertical surfaces and even ceilings. This is due to the millions of tiny hair-like structures on their toes called setae, which allow them to adhere to surfaces through van der Waals forces. This ability has been the subject of much scientific study and has led to the development of gecko-inspired adhesives and climbing robots. Geckos come in a wide variety of sizes, shapes, and colors. Some species, such as the leopard gecko, can grow up to 10 inches long, while others, like the dwarf gecko, are only a few centimeters long. They can be found in a range of colors, from brown and gray to bright greens, oranges, and yellows. In terms of reproduction, Geckos are oviparous, meaning they lay eggs. Female geckos will lay one to two clutches of eggs per year, depending on the species. The eggs hatch anywhere from two to eight weeks later, depending on the species and the temperature.

Gecko

Geckos are small, mostly carnivorous lizards that have a wide distribution, found on every continent except Antarctica. Belonging to the infraorder Gekkota, geckos are found in warm climates throughout the world. They range from 1.6 to 60 centimetres (0.6 to 23.6 inches). Geckos are unique among lizards for their vocalisations, which differ from species to species. Most geckos in the family Gekkonidae use chirping or clicking sounds in their social interactions. Tokay geckos (Gekko gecko) are known for their loud mating calls, and some other species are capable of making hissing noises when alarmed or threatened. They are the most species-rich group of lizards, with about 1,500 different species worldwide. Many species are well known for their specialised toe pads, which enable them to grab and climb onto smooth and vertical surfaces, and even cross indoor ceilings with ease. Geckos are well known to people who live in warm regions of the world, where several species make their home inside human habitations. These, for example the house gecko, become part of the indoor menagerie and are often welcomed, as they feed on insect pests; including moths and mosquitoes. Like most lizards, geckos can lose their tails in defence, a process called autotomy; the predator may attack the wriggling tail, allowing the gecko to escape. Most geckos lay a small clutch of eggs, a few are live-bearing and a few can reproduce asexually via parthenogenesis.

It gets a few things wrong just in these few sentences:

• Not all geckoes belong to the family Gekkonidae, which doesn't have 1500 species.
• Not all geckos have specialized toe pads that allow them to climb vertical surfaces.
• The largest geckos are 23"-24", not 10".
• Not all geckos are oviparous; some bear live young.

This really isn't a usable draft, as these generalizations are factually incorrect and seem to be based on material written for pet owners rather than scholarly sources. This exactly the type of "vaguely plausible bullshit" that LLMs are known for and we need to make sure that every fact is checked for accuracy before passing it off as a viable draft. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I admit that this is worse than a poor draft about geckos. Not sure if we would call an unreferenced draft (about a non-fictitious subject) with such errors created solely by a human a hoax but this is still a lot like a hoax. —Alalch E. 18:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of tag proliferation, but this situation sits between "hoax" and "disputed facts" without fitting well within either category. If anything of an AI-generated article is worth preserving, it would be useful to have a new "ai-generated" tag that explains the problem, briefly. Currently, I'm using "disputed" as the best fit, as all the facts in an AI-generated article need independent verification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Needs work, but: User:Trey Maturin/AI generated is my first draft.

User:Trey Maturin/AI generated

Other editors' mileage will vary. — Trey Maturin™ 20:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Due to the fake references issue and dllthewave's comment above about subtle factual inaccuracies, I don't think that AI-generated articles will usually be salvageable. Perhaps a better wording for this template would be "This article or some of its text appear to have been generated by an AI model. Due to false references and factual inaccuracies, AI-generated text should usually be deleted." –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

After review of the articles and trying out the AI myself, I agree with Novem Linguae's wording. It's like going down a rabbit hole distinguishing truth from falsehoods. As ChatGPT's FAQ states, such outputs may be inaccurate, untruthful, and otherwise misleading at times. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you both. We currently don’t have a process for this type of thing. Instead, when this happens, people rush to ANI and a debate begins on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin until eventually someone IAR-deletes the AI-generated article. Rinse and repeat. We need some sort of agreed process otherwise ANI becomes the place to do this by default and it’s already enough of a timesink as it is. A clean-up notice, whatever the wording (feel free to edit or copy mine!) is a start. A new A or G speedy criterion would be useful too. Failing that, a policy page directing people to XfD rather than ANI would be good. — Trey Maturin™ 23:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a "G" CSD criterion is needed, as I was catching this in the Draft namespace. I've made a proposed edit to your template for your review. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In light of the direction of this discussion and archival at the Wayback Machine (in case their content needs to be referenced further in this discussion), I have deleted Draft:Gecko's and Draft:Coral Reef's as G3 hoaxes. ^Complex/_Rational 19:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Policy to prevent egregious misuse of language models

LLMs are capable of many useful tasks... if you have any idea what you're doing

Note that there is a draft proposal at WP:LLM which I have trying to get people to look at for a few weeks, so forgive me if I plug it a bit aggressively here. Please, go look at it, and go look at the talk page, and pitch in, because I think we are going to need something like this sooner rather than later.

As we have seen at the unbelievably long VPP thread, and my own LLM demonstration page, there are a lot of things that LLMs are good at doing, and a lot of things that they are bad at doing. Per WP:LLM, which is currently being drafted towards a proposal, I think it is perfectly fine for people to use them for things they're good at (formatting tables, identifying potential problem areas in articles, rephrasing sentences). I also think it is a bad idea to use them for things they're bad at (writing entire articles from scratch without giving them access to any sources). To be blunt, it is a gobsmackingly dumb idea: why would it ever come up with anything useful? It can't look things up. Anybody who understands how these models work ought to know this: it is about on the same level of stopping a guy walking down the street and asking him what he thinks about something, and not letting him take out his phone. Or a high school essay. I think that the main problem we face here is people who have no idea how they work, and think that it is just a button that magically generates text from the Computer God.

I have certainly enjoyed using ChatGPT to fix the colors in badly-formatted tables, and diagnose template errors, and wrote a couple Signpost articles with GPT-3 in August: but this is a labor-intensive task that requires carefully formatted prompts and careful analysis of the output. That is to say, if you want it to summarize AfD discussions, you need to paste the entire goddamn content of the AfD page into the prompt window. If you want to write an article based on sources... you need to paste the entire goddamn source (or a lengthy summary of it) into the prompt window, it's not capable of looking things up. I am inclined, frankly, to say that anyone who doesn't understand this has no business using it to generate huge piles of gobbledygook. And, while I am being frank, I think we might end up needing some kind of approval process where you demonstrate that you have some idea of what you're doing, like we do for the pagemover permission or the AWB list. jp×g 09:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

"Rephrasing sentences" is something ChatGTP and similar actually suck at big time. They tend to remove all nuance, all doubt, and turn hypotheses into facts, examples into rules, trivia into essentials. Fram (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, so does the freakin' news, am I right? But we do not have a blanket ban on citing the news in articles -- editors are simply expected to use intelligence and common sense (as well as our very well-developed policies and guidelines) in determining whether something is legitimate or horseshit. jp×g 10:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You claimed that rephrasing sentences is among the "things they're good at", which in my experience isn't true. Your reply doesn't address that point, just states that other things may suck at it as well. You are positioning yourself as some expert, someone who would easily pass the "approval process" separating "people who have no idea how they work", "anyone who doesn't understand this has no business using it to generate huge piles of gobbledygook", from people like you, who know that you can't use it for complete articles but it is good for e.g. rephrasing sentences. Well, you did this here, which you claimed was "solely editing for tense" and "reviewed by a human (me)", but the end result was that the combined efforts of ChatGTP and you introduced new errors in the text. So excuse me if I am rather sceptical of your claims of what it can do and your expertise in it, and also rather unconvinced by your reply here which just misses the point completely. Fram (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What I mean by this is that neither you nor I have ever typed "Write a Wikipedia article about the yellow-spotted bandersnatch" into ChatGPT and then copy-pasted the resultant wall of crap directly into a redlink without verifying anything. This would imply we are more qualified in this area than people who have done so. jp×g 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Scabab and box office figures

Scabab (talk · contribs · count) has been citing this single link in four different articles to support information regarding box office: Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods, Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection 'F', Dragon Ball Super: Broly and Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero. The problem is that the information cannot be verified by the reader with that simple link. I already brought up the issue with this site here and here]. However, I also noticed that it is not the first time that editors have issues with the edits of Scabab regarding box office stuff and sourcing; there are at least two previous discussions: [44] [45] Xexerss (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This just seems like a troll. Has not responded kindly to this criticisms in the past (as both these diffs show). This seems less like a dispute resolution issue and more a combo of failing to cite these apparent sources they speak of and inability to learn from mistakes.

One good thing is because of his specific focus, any socks this guy uses are gonna be easy to spot. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I think so. It's clear that the user doesn't care about policies and guidelines and just makes edits the way they deem correct. I would revert their edits myself in these articles, but they would probably do the same and I don't want to be engaged in an edit war. Xexerss (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I took the time to add (verifiable) sources to these four articles. I request some input on it if the user re-incurs in adding original research content to the articles. Xexerss (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Gebrehiwot chekole personal attacks among other things

• Gebrehiwot chekole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lalibela (Emperor of Ethiopia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, take a look Gebrehiwot chekole talkpage for warnings [[46]], also see discussion at this talkpage [[47]]. I wanted to assume good faith but the user has been adding factual errors to Lalibela (Emperor of Ethiopia), and instead of correcting or presenting sources to support his claim, the user has been engaged in personal attacks on both talkpages, (hence this ANI). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not attacking personally. but that individual isn.t ready to accept ideas. besides the sources he present aren.t based on reliable historical sources. i just tried to give my opinion based on sources. but he monopolized the Wikipedia and isn.t ready to accept. Gebrehiwot chekole (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1st warning (level 2) - Warning for removing content without leaving an edit summary. Inappropriate, as they did leave an edit summary, they just couldn't access the sources, which appears to be the reason they removed the paragraph. This also should have been issued as a level 1 warning due to the assumption of good faith.

2nd warning (level 3) - Warning for vandalism. Not vandalism at all. They were trying to edit the article constructively and this did not deserve a warning.

3rd warning (level 4) - Warning for unsourced content. You should have warned them about neutrality and weasel words, not adding unsourced content. Notable lists typically don't require sourcing, but they do usually require that a Wiki article exists for a person.

I'm not seeing any personal attacks here. I think the warnings regarding vandalism are also inappropriate and should have issued at a lower level, given that the user does appear to be trying to improve the article. The user in question needs coaching, and help, not for someone to WP:BITE them. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Hey man im josh:, those warnings were justified. What improvements did the user try to make exactly? First for a removal [[48]] and then also for inserting factually false content [[49]], not backed by the sources, which can be verified in archive.org. You would have a point if his edits were actually supported by the sources. It's also not the only article the user is making non-constructive edits. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

why are you adding your fairy tale on history. I am just trying to edit those added with out any reliable historical sources. individuals are creating their own history by destroying the real history. so if U have the Authority why do you allow individuals the change the prior editions with historical source? Gebrehiwot chekole (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

While Gebrehiwot has been using this colorful language against his content opponent User:Dawit S Gondaria, the latter has explained on the article talk page in some detail how he got access to the necessary reference books via WP:REX. At first glance, this is a case of WP:JDLI on the part of Gebrehiwot. In my opinion User:Gebrehiwot chekoleis risking a block if they make any more personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the third warning level was applied through my user-talk-page warning, for which I used Redwarn. Redwarn chose the level based on what was already there in January 2023, and I thought afterwards that it was indeed a little too strong, as my warning was of an entirely different nature than the previous ones, and certainly had nothing to do with alleged vandalism. I certainly didn't assume any bad faith. LandLing 21:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: You have failed to notify Gebrehiwot chekole (talk · contribs), even though the red box both on top of this page and when editing clearly require you to do so. This failure on top of your misapplication of warnings is quite concerning. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 19:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: Oeps, apologies i wasn't on my usual device when i responded, i must have read over that or not seen it. I'm not a frequent visitor, so i forgot. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Mass reversion spree by Drsmoo

The user Drsmoo (contribs) has gone on a mass reversion spree of some of my recent edits, as if I have been engaged in vandalism. Not Barely a single of these edits has simply modified the edit or partially reverted, as advocated by WP:REVERT or WP:RV: almost all have been wholesale, unconsidered reversions (without even edit summaries). The count is more than two dozen. Drsmoo has not engaged in the substance or validity of the edits. The edits in question have been disambiguating a widespread issue that sees a variety of pages afflicted by piped links to "Ancient Israel". Two days ago I elaborated this redirect into a disambiguation page, which promoted this discussion on my talk page with @Onel5969, who noted the large number of links to the redirect/disambiguation page and, after a brief discussion, proceeded to disambiguate the page links to more specific and accurate destinations. I then began to assist. Today, @Natg 19 has taken a contrary view and returned the page to a redirect. But regardless, the fact remains that many of these links are simply piped, and inappropriately so. For example, Drsmoo, in this diff here has re-installed an Easter egg link at Rape from the term "Israelite", which naturally redirect to Israelites, to the redirect page Ancient Israel (which now redirects again to History of ancient Israel and Judah), making it not only unnecessarily piped, but actively directed it away from the destination that is the subject of the linked word. If anything, it is Drsmoo's edits, and their mass reverting of my efforts to de-pipe and remove easter eggs, that is disruptive and unhelpful. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like an obvious case of WP:HOUNDING I'll give them a chance to explain how this isn't hounding. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This was likely filed to get ahead of an anticipated report at ARBCOM, and should be a WP: Boomerang. Iskandar323 went on a mass deleting spree removing links to the “History of Ancient Israel and Judah” article, and hiding the removals behind false edit summaries such as “CE”, or “Moving general statement on archaeological schools in the 1960s out of the 'practitioners' section and into the history section” which was in fact another removal of a link to ancient Israel. Contrary to Iskandar323’s report, almost all of the removals were simply replacements of links to the Ancient Israel article, or changes to the subject matter of the text to justify removal of the link. For example: here, here a whole paragraph is removed seemingly for containing a link to Ancient Israel, here, here, here, (here a paragraph containing Ancient Israel is removed with the edit summary claiming the material is uncited, however, none of the material in that particular article is cited, so it appears to be another case of attempting to remove links to Ancient Israel during this spree.) Iskandar323 is incorrect in stating that there were no partial reverts, in fact, there were when appropriate. For example, here where the maintenance tag was maintained.In highly sensitive and contentious fields such as I/P, it is not acceptable to inappropriately mass remove links to a prominent article.Drsmoo (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: If someone is filing a report against me an ARBCOM, it is news to me. Who is planning on filing this report, and on exactly which back/off-wiki forums have you been made aware of/discussed this with others? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I am, which one would expect you would have anticipated due to your tendentious mass removal of links to Ancient Israel (though it is now being discussed here). Your baseless and factually incorrect accusation of canvassing is also unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Then why circuitously say: "ahead of an anticipated report at ARBCOM", rather than "ahead of me filing". And how on earth would I anticipate your actions? I'm not psychic, and not, unlike you, hounding. I filed the report because mass-reverting other users is an obvious behavioral problem and this is the forum for raising behavioral complaints. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Because I had just warned you on your talk page here that your edits were unacceptable. I am not hounding you, you made a rash burst of edits removing links to a prominent article after disparaging that article on your talk page. I responded with the inverse of that specific burst. There is no long-term pattern of me engaging with you negatively or contesting your edits in particular. Drsmoo (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Signing unsigned comment. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Note how I did not make any related edits after your note on my talk page, but replied to you, while you pre-emptively began your revert spree before waiting for a response or explanation, and continued your revert spree even after being warned that mass reverting other editors was a problematic behavior. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

In Iskandar323’s talk-page discussion, which he’s linked to above, he writes: “The History of ancient Israel and Judah is a start class article of extremely dubious quality and with little ability to provide clarity to readers.” It is highly problematic to mass remove links (including deleting paragraph content itself) to a highly read article within ARBPIA after admonishing that article’s quality. That is not how WP should work. Drsmoo (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it has traffic because there are so many piped links to an Easter egg redirect targeted at it. That's one of the reasons piped links are bad. It's also, yes, a start-class article with patchy in-line citation. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Or, maybe because it’s a highly prominent cultural, historical, and religious subject. [50] You can’t disparage a major article, mass-remove links to it behind obscurative edit summaries like “CE”. Then attack the editor who reverted you and accuse him of conspiracy. Additionally, regarding the example cited above, the original section was “The Israelite, Persian, Greek and Roman armies” All four were following the same format, however only “Ancient Israel” was removed. Drsmoo (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the piped link was de-piped. I removed links to an—at the time—disambiguation page, as I have explained. It is the duty of editors to fix links to disambiguation pages. As I mentioned, that it has since been moved back to a redirect is neither here nor there. Even so, these links previously led/presently lead to a redirect, not to the target page itself - that all of this seems to elude you only points to WP:CIR failings on top of your behavioral ones. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You weren’t engaging in some administrative task solely to depipe links. You were mass removing links to, and content interfacing with, a specific ARBPIA article. The tendentiousness is notable as well. Drsmoo (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

How about you don't guess my intentions, thanks. No actually, as I mentioned, it was Onel5969 who actually called my attention to the large number of inbound links and started changing the targets of the inbound links - I got involved after the discussion made me aware of the headache I'd created. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m not guessing your intentions, I’m describing your edits. Drsmoo (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I also wonder why an editor would decide to delete references to Ancient Israel from so many different articles. Also, why the wikilink to Ancient Israelite cuisine was removed from the article on Israeli cuisine? Tombah (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Links that are present in the body of an article should not be duplicated in the See also section (MOS:NOTSEEALSO). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I noticed this in my watchlist this am Iskandar changed

Southern Levant, Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region Here to simply Levant and

Drsmoo changed it back here

I cannot readily see anything wrong with Iskandar edit, it is accurate, simple and leads to a specific article instead of 4 different pages (for no obvious reason).

In any case given that there was a talk page conversation going on at Iskandar talk page at the time Drsmoo filed his complaint there, would it not have been better to have joined in the conversation? Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll also note that ArbCom doesn't usally take conduct cases unless they can't be resolved by the community, so any approach to ArbCom first would almost certainly have failed. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good example of the crud I was correcting and which Drsmoo restored. Note that the Southern Levant contains Israel/Palestine and the Transjordan region, so that list was tautologous. Drsmoo restored the error (one of many). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm only now going through my watchlist and came upon 3 of Drsmoo's reverts of your edits. One even restored copyvio, another deleted material from the source without giving a reason "deuteronomistic history", and a third changed "about the ancient Israelites" to "of Ancient Israel which I thought was less accurate. I may find more as I go down my watchlist. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

At Levantine archaeology, I even stopped off on the talk page to explain what I perceived as a problem on the page, and left another message after I'd made the edit. And yes, I spotted the lazily close paraphrasing of the source text and fixed it as part of the mix. That I didn't specifically add that to the edit summary is because I simply call that good editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this again, now that I'm in front of a computer and not reading/typing on my phone while half asleep and burned out with insomnia, the edits are not as gratuitous they initially appeared. There are also clearly still a large number of pages linking to the article, so it is not as if there was a full-fledged mass revert of links. Several of the edits are improvements, so I will revert those changes. Drsmoo (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

While contrition is wonderful and I'm delighted to have gone from being ARBCOM case-pending to someone whose edits aren't too gratuitous, how about as an apology for wasting community time here you revert all of your reverts and only redo those which are sufficiently problematic that you can muster up an edit summary for them? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

An edit summary like "ce"? Drsmoo (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Normally something more elaborate when justifying a revert - though if any of my "copyedits" truly mystifies you, I'd be happy to muster up an explanation for you. Some just need little explaining. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this over, Drsmoo, or is there something that from your perspective that needs to be resolved? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Mast303

• Mast303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am 100% sure this is a WP:DUCK, the account was created in November last year and since then it has done what I call the more advance user editing which I associate more with a long term seasoned editor. The contrib is highly suspect also in my opinion, this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruan Oliveira doesn't seem to be setup quite right. Something is going on here, the account was blocked already once, I'd ask for an SPI check if I knew who it was before, but I don't know that. All very suspect. Govvy (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I firsr encountered them as simply disruptive, but only right on the border of hopelessly-CIR. But looking more deeply, for example jumping right into multiple deletion processes and template editing, they are obviously not new. Don't know whose. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I also find it a little odd that this user continued to edit after my accusations and didn't come to defend him/herself after the ANI notice was posted on their page. There are certainly odd edits like this [51], I am wondering if the account is related to User:Judeobasquelanguage and the IP User:86.30.52.72, there are similarities. I seem some similar editing between them. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My account is recent. Also, I plan to make more constructive edits in the future. Mast303 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Ping User:Locke Cole, who warned them about disruptive page-moving. They just now did another one: claiming to be undoing an undiscussed move, which is technically true but had persisted unchallenged for 11 years. And they only moved the article not a nest of talkpages, which is itself disruptive and demonstrates both a lack of competence and a lack of recognition in that lack. They already had many of their page-moves undone. DMacks (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My only interaction with this editor is with their undiscussed move of C Sharp (programming language) to a hyphenated form. IIRC they also failed to move talk-page archives with the move as well. A short review of their edits exhibits a combination of newbie-like behavior mixed with (as Govvy says) more advanced editing. Agree that it comes off WP:CIR-like, is it possible they've edited on other MediaWiki wiki's and perhaps that explains the more advanced editing? Being cognizant of WP:BITE, I hesitate to suggest anything with so little to go on as yet. They've been blocked once: if their behavior warrants it, progressive blocks might make sense if there is further disruptive behavior. In my interaction, the undiscussed move was reversed, Mast303 started a proper RM which was SNOW closed a brief time later with no consensus to move. I guess my recommendation would be to monitor their edits for a time to look for other potential issues, unless a checkuser wants to look into any potential socks. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Concerted sockpuppeting/canvassing at the Vector 2022 RfC

Someone (or several someones) is trying to flood the RfC with oppose !votes from IPs and SPAs with extremely similar form and content, such as this trio: [52] [53] [54], and the successive entries from this editor, identifying himself as "James M", and this editor, identifying themselves as "JD M". I may be an admin myself, but I don't have any experience dealing with this, so I urgently ask you:

• What do we do to get this to stop? Should we semi-protect the page?
• If I had to guess, I'd blame this ip, who showed up to a discussion about this attack enraged about people !voting support and saying the whole RfC is a joke. Whether that guy or someone else is behind this, how do we get him to stop instead of carrying on with his grudge indefinitely?
• Should this issue be taken up elsewhere, too? Is opening a sockpuppet investigation called for? Reporting as ongoing vandalism?
• Should suspect !votes be deleted? Tagged? Moved to the talk page? Otherwise handled in a way that doesn't result in being deservedly flamed to a crisp for messing with other peoples' comments?
• My #¤%& computer's crashing like every 20 minutes, real sorry to pass the buck, but could someone whose isn't please step in on this? --Kizor 21:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Cf. also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022#Strange pattern in recent opposes. Notice also that one of the newly created accounts attempted to delete tags appended by Avilich to said accounts' and IPs' comments to warn that they are suspicious. Æo (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of IP editors and new accounts showing up on both sides for this RfC. This is the problem with having anything on Wikipedia come down to a straw poll, especially something that's this widely publicized. That being said, it does look as though sockpuppetry might be going on, though semiprotecting the page or ECing it will damp participation even further. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think tagging is a productive use of time in this situation. Anyone who is going to be closing that RFC will be more than aware the situation. Additionally, most IPs are dynamic so it stands to reason that they would have made few edits outside of that discussion. Lastly, getting into the tagging game is going to lead to even more conflict, considering there are plenty of IPs and new users on both sides. We'd have to tag all or none. If we're going to try to tag only suspicious responses, just leave that to the closer to judge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And more not-too-coherent ranting from an IP about how this is all the support side's fault. --Kizor 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything really to do here. The RfC has been publicized in a couple places outside wikipedia, a sizeable percentage of the comments on that RfC are saying it doesn't matter when any of us editors think, it should be what unregistered editors think, and then when unregistered editors show up we, what, ask for semiprotection or EC-confirmed? That seems silly. Closer will just have to evaluate. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Kizor, I disagree with your selective removal of SPA tags. Please either remove them all, or self revert and leave them all. You shouldn't be unilaterally making a decision between good and bad SPAs: either we tag all the SPAs, or we don't tag any of them. Levivich (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• The topic of the RFC primarily concerns the appearance for IPs and non-regular users (because the logged-in regulars have a preference setting they can use). As such, it would make the RFC even less representative of the people it affects if we tried to prevent IPs and non-regular users from participating. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

FerMATtos

FerMATtos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a clear WP:COI WP:SPA aiming to WP:RGW by inserting crank mathematics. Since they have indicated unwillingness to abide by our policies in their latest comment on their talk page, they are WP:NOTHERE and thus I request an indefinite block of them. My latest comment serves as the ANI notice and I believe this is not premature because of their indicated unwillingness to follow policies.—Jasper Deng (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, my edit is NOT exactly about Mathematical theory, but about historical mathematics. And what I demand is the right to freedom of expression concerning historical, fully documented facts in a generally respected encyclopedia. Besides, Jasper Deng proves to be an ignorant in number theory, he does not have the right to label as «crank mathematics» what he simply doesn’t understand: I sent him the data and sources he might have used before uttering this libel. FerMATtos (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, my edit is NOT exactly about Mathematical theory, but about historical mathematics. And what I demand is the right to freedom of expression concerning historical, fully documented facts in a generally respected encyclopedia. Besides, Jasper Deng proves to be an ignorant in number theory, he does not have the right to label as «crank mathematics» what he simply doesn’t understand: I sent him the data and sources he might have used before uttering this libel. FerMATtos (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Free speech. This isn't a platform for 'freedom of expression'. Go start a blog somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@FerMATtos: I’m not “ignorant” in number theory. Debunking your crankery (as you are resorting to personal attacks rather than actually responding to my putting you on the spot for unjustified assertions) was meant to try to get you to be a constructive editor here after abandoning that crankery. Note that using the word “libel” here risks running afoul of Wikipedia:No legal threats. In other words, threatening or implying the threat of legal action will get you blocked regardless of anything else that happens here.—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no remedy for your so-called «anti-crankery» arrogance. Like I said, I've had enough of your sort of dictatorial mood. Good bye!" FerMATtos (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@FerMATtos: (1) If you have a conflict of interest (e.g., you are or are related to Carlos C. de Matos), you need to declare it. (2) Primary sources, e.g., Carlos C. de Matos's paper, cannot be used to support a controversial assertion in Wikipedia--you need secondary evidence (e.g., a review paper by someone else discussing de Matos' work). (3) Please stop attacking people, even when you disagree with them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: They have admitted to being Carlos C. de Matos on their talk page.—Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

They have admitted ...? How come? Reading the whole discussion you had with FerMATtos I can conclude that you are just an ignorant "supporting" your claims by accusations and threats.--178.222.169.118 (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that Fermattos uses the unusual phrasing of "an ignorant", and then this partially blocked, anonymous account uses the same phrasing. Dubious. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@YouCanDoBetter: Very interesting indeed; SPI filed. Note that they did in fact admit to being Mr. de Matos in this comment: "Since the beginning, on the first day of the current Chinese Year of the Rabbit, I did my best to put it clear that I am the author of that proof of FLT".--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 to Andy. While on Wikipedia, Mr. deMatos is enjoined to abide by Wikipedia's policies concerning conflicts of interest, proper sourcing, and conduct towards other editors. If he's incapable or unwilling to do so, he can take his crusade elsewhere. Ravenswing 08:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Definitely WP:NOTHERE and, as such, indeffed. If they can persuade an administrator that they are willing and capable of editing constructively, they can be unblocked. Salvio ^giuliano 11:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Editor who constantly creates redirects

There is a user who is currently creating thousands of random redirects to sections within articles (a very odd redirect like List of people from Loudoun County, Virginia), of which very few seem to be useful. I think this behavior should be stopped since it prevents an editor on Wikipedia from creating an article from its first edit as the article would be a redirect with the name of another editor. A few days ago same thing happened with me, when I was to create an article that was already redirected by them. I don't know if this editor Jarble's action has been approved by the community because it's such a huge piece of work that it seems like it needs to be consulted by wikipedians.--Sakiv (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sakiv: I want to be the sole creator of that coming article. I'm afraid that's just not the way things work around here. Wikipedia is intended to be an ever evolving collaboration between multiple editors who wish to contribute. 2600:1003:B855:87AF:E01B:ACD9:C820:8285 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for additional context, this and this might be helpful. It seems like the only one creating a "big headache" here is the OP. ANI isn't the proper venue to ask someone to G7 a redirect solely because you want your name to be the first one in its edit history. Drop the stick. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I never said I wanted "my name" to be the only name that appears on any page's history. This is unacceptable. I talked to them on their talkpage but didn't get an explanation, then went to the teahouse but forgot as usual. Please assume good faith in this discussion. You should probably ask the IP address that appeared out of nowhere without any edits. Sakiv (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Your words: I want to be the sole creator of that coming article. As an established editor, you should know that's not how Wikipedia works. You've been provided the advice at both locations, including by several editors at the Teahouse discussion, that you can (a) create a draft, which upon completion could then be moved in place of the redirect at that title, or (b) edit the existing content at that title, thereby turning it into an article. It is unclear as to why you are so insistent on deleting this redirect instead of applying one of the two methods suggested. I'm trying to assume good faith, but bringing this to ANI because you don't like the responses you've been given seems like forum shopping. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not say this at all. Call it what you prefer. I am not going to create any draft and submit it like a new beginner. That's not how it works for me. He should not create massive redirects without clarifying it to the community. With this he bars all editors not just me from creating an article from scratch.--Sakiv (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not say this at all. Yes, you did. Again, as you've been told at both locations, and now here by me, you can edit the existing content at that title, thereby turning it into an article. No one is preventing anyone from creating an article there or at any other redirect that is unprotected. As long as it is a viable article, all of this could probably have been done without any of this unneeded drama. Unless you can clearly explain why that is not an acceptable solution, there's no point in continuing this discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with this. As long as there is no bad faith. Is there usually more than one creator of an article? What you are doing is nothing more than a defense of Jarble's contributions. Sakiv (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You have provided zero evidence that any of Jarble's contributions are of a nature to warrant their discussion at ANI. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I find it concerning that you denied making such a statement until there was a diff shown of the statement, upon which you then pivoted to a different stance. I fail to see how any of this report assumes good faith of Jarbles as well. Rhayailaina (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The creation of the redirect looks good to me and the title matches other similar pages for other countries. I have added the Template:R with possibilities template to the redirect to indicate that it is an redirect that could be a stand alone page but that is a minor thing. If you have content that you want to add to the page then edit the page to add content or to create a draft and send it to AfC. Gusfriend (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I think per WP:MASSCREATE, consensus should be obtained for the mass creation of redirects. Levivich (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That is correct—mass creation of anything without prior consensus is disruptive. Those asking the OP to suck it up are missing two points. First, generating a list of pointless redirects is easy (consider ChatGPT connected to a script) yet massaging that list into something useful would be very slow and painful. Second, some editors are human and they will be less motivated to create an article without credit. Those rubbishing the last point should bear in mind that the only reason to create redirects such as those reported is to increase one's edit count. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich and Johnuniq: I would need to obtain consensus if I were generating redirects automatically, but I have created all of these redirects manually; does WP:MASSCREATE require prior consensus for redirects that are created manually? Jarble (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if you're using automated tools or not (WP:MEATBOT). The point is that if you're going to create a ton of pages, you should get consensus first; not necessarily BRFA, but at least ask the community somewhere if what you're doing is an improvement, before going forward with it as WP:FAITACCOMPLI. I for one do not understand the logic behind these redirects, which doesn't mean they wouldn't have consensus, and ANI isn't the place to discuss the merits of the redirects, but I think editors should get consensus before mass creating redirects. Levivich (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich and Johnuniq: If I need to obtain consensus before creating a large number of redirects, I'll need to discuss them somewhere: what would be the appropriate place to request permission to create them? Jarble (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jarble: In a recent RFC, the community in its wisdom declined to create a noticeboard for this purpose, and the closers in their wisdom declined to comment on any consensus beyond "Fails", but as I read the RFC, I think it's case-by-case, with WP:VPR being the catch-all if there isn't a better place. Levivich (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's a hell of a condemnation of Wikignome work, Johnuniq ... they're only doing their under-the-hood work to buff up their edit count, why else would they bother? Smooth.

Startled sarcasm aside, indeed, some editors are human, and that's why we have a bunch of policies, guidelines, noticeboards and admins to restrain their less productive proclivities. I agree that mass creations can be disruptive, but that scarcely lets the OP off the hook. Ravenswing 04:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• For someone who keeps asking others to extend good faith, I believe the OP's acting in poor faith by making this ANI complaint. What, precisely, is productive to the encyclopedia in his demand? As long as an article's a good one, I don't give a good goddamn -- and no one else should either -- who "gets" the credit for creating it. There's been far too much angst and disruption over the years from the folks who think Wikipedia is some geeky MMORPG for which they're chasing Game High Score, and an editor deterred from improving a redirect into a useful article because he doesn't have the egoboo of having his name at the top of the queue is likely to be one of those. Ravenswing 07:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  I couldn't agree more, I found it odd how AGF was being applied selectively when the argument could be made this ANI report is directly violating WP:AGF Rhayailaina (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Sakiv has been told numerous times now how to proceed in regard to that redirect, including by admins who declined their CSD tag (me included). If they want so badly to be the "sole creator" of the article, they can start a draft to supplant the redirect, but for some reason they believe only "newbies" should have to create drafts or go through AfC (though my guess is that, due to their long edit history, AfC wouldnt be necessary). This ANI filing is frivolous and verges on WP:FORUMSHOPPING and would recommend Sakiv withdraws it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's Jarble's actions we are talking about here. Keep going in this bad faith towards me. We are all human btw. Sakiv (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Everybody's actions in an incident are considered, including (especially) the person who brings it to ANI. See WP:BOOMERANG. Daniel (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Re-Missing warning

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

---

This is even more ridiculous than i originally thought, because User:JBW didn’t give me a speedy deletion nomination notice on my talk page, something that i cannot accept. Ilovejames5🚂:) 05:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ilovejames5: I don't see why you've decided to take the matter straight to ANI rather than attempting to discuss this on JBW's talk page, given the outcome of your previous thread. Your previous filing was already pushing the line on patience by making a mountain out of molehills (unfortunately a reoccuring issue here on ANI) why do you need to do a round two of this? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I messed up on the first one, where i wanted to say speedy deletion nomination notice but i (somehow) thought it should be a warning. Silly me. Ilovejames5🚂:) 06:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Bot and archived discussions

Hi, I would like to report this discussion as suggested in the user page of the bot which archived discussions, please consider answering to @Steue:. Thank you Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Patafisik (WMF), for above note. You are really taking care of things.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Kalapala0 and Karuchola Kumar

• Kalapala0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Karuchola Vijay Kumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Karuchola vijay kumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor is tendentiously creating articles on an Indian politician and gaming the system by changing the capitalization. At this point, there are two versions of the article, both in draft space. In this instance, the subject editor resubmitted a draft within minutes after it was declined, with no substantive changes or consultation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AKaruchola_Vijay_Kumar&diff=prev&oldid=1135508875&diffmode=source

It isn't obvious to me what administrative action is in order. Deleting the drafts seems like an overreaction, because the subject may satisfy general notability, if not now, in the future. A partial block may not be useful, because the subject editor may game it by changing the spelling or capitalization. A 24-hour block may be appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If or, let's be honest, when it gets moved back to mainspace, it should go to AfD or BLP PROD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have redirected the miscapitalized draft (miscapitalized in order to game the system) to the correctly capitalized draft. We don't need two copies of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969

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

---

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

this user first admitted he "cannot see the version deleted" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RZuo&diff=prev&oldid=1135594438 , but kept vandalising Burmese people in China by adding an invalid deletion template, which requires the page to be "previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted".

if he cannot see the deleted version, how does he claim the current version "is substantially identical to the deleted version"?

and certainly he doesnt care to check whether "any changes address the reasons for which the material was deleted".--RZuo (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Tagging an article recently deleted at AfD for G4 in order for an admin to review it is a reasonable course of action for a new page reviewer, who will as a category not be able to verify against the deleted version. Having looked at the revision in question, I've declined the G4 but otherwise I see nothing wrong with Onel5969's conduct here. On the other hand, denouncing their edits as vandalism is inappropriate, nor has there been an adequate attempt to communicate with Onel prior to coming here. WP:TROUT for RZuo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

adding it the first time was fine. did i seem bothered by the nonsense on the article and my talk page at all? i was on commons the whole time.

addint it the second time, after two users EmeraldRange and Donald Trung, had expressed their disagreement, was vandalism.

if he still needs someone lecturing him the basics on deletion "policy", he certainly should not continue patrolling pages.

but ofc, enwp likes to let go these dogooders.--RZuo (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd really stop digging at this point, to be honest, before the hole gets too deep. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. And if RZuo cannot see the deleted version, how do they know the current version was not "substantially identical to the deleted version"? Don't do that again, please. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

you're even more funny. i certainly have seen the deleted version.

even if i hadnt seen it, it's also quite possibly available on archive.org.--RZuo (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It is on archive.org, but the last version before deletion was in May 2022, which may or may not be vastly different from the version that was deleted. – robertsky (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything Rosguill says here except there is one issue with Onel5969's conduct. Since the speedy deletion tag was removed by an editor that was not the article creator (diff), Onel5969 should have pursued a different deletion process. See WP:CSD: "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I left a message on that other editor's talk page explaining my reasoning for reverting their removal of the redirect. And my opinion is that G4 is an exception to that general removal guideline, for the only other deletion step to be taken is to AfD it (since a prod is unavailable), which, if not knowing what the original version looked like would be silly. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This is reasonable, but I think there's general consensus that CSD is not a place to IAR. Maybe we could codify this exception? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Will propose it on the CSD talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick chime in as the other editor who removed it, Onel5969 sent a courteous message. I, a newer editor, was unsure if I could remove it in the first place as since I wrote ~90% of the new article EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. And to let you know, now that the CSD has been checked and removed, I've marked the page as reviewed. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The frequent description by RZuo of Onel5969's edits as "vandalism" is starting to wear pretty thin, as they are clearly not "vandalism". Please stop, now. Daniel (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

hmm. i just remembered, he had seen the deleted version just days ago, and had been told that his "Redirecting to an inappropriate target, and edit-warring in the process, is disruptive." (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burmese people in China)

so yeah this was vandalism from the start, adding a4 repeatedly even though he knew full well the current version was completely different from the deleted version. RZuo (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, this is now a final warning. You have been told that this isn't vandalism, and yet you persist. Stop it, or a boomerang will be coming straight back at you in the form of a block from editing. Daniel (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Aye. Pretty much what I just posted above at the same time as you. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism#Abuse_of_tags: "Bad faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{db}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria."

either he had seen the deleted version and so he knew "is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" criteria were not met.

or he could not see or remember the deleted version, then he cannot claim "is substantially identical to the deleted version" criterion was met.--RZuo (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

So now you're accusing the editor of placing the tags in "bad faith" too? Geez... Daniel (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

memories can be faulty. what harm is there to have an admin to come in and check against the deleted version? – robertsky (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

for that you should ask the user who first removed the template. s/he considered it proper to remove it.

all i know is, after a speedy deletion tag has been removed properly, it cannot be put back. it can only be handled by afd.

why so many sysops are not familiar with "the procedure" is beyond me.--RZuo (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 was within their rights to revert the removal of CSD tags by editors actively involved in editing the article, and further went out of their way to politely explain the intended process to EmeraldRange. You, by contrast, dropped an incorrect warning template at Onel's talk page that warned against rapid use of CSD tags (and didn't even mention G4), then came here without attempting to actually engage with Onel. Meanwhile, the G4 has been reviewed, removed, and everyone but you seems content to move on. Continued insistence that Onel's actions amount to vandalism or bad faith is begging for a boomerang at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

i certainly dont care about the nonsensical speedydeletion tag nor the outcome of this report, because i know frequent enwp editors like to defend their little circle from criticism. i report this to let this go down in the records, which is also why i didnt bother writing this problematic user, because i knew his history of problematic behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&search=Onel5969&ns0=1 . most commentators on this thread must have had more interaction with him than me, but i certainly dont know or care why they are seemingly unaware of his history.--RZuo (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there an alternative to using speedy delete as a way to ask for an admin to review? I know that Onel5969 is already aware that he wasn't supposed to revert an CSD removal by someone other than the article creator and Firefangledfeathers mentioned how CSD is not a place to IAR. Personally, I was confused by the process and removed the tag after some confusion about the initial notice. Marking a page as reviewed and tagging it with a big red notice that the article can be deleted at any time seems like a non-intuitive way to, in essence, ask for admin review. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a particular issue affecting new page patrollers. We are unable to see the version deleted at AfD. DeletionPedia isn't a reliable source: I've found it only archives the first version if an article has gone to AfD multiple times, and it doesn't always capture a snapshot of an article that went to AfD. It's almost always a guessing game when using that CSD tag, yet that tag is important to use when an article is recreated that doesn't improve on the deleted version. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

One solution could be to reword the G4 CSD template to be less threatening, making it clear that there is no cause for worry if this isn't a resubmission of previously-deleted content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

i cant help but reply for the last time:

this user kept claiming the tag "procedural".

if this were really procedural, of the proper and correct procedure, then why enwp doesnt set up a mandatory rule, that all articles recreated in titles, which have been deleted, must be reviewed by a sysop? no one ever knows and can always suspect the new version to be identical to the deleted version. then what's the point of those two requirements of a4?--RZuo (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

How many times has User:Onel5969 been reported here for no good reason in the past two weeks or so? Is that because they have been active at New Page Patrol? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Onel5969 is the most active reviewer, by a large margin. New page patrol tends to burn through reviewers for reasons like this. I've definitely cut way back on my NPP activity as a result of similar friction, and the fact that it is hard work. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I've always limited myself just to the transportation area, and even I have stopped reviewing because I'm tired of being screamed at at AfD. NPP is indeed difficult work, and your only reward is getting yelled at and attacked by other editors (most of whom have never done a single patrol in their entire lives). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

To be precise, it's because he does well over half of all of NPP's work (or has done at times). Consequently, the stochastics of tangling with contentious articles dictate that he be featured here on a regular basis, to all our edification and eventual enlightenment. Inshallah. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

We have at least two issues here. One is the G4 process, for which maybe WP:ANI is not the right forum. The other is the OP's repeated allegations of vandalism for what is not vandalism. This is the right forum to discuss that, based on the boomerang principle. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As an experienced Myanmar editor, I'd like to commend user Onel5969 for being very bullying to other editors with his weight. Some of his actions are meaningless. Honestly I dont really understand him. Because of his domineering presence, I'm sometimes afraid to write article. Taung Tan (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless you have diffs to back up those accusations you should probably not be making them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

One idea for improving the G4 process is to build "% similarity" detection into the PageTriage software. More info at phab:T327955. Another idea might be to create a less bitey template that isn't a speedy deletion template, but is similar to the histmerge or revdel templates, and requests admin review. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

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

MateiCorvine and friends

I was initially going to report this user to WP:AIV for WP:NOTHERE but decided that it would be better if I went here first. MateiCorvine seems to be creating multiple pages about some sort of breakaway state called "Zalusia". Normally I would just delete under U5 (or maybe G3? I can't tell if this is real or not because of the issue I'm about to describe), however there's something strange going on. The user has included links to other users that seem to be writing about a different part of "Zalusia". So I'm not exactly sure what to do in this case. Also, I will most likely fail to notify some of the users who would be involved here since I'm not sure how many of them there are and who they all are, so I'll notify MateiCorvine and if I'm asked to do so I will notify the other accounts. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously someone is practicing their fictional writing skills. The "flag" and "coat of arms" of Zalusia here belong to Wallachia, and the "Zalusia Democratic Forces" are a made-up rebel group. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 20:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted MateiCorvine's sandbox; various other admins have deleted similar content in other users' sandboxes. I think we collectively got them all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked 3 accounts, including the master account. I had to hunt for them, so if I missed one, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I know there's at least one more altho I don't remember the name of it. I'll dig through my contribs to see if I can find it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

User:TotalArticlesGuy was created at the same time and there's a deleted Zalusia-related sandbox in their user space, and is probably involved, but since they've never edited it themselves, maybe that's a bridge too far. i left them alone. User:ContribuitorOfZalusia is certainly related, and I've blocked them too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I noticed TAG and the fact that they hadn't edited, which is why I didn't block them. Thanks for the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Need a rangeblock for London vandal

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

---

• 2A00:23C5:26AD:F801:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

An IP range in the London area is being used purely for vandalism.[55][56] Can we give them a time-out? Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I think you've provided the wrong range? The /64 provided geolocates to Chicago.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I have swapped IP ranges and fixed the problem. Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:26AD:F801:0:0:0:0/64 is our vandal. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attack from User:Bgsu98

This is uncalled for [57] and shouldn't be accepted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Bgsu98, please don't call anyone an idiot. User:Sportsfan 1234, please don't template the regulars. Unless there is evidence that this is a part of a pattern of behavior, instead of a one-off tiff, I don't suppose there's any way either of you would call this resolved now? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Floquenbeam, I'm sorry you have to waste your time with this nonsense complaint, but since you're here, I'm going to get this off my chest. Normally, I wouldn't waste an administrator's time with this foolishness, but I, for one, am tired of the constant bullying, mass reverts without explanation (or with insufficient explanation), and bland template warning from User:Sportsfan 1234 that I have witnessed and experienced over the last year or so. SF deleted a large quantity of information from 2023 European Figure Skating Championships, citing "Per WP:LIVESCORE" (no link provided) as the rationale. I searched and could find no page or policy named WP:LIVESCORE to explain why this deletion was made, so I reverted it. SF followed up with another reversion without explanation and then dropped a BS "warning" on my talk page. I'd like to add that the updates to 2023 European Figure Skating Championships were no different than every other skating event article I've followed since I started here, including the Olympics.

I didn't need to look far to find an example of SF's blind reversion. After filing this frivolous complaint, he made this reversion. I had removed an unsourced statement from a BLP article that was a) poorly written, and b) also lacked punctuation. SF reverted it, another user (User:Adamtt9) again reverted it as unsourced, and then suddenly SF reverted one of Adamtt9's edits to another article altogether, which makes me think SF is searching out edits to revert in retaliation. None of this behavior is new. His talk page history is littered with complaints and arguments. But yes, I will not call anyone an "idiot" again, while SF should also avoid doing the same thing.

Another example of SF's bland warning templating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this is applicable to your case, so I'm not siding against you, but I believe what's being referred to is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Livescores_editnotice — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCanDoBetter (talk • contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruption at Griff Furst

• Griff Furst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple accounts are being disruptive at Griff Furst. It looks like they're copy-pasting promotional content into Wikipedia, but the details are a bit murky. If you look at the version that they prefer, Special:Permalink/1135507571, it's full of lines like "this musical role was an apt one for Furst to take" that sound like they come from a press release. I did a Google search on some of the sentences, which turned up a link to tv.apple.com. The weird thing is that Apple seems to credit this blurb to Wikipedia, but the phrase has never existed in our article as far as I can tell. After I warned JoanieAlf (talk · contribs) about adding poorly-sourced promotional content, Picturesgroup (talk · contribs) suddenly showed up to revert me. Both editors have been warned about COI editing without any response. Can an uninvolved admin look at this and possibly revdelete the edits per WP:RD1? It also seems likely that these accounts are related to each other somehow, whether meat puppets or sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is definitely coordinated socking. I'd call the two named accounts  Likely but with this type of promotional WP:MEAT it's hard to determine whether you have one person or a gaggle of related accounts pushing the promotion (which I know you know, NRP). I've reverted to the pre-sock/COI version and semi-protected, but haven't made any blocks or looked at the copyright issues as I'm running out the door in short order.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is David. Simply trying to contribute additional information to this artist. The approved page that keeps getting reverted states that the Artist has appeared in over 100 feature films and television shows, but offers very little details of his career that has spanned over two decades. The information I tried to add is well sourced and cited. Some quotes were pulled from various podcasts and interviews that the Artist has participated in. No intention of socking. Just not a frequent contributor, and did not realize that objective information would be reverted. Happy to modify to suite Wikipedia's standards if there is information that is deemed subjective, but I did the diligence to keep the contribution encyclopedic. Picturesgroup (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Move-warring and harassment by Iazyges

A draft named Marriages of Pompey the Great has been moved to mainspace by myself so that a redirect/merge target would be available at a related AfD, and Iazyges has disruptively move-warred it back to draftspace and repeatedly 1 2 accused me of disruptive editing while acknowledging I violated no policies. He then voted keep in said AfD purely in retaliation. Such behavior is inexplicable since there is nothing in any policies that forbids what I just did, especially if the draft is good enough. This editor should be issued a warning and have his retaliatory AfD vote voided. Avilich (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I was in the wrong to move it back a second time, and ceased to move it again after being made aware of WP:DRAFTOBJECT, that was a failure to understand policy on my part, and I'm sorry for it. My AFD vote is not retaliatory, as I don't actually care all that deeply about the move except that it was disruptive given that it obviously wasn't ready, the lack of lede being an obvious clue. My observation that the move itself was obviously made to affect the results of the ongoing AFD (a comment to that effect was made by Avilich two minutes after the move) was separate from my support for keeping. I will also note that disruptive editing need not violate policy to be disruptive. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of the keep voters voted keep because the original redirect targets weren't suitable. You voted keep despite that grievance being addressed, solely as retaliation because the lede of the published draft wasn't to your liking. Me 'winning' the AfD would simply result in the content being retained completely (certainly not deleted as you insinuated here) under a more accurate title. And there again is the personal attack, accusing me of disruption. Avilich (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I would consider moving an unready article to be disruptive. That's not a personal attack, I have nothing against you, and in what few times we've interacted I've tended to agree with you. I would consider the same disruptive of literally anyone. It has nothing to do with the lede "being of my liking", it simply didn't exist, a sign that it wasn't ready. Additionally, the grievance is not addressed, as raised by Furius, because he specifically made the argument that she is worthy of her own article, which I agree with. Even if 100% of the current content is retained, that is not the same as the platform for more content about her. Additionally, I don't actually see a single keep vote that results from lack of target, let alone from Furius. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Avilich: I have historically been very inclusionist of all pre-Gutenberg historical figures, and find no difference here. I'm happy to withdraw my comment asserting that you did it to influence the discussion as an unprovable aspersion; nevertheless, I disagree with your decision to move the article as ill-timed, and maintain my keep vote. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Point of order: The "draft" in question, IIRC, was in the namespace of User:UndercoverClassicist, not in Draftspace. I believe user:Avilich pushed it live specifically for use as "ammunition" in the AfD discussion. However, it seems highly irregular to me for someone to publish work from someone else's namespace without a talk page exchange first etc. jengod (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Jengod: It was first placed in Draft space, not the user namespace, although he was the sole author. It was only in his userspace because I moved it there after the first move; I was unable to overwrite the empty Draft and therefore elected to move it there as the next-best. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  • @Iazyges: aha! I stand corrected. Thank you for explaining. poor UndercoverClassicist is probably enjoying breakfast somewhere in blissful ignorance jengod (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

    That's all correct. For what it's worth, I think I'm the sole author on the draft, and my view is that it's very much not ready for publication - the last two sections in particular are currently well below standard, simply because I haven't had the chance to get to them. I'm not sure what the etiquette is here, but my view is that it should be moved back to Draftspace. As @Iazyges: points out, I hadn't even gotten round to writing a lead! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

    To add: it's now more difficult for me to make the sort of edits I would like to (small, incremental, sometimes in rough form) with the article in mainspace - while anyone else is of course welcome to do so, they could equally do so in draftspace. It seems to me that the move into mainspace at this time is therefore to the detriment of the development of the article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

    @UndercoverClassicist: the best course of action would be XFD, to argue for a re-draftification of the document. As an aside, I usually write documents within my namespace as [[User:Iazyges/Whatever]] to avoid such complications. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• As the move-warring has now stopped, and Iazyges has struck their more contentious comments, can everyone agree to disagree here? Iazyges is a long-time editor on ancient Roman topics, and has been involved in other AfDs on Roman topics this month, so it's not as though they have no legitimate interest in this AfD and are just involving themselves to thwart Avilich. Avilich moving someone else's draft into mainspace before the main editor thought it was ready may not have been ideal behaviour, but it is explicitly permitted by WP:Drafts#Publishing a draft. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Gareth Carraway misrepresenting sources

User:Gareth Carraway is once again blanking sourced content (Special:Diff/1135522263, Special:Diff/1135523340), changing sourced content (Special:Diff/1135679552), and leaving nonsensical rationales (Special:Diff/1135523795). This editor clearly has no interest in following policy, and his English proficiency is at a level too low to contribute to English Wikipedia. He was previously blocked for a week after this prior complaint. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)