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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Disruptive editing by Hawkers994

• Hawkers994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about Horn of Africa. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland.

Hawkers994's editing keeps the sources he likes (reliefweb.int/report/somalia/catching-human-rights-needs-sool-and-sanaag-after-four-years) and deletes the ones he doesn't like(reliefweb.int/report/somalia/detailed-site-assessment-dsa-sool-region-somalia-march-2022). (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the reliefweb.int and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in Talk:Sool but they is not convinced.

In Talk:Sool, Hawkers994 claims that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about Badhan, Sanaag, they claims that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in Talk:Sool as well.

Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:POV. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

With previous consensus[1] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [2] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)

That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [3] [4] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.

The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.

This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.

Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [5] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [6] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.

The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:

On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [7]

As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:

Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.

I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [8] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?Freetrashbox (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Since the explanation has become lengthy and there are items added along the way, I will summarize them once and for all.

• This user deleted the same reliefweb.info information, leaving only what he liked.[9] - WP:POV violation.
• This user had a different editorial attitude between Sool, and Badhan, Sanaag & Buraan. - WP:POV violation.
• This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in Sool, but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. [10] - WP:NEGOTIATE violation.
• Almost copy-paste post from a news site. [11] - WP:COPYVIO.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages [12] and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles [13] numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This user's problematic behavior is still ongoing. This user replaced Somalia with Somaliland in El Afweyn. I also believe that El Afweyn is Somaliland territory, so I have no problem with that edit itself. However, the references cited at the beginning of this article all clearly state that El Afweyn is Somalia's area. If this is to be rewritten as Somaliland, it is common sense to at least provide a source that El Afweyn belongs to Somaliland. - WP:CS violation.

This user got into an editing war with another user, and when another user committed a 3RR violation, he reverted it. The 3RR is a problematic action, but it is usually also a problematic action when the discussant reevrts it. And this Revert is also 3RR. - WP:3RR violation.

In addition, this user writed a 3RR violation warning on the talk page of the user who first committed the 3RR violation. For the first user who violated the 3RR, it would be difficult to understand why it is allowed and not allowed for his own actions, even though his discussion partner also violated the 3RR. - WP:BITE violation.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox has completely ignored all the sources in these articles and only goes by his opnions, his disruptive editing and completing ignoring WP:POV stating his opinions as facts. As the source clearly stated the town is in Somaliland [14] he deleted it and wrote somalia which has no presence in this while regionn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994:The sources you indicated mention Yiroowe, but we have not discussed this town in the past. What does this source mean? Freetrashbox (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: You don't seem to have responded, can I assume that you agree with my comments above? Freetrashbox (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [15] and previous discussions which you have ignored [16] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[17]

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [18] and previous discussions which you have ignored [19] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[20]

you have ignored all sources and have chosen to only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in these regions [21] and previous discussions which you have ignored [22] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: Does your comment above mean that you do not intend to discuss this further? Freetrashbox (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

ignoring sources and stating your personal opinions after several discussions you have chosen not to discuss but to enforce your own viewsHawkers994 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hawkers994, stop using WP:VANDALISM as an edit summary unless it's actual vandalism. As you can see from the link it has specific meaning here and the most recent two in your edit history, do not appear to meet it. Better to assume good faith when reverting and explain why. Slywriter (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter that user in multiple times removes information with no edit summary or for no other reason or discussion [24] [25] [26]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

This user has removed the additions with sources by unrelated editors. I can understand his sentiment in deleting my description, but he should not delete the edits of an unrelated person. This implies that he is editing without much content review. Freetrashbox (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox has once again after many explanations and discussions keeps adding somalia with has no presence or authority in these regions in the info boxes [27] [28] [29] even though there is a specific dispute article which highlights this [30] he needs to understand that his opinions are not factsHawkers994 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: It would be more constructive to refute my explanation above. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This user is saying as if he is writing an article based on "presence (of country)", but I find it hard to believe. For example, the town of Bo'ame, which he mentions immediately above, is the town that Somaliland acquired in 2022, as noted in the current article. By his logic, that would mean that prior to 2022, it was not Somaliland. However, this user rewrote the town's country of ownership from Somalia to Somaliland prior to 2022.[31] In other words, he does not believe that "the country that occupies a town is the owner of that town." In his mind, he had concluded earlier that this town is a Somaliland territory, and he is just bringing logic to it. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

numerous times the sources on the article pages make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing ignores this and you reverts all sources and edit according to your opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: The article Bo'ame had 3,442 bytes in July 2021 before I started posting.[32] All that was written was the location with neighboring districts and the economic relationship with neighboring cities where there were no sources of information. I have added over 9000 bytes to this article. When we read the current article, we will see how this small town has dealt with its larger counterparts in Somaliland and Puntland. In short, I wrote most of this article. I am also the one who searched for sources of information. What exactly are you trying to say to me that I am ignoring the source? In contrast, what contribution have you made to the article in this town? You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland. You are just replacing the word Somalia with Somaliland. That Somaliland is a superior country is evidenced by the fact that the Puntland and Federal Republic of Somalia governments have adopted the system conceived by the country's leaders. If you want to tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland, I think you should tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland as it is in your articles, instead of doing nonsense like replacing one word with another. If you are not capable of doing so, then you should not be adding to Wikipedia. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your false claim that I have not added any articles to Wikipedia is untrue, [33] and many other contributions you chose to ignore in your emotional rant were created by myself, similar to how you choose to ignore the sources on article pages. As for the boame article the sources [34] [35] show that it’s under Somaliland government control and cannot be ignored and that info boxes should show that. As explained before there is already a dispute article which highlights this [36] which are linked to these articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

Comment Both users, Hawkers994 and Freetrashbox seem to be locked in de facto edit wars on pages I have reviewed. Even if they do appear to avoid 3RR. In general, the wall of text and back-and-forth arguing makes this difficult to follow. Hawkers994 is editing in a strongly partisan fashion on pages like Bo'ame as an example. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your third edit? You should comment with your main account. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather, this is my main account however. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly not. You don't get to pretend to be new and file an ANI complaint with your third edit. Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell This is not respectful to IP editors who want to make an account. Why would IP editors want to register an account if they could not use their new account just like people with Wikipedia accounts who have been here the same amount of time as them? Maine 🦞 16:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather @HJ Mitchell Yes, this discussion went on for a long time. But I don't think that user user:You see the wet pores in his skin slough started this ANI as HJ Mitchell said; they just commented here. Were they blocked for that, or was it for abusing multiple accounts (in spite of their denial)? I could be wrong. David10244 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither HJ Mitchell or I suggested that they opened the section. What I said was that their third ever post to Wikipedia was to this section on ANI. I found that, combined with their second edit, rather suspicious. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Okay, perhaps it was an exaggeration to say that you did not contribute at all in the Somaliland article. However, I checked your entire contribution history and found that, with the exception of the revert, you added more than 1,000 bytes only to the first edition of the 2,366 bytes article you listed immediately above. No doubt you have contributed little to Wikipedia. Also, as you can see from my explanation above, I am not talking about whether Bo'ame is in Somalia or Somaliland. Are you trying to deflect the conversation? I'm just asking you to write without arbitrarily choosing the sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Once again you’re trying to change to the subject when i have debunked your lies, info boxes on these mentioned articles will relate to the sources [37] and changing the subject to a users contributions will not change the fact that these articles have previously been edited and also changed by many other previous uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: If you are saying that I told lies, please show the edited difference. The garoweonline article you showed exactly reveals that Somaliland has effective control over Tukaraq, however Puntland is objecting to it. I wrote about it in the article Tukaraq.[38] But you removed it.[39] Can you explain the reasons for your edits? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As the source states there is no somalia presence this region, why did you ignore the source and change the info box [40] when there is already a dispute article as previously mentioned. [41] You also changed the source of the article to confuse readers [42] which i had to change back again. [WP:POV] states that opinions and not facts so you cannot just change them to your own accord.

Administrators and others: The conversation is going in circles. First, please give me your opinion on whether the copy-paste edit ("On the beginning of..."[43]) that Hawkers994 mentions immediately above is a violation of Wikipedia's rules or not. If this is not a violation of Wikipedia's rules, please your opinion on whether my rewrite ("Somaliland's Minister of Interior..."(the same link)) constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You lied about me of not adding adding any articles to wikipedia then when i debunked your lies [44] you said “Maybe its an exaggeration” and when confronted your changed the topic to Individual user contributions while trying to confuse users that info boxes should relate to sources. It seems you are the one going around in circles.Hawkers994 (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Then, I will talk about this one first. I have reviewed your history for the past 500 edits or so (about 2 years) and concluded that "You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland." But you had an edit in the past that was over 1000 bytes. You made the edit 5 years ago and it is only 1 of your 900 previous edits. Given this situation, can we say that I told a lie? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Both of you need to quit making contested edits for a minute and read Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent Sennalen (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that I was not cool with the editorial with Hawkers994. For this reason, I have now stopped editing the article disputed with him regarding the nationality of the town. I have called for dialogue with him on Talk:Tukaraq, Talk:Wadamago, Talk:Bo'ame, Talk:Yagori, Talk:Sool, and Talk:Hudun, but he has not responded. Currently, these articles are written to his liking (except for the articles that have been further edited by another person). Dialogue is effective only when the other party responds, and is meaningless if the other party does not respond. I think just editing without responding to dialogue is a sufficient violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's a step forward. Now, isn't ownership of these areas part of the Puntland–Somaliland dispute? If so, the articles should just say that, instead of the two of you trying to fight the war on Wikipedia. Sennalen (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve mentioned that there is a dispute article [45] many times on here for this region which these towns come under, yet this user ignored this as well as the sources which show control of these towns. Its pretty straight forward that info boxes should relate to that. User Freetrashbox does not need to change and deflect the topic.Hawkers994 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Haven't you also pursued a campaign of assigning ownership of disputed territory to just one side? Sennalen (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No, i mentioned that there is a dispute article for all these pages, and that the info boxes should relate to the sources that show control of the towns and are present on the ground since all these articles already mention that its disputed.Hawkers994 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Please thread your comments.
2. If I'm reading the diffs right, Freetrashbox wants to claim things for Puntland, and Hawkers994 wants to claim things for Somaliland. You both recognize that there is a dispute when it comes to adding claims, but you both have also removed claims.

Add sourced claims, removed unsourced claims, and quit being partisans for a side. Sennalen (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

What I would like to say to Hawkers994 is to write based on sources, and don't erase it just because it is a bad source for him. Hawkers994 also claims that "the town is Somaliland because it is under the control of Somaliland", therefore, I have given examples where Hawkers994 edited that it is Somaliland even though it is not under Somaliland's control. I am not claiming that these towns are Somalia (or Puntland); I am pointing out that Hawkers994's editorial stance is wrong as an earlier matter. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What i would tell Freetrashbox is to let the sources speak for these articles and infoboxes, as these articles already mention them being disputed in the article info section and the local governments that run these towns. Your editing attitude should also be straight forward without being indirect about users editing contributions.Hawkers994 (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: I think such a topic could be resolved on the article's talk page (of cource when you join the discussion.) However, your attitude of editing without sources, deleting sources you don't like, and your double standard by the article is unacceptable to me. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You have made multiple violations including WP:POV on these articles as well as lying about user’s contributions as your previous replies show. Choosing and ignoring sources to your liking and stating your opinion as fact goes against wikipedia rulesHawkers994 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I always explain with evidence, your opinion is always just some impressions... I don't need to tell you which is more contrary to WP:POV, describing one or both in a description of where there is a disputed. Freetrashbox (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide some comments on whether Hawkers994's behavior is problematic, or totally acceptable, or problematic but within acceptable limits? Freetrashbox (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox avoiding sources and deletion of articles must be stopped, he has been warned many times in talk pages and doesn’t seem to care of the consequences. Wikipedia is not a place were you can do as you wish. His earlier replies indicate his behaviour wont change will be continue to ruin sourced articles Hawkers994 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate any comments as to whether I am correct, Hawkers994 is correct, or both I and Hawkers994 are wrong... Freetrashbox (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are no comments at all, do you all think this is just a form of article warfare? As you all know, there are so many pointless editorial battles in the field of the Horn of Africa rewriting Somaliland to Somalia and Somalia to Somaliland. I think the only way to prevent this is to ensure source-based editing.Freetrashbox (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The two of you have dragged this out on this page for over a month now. No administrator has seen evidence that their intervention is necessary. It's time to drop the stick and move on to something else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. As long as Hawkers994 does not make any problematic edits in the future, I will forget about this.Freetrashbox (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hawkers994 has no intention of changing his editorial attitude.[46] As usual, he has not added source to his edits. The editorial rationale for "unexplained removal of content" is also inappropriate... Freetrashbox (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Af420

Af420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Rumi, Af420 initially made several attempts [47] [48] [49] to remove Rumi's birth place being the present-day Tajikistan city of Vakhsh, which is cited by WP:RS (one of them being by the Oxford University), replacing it with Balkh, conveniently a city related to his country of origin (Afghanistan). After being warned of getting reported, he stopped removing sourced info, but still went ahead and added Balkh [50], cited by random, non-academic sources such as rumibalkhi.com

Despite that, during all this time he so richly kept making WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA to me;

• Just because u are from Iran doesn’t mean everything belongs to Iran! (this was very their very first comment towards me)

• Dear HistoryofIran please use some sources before adding your personal opinion!

• what’s your problem, why do u think everything on Wikipedia should work the way you want it to work? Furthermore, instead of just writing your feelings, please add some good sources!

After being unable to demonstrate that his random websites were WP:RS, he backed out from the discussion and said that I can do as I please; BTW, not everybody has so much free time, so I’ll not be able to discuss this situation with you anymore, you can absolutely do as you wish

And thus I reverted back to the original revision, however he then reverted me again, randomly saying that No sources were provided!. May I be so bold to call this trolling at this rate? Anyhow, this user in a short span of time has violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ONUS, WP:RS, WP:STONEWALLING and probably more. They're not exactly new here, having edited since 2016, so they should be well aware of this stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at those diffs and your edits, it looks like a regular content dispute. Their sources (not the rumibalkhi one) are just as good as the current ones. And it looks more like them getting frustrated with your WP:Stonewalling and not assuming good faith. That's what it looks like to me. Could be wrong tho. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong indeed. The first diff [51], for example, was literally their first comment towards me, in response my previous comment; rv, sorry, but you need WP:RS for this, not random (news)websites. Two of the three cited sources are news articles written by non-academic, non-historians. The third is just a random site (that is the rumibalkhi one) - see WP:SPS. If you’re gonna accuse me of stonewalling and not assuming WP:GF, please at least this properly read into the issue. This user keeps accusing me of stuff and refusing to continue the discussion which barely even started, yet I am apparently the one stonewalling and not assuming good faith. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420's latest (attempt at provoking) comment after their revert and this report [52]. Still think I am the one WP:STONEWALLING? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear @1AmNobody24:, You are right, I just told him to use sources that can prove his point, but instead of doing that, he got serious with me:))

Af420 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This is just baiting at this point. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I agree that User:Af420 has probably violated a few policies. But you called the UN a random news Website. And that's just completly wrong. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I could have been more precise in that regard; I was referring to their news article, which doesn't qualify as WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Request closure

As demonstrated in this report, Af420 is amongst many things blatantly WP:STONEWALLING the dispute, openly saying that he won't take part anymore and that I can do what I want, whilst contradictory still reverting me. And now he has just resorted to taunting me, not even bothering just address one bit of this report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420 does appear to be taunting HistoryofIran at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear, @HandThatFeeds: the reason I didn’t bother to answer is because Mr. HistoryofIran basically thinks everything belongs to Persian history, and he puts Persian above everything, here are some of his logs:

• he thinks Backgammon a Persian game:
  • Just wanted to add what it's called in Persian, it is a Persian game.

————————————————————

• He took the the Azari language from the top and and then put it under Persian
  • here is the source

————————————————————

• He took away the text that says Azerbaijani people are Turkic people, instead he wrote that Azerbaijani people are Persian people.

• • I putted sources on, the Azerbaijanis people once spoke a Northwestern Iranian language called Old Azeri language. But the Turks forced the Azerbaijanis to speak Turkish. The genetics of the Azerbaijanis are very close to the Persians.

And much more!!! Af420 (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

How is that evidence and have anything to do with this? This dispute still has nothing to do with Iran, unless you think Tajikistan is located there. Those are literally random diffs from 10 years ago (yes, I am not even kidding, he seriously went all the way back to 2013). And I also highly doubt you even knew of these diffs before now, which shouldn't justify your violation of multiple rules anyways. This is just more WP:ASPERSIONS by this user, if not also lack of WP:CIR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran is a long-term user with a good record of edits. None of what you posted is egregious, and seems to reinforce that you're here to push an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The UN and The New Yorker appear reliable to me. Either or both parties should seek input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard instead of edit warring. I see some low-grade incivility from Af420, but he seems prepared to follow NPOV recommendation of presenting all views found in RS. Sennalen (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No need, as they're not reliable per WP:SPS as mentioned up above. I fail to see how constant insults and taunts is only "low-grade incivility" and demonstrates that he is ready to "NPOV recommendation", even though he was also removing sourced information as mentioned above. Can an admin please address this? This is frankly getting ridiculous, is this how we now treat fellow users and engage in disputes? Is instant WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, edit warring, WP:STONEWALLING, taunting, the way to go in a dispute? Since it seems to be working. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no clean hands here. One of the three sources was SPS. The appropriate resposne would have been to remove that one citation and WP:PRESERVE the claim and its other two citations. Sennalen (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Kindly don't put me at his level, in no way did I behave even as remotely as him. Despite his persistent attacks and taunting (including in this very report), I have tried to maintain a calm and nice tone, only to get comments like "There are no clean hands here." This is what SPS says; "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". In other words, two news articles written by non-academic, non-historians are not WP:RS. Either way, sitting here and discussing what is WP:RS and what isnt is pointless, since Af420 didn't even bother to do that himself, instead resorting to well.. I rather not keep repeating myself. The report here has more than enough evidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, discussing it here is pointless. Discuss it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sennalen (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not helping. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn’t get archived. HistoryofIran (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Tritto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This has been up for almost a month, way longer than it should be. I'm not a fan of constantly bumping an article, but I'd like to see something done, whatever that may be. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support indeffing user:Af420. Said "user" is displaying some serious WP:CIR-ish behavior. And I don't think any of it should be WP:AGF'd. The fact that he digged to HistoryofIran's edits dating back to 2013 (!), i.e. a decade ago, i.e. years prior to him even registering on Wikipedia, and tried to use it against him when confronted with a bunch of awful edits made by himself, is quite telling and reveals the intent of said "user". The fact that the says he doesn't want to take part in further discussion is the cherry on top of the cake. I don't think the community benefits in any way by having such a user. Much less so when taking an actual look at the edits he made that resulted him in being brought to ANI. Said user has barely made 600 edits over 6 years[53] and is now trying to convince us that his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits "were actually correct". How is user:Af420 editorial pattern a net worth to this project I wonder? Take a look at the thousands of disruptive accounts that have made a few edits here and there and have wasted the time of the community and that of veteran users, and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Were the edits correct? Sennalen (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support. Editors who are here to "win" need to go. Maine 🦞 16:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support as the one who created this report. If Af420 had been more active throughout these 6 years, they wouldn't even have been on Wikipedia for that long, cause they would have already been indeffed. This is not how you act on this website, or in general for that matter. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support per LouisAragon. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, this is a content dispute that has gotten out of hand. I will point out that in the version HistoryofIran reverted to, you can see that in one of the sources used to support Vakhsh as place of birth, the author writes, quoting a book by another scholar, "[h]e further states: "Bahâ al-Din may have been born in Balkh, but at least between June 1204 and 1210 (Shavvâl 600 and 607), during which time Rumi was born, Bahâ al-Din resided in a house in Vakhsh (Bah 2:143 [= Bahâ' uddîn Walad's] book, "Ma`ârif."). Vakhsh, rather than Balkh was the permanent base of Bahâ al-Din and his family until Rumi was around five years old (mei 16–35) [= from a book in German by the scholar Fritz Meier—note inserted here]" (see here). This, coupled with the article on the UN website leads me to believe this situation is not as clear-cut as described, which in turn dissuades me from indeffing Af420. Yes, he is primarily to blame for inflaming this dispute, but, for my money, HistoryofIran is not entirely blameless either. He should have followed WP:DR and taken the issue to WP:RSN. The rest of the disruption coming from Af420 is insufficient to support an indefinite block, in my opinion, once we rule out that his edits violated WP:TEND. Yes, he cast aspersions and, from the very first interaction, he was confrontational and personalised the dispute, and for that I can support closing this with a stern warning that continuing to engage in that sort of conduct will lead to sanctions, but I feel that the best course of action is to concentrate on the underlying content dispute. Salvio ^giuliano 09:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Approach RSN for discussing whether a press-release of UNO and a blog are decent sources for a biography on Rumi? I have no idea on why the situation is not clear-cut but it is consensus among scholars that he was born in Vakhsh. Will post some sources at the t/p. All I see is aggresive POV-pushing from Af420 using low-quality sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's not only a press release and a blog, one of the two sources currently used to say that he was born in Vakhsh actually reads "Bahâ al-Din may have been born in Balkh", although it goes on to add that "Vakhsh, rather than Balkh was the permanent base of Bahâ al-Din and his family until Rumi was around five years old". Now, I am completely unfamiliar with the topic and it's possible the consensus among scholars is that Vakhsh was definitely the place of birth and that's why I suggest following WP:DR, but I'm not seeing Af420 pushing a ridiculous claim, rather I see a nuanced content dispute. Salvio ^giuliano 18:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User making major changes to rail articles without discussion

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

User:Micga has a history of making disruptive moves without discussion, and was blocked in May 2021 for it. They have since accumulated numerous warnings about copying without attribution and further undiscussed moves. Today, they made massive changes and moves to Rail transport operations, Railway infrastructure manager (almost entirely unsourced), and now they're making changes to Rail transport company, no edit summaries for any of this. I left them a talk page message asking them to stop doing this and communicate with others, but they're actively editing now without responding. As they apparently have no interest in editing collaboratively, I believe this needs administrator attention and action. If this was the first time they'd done this, I wouldn't go to ANI, but there's clearly a persistent pattern in this user's actions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Some editors don't always check their talk messages regularly, so I'm willing to grant some leeway on the continued edits after the 14:53 notification, but if they don't come around soon, a block may be necessary to get them to come to the table and to prevent further disruption. Depending on their response, and other issues raised, some sort of topic ban may be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Nothing disruptive about the edits, they were for clarification. I moved from rail transport operations its contents related to infrastructure to railway infrastructure manager, while the remaining contents related to service and rolling stock were renamed under railway undertaking. Rail transport company is in turn the umbrella article describing differences between the two, as well as outlining regional variations in their organizations (split vs combined).Micga (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, took a quick look at your edits today, and:

• This edit to Basel Badischer Bahnhof changes "located on Swiss territory" to "part of Swiss territory", but I think the rest of the text makes the point that it's not part of Swiss territory. I'm not sure which is correct because nothing is sourced in that section.
• There are more unsourced changes to that article, like one, two, three. Can't tell if these are good edits or not, I don't know enough about the subject.
• It's not just trains, though. I saw Anti-Russian sentiment among the contribs from today; that's a topic I know a little about, and I'm finding more serious problems there:
  • Maybe OR and non-NPOV addition of "In contrast to countries such as Germany" (in a huge unsourced passage)... is there a source that points out this contrast between Russia and Germany?
  • Adds the unsourced text: "The first one of these views has ultimately been completely discredited in a humiliating manner after 2014..." Also adds to that text the phrases "precisely specified" and "it was inherently flawed". Without citing a source, I question whether that's OR/non-NPOV
  • Adding Belarus and Poland to text about Generalplan Ost in an article about Russia. Why call out Belarus and Poland? Ost was about more countries than just Russia, it was also about many more countries than just Russia, Belarus, and Poland... but it's an article about Russia, so why mention any other countries, and if we do mention other countries, why specifically those two but not the other countries? You also added the text "in these countries", but it wasn't just those countries.
  • In this edit, changing Untermensch's translation from "subhuman" to "inferior human" is a mistake; the term is almost always translated as "subhuman" because it means not human, and that's a key part of Nazi propaganda: they didn't think Jews, etc. were inferior humans, they thought they weren't humans at all. In the same edit, I don't understand the addition of "foreseen", or the removal of "pre-existing anti-Russian sentiment within the German population", which seem to contradict the sources cited therein, unless I'm misreading it
• No edit summaries makes it hard to understand these edits

I suspect in some cases, you are copyediting articles without reading the sources? Please don't do that, you will end up unwittingly misrepresenting sources. In other cases, it seems you're adding unsourced text, which shouldn't be done, either. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On the subject of Belarus and Poland - the original text implied that the Generalplan Ost dealt only with Russia, which is false.Micga (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

If (before version) In Nazi Generalplan Ost, Russia was designated... is false because it implies Ost dealt only with Russian, then (after your edit) In Nazi Generalplan Ost, Russia, Belarus and Poland were designated... is also false because it implies Ost dealt only with Russia, Belarus, and Poland. Levivich (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Added the missing refs to the citations from Anti-Russian sentiment mentioned above.Micga (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The cited edit on the Basel Badischer Bahnhof was an intermediate one among many “in making”, the final text is quite unambiguous. But sticking to the subject, what’s the problem with the rail articles? Micga (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the combined diff for Basel Badischer Bahnhof. "Unambiguous" isn't the problem. Why are there no sources for these changes? Or are there? Levivich (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On the rail articles specifically, you made major moves which changed the entire meaning of articles without any explanation, moved massive swaths of text around, much of it unsourced, and refused to use edit summaries to explain your changes at all. Had you actually explained what it is you were doing, we might not be at ANI right now. You also persistently violate our rules on copying without attribution. ANI is not limited to whatever concerns are brought up by the first comment in a thread; both your and my behavior is fair game for discussion here. I hadn't fully examined your other edits; I came here because the rail articles you made major changes to were on my watchlist. I was just going to stick to a talk page message until I saw the history of multiple warnings and a block, which raises this to firmly within ANI territory. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Popping in to say that I noticed this discussion because I still had Micga's Talk page on my watchlist from when I wrote this: [54]. Looking at their recent contributions, they seem to have taken this one to heart, which is good, but they're still doing something similar, that is, making large numbers of small edits to a single article, burying a much more substantial edit in the middle. Combined with the lack of edit summaries, this makes it quite difficult for editors watching articles to notice that larger edits have occurred. As an example, here's an unsourced edit that was dropped in the middle of 20 different edits done over the space of an hour and a half to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe: [55]. Depending on other editors' watchlist settings, they'll either have their watchlists blown up by all these edits, or just see this presumably unobjectionable one: [56]. I don't mean to allege bad faith or to say that making multiple edits to an article is inherently disruptive. But in the context of this ANI discussion it seemed worth pointing out. -- asilvering (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Like Special:Diff/1141799904, specifying Luhansk and parts of Donetsk and Kharkiv as being outside the Pale of Settlement. Levivich (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Micga you are copying without attribution, which is a real problem besides the others raised by Levivich, and aren't recognizing the problems with your edits. Unless something changes, I'll be supporting sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Where?Micga (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of unexplained content removals and addition of claims not supported by the added references in Talk:NATO–Russia_relations#Section_ordering_and_repetitive_content in the past. The edit comments weren't communicating the scope of the changes made, similarly to the asilvering's example above, and Micga didn't respond despite being pinged. The comment in the edit that removed a half of a section was outright misleading, leaving an impression that content was added rather than removed in the edit.

The content added by Micga to Anti-Russian_sentiment#Russophobia_vs._other_types recently is a largely unreferenced essay. (Most of the references are from the lead that has been removed by Micga; none appear to directly support the 'types of Russophobia' discussion.)

The identical issues with Micga's edits in a different topic area were discussed at ANI previously. --PaulT2022 (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Micga did not address the concerns here and has simply continued with the same kind of editing. In post-Soviet states now they made unsourced changes and moved around text without explanation,[57] which I reverted, then they restored the changes adding a couple refs in an edit[58] which do not fully support the changes and then proceeded to make a bunch of changes, again without using the edit summary, which are unsupported and hard to follow. Where is "Pax Russica" in this edit mentioned in the sources? I could not find this. If there is a history of this kind of editing, then action should be taken here, because it is clear this kind of editing will just continue. The edits on anti-Russian sentiment look particularly problematic. I am counting 127 edits on that article since 24 February, with major changes without any discussion and the edit summary used only for one of those edits. How is someone supposed to follow these changes? It is not possible and so probably no one will bother to check. Mellk (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I am one of the participants from the previous ANI discussion in November 2022. It seems like this is an on-going issue with Micga. Following the last ANI, admins neglected to take any action and surprise surprise here we are yet again. It seems that Micga's generally non-constructive editing tactics have and will continue indefinitely unless admins impose some sort of sanction. If this happened for the first time, I'd call for WP:GF leniency, however, based on Micga's talk page history, past ANI and block, this user has had several warnings from countless editors. We are way past the point to call this a "GF error". Micga has had ample opportunity to improve their editing methods within this time period. In most cases, Micga continues to make dozens and dozens of rapid edits without providing any edit summaries and often without any WP:RS. Even during this discussion, the user continues to edit, in my opinion, recklessly without any explanation and without sources. Myself and Subtropical-man, among others had expressed concern about this exact situation in the last ANI. Seeing as how this seems to be an on-going issue, I too support sanctions. Otherwise, I fear we will be here again in a few months. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

After I made this comment I see that Micga made almost 40 edits to Russian world, not one of them using the edit summary, which again involve making unsupported changes. In this edit they re-use the same refs as before (as in [59]) to write different statements unsupported by the sources (which looks like WP:FICTREFS). I see that Johnuniq pinged Micga here asking for a response but they decided to continue with those edits instead despite the concerns raised. Mellk (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to take action at the moment but someone else may like to. I left a final message at User talk:Micga#Warning. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Except for the initial edits which affect the substance, albeit being supported by the necessary references, the majority of these 40 edits are related to language polishing. I often read multiple times the inserted passages as well as admit to having, as a non-native English speaker, endless doubts whether I used the proper sequence of the syntax. However, I still have no clue in regard to allegations of copying without attribution. Micga (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Where in the sources is the denial of the Belarusians, Ukrainians and Rusyns as nations or the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Rusyn languages, reducing them merely to dialects of Russian language mentioned or even anything about this doctrine? I do not see anything about dialects or even languages. All I see is you used the same sources for the statement about the "near abroad" from post-Soviet states and used them for completely different statements in a different article. Including using previously cited sources from the post-Soviet states article including ones from 2001 and 1994. Mellk (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Also none of the sources you cited mention autocephaly[60], so it looks like WP:FICTREFS. Mellk (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk: I can see that Micga's reply above does not engage with the details and does not address my comment below at 02:24, 5 March 2023. However, if I'm going to indefinitely block Micga, it would be better to make a water-tight case first. Please focus on edits made after Micga's reply above (after 10:19, 5 March 2023 UTC) and reply here if you believe any make a claim that is not supported by the reference (preferably something that I can check). I'm looking for one clear and recent example that I can ask Micga about. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to beat on a dead horse, but he's still editing everywhere without edit summaries, without sourcing his contributions, and making several tiny edits with a bigger one in between. Ostalgia (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I also observe that no one has, at any point during this or the previous ANI incident, mentioned anything positive about Micga's edits. Regarding the ones since the last warning, I don't edit in this area so I can't immediately recognize if any of these edits [61] are howlers, but they are certainly unattributed changes. These others [62] include some changes to the wording that don't seem likely to be controversial, but the edits to that first paragraph appear to change the meaning, and I can't check that URL to see if they agree with the source - it just times out. -- asilvering (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Micga: Whether or not your edits are helpful is hard for outsiders to quickly assess. What we can see however is that several established editors say that there are problems. What is your response to that situation? Is there a discussion somewhere showing that some agree with your approach? For those reporting here, I recommend that a wikiproject be involved with a discussion focusing on a small set of related articles. Do not make an editor the subject of the discussion—at a wikiproject, the subject should be whether a particular set of edits was helpful. Having a wikiproject involved would give someone like me more confidence regarding what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the editor continues to edit without responding to your very reasonable questions, Johnuniq. Its clear that "several established editors" have expressed concern with the users editing both here and in the last ANI (at least eight editors here alone, among others from the previous ANI and from the users talk page). So what now? Archives908 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Micga (talk · contribs) has been editing for 18 years with one short block in May 2021. They contribute frequently here and at the Polish Wikipedia. I can't indefinitely block Micga due to unclear concerns. Is it because they are not adequately engaging in discussions about their edits? Where is a recent example? Is it because they make several minor edits to an article with one large one in the middle with significant changes of meaning? Is there a recent example of a change of meaning that the sources or Micga have not justified? As mentioned above, I'm looking for one clear and recent example of a claim that is not supported by the reference that I can ask Micga about. Please only reply here if you have links showing recent issues. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I've recently asked Micga to provide a single source that would directly support the claims that a section Micga wrote (initially, almost without references) makes.

Instead, Micga added five references for a single fairly short sentence. All referenced sources are of considerable size. There are no page numbers or quotes to indicate where either of the sources may support Micga's edits and it's unclear why such a short sentence might require five references in the first place. None of the sources has a long list of events, which, as the sentence referenced to them claims, haven't been subjected to any serious public debate attempts in Russia and historiography taught in Russian schools continues either to omit these events entirely or to tell them in a version entirely invented PaulT2022 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is -- and this is a structural problem that, um, may have been mentioned before -- edits like the ones asilvering points to above (Combined 1, Combined 2) are an absolute nightmare to review. There is so much content changing there -- with no change in sources that I can determine -- that I can't figure out at all whether that's correcting the content, expanding the content, or distorting the content, and it would hours to run that content down against the sources and verify it.

Here's another way of looking at it: Compare Pale of Settlement on February 25 with Pale of Settlement on March 9, after Micga's edits. Just look at the first paragraph. These are not improvements in my view, and that's without even figuring out if it's verified, nevermind npov.

So to answer John's request for a recent unsourced diff... well, if you look at the "1805–1835" sections of the Feb 25 and Mar 9 versions, "Lithuanian governorates" was removed, and "Southwestern Krai" was changed to "Northwestern Krai without rural areas". Without edit summaries, I do not know which of the many edits between those dates made those changes, and I don't see any inline citations in the before or after to help make verification easy. So I have no idea if those are correct edits or not. Levivich (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Lithuanian governorates formed together the Northwestern Krai, while the General Government of Kiev was otherwise known as the Southwestern Krai. I just rectified the nomenclature and removed redundancies, but the substance was left unchanged. Micga (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Levivch's and PaulT2022's analysis. During this ANI discussion, Micga has made roughly 40 edits on Post-Soviet states. Not a single edit summary has been provided. Text has been added, removed, and altered without any rationale. Therefore making it extremely difficult to decipher if these are improvements or not- especially the text added with no WP:RS. These are the exact concerns which were raised in the last ANI. Micga had conducted a massive overhaul of European integration. Hundreds of rapid edits were made, with zero explanation, and no sources. It was a logistical nightmare to keep track of. Since then, the user has not shown much attempt to improve their editing methods or address these concerns. It is problematic and contrary to Wiki ethos. Regardless if the user has been editing for 1 year, 5 years, or 18 years is not a valid excuse to ignore the concerns raised by countless editors. Archives908 (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Nml25

• Nml25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also

• @Daranios, Onel5969, Onetwothreeip, and Daniel Case:

Concerning:

• Sexton Blake bibliography
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 2: 1912-1945
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 3: 1946-1978
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present

Nml25 has created four articles with massive amounts of unsourced original research. Multiple editors have made an attempt to remove unsourced material. Nml25 continues to add this unsourced material back into the articles.

They were blocked by @Daniel Case: [63] for edit warring on 11 February 2023. Since the block has been lifted they have continued the editing behavior they were blocked for, reinserted unsourced material without adding references to independent reliable sources and reverting editors that object to the unsourced content.

These four edits restoring the unsourced material were made the day their ban was lifted:

[64], [65], [66], [67]

More (see article histories for all)

[68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73],[74]

See discussion here: Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Splitting the article and Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?  // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I had hopes after the initial block that they would learn, but unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. A longer block is warranted, but the length I am not sure of. The last time, as soon as the block was over they returned to the same behavior which led to their initial block.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what TimothyBlue is talking about. I have restored content after communicating with Daniel Case, who put in place the block and provided guidance on content. On February 19th I posted the following communication to him:

Pages have been restored and revised with more detailed citations as per Daniel Case's' suggestions.

Title info has been included to meet standards of verifiability as put forth by Daniel Case

"Sexton Blake tales were all independently published in story papers, (usually 1 paper 1 tale) with the title of the tale used as the title of the issue of the story paper, therefore it is necessary only that their existence be verifiable."

Example

1955

The Sexton Blake Library (3rd Series) 348 || The Case of the Frightened Man || Anthony Parsons || ||

Year, Magazine Title, Issue # Title of Story, Author

Here is the link that verifies it, easily finadble with the information provided.

https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=60576

ISBNs have been provided for all modern publications.

Comic Books plus has three pages of digital files for the Sexton Blake Library

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=2177

and a page of Union Jack titles as well

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=732

If citations are needed I ask that you use the citations needed function for guidance. Nml25 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I received no message from Daniel Case that the material was inappropriate. From Feb 19 to Feb 26 I have received no message from anyone that there was aproblem with the information provided in the Sexton Blake bibliography pages. Other edoitors made tweaks on the page. On the morning of Feb 26th I discovered that Onel5969 had hidden three of the pages. No explanation given. So I reverted it back. Then TimothyBlue reverted the pages. So i reverted it back. Again TimothyBlue gave no explanation and he appeared to have no knowledge of the communication with Daniel Case.

To recap:

I took advice on board from Wikipedia for citation of sources on the four pages in question, I corrected citation of content to meet that advice, I notifed Wikipedia that new content was posted, I requested I be notifed for any errors in citation through the needs verification function. Other editors looked at the pages, found no issues and tweaked content for more than a week.

What excatly did I do incorrectly?

@Daniel Case @Daranios

And again: The material is not unsourced. There are 9 citations in the Compiling the Sexton Blake Bibliography section of each page which describes where the material comes from.

TimothyBlue and Onel5969 have made the creation of this page a highly toxic experience.

It's all viewable here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANml25#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion Nml25 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Just wanted to say that I believe that the disupted content is "unsourced original research" is incorrect. Everything else can be read in the discussions linked by TimothyBlue. Daranios (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of it's sourced, most of it isn't. Restoring contested content without sourcing is disruptive per WP:BURDEN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I informed Daniel Case, the admin that it had been revised and restored on Feb 19th to comply with his guidelines. There was no objection. TimothyBlue and Onel5969, who had not participated in that conversation, decided unilaterally to take down three pages. No examples as to how the content did not meet the guidelines. Nml25 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

They contain massive amounts of content that is not sourced and is against WP: NOTDIRECTORY, as it would appear your other articles do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue "These four edits restoring the unsourced material were made the day their ban was lifted:" I'm confused. Diff 63, at least, includes references. I didn't check the others. David10244 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment and additional material: I believe these are additional examples of unsourced original research in articles created by Nml25 and should be considered:

• The Exploits of Fidelity Dove
• The Sexton Blake Library, The Nelson Lee Library
• Harry Blyth, Nelson Lee (detective)
• William Murray Graydon, Robert Murray Graydon, Francis Addington Symonds, John William Staniforth, George Hamilton Teed

 // Timothy :: talk  18:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

TimothyBlue you're coming across more like an obsessed stalker than an objective editor.

All of these pages were approved months ago by other editors. And true to form you make broad general claims without specific examples. Nml25 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Question to everyone: Is there any actual doubt about the accuracy of the content? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: Thank you for this question hitting heart of WP:Verify. Unsurprsingly, I myself have no actual doubts about the accuracy of the content, also seeing as most of it can be double-checked at the Blakiana website. Daranios (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, but it's difficult to be certain without sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Aside from Blakiana, some of the old magazines are also available at archive.org, like Detective Weekly 251 I had linked here. In case you want to check out accuracy exemplarily yourself. Daranios (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable or not, great big lists without any real context are against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The four articles starting this thread are just republishing the lists compiled by the Story Paper Collectors' Digest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point, but this criticism that the lists are drawn directly from another publication seems inconsistent with the criticism above that the lists are unverifiable OR. Also, don't we frequently include bibliographies in author biographies as well as articles about prominent fictional characters? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't usually include weekly or bi-weekly magazine publications over many years in a biography section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We have list articles that are each many times the size of main articles, those lists include extra details that are unsourced (and could well be OR, I've made no comment on the OR issue). So no there is no inconsistency in my comments. What is seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of WP:BURDEN after the content of these articles has been challenged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: With regard to "seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of WP:BURDEN", the thing is that the ongoing discussion is about if the citations are not already present for publication information and plot-summary. There is only a small percentage of uncited "extra details". WP:BATHWATER applies then. Daranios (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We obviously disagree with how much is unreferenced, it's certainly not "a small percentage". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I have explained why I think the vast majority is referenced - though not by footnotes - in detail at Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?. Maybe you would like to explain why you think otherwise or where you think my argumentation is wrong over there. The other participants of the discussion have so far refrained from doing that. Daranios (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

When multiple people's arguments haven't explained the problem, maybe the the issue is your not hearing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The other ongoing discussion is whetber these should be merged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Which entry do you think is inaccurate? Pick one. Nml25 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Check the section for fans. The title is "FOR ALL SEXTON BLAKE FANS" It"s on all four pages (the section title is formatted manually instead of as a section title, (which would appear in the TOC) so you need to search for it.  // Timothy :: talk  12:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm staring at the wrong item, the "section" in question is not so much a section but the heading of an announcement that the editor copied verbatim into the article (with proper referencing). I have no opinion on the dispute, or on the editors involved, or on Sexton Blake, but I just thought this was worth pointing out. Ostalgia (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Timothy has a history of not reading things closely.... or at all. Doesn't stop him from having an opinion though. Nml25 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - despite the large wall of texts above, the editor continues to add large blocks of uncited material to articles, which is why Daniel Case blocked them for a week the first time.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  According to the block log, the block was for edit warring, not for adding large blocks of uncited material to articles. Perhaps Daniel can clarify. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: NML25 continues to add material to the articles, but still has not added references or sources or addressed objections by other editors. They continue to claim that comic book collections, fan clubs, and personal websites are independent reliable sources, which they are not. After further looking at the few references supplied for the lead material, there is also a problem with SNYTH and PUFFERY which needs cleaned up.  // Timothy :: talk  08:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• The bibliographies cited, although not from academic publishers or the like, include compendious compilations of bibliographic information by people knowledgeable about the subject. This type of source is often used on bibliographical articles (for example of second-tier authors and comic-book characters) and sometimes necessarily so. These articles could use some clean-up, but if we are going to have a Sexton Blake bibliography, and I don't see why we shouldn't, what other sources does anyone suggest could be used? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• I don't understand what the problem is. Can somebody drop a diff of an OR/unsourced/synth/puffery/whatever edit, post-block? Levivich (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by User:TarifaXxx

TarifaXxx (talk · contribs) has been (re)adding copyrighted pictures without permission to Roger Schmidt (footballer); user won't stop, even after pictures are deleted from Commons for copyright violation. [75] [76] [77] [78]

I suspect TarifaXxx is Nxlo03qda (talk · contribs) and its multiple sock accounts, who had the exact same behaviour at João Félix. (too many diffs to post here; see between 25 September 2019‎ and 4 July 2019) SLBedit (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You might find someone who'll block from here, but this should be filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: TarifaXxx is edit warring at Roger Schmidt (footballer), now with another copyrighted picture. User will not stop until it gets blocked. SLBedit (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not call users "it".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Account equals it, i.e., until his/her account gets blocked. I will continue reverting his/her copyright violations, as those reverts are exempt from 3RR: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." SLBedit (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

TarifaXxx has been edit warring for days now, readding copyrighted pictures. SLBedit (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is ongoing. User won't stop. SLBedit (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Then file a damn WP:AIV report for vandalism or WP:SPI to see if they're a sock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

My WP:SPI report was ignored. SLBedit (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Need Japanese-speaking and maybe admin help

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

I feel the need to amplify a cry for help I've just noticed dated February 3 at WP:PNT, titled Himetataraisuzu-hime. It is extremely unusual to have several people asking for help with a particular editor. I am emphatically not competent to evaluate Japanese translation and past experience says that Japanese is one of the languages machine translation truly does not handle well.

I know nothing about any of these people btw, and would be delighted to find out that they are wrong. However the idea that a "prolific" editor who does not speak Japanese is producing machine translation from Japanese is very alarming, and likely this is causing not just ugly English but serious errors of fact. Cleaning up such work is a huge and tedious time sink for people who actually speak the language in question, and I would know having just listed one from French out of sheer exasperation. Elinruby (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

(a bit later) It looks like the article has gotten some help, and it's two editors not three but the questions raised are still alarming, so I am quoting the meat of the plea:

29 January 2023 (UTC)

Himetataraisuzu-hime Edit The initial language of this article was Japanese. Auric talk 19:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The current "translation" is a travesty of bad machine translation, worked over primarily by a human editor who doesn't understand how to do translation, doesn't understand how to look up terms, doesn't understand Japanese at all, cannot read the phonetic parts of Japanese writing, and is wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter. This user is prolific, and nearly all of their content is generated the same way -- machine-translating articles from non-English Wikipedias, and then badly reworking the result. Various editors, myself included, have attempted to advise them to stop utilizing this deeply flawed process. See also User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi and related threads in their Talk page archives. About the Himetataraisuzu-hime article itself, I am not sure if this is sufficiently notable for English-language readers. About the user, I have followed them for some months, and I am convinced that their editing activities here result in a net negative effect for the Wikipedia corpus: so much is wrong, and so many of their newly-created articles are for niche topics that few other English-language editors will see, and if they see them they may not be able to recognize them as bad, let alone fix them.

I am much less active here than on EN Wiktionary, so I am much less familiar with process. My recommendation is that some kind of administrative intervention is needed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look but my (mediocre) strength is conversion, not text. But I know the grammar and such EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You can read an earlier version at Draft:SiliconProphet/Himetataraisuzu-hime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)--Auric talk 15:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

As a Japanese-speaking admin, I agree that there is a significant problem here that needs to be handled at this venue. I simply have not had time to bring it to ANI myself, and may not be able to produce a complete summary now. When the issue was raised on my talk page, I wrote the following: "I believe the editor is acting in good faith, but since there are a number of policy violations involved (WP:SOCK given the history of overlapping use of accounts, WP:C as noted in the deletion discussion—the history of that page still needs to be handled, and there may be many other copyright issues on other pages) as well as behavioral concerns (WP:CIR, particularly the part that requires "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up") and content concerns (WP:CITE, WP:F, etc.), that is likely enough for the community to reach a decision on how to proceed without worrying about the problem of whether there is a meaningful corpus of "reliable sources" in this area of Japanese prehistory. Still, I feel it would be better to establish community consensus here. I was treating this as a slow-moving problem since I have not brought my concerns to the editor directly, but as you note, others have raised the issue, and complaints were also made on the talk page of the previous account." There are several issues involved, only one of which is the machine translation:

• There are copyright problems involved in the direct machine translation of non-free texts; I raised this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuhitobe. As noted above, machine translation involving languages the editor is not able to read are resulting in significant factual errors. Japanese is not the only language for which this is occurring.
• There is overlapping use of accounts, although only one is currently active, and this is being used to push through a set of articles that were draftified; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SiliconProphet/Archive, at which I mentioned the case of Himetataraisuzu-hime specifically: "Looking at Himetataraisuzu-hime may give a good summary. This is a real, but very obscure, topic in Japanese mythology. The article was created by SiliconProphet on October 12, 2021. It was edited extensively by SiliconProphet, but was draftified per talk page consensus on October 14. It was moved back to article space by SiliconProphet on October 22, and SiliconProphet continued to edit the article, followed by extensive edits from Scientifical Poet. It was then draftified again by an uninvolved editor on January 13, 2022. Immanuelle then submitted it to AfC without significant changes the very same day. Immanuelle continued to edit the article and it was approved at AfC by an uninvolved editor on May 3, but a recent edit by an IP editor still notes: Overall, this section is dreadful and clearly the mangled product of autotranslate, but I don't have time to fix it all. I doubt the process would have gone this way if clearly dealing with a single contributor to the translation."
• The history of having these drafts and articles objected to goes back further than the current account, due to the switching of accounts.
• When draftification occurs, the editor is merging inaccurate information into existing articles rather than improving the drafts; see User talk:Dekimasu#Help with a particularly problematic user and recent examples at Fuhitobe, Ichidaisotsu, and Girl Temple.

I would have liked to go through these items individually and clean them up for presentation here, but problematic articles continue to be created, so I will put this out there now in the hope that others can begin to evaluate what's been gathered together so far. The editor does not seem to concede that there is a problem, and I agree with the evaluation at the top of the section that this will end up creating a massive amount of work for other editors trying to clean up past contributions. Dekimasuよ! 05:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

To attempt to convey the scale of the potential problem: I primarily rehab articles from French, *a language that is related to English* and which is my language of education. There is a huge backlog of machine translated French articles created by a single user about military history, one of which, for example, translated something along the lines of "it was not until (1943?) that the unit saw combat in WW2" as "the unit did not see combat in World War 2". Some errors are more subtle than that, and I knew to look for that one, as that particular sentence construction is frequent and not intuitive for English speakers. A superficial copyedit by someone who does not speak French would not have spotted it. I have seen artist Joan Miró become Joan Looked. It gets much worse from there, the more divergent the language is from English. I've had four semesters of Japanese and do not consider myself literate in the language, just (possibly) able to get through counting, verbal greetings and thank yous. Hopefully this explains my alarm. Thank you for any brainpower applied to this. Elinruby (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

[79] is an example of what Dekimasu is saying about overlapping accounts. The article was reported at WP:PNT a year ago by the same user (@Eiríkr Útlendi:), and nobody responded. Other examples of how there just isn't enough bandwidth to allow this stuff at [80] and the CTX subpage here Elinruby (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't comment on the accuracy of the translay from Japanese, but I came across many of these articles due to referencing issues. Many had missing or partially corrupt referencing, as well as wikimarkup in article text. The way of dealing with this by SP was to simply delete anything that the machine translation had broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Immanuelle has added a user page comment stating, "In case it was not clear I retired on translating pages from Asian languages recently." However, previous retirement statements on the User:SiliconProphet account (here and here and perhaps elsewhere) simply resulted in switching to the current account, and Immanuelle has continued to edit the same set of drafts based on translations from Asian languages since making the new statement. In light of this, and since Immanuelle has not taken part in the discussion here, I propose the following remedies for this case:

• 1) Immanuelle will be limited to one user account. Other accounts including User:SiliconProphet and User:Scientifical Poet will be blocked indefinitely.
• 2) Immanuelle must not create new drafts using machine translation from any language, including Western languages, and must ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright.
• 3a) (Option 1) Immanuelle is prohibited from self-publishing articles to mainspace or reverting draftification. Any new articles must be submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
• 3b) (Option 2) Immanuelle is prohibited from creating new article drafts.
• 4) Immanuelle must not merge content into other articles as a response to having a draft declined or an article nominated for deletion.

Violating any of these rules would result in blocks. To me, this is a very lenient set of remedies. The problem of the articles that have already been altered by improper and/or inaccurate machine translation has yet to be resolved. However, these measures would help limit future damage, and the results of these remedies could be monitored more easily than under the current high rate of output. Dekimasuよ! 08:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment), taking reports above on faith as I don't know Japanese, and voting to support based on my experience with translation from other languages, and the heavy burden created when editors "translate" from languages they're insufficiently familiar with. This needs to stop, and these remedies will help. Mathglot (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• In determining which of options 1 and 2 is more appropriate, it would be helpful to know if there is any evidence of productive writing from Immanuelle that does not fall into this pattern. Just skimming over their created articles, all I've seen are translations and copies from Simple English Wikipedia. (I'm checking by comparing reference sections between wikis) And if they're also using an LLM to create articles as mentioned on your talk page, that’s not really much better. small jars tc 16:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with preference for 3b over 3a. This is hardly the first time someone's enthusiasm has vastly outpaced their abilities in the Japanese topic space (the meat of lumps, souped in soup example comes to mind, along with its hundreds of machine-translated companions from that article's creator). In addition to the obvious problems with machine translation output, eager "translators" who don't actually speak/read the language cannot judge the quality of the input, so they often do not realize that the Japanese (or other language) Wikipedia article they're "translating" is terrible, and they plow ahead regardless. Frankly, I would prefer a more straightforward "no machine translation" or even "no AI-assisted editing" remedy. But I fully support the current version as well. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support this will also help address another issue not yet discussed here: Immanuel is using ChatGPT or another AI to create articles and make additions. I tagged one with info on what the problem was, but Immanuel deleted that draft and continued working with AI text additions. The issue has not been fully discussed with them, but 3 a or b would simultaneously solve most of that prob anyway. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• (Belatedly) Support, for all of the measures outlined above. I don't see 3a and 3b as mutually exclusive, and both appear to be appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment) - anything to stem the tide. I would also be in favor of explicitly forbidding machine translation and ChatGPT for this user to make it clear what the problem is here, and encourage reviewers to go a little deeper with this user's contributions, even if at first blush they seem ok-ish. I don't really know how that process works, but it seems like we're hoping AfC will catch the problems. They are catching quite a few based on the user talk page, but considering the potential nightmare we are contemplating... But we should definitely implement this proposal at least. Elinruby (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. (Non-administrator comment) So glad to see this here. I left a message on this user's Talk page about the Simple English translations here: [81], suggesting AfC, to no reply. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I don't speak Japanese, but I know Eiríkr Útlendi from en.Wiktionary and trust his assessment that this is a serious problem, especially backed up as it is by a few other Japanese-speaking editors above. Frankly, given how hard it might be to enforce a ban on machine translation (how do you prove the user machine-translated and didn't just ineptly human-translate?), and given that the user has apparently said they'd stop doing this only to then switch accounts and continue, I wonder if a block would be better, in terms of preventing harm / the creation of copious incorrect and/or copyvio content that needs cleanup. -sche (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • -sche, WP:BEANS applies here, but at least for Japanese, machine translation produces characteristic errors that differ from the kinds of errors that humans tend to make. I can immediately think of a couple of grammatical structures that a person with low-intermediate Japanese ability could easily understand and translate properly, but that machine translation will reliably translate incorrectly. While this isn't 100% definitive on its own, there is a supplementary method, which is to ask the editor how they came up with a particular translation in the event of an apparent error. People who rely on machine translation typically cannot explain their thinking about translating from the source text at all, for the obvious reason that they did not actually think about it in the first place. That said, you may be right about the block, but Dekimasu is offering them a chance for course correction, which I agree is worth trying. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

In French, certain prepositions and pronouns have multiple possible meanings that no human being would confuse, so when the wrong one is chosen that's a big clue. Or missing a certain grammar construction that reports a claim without endorsing it. Probably most languages have similar tells. But it's not the use of machine translation that I object to, it's not being able to evaluate the output. And the ai concerns me. Elinruby (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

how do you prove the user machine-translated and didn't just ineptly human-translate? You can just try machine translating the original yourself and compare. There are at most like 5 services that people actually use, and it's nearly always Google translate anyway. Of course this might not work as well if they're doing superficial rewording as well. small jars tc 09:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I object to the mainspace creation part on the basis that I do create articles without machine translation, and have made several recent articles without machine translation such as Pehuson. Last draft I made that contained any machine translation was Draft:Oyagami. Last one in mainspace was Tatarigami, although I added content to Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov which was machine translated more recently.

I wish to be given some time to try to improve my pages I created before they are mass proposed for deletion. I'll propose ones for deletion if I think fixing them is beyond my ability as I did with Echizen dynasty. Because I think I am able to improve them dramatically.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 09:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Either way AFC seems to have high delays but low quality filter. Himetataraisuzu-hime got through it fine. Secular Shrine Theory before its overhaul got through it just fine. Draft:Shukubo has been in it forever despite being in a current state I’d argue is superior to either article. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 10:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional remedy proposal

Based upon the first five responses above, I suggest adding one of the two remedies below regarding AI and LLM use. During this discussion, as just one example, Immanuelle has created Draft:Confucian Shinto and wrote in an edit summary "used AI for a start". I am not an expert on Confucianism, Neo-Confucianism, or Shinto, but I immediately notice the following problems with the draft: 1) it is labeled in present tense, whereas the Japanese Wikipedia article on this topic labels it explicitly as something from the Edo period; 2) the Kokugakuin source in English is being used to claim that Confucian Shinto "helped to shape the moral values and social norms of the samurai class", but the cited source never connects the samurai class and Confucian Shinto in any way, only noting the earlier influence of neo-Confucian scholars on the samurai, whereas Confucian Shinto arose later (the sentence linked to this source reading "In the 18th and 19th centuries, Confucian Shinto became increasingly popular among the samurai class, who saw it as a way to reconcile their duty to the emperor with their Confucian ideals of loyalty, honor, and righteousness" appears to be completely made up); 3) Kaibara Ekken is labeled as a scholar of Confucian Shinto, but our existing articles on him links him to Edo neo-Confucianism (the draft seems to think these are the same topic, and the linked George Mason excerpt purported to be a Confucian Shinto text does not refer to Shinto practices, gods, or kami at all; the Japanese Wikipedia article on this topic does mention Kaibara Ekken, but Immanuelle claims not to be translating from Japanese now). This is just a few lines that I picked out in a few minutes, and I have no confidence in the rest of the draft. Overall, while the article reads as good English compared with the machine translations from Asian languages, this looks to be an inaccurate mishmash, created in the very middle of the ongoing discussion here. And several other similar drafts have continued to be produced since the editor was referred to ANI. Given that insufficient judgment is still being used in evaluating the products of machine output, the following additional remedies are proposed, which would supersede #2 above:

• 5) Immanuelle is prohibited from using any AI-assisted editing tools, or machine translation from any language, in any article or draft and must ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright.

A different remedy limiting Immanuelle more completely seems possible in light of the comment above asking whether the proposed remedies already cover all of the editor's contributions, or the possibility that it may become more difficult to determine whether individual edits are machine-assisted, but for my part I would prefer to start with this. Dekimasuよ! 03:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support this one too, with thanks to Dekimasu for taking the time to craft proposals that give the editor a chance to adjust their behavior. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support This addresses the concern I expressed above and I thank Dekimasu for his considered approach to this issue. I would never have caught those errors at PNT. I am so glad for your help with this. Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support They aren’t using those tools with appropriate care. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, though not sure how enforceable it is. Poorly checked LLM/MT output is not constructive. small jars tc 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• In case it was not clear, I support all of the points I've proposed in these subsections. I just did a short check of another article on an unrelated subject, Ḱérberos, and found that Immanuelle had added an "AI lede" which 1) included synthesis not supported by the underlying sources; 2) changed suggested analysis by one cited author into a statement of fact; and 3) employed extensive close paraphrasing bordering on outright copyright violations. There were problems in every one of the sentences labeled as AI contributions. I think the consensus here is clear, but I would appreciate a close from a different uninvolved admin. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support prohibition on AI and machine translation. Immanuelle clearly doesn't have the skills to use the tools, and because their current use of them is disruptive. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support but refer to my comment in the main section above. -sche (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. (Non-administrator comment) I would also suggest that all of the translated articles that have not been significantly improved by other editors be speedy deleted. There are so many PROD, AfD, and draftification notices about these articles already. We lose nothing by deleting articles that were more or less instantly generated, especially the Simple English "translations". We lose a lot of other editors' time if we clean them up or go through deletion discussions. And in the meantime, for all we know these could be full of factual errors that we are now propagating across the internet. Better to just TNT them. -- asilvering (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I also strongly agree with @asilvering's suggestion above for application of WP:TNT. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't followed much of this, but my takes are here: I've stopped translating articles due to issues with it. But also some of the articles have been low quality while others have come out much higher quality. Many of the low quality ones are ones I hadn't done much improvement on since creation. I intend on improving these articles to the standard I hold myself to now. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Please can you point out some examples of articles meeting the standard I hold myself to now? I had a brief look through your created articles, but due to their number it's hard to find examples which the concerns described in this thread don't apply to. Apart from machine translation, do you intend to continue using forms of machine-generated text in your contributions? small jars tc 23:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels Omiki, and Miki (Okinawa) are two such examples of the standard I hold myself to now. I wish to improve my articles to those standards. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels as far as LLMs are concerned, I see them as being able to address what I see as my biggest weakness in editing: not being very good at writing prose myself. I think using them more will actually help mitigate many of the issues of incomprehensibility I've had before. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If the consensus is that you shouldn't be using those tools anymore, would you be able to switch to writing articles that use awkward prose but are otherwise well-researched and verifiable, and then just tagging them for human cleanup? small jars tc 10:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support this and the above remedies. I commented on the SPI about this editor recently. My position was that their use of multiple accounts in isolation wasn't enough to justify sanctions, but that there are broader conduct issues that should be addressed at another venue such as ANI. I share the concerns raised above about machine translation and use of AI, and I don't find Immanuelle's statement about "the standard I hold myself to now" convincing considering that they were adding factually incorrect AI-generated content to articles as recently as this Monday (see the example above about Draft:Confucian Shinto). There have been other instances of poor behaviour. For example, after Onel5969 draftified some of Immanuelle's articles, they indiscriminately reverted dozens of Onel's draftifications in what appears to be retaliation [82]. Frankly, I'm not convinced that specific restrictions on machine translation and AI usage are enforceable, and I question whether this user's approach to editing is broadly compatible with the project. However, I support these restrictions as a start. Also support WP:TNT deletion of machine-translated articles that have not been improved by others. Spicy (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• The WP:TNT issue is worth sorting out, even if it is done after consensus for editing restrictions have been found. I regret that the time of several editors is being taken up by issues like this. Sure, that has been improved to be a more accurate translation, but I'm not sure it means it should be kept (see my more detailed comments on the article below). Sorting through things is going to take a long time, and I'm not sure who is going to have the energy to do it. Dekimasuよ! 04:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support all of the above. Would just like to mention that this editor has recently (within the last 2 months or so) switched from Japanese articles to Indian (particularly Metei) articles.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Onel5969 I did and have not translated a single thing from Meitei. They are all articles from simple English wikipedia that I found abnormal for their absence on English wikipedia. None were originally in Meitei, but one was flagged as a rough translation, likely as the original author had English as their second language Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Immanuelle started the article Echizen dynasty on March 7, writing in the edit summary "Created by translating the page '越前王朝'". That's an article from Japanese published directly to the mainspace three days after writing that there would be no further translations from Asian languages, and while this thread was open. The theory is cited to the work of a single historian, and while the historian himself is a relatively reasonable source, the theory itself probably qualifies as WP:FRINGE and has only about 70 total Google hits in Japanese aside from Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Harima dynasty has the same issues, and was created the same day. Kawachi dynasty was also created the same day, and is much longer (because the Japanese page is longer) but precisely because of that the translation needs more work and I doubt that one meets our standards for inclusion either. This is a continued focus on Japanese prehistory which it is hard to characterize as a net positive for our coverage. I continue to hope for a close here soon so that measures can begin to be taken because the problem is continuing to expand. Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Dekimasu actually those articles are just almost exactly a year old. I would be perfectly fine with their deletion. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry for my mistake. It is true that you were editing your year-old article today, not adding a new one. Thank you for responding to my error in a civil way, and for replying to the threads here. It would be helpful to have your response to the more recent Confucian Shinto issues, which are similar to issues that have been raised in the cases of other articles. Dekimasuよ! 06:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Dekimasu I don't see that has having really been an issue at all. I used an LLM to generate a draft, then verified the sources, and removed everything I couldn't find a source for, except for two claims which I thought looked good enough that they could be citation neededs. I have since removed both claims, one of which was false, the other which is probably true but is vague enough finding a source is not likely.

  If I understand the policy of Wikipedia:Large language models correctly, you are allowed to use them as long as you do not put them uncritically into articles and always declare your use. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  First off, that’s a draft policy, not official, though I fully support it. Second, the cautions about using it are much stronger than what you expressed. For example Editors should have enough familiarity with the subject matter to recognize when an LLM is providing false information, and it appears you do not meet that level of subject expertise in the example you gave above. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

FleurDeOdile Cross-wiki edit warring

An outcome was reached for a new track map color scheme in order to provide MOS:ACCESSibility for the color blind users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC after having a long discussion that took multiple months. FleurDeOdile reverted image changes three times on Wikipedia [83] [84] and [85]. After being warned that he was at 3RR by Jasper Deng [86] and given a followup reminder by MarioJump83 [87], he then proceeded to take it to commons to avoid breaking the 3RR here. He continued edit warring there by nominating three maps with the new scheme for deletion with no valid rationale. Here [88] [89] [90], he simply called the images "useless duplicates". This behavior is also present in edit summaries where he reverted edits on EN-WP as "useless" during the past few months. Further attesting to the bad faith in these nominations is the fact that he openly accused a participant of canvassing in the discussion on commons and in the priorly linked discussion on WP for the colors here while there is no evidence of canvassing having taken place. Someone else even mentioned that they were notified via the notice at Cyclone Freddy's talk page. Given the fact that multiple blocks have occurred due to this behavior and the fact that there have been AN/I threads in the past related to it, I am bringing this here. There is a right way to go about handling discussion outcomes you disagree with, however, I don't believe that occurred here. Noah^Talk 03:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Given this is a cross-wiki issue, there is a sister discussion at Commons. Noah^Talk 04:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It is important to remember that WikiProjects do not, and should not, form a local "consensus" in the way that was discussed from here & WP:ARBWPTC, unless it is done appropriately through WP:RfC process, which is the case for colors RfC. Personally, I believe that a TBAN from weather-related topics should suffice, as it doesn't seem that FDO behaved disruptively outside weather-related topics AFAIK, but cross-wiki disruption and implied off-wiki coordination is something that should be looked at. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

first of all, you never asked me for my input in all of the RfCs, you never consulted actual colorblind people for it, you seemingly struck down a better proposal that was better than the current one for no good reason, then proceeded to ignore other better proposals. and now other language wikis might never change to the current color schemes because of how dead they are. it's just a mess that should have never been started. FleurDeOdile 05:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You were asked for feedback during the proposal phase in this notice, which was sent out to the entire project. We started an official RfC months later when it came time to actually make a decision and posted notices at every weather project page. You were given sufficient notice and there was sufficient time to participate in these discussions that were ongoing from September until just around a week or so ago. Any further notifications to you or others would have been inappropriate. I would highly suggest you examine your own behavior rather than coming here and blaming others for it. Noah^Talk 05:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone has to participate in the RfC, including myself. I mostly didn't participate in the RfC for two years as far as I could know and I just got recently involved in the discussions, shortly after I reminded you. During all of these times, I didn't get a notification asking for input in the RfC as I'm no longer a member of WikiProject Weather. Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:POINT, WP:CANVASSING and WP:OWN in full as these are relevant. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@FleurDeOdile: On top of the above, you also have failed to address your edit warring and behavior, and instead still insist on pointing fingers at others. If we do not see evidence that you will change your behavior, sanctions will be necessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

guess i'll surrender... FleurDeOdile 00:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You are allowed to disagree with people. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about disagreements. The issue is you are not acknowledging your behavior as being wrong and working to correct it. Noah^Talk 04:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you actually work to improve your behavior, and more importantly, being actively responsive, including responding to your user talk page? I have doubts that you would, as has been for several years, and it appears that you may have never looked to your user talk page at all, based on your statements above (WP:CIR?). To be frank, including the fact that you haven't really changed your behavior since the last TBAN discussion from two years ago, which is not enacted as a result of canvassing, this is where I would say definitely that I support TBAN from weather-related topics, as broadly construed. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As much as I feel the points being made about Fleur's conduct are valid, this has the unpleasant connotation of a pile-on, particularly the fact that WP:WPTC members are calling for someone to be topic-banned from all weather topics broadly construed. That makes me very uncomfortable. I don't know why I feel that way, but I do think it would be useful to have uninvolved admins or editors making that call based on the above conduct. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No comment currently on the present situation; i am very concerned, however, by the behaviour of some editors here. First, as WaltCip says, this feels like a pile-on by members of the involved Project. Second, "the last TBAN discussion" referenced above (courtesy link) was not at all unsuccessful because of canvassing; read the closing statement by Wugapodes ~ there is no mention of canvassing there, simply an acknowledgement that there was no consensus for a ban. I consider the remarks made above to be in bad faith, at best, and an attempt at poisoning the well at worst. Third, as i say, i am not opining on the current request and accusations, but i have very clear memories of two previous attempts by members of a weather project to silence FleurDeOdile, fortunately both were unsuccessful, and i am tempted to assume that this is more of the same. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@LindsayH: The second discussion was canvassed by being linked to and mentioned off-wiki. That was part of the matter that went to ARBCOM where two editors ended up indefinitely topic banned from weather articles due to canvassing and procedures were adopted in Discord to prevent future canvassing. I think that had a lot to do with people ganging up on Fleur during the first two discussions. Noah^Talk 20:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I rescinded the TBAN call and striked my reply as I realized it was far too harsh. I'm leaving this call for an actually uninvolved editor or admin, but I had to say that I am no longer a member of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones and I do not plan to rejoin that project again. I still only got involved in the project on some rare occasions. I'm going to stay out of this discussion as I may have inflamed things. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Could an uninvolved editor please close this? I have filed an arbitration case due to the nature of evidence I have of off-wiki canvassing. Noah^Talk 03:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Neddo23.nr

Neddo23.nr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the article Transfiguration of Jesus, this user wrote that the event is "mythological" here, here and here. I'm not saying such religious beliefs should be considered to be true; however, the added content is unsourced and POV. I tried discussing this with them but they stated "It is mythological" and "If it’s not proven as fact by evidence, it is mythological by deduction.", which is a violation of WP:SYNTH. They do not at all seem open to discussion. Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you attempted dispute resolution? This board should be the last place to go, and we only address conduct issues here, we don't settle disputes. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

They don't seem to have even a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies, like WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:Citing sources. I'm don't know what to discuss with them. I was simply patrolling recent changes and I saw an unsourced statement, and I found out they wouldn't accept my explanations. That's all. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've pageblocked them in resposne to the AN3 complaint, so they can learn about the relevant policies. Also, this is edging into the historicity of Jesus topic area. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Was the historicity of Jesus ever subject to discretionary sanctions? I know that it has been a contentious topic in the usual sense, but I thought that it had never been defined to be a contentious topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't see anything in the logs or what I can find of expired sanctions. Jesus has been semi protected by various admins repeatedly and often since 2005 with vandalism as the primary reason, no mention of community action/sanction. Historicity of Jesus seems to have a few short protections and Transfiguration of Jesus has never required admin action.Slywriter (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I had somehow gotten the impression that there had been some kind of sanctions regime concerning the historicity of Jesus, but I can’t find anything either. Not sure how I formed that idea, maybe there was a long-ago kerfuffel that never made it to arbitration, or was a thread on the drama boards. Acroterion (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion: it did make it to arbitration Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus but DS wasn't a remedy and received very little support Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Proposed decision#Discretionary Sanctions. A single editor remains topic banned although was apparently already community topic banned before that anyway and has been fairly inactive since 2018 (and wasn't really that active even then). Theoretically pseudoscience may cover some aspects of historicity, even more of the transfiguration; but since it's only pseudoscience and fringe science rather than generic fringe theories, only in a very limited fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

More bludgeoning at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh

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

---

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh § Oppose
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aoidh § Chess' oppose

Since the previous post here on "WP:ANI#Abuse of power by the admin Maile66", more bludgeoning has occurred at said RfA. More specifically, the administrator Tamzin kept accusing me of deliberately attempting to troll/disrupt the discussion [91] [92] [93] [94] and the user Nythar keeps implying that the only reason for my oppose is spite based on the aforementioned ANI thread. [95] [96] I don't believe that being a wikt:contrarian is disruptive and I would like to see a warning from an uninvolved administrator that bludgeoning the opposition like this is unacceptable, mainly so that this doesn't happen a third time. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

All five comments I've made have been in response to pings, three of them from you. (You've made eight comments in that thread, if we're keeping score.) I accused you of disrupting/trolling because you were. You even admit in one reply that you often troll discussions (a remarkable admission that perhaps bears further scrutiny). If I and others have stopped taking you seriously because of your history of trolling, you have only yourself to blame. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I love trolling discussions on places where it doesn't matter (internet forums, reddit, my userbox User:Chess/based claiming I don't understand what being "based" is, or putting trouts under "awards" on my userpage) but I wasn't trolling at that RfA nor have I at previous RfAs or Wikipedia discussions. That is what I said in my response, which is that I genuinely believe in what I said. If you were offended because I sarcastically referenced your pseudo-support, I could've easily removed your name from my vote had you asked (I offered to do so, and that offer is still on the table). Otherwise, you offered no evidence or claims for your assertion that I'm disrupting Wikipedia.

The reason why I reply-pinged you is because you told me that my oppose reasons were bottom of the barrel, and so I asked Do you have any specific points on why my reasons to oppose are "bottom of the barrel"?. Your response was that to refute any part of your vote would require it to contain a single coherent point capable of refutation. When a third party told you that this seems to be on the edge of breaking the 4th pillar, you double down and flat-out accused me of trolling. At no point did you even attempt to refute any part of my oppose vote, despite people asking you to give any kind of feedback. You just resorted to accusing me of being disruptive (and still are) despite not providing a single diff to support your assertion. This is a textbook case of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe.

This idea that your behaviour was justified because you were "calling a spade a spade" is illogical. There are literally hundreds of ANI threads full of people complaining that their incivility block was unjustified because they were "telling it like it is". You can't accuse me of disruptive editing without any diffs, and I really dislike that you doubled down on it multiple times after you were warned that your behaviour was unacceptable. All I want here is a warning/acknowledgement that your behaviour broke civility guidelines. An apology would be nice as well, but that has to be freely given. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

One doesn't need to provide a diff for disruptive editing when replying to the disruptive comment. Now, for the second time, stop pinging me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to assert that my vote is disruptive, you should provide a reason. If you think I troll other discussions on Wikipedia, provide diffs of the other discussions that I've trolled. So far, you've cited WP:SPADE, called my points bottom of the barrel, claimed my vote did not contain a single coherent point capable of refutation, complained that you were forced to treat Chess' trolling as legitimate discourse, and said Well, it would start with the part where he opposes per my support (joke-oppose). And continue to... every other word in the comment. To believe that any of that was meant sincerely would be an insult to Chess' intelligence.

The only takeaway I got from you is that my comment was so stupid, that for you to engage with it in WP:Good faith would be accusing me of being an idiot.

If you can't see how that's a flagrant violation of WP:NPA I don't know what else to tell you. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Chess, you literally said in an ANI thread that "Any warm fuzzy feeling potential admins get from their 100% approval score is outweighed by the need to prevent a chilling effect on possible oppose voters." You then !voted to oppose Aoidh's candidacy with one of the most bizarre explanations I've seen. According to you, Aoidh shouldn't be an admin because their regret of having had a dispute with another editor 10 years ago makes them somehow responsible for the editor's later disruption, because they were too weak to pursue the dispute. So, is it Aoidh's fault for what they did in the future? I just pointed out what was obvious: A bizarre !vote preceded by the quote I just linked. However, I didn't say your comment should be stricken or anything like that. I then told you "I don't want to get into an argument with you since you're a generally a fine editor". I don't want a battleground. You also accused me of bludgeoning after I had replied only twice in the RfA. You also added, "Tamzin bludgeoned me, and now you are emboldened to be more aggressive", which is not true; I wasn't aggressive at all there. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If we want to go into the weeds here, I opposed because their takeaway was that they had "thin skin", not that the other editor had a problematic attitude. The candidate had a right to be offended at being insulted, and the idea that editors should ignore/tolerate insults by getting a "thick skin" is something I disagree with (which is why I opened this ANI thread). Other editors at the discussion were able to see this point, even if they didn't like my oppose vote.

It's strange that you said "I don't want to get into an argument with you since you're generally a fine editor" after saying I know why you're doing this. You are convinced that the editors replying to the oppose votes want 100% of the !vote to be "support", so you're "fighting" this by opposing this candidacy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I was able to reasonably see beyond the point you were making at RfA, back to the conversation we were having at ANI. You were so vehemently against the idea that editors would respond to oppose !votes: "This is absolutely about getting 100% support for Synotia" (you meant Aoidh) and "their 100% approval score is outweighed by the need to prevent a chilling effect on possible oppose voters". You then !voted to oppose only 30 minutes later. It was reasonable for me to suspect that you !voted to make some sort of statement. And anyway I didn't ask for your vote to be stricken, didn't ask for sanctions, and didn't want to get into an argument. You're the one escalating. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As is usual for RfA oppose drama, everyone sucks here. Chess's oppose is an absolute dumpster fire of a rationale, and people responding to it are feeding the flames so that they can get their boot in. Y'all go back to your corners, and let's chalk this up as an L for everyone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In my view majority of the blame lies with the one who started the fire, even if others did fan the flames. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you and Lepricavark below on that; the !vote was that bad. Not sure how helpful weighing out the precise levels of blame is at this stage, purely for the purpose of reducing drama, but I do take your point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Writ Keeper that there is no point in feeding the flames by arguing with this type of oppose rationale, but I'd place greater responsibility on the shoulders of the the OP. Whether the !vote rationale was intentional trolling or not, it was so flawed that it honestly isn't worth the effort to explain why it was flawed. And people have a right to respond, even if it's unlikely to accomplish anything. The diffs cited as evidence by the OP are hardly sufficient to warrant a filing. I'd urge the next uninvolved admin to close this because it isn't going anywhere good. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Just going to say that Tamzin baited this drama to continue rather than responding productively to the substance of what seemed to be a dismissive and snide response after I called them out on it. If Chess' response is that bad, let the crats see it for what it is. What good does calling it "bottom of the barrel" do to help build consensus or clarify anything? It just seems to be incendiary. Crazynas ^t 09:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So, wait, you are an internet troll elsewhere, but just a contrarian on Wikipedia, and in playing said contrarian, you cited someone's support vote that jokingly called the candidate fallible as your reason for opposing. That could be considered trolling on two different levels. You mentioned that voter in doing so, and when when they didn't care for being... contrarianized, they calling your behavior trolling so you took them to ANI? The line between contrarianism and trolling can be pretty thin, it seems, and may just be a matter of perception. This is without getting into the decade-old "you should've known this person would get banned later" rationale. To be clear, Tamzin could've just ignored it (or ignored subsequent responses at some point), but as Lepricavark says just above, I wouldn't say they were the problem here (to the extent there was a problem). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I sincerely believe what I said. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Ayush Suthar - net negative

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

---

Ayush Suthar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Almost all the edits done by them are reverted. They extend from unsourced info to unexplained removals. I don't see any positive edits coming out of them. I believe this is a WP:NOTHERE case — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite block by Vanamonde93 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

TPA revocation needed

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

---

193.39.158.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This school IP has been blocked from editing for 8 years. Please also revoke their TPA. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:SEALIONING at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

This user, who can’t seem to decide whether their name is Bigdan201 or Xcalibur, has been pushing unanimously unpopular fringe takes on Gamergate incessantly, despite repeated warnings against bludgeoning. Evidence:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#Suggestions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#Another_idea
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)&diff=prev&oldid=1139814652
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#insurgency/asymmetrical_conflict

I think this problem has gotten tedious enough to require a topic ban from the article and its talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

On top of this, their talk page also shows a long, LONG history of WP:IDHT on fringe theories. This is extremely problematic and may require an outright block. Dronebogus (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.

As I said, there was no reason for you to prematurely close discussions. It seems like you didn't even read what was said -- I was brainstorming different ideas each time, and the last discussion led to a productive edit (although there was a hangup with the RS). I wasn't "pushing fringe takes": first, I suggested "describing the false claims in more detail", then describing their political views further. As it happens, consensus was against these, and the second point was addressed in the article already. I considered detailing more about the history, but consensus sees that as UNDUE, so I let it stay deleted. My latest brainstorming avoided these issues and moved in the right direction. Discussion would've went fine without this overzealous policing.

As for my talk page, yes, I've had issues before, but since an editor gave me a helpful reality check, I've been trying to improve. IDHT on fringe theories that's not really accurate, though. My disputes were mostly not about FRINGE (although admittedly, I was too stubborn then); the exception is a noticeboard discussion that escalated, and didn't even involve article edits!

I note that your talk page indicates that you have a habit of arbitrarily closing discussions that you don't approve of. This is not helpful, and certainly wasn't in my case -- closing should only be done for lengthy discussions that have run their course, or which are obviously not viable or relevant, neither of which is the case here. This is an overzealous response. Xcalibur (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

discussions that have run their course, or which are obviously not viable or relevant

Those discussions absolutely fit these criteria, and the fact you cannot see that makes it very clear you need to step away from the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is another example of Bigdan201/Xcalibur proposing the same false balance stuff from back in 2020, and not getting anywhere then, either. At this point it does look like they need some help staying away from this topic. A topic ban would be appropriate in my opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

there was a significant time gap, and once the consensus was clear, I accepted it. Still not seeing any validity to claims of false balance or bludgeoning. BTW, I believe sealioning involves intrusion, especially by following ppl to other areas and platforms; not trying things out on a relevant talk page. Xcalibur (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Bigdan201 - are you aware that this topic falls under the WP:CTOP rules? If not, I will post a notification about it on your talk page so that you have the relevant guidance. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a 2018 notice from the DS era on their user talk, and a modern one from last month here MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I see that Doug Weller notified him in February. WP:AE might be a better venue for this complaint. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe sealioning involves intrusion - dude, are you honestly sealioning a discussion about whether you're sealioning? --130.111.39.47 (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

😲 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am learning towards thinking Bigdan201 needs an topic ban from the gender and sexuality topic area under the contentious topics procedure. Courcelles (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Did not want to be the first to say it, but Support topic ban from the gender and sexuality {contentious topics)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• I think a topic ban is actually too weak, IMO this [97] appears to indicate that they see themselves as a soldier and this as a war. That would be clear WP:NOTHERE and should result in separation from the project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Asymmetrical warfare? On an encyclopedia? Gag me with a spoon! No objection to WP:site ban. Look, "all we are saying, is give peace a chance." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd support a topic ban at minimum, and a site ban would seem appropriate for comments like JK Rowling receiving threats/harassment/stalking just for publicly disagreeing with trans.. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide a diff for that, so we can see the comment in context? I mean, it's poorly phrased, but JK Rowling has received harassment for her public comments in that topic area. I don't think we should be automatically jumping to a site ban based on a comment like that. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's in the diff Horse Eye's Black provided above. Simply describing transphobia as "disagreeing with trans" is ... well, "yikes" is the best way I can put it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  That context helps, thank you. Certainly, that was a very strange line of argument. At the same time, nowhere does our article say that her views are transphobic in Wikipedia's voice - just that they have been described as that by various commentators. I'm not saying that I agree with Rowling's views, but I don't think that we can start site-banning people for failing to call them transphobic. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No opinion on the site ban, but I have topic banned for a year as an AE action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If I may respond here: yes, I'm aware that it's a contentious topic, obviously. I thought I was behaving myself, just brainstorming to get a feel for consensus, then moving ahead to edit. It was Dronebogus who was completely overzealous in closing topics IMO. I see that a fair discussion is not to be had here. I hope those who prosecuted me here actually read my comments instead of jumping to conclusions, eg the asymmetrical topic was about the structure and operation of the movement, not editing itself, as you seem to believe, and it led to a productive edit (we have an article on the topic, btw). "yikes" I was trying to be fair & neutral instead of condemning wrongthink. Lastly, I won't get baited by that IP. I guess this is what passes for fairness? Xcalibur (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll just be blunt: Wikipedia does not work on fairness. Like academia, ideas are questioned, criticized, and sometimes attacked. We operate on what reliable sources say, and neutrality is based on those sources, not "balance" towards the subject in question. While we assume good faith in other editors by default, that doesn't mean editing choices are treated "fairly." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I've acknowledged that controversial topics can't be a pro/anti split, but follow the RS. I was referring mainly to the deliberation/discussion here. For reference, my posts led to this edit [98], which has been ironed out to [99]. I would tweak the wording further, but now I'm not allowed. I'm trying to say that the thread closures, and this ban, are a disproportionate response. Xcalibur (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The thread closures were absolutely appropriate, and the ban is because you kept insisting on reopening them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess that's the key issue, then. I thought it was justified, since I kept trying new ideas, but at this point, other editors are too riled up for me to work productively there. This felt like a kangaroo court, especially with editors grossly misunderstanding my point about asymmetrical/insurgency -- I was referring to Gamergate, not editing wiki! I thought Dronebogus went too far, but consensus says that I went too far instead, so I'll have to accept that. Xcalibur (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Formal vote on topic ban and block

I think Bigdan/Xcalibur’s behavior has gone far enough. They have been warned countless times that their fringe sealioning antics are unacceptable and responded every time with variations “okay, I’ll work on it” that obviously were not taken seriously. I propose a topic ban from sexuality and gender, a topic ban from fringe theories, and an indefinite block from the wiki. Dronebogus (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

An admin has already issued a topic ban for GENSEX, and I accept that judgment. There is no reason to keep escalating this into disproportionate penalties. Again, I have in fact made an effort to be less stubborn/experimental, and my only FRINGE issues were in a discussion away from article space. The troublesome edits in this case were because I thought your thread closures were excessive, but consensus is against me. Anyway, since an admin has already made a ruling (topic ban, not sitewide), I request that this matter be closed and not pursued. Xcalibur (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep insisting that you’ll improve your behavior but then just move on to some other topic to continue it. You have officially exhausted the community’s patience. Dronebogus (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The community has spoken, with a topic ban: [100][101] and then, hours later, you posted this thread [102]. A decision was already made, so while your earlier actions may have been justified, this is veering into BATTLEGROUND territory. Also, while I caught it quickly (since I was lurking), you did not notify me of this escalation, as you should have. Overall, this motion should be closed for being excessive & redundant. Xcalibur (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus Failing to adhere WP:AGF is a casus of block. I strongly urge you to strike your comment. 95.12.113.130 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

See also Don't link to WP:AGF. Bishonen | tålk 23:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC).

I don't think this is quite true; let's say, arguendo, that I see a comment and think to myself "that editor is a gaslighting jerk." I stew about it all day and harbor horrible thoughts. I can be blocked for that? Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Dronebogus Andre🚐 01:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

support this remedy. lettherebedarklight晚安 04:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Admins vandalizing the ZeroNet article

Some WikiPedia administrators literally vandalized the ZeroNet article, spreading malware and fraudulent cryptocurrency scammer versions of another software on it. Authors of other "forks" have repeatedly vandalized the ZeroNet article. The multiple requests to protect the page were manually removed without discussion. I request that the article be immediately locked at the highest level of security possible.

Please secure the article with the following recent edits, which restore the original article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZeroNet&oldid=1143408236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.91.162 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You've been rather unclear about which links might be scam/malware (I've asked you twice elsewhere). Some of the content you removed was clearly not a scam, and seems to have been done so for political reasons (based on older talk page messages by 5.143.55.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - I presume this is also you). Nonetheless, I've removed all but two of the external links - the original official website (which also shows up highest on a Google search) and the page's GitHub. If you have reason to believe anything else is malicious, you need to be clear which links and why. — Czello 15:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The article had a bunch of external URLs in the body, I've removed them per WP:EL. Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I can see these all linked to the official GitHub and so shouldn't be malicious - but fair point on WP:EL. — Czello 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• No, Wikipedia administrators did not vandalize the page in question. The article is subsequently undergoing an overall to remove content that was vexatious.. A little WP:AGF would have gone a long way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2023-03-07 (UTC)

Vandalism has a specific definition on Wikipedia; it is defined as deliberate attempts to damage the encyclopedia. Notably, it does not apply to edits made in good faith, such as those restorations of content. Accusing other editors of vandalism is a serious breach of assumption of good faith, and could be interpreted as a personal attack. Also, please ensure that you provide specific diffs of actual "malicious" links, including a clear explanation as to why. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It's all cleared out, now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Pervezmusk. (talk · contribs)

This user is using factually wrong information on the infobox of Golden Horde, and edit warring. He says [103] Please do not delete my editing please discuss before deleting my edit however he doesn't even reply to the talk page. His only talk contribution was [104] Please do not delete my editing please discuss before deleting my edit on Talk:Ilkhanate without a reasoning. Beshogur (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This user seems to be making arbitrary and often unsubstantiated changed. Qiushufang (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks, canvassing and wikihounding by Wes sideman

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

---

Wes sideman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wes sideman was apparently antagonized by some of the edits I made on the page Libs of TikTok. This user has now:

• Repeatedly accused me of nefarious motives for this edit I made
• Canvassed a user to discuss a talk page section I created
• Canvassed another user to discuss reverting a different one of my edits
• Followed me to Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, to criticize me there
• Followed me to the article Barry Loudermilk, to revert my edit; then, after I made a compromise edit that resolved their stated objection, reverted my edit again

By the way, here's a glib response they made to someone else on the Libs of TikTok talk page, so maybe I should take heart that it's not just me.

Anyway, this seems to be a clear pattern of abuse, and I hope some sort of action results. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There's ample evidence that Korny is purely editing to either remove negative information from articles about right-wing people and organizations, or to soften the impact of such negative information. To me, this is the very definition of POV editing, and I'm certainly not the only one to notice it. The evidence can be found in their contributions page, and the evidence of others noticing it can be found in all the talk pages of articles where Korny's changes are discussed. Invariably, consensus agrees that his changes are unwarranted, and some have even commented on it, like @Zaathras: in this comment. There's no hounding - just took a look at their edits to other articles and noticed a pattern. Not much else to say. Wes sideman (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"There's ample evidence that Korny is purely editing to either remove negative information from articles about right-wing people and organizations, or to soften the impact of such negative information."

That is completely in character for him and I would support a boomerrang if you want to pursue it. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:BC6F:265C:C696:3D1E (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:1AM situation there at first glance. You get reverted a lot, argue a lot, and the cycle repeats. ValarianB (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That's somewhat, but not entirely true (I've been able to make a lot of changes to the Libs of TikTok page), but anyway it seems irrelevant to this discussion, unless personal attacks and wikihounding are now an accepted way to deal with disputes. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Of note, this is not the first time Korny O'Near has become a problem on this article.

This is part of a repeated pattern of pushing anti-LGBT beliefs, arguing in support of race-based intelligence, and generally polite-POV pushing in favor of far-right rhetoric.

For full disclosure, Korny previously brought me to ANI for pointing this out (and I admit I was unfortunately less-than-polite when doing so). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is also this edit-war currently happening. Korny is attempting to remove the category anti-drag sentiment from a page about a mass shooting that targeted a queer bar which was hosting a drag show at the time of the massacre. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Good freaking grief. Those edits are what you claim to be repeated accusations of nefarious motives?!? I will be a great deal more explicit than Wes sideman seemingly got: either you really do have nefarious motives, or you are deliberately insulting our intelligence, or your notion of what constitutes personal attacks requires major recalibration. Ravenswing 21:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That's Korny's MO: make deliberately provocative comments, then cry foul when people get understandably mad. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

These are some odd responses. What are the deliberately provocative comments I made? And do you think those justify canvassing and wikihounding (both forbidden, last time I checked)? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh come off it. We've done this dance before, I'm not indulging in your sealioning. And you know damn well how WP:BOOMERANG works. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The diffs you provide do not appear to substantiate your claim of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Shells-shells (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This user followed me to two separate pages, to revert and/or insult me. That's literally the entire definition of wikihounding... Korny O'Near (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You tried that argument against me, too. It backfired then, as well, because I was editing those pages before you were. I'd have thought you'd learned after that, but here you are attempting the exact same tactic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I never accused you of wikihounding. (There are plenty of other things I could accuse you of, of course.) Korny O'Near (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you called it "harassment." Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Your rhetorical games are not as clever as you think. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because you were harassing me. Much like you are now, BTW. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, pointing out your behavior on an ANI you initiated is "harassment." That's not going to work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. In my view, it is plausible that Wes sideman had an overridingly constructive reason. Shells-shells (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd love to see the argument that there was anything constructive, let alone overridingly so, about reverting an entire edit because of one word it contained. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on just a casual reading of the talk page, I agree that Korny comes across as a lot more tendentious than Wes does. When the talk page is almost entirely one editor arguing against every other editor, that's a suspicious sign at the very least.

Looking at a user interaction history, I don't see a lot of evidence of hounding, but I do notice, again, that Korny edits Libs of Tiktok a lot. Which I also regard as a suspicious sign. Loki (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If Wes sideman really did follow Korny O'Near to a new article to say, "Just dropping in to confirm that the description of Korny is mostly correct, and it is, in fact, relevant; when the history of one's edits all go in one very POV direction, it's safe to get past "assume good faith" and move to "this editor has an agenda."" then I can see why Korny felt this was an issue. I don't think it's a sanctionable issue but it certainly fails WP:FOC and isn't in compliance with CIVIL. It would have been better to try to address that on a user talk page. Springee (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Explain to me what part of what I said isn't 100% accurate. Wes sideman (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Were you discussing article content or editor behavior when you confirmed "that description"? Springee (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You have "answered" my question with another question, not an explanation. Explain to me what part of what I said isn't 100% accurate. Wes sideman (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Then you have missed the point. The talk page is for discussing the article, not editors (WP:FOC). You might be right, you might be wrong. I'm not weighing in on that. Going to an article talk page to make accusations against an editor is a problem. Is not the purpose of the talk page. Those actions being on user pages or places like here. Springee (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the 3 claims, I do not think the claim of canvassing has merit as pointed out here. [105] It at most was an innocent mistake and really just normal practice. Regarding hounding, I can see both sides, but personally lean aganist that claim also. If Wes thinks someone like Korny is make disruptive edits (which right or wrong at least a few editors feel he has been) I get the impulse to want to see if they have also done that on other pages (although when some did that to them, Wes implied said user was hounding. [106]) Which gets to Korny's side where I can understand one feeling like someone is hounding them. Furthermore, Wes did not do themselves any favors on the page especially in the second post.[107] Just provide evidence like at the start and move on or you risk people taking your actions the wrong way. Personally, in neither case was a user hounding someone, but I can also understand why a user might still feel that way. Finally, about personal attacks the only one that I think could be one is the comments here [108]. As Springee points out coming back just to say that can easily be seen as such. If this was just one instance, I think just a friendly reminder would be needed, but Wes has on multiple occasions been told/warned not to assume bad faith and to be more civil in discussions[109]. Even if they think that Korny was POV-pushing or acting in bad faith they should have known better than to imply that since it only weakens their case. I do not think their actions here alone are enough for a sanction, but if people think it is I'll defer to them. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:GENSEX topic ban for Korny O'Near, broadly construed

I feel like enough is enough. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. This behavior is incessantly disruptive and a massive time sink for everyone in the topic area.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• My intuition as someone who edits in WP:GENSEX is that if a topic ban is appropriate, it would be in American politics, not GENSEX. I don't see Korny much in GENSEX articles except where the article has something to do with American conservatism. I suspect that to the extent that Korny is pushing a POV, it's a more general defense of conservative figures, not anything specific to GENSEX. Loki (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Frankly, Korny's support for far-right talking points would have me supporting a WP:NOTHERE block from the site. Their edits encompass apologia for racism, anti-LGBT topics, and generally anything anti-leftist (ie. this edit to WP:NONAZIS calling for the blocking of all users with "Communist" userboxes), which would be... a lot of topic bans. While I don't think GENSEX is enough of a topic to stop their disruption, American politics wouldn't really encompass it either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good lord - I was making a rhetorical point, to the effect that no one should be blocked from Wikipedia based on their political views. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  In support of Nazis. Great choice, that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think controversial editing/views justifies NOTHERE. Anything can be taken too far, but we also shouldn't abuse permabans to punish wrongthink. For example, I disagree with allowing NSDAP/Confederate/etc userboxes, because it's inflammatory; but I disagree on banning someone just for seeing it differently. It's true, there is a double standard when it comes to fascist vs communist atrocities, but the main concern is keeping things civil, and not being too provocative. Anyway, I do not sign off on this, sometimes warnings/second chances are preferred. Xcalibur (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  What a bad take. — Czello 11:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  @HandThatFeeds: Thinking more about this comment, and I think this is a borderline personal attack that you should strike. — Czello 12:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see him "supporting" Nazis or Nazism. -- Veggies (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  In the edit that Hand is referring to, Korny makes the argument that Communists should also be blocked, just like Nazis, from editing Wikipedia. He says he's being rhetorical (I believe he means "ironic"), to make the point that no one should be blocked - even Nazis. Which is actually worse. Wes sideman (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Once again: I don't see him "supporting" Nazis or Nazism. Just because you oppose a flat-out ban on people or point out what you think is a "double standard", it doesn't mean you support either underlying philosophy. If I disagree with someone being fired from their job for being a racist, it doesn't mean I support racism. -- Veggies (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  +1 — Czello 18:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. That rhetorical point is absolutely made in support of allowing avowed Nazis to edit Wikipedia. They're going for a slippery-slope fallacy argument and, in doing so, defend people who would absolutely use Wikipedia as a battleground for race-based ideological editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps you would support a new guideline called NONONONAZIS, stating that anyone who disagrees with the essay WP:NONAZIS is banned. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  What a childishly petulant response. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  HandThatFeeds: I strongly advise against this line of argument. You said that an editor should be blocked on the grounds of extremism, and then in the very next sentence you condemned them because they called for blocking of editors on the grounds of extremism. Besides the fact that you just did the same thing you're accusing them of, arguments like this water down what would otherwise be a pretty solid case against an editor's behavior (criticizing extremist behavior is hardly a policy violation in and of itself). WP:HID is more than enough of a justification for a ban to prevent further disruption. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think Hand is making the argument that you think he's making. Korny said he was making a "rhetorical point" because he doesn't think Nazis should be banned from editing. In other words, no matter how vile someone is (self-avowed Nazi is pretty vile), he thinks they should be allowed to edit. I agree with Hand that Korny is strongly for far-right POV, as evidenced by their edit history, and WP:NOTHERE may apply, although I fall short of calling for a complete block. I think a topic ban from GENSEX and AP would be sufficient. Wes sideman (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  You completely misunderstood my point, which Wes has succinctly summarized. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I can't speak for the rest of Korny's editing, but raising concerns about WP:NONAZIS (which is an essay, not a policy or guideline) is not only not uncommon, but also does not mean one wants Nazis to be here, nor does mean one is taking far-right talking points. It is not actionable (nor should it be), and should not be considered when discussing a TBAN. — Czello 16:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Update: after looking through his recent edits, while Korny does make edits to pages on conservative figures that are clearly informed by a conservative POV, I don't really think he's been acting tendentiously enough for a ban except for his interactions on Libs of Tiktok, where he has clearly been in a very tendentious WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY battle for many months to remove negative coverage past both the absolute upper limit of the sources and the patience of every other editor on the talk page. Therefore, at a minimum, I support an indefinite page ban from Libs of Tiktok. (I also think that his editing on topics that touch on GENSEX really is more problematic than his editing about just ordinary conservative figures outside of GENSEX.) Loki (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Can someone explain and produce the evidence that such a tban is needed. This section is lacking substance at this time. Springee (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

As ScottishFinnishRadish seems to have protected the page Libs of Tiktok from disruption caused by Korny, and also has temporarily page-blocked Korny, I feel like they're best suited for giving a description of Korny's disruptive behavior on that page. Loki (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I blocked them for slow edit warring, which continued after a warning and full page protection. The reverting back and forth while just staying clear of strict 1RR violations isn't just a problem with Korny at that page, but their behavior is the most disruptive. As an example of the slow edit warring, discussion Jan 30-31 with no consensus for their edit, Jan 31, Feb 5, warning on their talk page Feb 15, warning at article talk Feb 23, March 3, March 5, restarts discussion March 6th. Claiming consensus for the removal in their edit on Jan 31 based on a discussion where one other editor out of four supported their position is not good, then continuing to intermittently revert for a month and a half is not good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Evidently this is really the heart of the matter - I felt like the numbers were on my side on the "Satanism" issue, so I made a number of reverts based on that. Reading it over now, it looks like I misread Dumuzid's final comment ("happy to go where consensus leads") as indicating that he had changed his mind, which would have given my view a 3-2 majority; instead, I was actually in a 2-3 minority. My apologies. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by a headcount. Especially on an article with 1RR in place. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 20:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Support both GENSEX and all politics I’ve had to hat multiple threads by this user at LoTT because they’re fond of dragging out discussions with lengthy back-and-forths over some tedious disagreement with another user. They are incapable of dropping the WP:STICK with this topic. Dronebogus (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support GENSEX tban and support Libs of Tiktok main&talk pban. I have my concerns about how long WP:CPUSH is generally allowed to go on, but even that alone isn't enough to get me to support a tban. What convinced me is that some of their comments would easily be a WP:HID indef under slightly different circumstances. A tban should have been applied a long time ago, and it's generous given the severity here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from GENSEX and AP2, as well as pban from LOTT's mainspace and talk pages. To me, a user who pushes a right-wing POV on an article about such a controversial figure as LOTT shouldn't be here at all, but a TBAN seems like a good step. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support GENSEX and AP tban, and indef ban from LoTT. Their editing is disruptive at its best. They continuously push fringe ideas and raise trifling procedural points using ill-founded reasoning that often goes against the most basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support tban from LoTT, GENSEX and American politics generally. I am not remotely impressed by what I'm seeing from Korny, a hallmark of the extremist right: just keep on repeating the same old dog whistles (Insults! Canvass! Wikihounding! Insults! Canvass! Wikihounding!), devoid of any genuine evidence, and expect that the noise will drown out any other voices. I stand by my statement uptopic that Korny is either deliberately insulting our intelligence, doesn't comprehend what constitutes "personal attacks" or "canvassing," or is just generally NOTHERE. A newbie exhibiting such behavior would be lucky to escape indeffing. In an editor of Korny's longevity and edit count, there is no excuse. Ravenswing 07:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Poor nomination A tban might be warranted, but I would expect any suggestion of a tban to involve diffs to evidence problematic behavior. Again, this is in no way a defense of a user I don't know (and who may well deserve a tban), but a proposal to tban anyone without providing any other argument than "enough is enough" is rather lazy. How are uninvolved users supposed to know whether a tban is merited or not. Jeppiz (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is it lazier than not looking at their edit history in the specified topic areas? Because that should be all it takes for anyone uninvolved to realize that Korny deserves a tban. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• A lot lazier, yes. There is literally an instruction in place at ANI to include diffs of problematic behavior in any report. And Korny might very well deserve a tban, I am in no way defending them. Are you really suggesting from now on nominations for tbans should be limited to saying "I want User X tbanned. Go check for evidence yourselves". There's a reason WP asks for inclusion of diffs, and has done so for over a decade. Jeppiz (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You want diffs? Here you go. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that as blockable in any way. I disagree with it, certainly, but do not think users should be tbanned for having different views. Jeppiz (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that substantial evidence of a long term issue had not been presented. The singular diff presented above is not sufficient. Springee (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  How about every single edit they’ve made on LoTT? Or any of the other diffs cited so far? Dronebogus (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  If that is the case it should be easy to present the diffs with a short explain if the issues. Springee (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee I've provided more difs below, no pressure to change your vote, just letting you know Googleguy007 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I looked over the diffs. Most seem like normal content discussions. I don't see any issues n those diffs that would warrant a GENSEX or AP Tban. If there was edit warring at LoTT then that can be an article specific restriction. If you would like a more specific reply I can provide it later. Springee (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support broad tban from GENSEX and AP. Nothing this editor has added to these areas indicates they are a constructive contributor and nothing they have stated indicates this will change.  // Timothy :: talk  11:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that substantial evidence of a long term issue had not been presented per Springee and Jeppiz. A more limited measure might be in order, but the penalty proposed is disproportionate to any evidence shown above. Pincrete (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for lack of evidence. Despite several of us asking for some proofs of disruptive behavior, no diffs have been provided. By presumption of innocence, I'm forced to oppose any tban. If evidence of actual disruptions are presented, I could very well change my opinion, but this far there seems to be nothing apart from users saying 'Korny holds opinion I dislike'. I agree with them, I have seen Korny express opinions I don't like either. But last time I checked, holding different opinions was still allowed. I encourage those who support a tban to present evidence of problematic behavior; in the meantime, I see no grounds for a tban presented here. Jeppiz (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  @JeppizI've provided more difs below, no pressure to change your vote, but I figured I should let you know Googleguy007 (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for almost no evidence. Some of the comments mention conservative views? This is not a right or left liberal or conservative encyclopedia, it's an encyclopedia which is supposed to be fair and neutral. If we are to officially exile conservatives then that should be a policy. If not then this discussion should be immediately closed with an apology given to Korny. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: where's the WP:AE filing for a contentious topic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I sympathize with the above support rationales, but as others mentioned, there is a lack of a nexus between claims of disruptive behavior and evidence thereof. As much as we hold viewpoint essays such as WP:NONAZIS in high esteem and use it to drive our editing philosophy, "We don't like him" isn't a valid rationale to TBAN, and it should never be.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - well, this took a weird, Kafkaesque turn, where the actual evidence I present is dismissed as "dog whistles" (?), while those opposed to me just make basically evidence-free assertions about me. (I still think my original complaint holds merit, but I guess that's water under the bridge at this point.) By the way, in my defense: you wouldn't know it from the above comments, but even on the contentious Libs of TikTok article, a lot, maybe even most, of my edits have been uncontested improvements, like this one or this one (I could give many more examples). Korny O'Near (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I would submit that due to the massive amount of edits Korny has made to that article, exasperated editors have probably missed a bunch of POV edits. That's not "uncontested", that's WP:FILIBUSTER. Wes sideman (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to find even one. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support broad TBAN from GENSEX and AP, per the numerous editors' evidence above. To address Randy Kryn's defense, this isn't about conservatives or liberals. It's about one editor who literally only makes edits to make right-wing politicians and/or organizations look more positive, over a long period of time, and fights dozens of editors over every time they revert Korny. I would have the same opinion of an editor who only removed negative info from liberals' articles. The particular POV side they're coming from isn't the problem. It's the unwillingness to understand that this is "an encyclopedia which is supposed to be fair and neutral". Wes sideman (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• It seems most of the concern is about that page highlighting tik-tok videos. Have you read its lead? Fair and neutral don't seem to be represented, so removing an editor who is probably trying to make it fairer (I haven't studied the edits, page, or its talk page, just read some of the lead and after reading it I can say I don't recognize Wikipedia fairness there) seems undue. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, as you know, "Wikipedia fairness" comes in the form of accurate and proportional representation of the reliable sources. If you think the page does a poor job of that, then by all means, come help us out. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• The problem with asking for diffs showing CPOV pushing is the definition of CPOV pushing is someone whose behavior can't be represented with a few egregious diffs. That's why it's so hard to deal with. It's a long-term pattern full of examples that never quite cross any line. Folks in this thread may have enough experience with Korny to be able to provide testimony about patterns of behavior, but it's not going to convince anyone outside of the topic area, and that's what tends to be important when proposing something at ANI. If it were just a vote among involved parties, it wouldn't go anywhere (and shouldn't go anywhere -- after all, how can an outsider differentiate evidence-free !votes based on holistic impressions of behavior and votes to remove an opponent based on claims of behavior without evidence?). Looking at the list of behaviors at WP:CPOV, yeah I'd say a bunch of them fit Korny. They fit several people in the AP topic area. If you think it's something that's gone on too long or covers too many of those behaviors too often, decide whether it's worth taking some time to do the work of pulling together diffs. Remember that a few won't be persuasive -- it has to be evidence of a pattern to show a sanctionable kind of CPOV pushing, and that takes time. You can even use that list, providing a few diffs for a few bullets or something. As it stands, I can't support this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. At most maybe a 1-to-3-month topic ban or maybe a 1-week block on Libs of Tiktok. However, I do not think there is enough evidence for action now. Users Springee and Jeppiz sum it up best.3Kingdoms (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see any evidence of disruptive behaviour. I think some people here are confusing editorial disagreement with 'disruption' vaguely defined. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Difs Removing quote that displays LoTT in a negative light, removing text that portrays Matt Walsh in a negative light, removed information that portrayed LoTT in a lightly negative light, changed infobox type in order to remove the movement category, which included alt-right and anti-lgbt, removed "anti-drag sentiment" category from the club-q shooting, removed information that portrayed Barry Loudermilk in a negative light, removed information about LoTT lying about a satanism inspired drag queen attending a brunch, removed the anti-blm category from LoTT, removing text that portrays LoTT in a negative light. To be clear, "displayed in a negative light" does not mean "biased", also, while I do not disagree with all of these edits, I think they clearly show a pattern of CPUSH. These are not even close to all of korny's edits of this type, and im sure that there are more blatant difs I left out, feel free to add those if you like.

Googleguy007 (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

One thing that I noticed is the stark difference between those diffs and the position Korny took here and here when arguing for the inclusion of something that would plainly cast LoTT in a sympathetic light (reports of death threats against her on twitter) vs. a negative light (commentators connecting her to the Jan 6 riots.) In the latter case Korny rejected secondary coverage of that opinion in the Daily Dot; in the former case he argued for inclusion based on Mediaite, both currently yellow on RSP. Similarly, he pushed to include a statement that LoTT's personal information was revealed (something with WP:BLP concerns because it's a direct accusation against the author of the piece in question) based on his own reasoning and passing mentions in sources certainly no stronger than many of the things he rejected above. See a similar argument here where he starts from the premise that Jordan Patterson has been frequently called one of the world's most influential public intellectuals and that we therefore are justified in including obscure or low-weight commentators saying that in order to have a paragraph supporting it, or arguing here that Paterson's article should include pop-culture stuff that would normally be because it serves to underscore his celebrity and influence - exactly the sort of sourcing and weight he rejects when he disagrees with them. Individually these positions are at least notionally defensible, but taken together and in combination with the above, it's clear that his sourcing and weight concerns are being applied in way that is effectively WP:TEND / WP:CPUSH. --Aquillion (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is a change of pace: someone actually discussing my edits in detail. (Even if they're just talk page comments.) So thank you for that. On the other hand, I've read through your description, and the diffs, a number of times, and I don't understand what you're getting at. There are 5-6 different things I was discussing there, and in all but the first one, I was arguing that the article in question should contain more information - so I don't see any double standards or the like here. Is the idea that I'm always trying to make the right-winger look good? I don't know that being the inspiration for a movie villain and a comic book villain makes Jordan Peterson look good, per se. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Support TBAN from GENSEX based on diffs provided by @Googleguy007, and the slow edit warring pointed out by @ScottishFinnishRadish. TBANs should be preventative, not punitive. And based on these diffs, Randy KrynKorny O'Near has a pretty big CPUSH and POV problem in this topic area. They have continuously overlooked or ignored the parts of sources that disagree with their personal views, while having no issue comprehending the parts of sources that they do agree with.

I think this user overall is a very productive member of the encyclopedia project, and provides a valid counterpoint to some issues of POV that do happen in these spaces (including AP2) from time to time. I say that as someone who disagrees with them often. But in this particular GENSEX space, I think this user has crossed the line too many times. If they can show productive editing and an understanding of these wikipedia policies at some later point, I would at that juncture support overturning a TBAN. But this is a really really blatant set of diffs showing clear violation of our policies and norms. competence is required and this user has a big blindspot when it comes to GENSEX issues. (edited 18:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC) to fix confusion of two editors with similar names) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You mean Korny O'Near, not Randy Kryn, correct? Schazjmd (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes thank you, will fix it — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Support. Though I think a topic-ban from American Politics would help as well, this is similar to the Gamergating sealion discussion elsewhere on this page. An obstinate editor that just becomes a timesink to deal with. ValarianB (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment - thanks; some actual diffs here, finally. I encourage everyone to look carefully at these diffs, because I think they are all defensible. (Ironically, I linked to two of them myself, in my original complaint.) Let me go through a few of them: the 2nd link removed uncited information, which is why my change is still there in the article. In the 3rd one I literally deleted duplicate information - that is, the story about UW Health was in the article twice, and I removed one, so it was just in the article once. For the 8th one, there's right now an RfC on this exact subject (not started by me) on the talk page - and most people so far agree with my category deletion. The 9th one added more information - it didn't remove any info. I could go through all of the rest of these also. I think this sea of links is possibly persuasive only for people who don't actually read through them, and only read your descriptions. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I quite explicitly said that I do not disagree with all of the edits, however they demonstrate a trend that me and others have noticed of your edits involving right-wing pundits without fail leaving the right wing pundit looking better than before you made them. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are edits you don't disagree with, why include them in the list of reasons to have me banned? That seems extremely irresponsible of you - like that 3rd item, which removed duplicate text, but you just described it as removing negative text. Would I have been a better editor if I had not made that edit? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Because a list of edits demonstrating a trend of CPUSH != a list of bad edits. I also know that you are intelligent enough to read and comprehend a full sentence, and would appreciate it if you didn't sealion. Let me put this in a way you cant misinterpret: The list was not intended to show a trend of edits with low technical quality, but to show a trend of edits that solely result in portraying right wing pundits in a more positive light. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that it is hidden assumption that it is wrong to portray "right wing pundits" in a more positive light. If the articles are unduly negative, bringing them back to imparitiality is bringing them back to a more positive light. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Kyohyi is right - putting certain people in a more positive light is not in itself good or bad; it depends on the edit itself. In some of those linked edits of mine, I'd like to think they restored impartiality; in other cases they added information, put text in chronological order, removed duplicate text, etc. Anyway, Googleguy007 - people can judge your list for themselves, but I hope they can look past your (in some cases blatant) mislabeling of my edits. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If you cannot understand why CPUSH is bad, and that I am referring to CPUSH we have a CIR issue, if not then you are blatantly engaging in sealioning, thanks. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should read that guideline again. I've read it, and I think I understand it - ultimately it boils down to bad edits (biased writing, undue weight, etc.) and bad behavior, not "good edits that put people I dislike in a more positive light". Korny O'Near (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, to clarify because it seems we have different definitions of a bad edit; when I say bad edits I mean technically bad (vandalism, poor grammar, blatant bias, etc). My understanding of CPUSH is that it covers editors who push a POV civily, with the essay giving examples of common behaviors of those editors and explaining what makes them an issue. If you frequently make edits, and all of the edits you make regarding politics are civil, but end up promoting your point of view in one way or another IMHO that falls under CPUSH. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with this definition of CPUSH. While pushing a POV is part of what makes CPUSH, the other part is repeatedly manipulating, or misapplying content policies while doing so. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a part of the essay, but IMO it is an irrelevant one as anyone who is pushing a POV, one of the requirements for CPUSH, is inherently violating NPOV. I also believe that essays shouldnt be treated as gospel on their subject, but thats a topic for another day. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Except NPOV is a content policy not a behavioral policy. If a BLP is unduly negative, it would be a POV push to bring it in line with NPOV. However, your phrasing would suggest that it would be a NPOV violation to do so. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could specify which of my edits were actually bad. By your facile reading, anyone who reverted any of my edits would just be guilty of pushing a POV in the other direction. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not playing this game with you. You clearly understand what my issue is. You clearly are intelligent enough to understand the difference. And you are clearly engaging in bad faith. Googleguy007 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disputes that CPUSH is bad. What I dispute is that you've made a valid CPUSH argument. And ending your post with an animalistically dehumanizing thought terminating cliche doesn't inspire me to view you as having a valid CPUSH argument. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the sealioning link above? Do you find the metaphor anthropocentric and disrespectful to the sea lion, and thus offensive? Certainly it's unfair to label someone as always engaging in a set of behaviors, but that's why folks are providing diffs. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support — Permanent ban from LoTT & temp. ban for GENSEX and American Politics; per the reasoning of Loki, FormalDude, LilianaUwU, Wes sideman and others. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've said it before and I will say it again, Korny O'Near is very very good at skating along the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable. They may take disagreeable positions but they take them in a civil and policy based way, that in and of itself is not an issue. That being said on this particular page they do appear to have gone overboard, but IMO that merits a page ban not a topic ban (or multiple topic bans). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Longterm (6 months minimum) tempban from LoTT and tempban from american politics per my reasoning earlier in this thread, Wes sideman and others Googleguy007 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support a ban from both GENSEX and American politics per the diffs above (+my comments there) and an extended pattern of evaluating sources and weight based on what seems to be whether they spport Korny's preferred conclusions. Other diffs that struck me: here, a WP:WGW argument that if he was blocked from Twitter for saying something, readers deserve to know exactly what he said; here, where he performs WP:OR to argue against a source, dismisses numerous mainstream sources as biased, and argues that his personal conclusions should be used to dictate article content (this devolved into semantic quibbling to support Korny's reading of primary sources, which shows exactly why we don't do that); arguing against describing a well-documented Soros conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory based on Korny's personal opinion that the term is "overused"; and undoing a 1RR violation, only to wait a few hours so he could reinstating the revert shortly after the window had passed, which is clearly edit-warring regardless. --Aquillion (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  In all of this your only substantial claims seem to be a 1RR violation by trying to get away with a technicality and a claim that they are inconsistent on when something should be in or out. Skirting a 1RR violation is a legitimate concern and may warrant the sort of block we would give for a 3RR violation. The claim of inconstancy is problematic. Are you willing to have your efforts judged to the same standard? If any editor found you were inconsistent in how you appear to be applying gray rules like WEIGHT should you also be topic blocked? Additionally, arguments on the talk page, so long as they aren't accompanied by edit warring are generally good for articles. It's very easy for an article to get a bunch of like minded editors who can "out consensus" other perspectives. Net result is we get an article that not only adopts facts from articles with a clear perspective/slant on a topic, but also adopt that tone rather than following an IMPARTIAL/encyclopedic tone. If there is edit warring, handle as edit warring. However, your other examples aren't great examples of disruption. They are examples of disagreement. Is disagreeing with the majority now a problem? Springee (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• In the interest of avoiding another shit show that should have been at AE, I humbly request that if you've already posted more than three times in this thread to seriously consider if further posts will add anything to the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Using my third post here to say that I second this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - per Aquillion. Andre🚐 01:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support making the page ban from LoTT indefinite, at a bare minimum. I'd also support a tban from GENSEX and AP for the reasons laid out in detail by a number of editors above, but most succinctly by Timothy: the user's edits suggest they're not (indeed, as Aquillion shows, sometimes they're insidiously not) a constructive contributor to the project of writing an NPOV encyclopedia, and their contributions to this and other discussions (e.g. tedious threads on Talk:Libs of TikTok) give the impression that that's not likely to change. -sche (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support unequivocally based on what I've seen from this user in the Chaya Raichik discourse. Extremist talking points pushed strongly as "common sense" with no relevant application of WP policy, against both scientific consensus (relevant) and consensus public opinion (irrelevant but pretty fucking funny given the exasperated "common sense" tone of the arguments). VibrantThumpcake (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• support. with the evidence above, this user has been proven to be disruptive in the area. lettherebedarklight晚安 04:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from WP:GENSEX-related areas unequivocally, due to heavy disruption at that area. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I just want to say one more thing, which is - not to sound self-martyring, but I really think that, for some of the editors here, this vote is being used as a political witch hunt, because they perceive me as taking the right-wing side of the editing debate and want to get rid of me for that reason. I think there's no better proof of that than the fact that so many of the article and talk page edits that have been brought up here as proof that I should be banned are still reflected in the relevant article, like this, this, this (slightly modified), this, this, this (in part), and probably this (once this RfC is finished). In other words, these are (apparently) good edits and suggestions, and yet they're still somehow cause for banning. To be fair, there are editors here who simply think I've been bludgeoning and edit warring too much, which is a fair criticism, especially for the Libs of TikTok article - I admit I went overboard there. But for other editors, I think this is simply politically-motivated. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, great, but that has nothing to do with a number of other issues ... like, for instance, your conduct in the OP, where you start the ball rolling with utterly meritless accusations about entirely innocuous diffs, and accusing an editor of "canvassing" when it turned out that he was asking other users whether they thought edits of yours were objectionable. (Hell, that's what happens with any ANI complaint, isn't it? Wasn't that what you were doing with this ANI complaint?) Editors who live in glass houses shouldn't be hurling boomerangs. Ravenswing 14:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  My original complaint may be a reason to ban me, but I don't think anyone has brought it up as a reason other than you. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, I have explained this to korny many times, those edits are provided as a way to demonstrate a broader trend of korny CPOV pushing that can only truely be seen by reviewing difs on his contribs page, or by having already had experience with him, he refuses to acknowledge this and continues pretending that the difs are intended to show especially egregious behavior. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Korny O'Near, I'd be surprised if this isn't a major factor in at least some editors' decisions here, whether intentionally or not. Personally, I decided against supporting a politics tban because I hadn't seen the evidence for it, but I an also see where the WP:CPUSH concerns are coming from and I can't blame the editors that are supporting such a ban. The reason I endorsed a GENSEX tban is specifically because of this diff, which I believe shows enough evidence for a WP:HID tban. The real question is how the community will respond the next time an editor is found engaging in civil POV pushing in favor of socialist/communist/anarchist ideas. Maybe I'm just naive, but I believe that such an editor would also receive a tban rather quickly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I figure this is going to get a bigger target on my back, but considering the utter lack of evidence of behavioral issues this is the only position. Considering how active Korny is on these topics we should be seeing a lot of recent diff's of misbehavior, but the only person who provided such diffs is Aquillion. However, none of those diff's show anything particularly egregious, and in turn considering how often Korny edits there should be more of them if there is a genuine problem. People make bad edits and bad arguments. We don't topic ban them unless it's particularly egregious or is a long term and persistent pattern demonstrating a lack of understanding in Wikipedia policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  How much more evidence do you need? 500 diffs going back 10 years? Dronebogus (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

How many edits do you think Korny makes in the topic area over a month? We'll start with 10% of those edits. That's for marginally problematic edits. If you have something actually egregious feel free to include that. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You’re kind of asking a lot here, with arbitrary standards. Dronebogus (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If an editor has over 90% non-problematic edits in the topic area, and the edits that are problematic are marginal, I don't see a reason to topic ban them from the subject area. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

A better way to perhaps look at this is, show the really bad ones. The list provided by Goodleguy had at best one example that was mild. The rest look like reasonable disagreements. Springee (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support a ban from GENSEX and American politics alike, per Aquillion. I'll also echo the "this should have gone to AE" concerns raised above, but, well, we're here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Clearly not-here IP hopping editor

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

---

There is an IP user using a slightly roving IP address within a very modest range (so far, that I know of 43.242.178.247 and 43.242.178.241) that has so far dedicated themselves almost solely to trolling talk pages - all the edits are pretty much the same, either unconstructive or nonsensical, and all blatant trolling. Today they then popped up on this address spewing the same nonsense and dodging an earlier talk page reversion by dumping the nonsense in the edit summary. Range block? Plz. They're a time sink. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Anonblocked the /24 for a month. Courcelles (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Years-long history of WP:NOTHERE from User:Mick2

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

---

Mick2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this user while they were engaged in an edit war ([110] [111] [112] [113]) over at Luc Montagnier.

I then went into their contribs history, and found it is almost exclusively dedicated to WP:RGW disruptive edits in favor of WP:FRINGE POV pushing (9/11 trutherism, David Icke Reptilian nonsense, New World Order conspiracies, anti-vax covid, etc. etc.)

Some examples

14:57, 7 March 2023 -/- "conspiracy" .... now that FBI and energy department are endorsing it 09:25, 23 December 2022 slander- it is really interesting to see how much this person has changed, according to Wikipedia, in a single year: [link] So sad that wikipedia is being abused for politics and slander. How can somebody who advocates taking vaccines be Anti-Vax ? 09:19, 23 December 2022 adds cn tag to clearly well-sourced body content about anti-vax advocate. 09:40, 16 December 2022 WP:COPYVIO directly copied paragraph from source 13:00, 31 July 2022 Whitewash biography article of a conspiracy theorist against consensus. Related: [114] 02:48, 6 January 2022: POV pushing on ivermectin 02:27, 6 January 2022 POV pushing on hydroxychloroquine 01:38, 6 January 2022 POV pushing on anti-vaxxer 01:56, 5 January 2022 misuse of edit summary, cites youtube conspiracy mills despite warning [115] repeatedly [116] [117][118] fails to understand WP:V and WP:NPOV [119] 04:35, 8 December 2020 POV pushing on 9/11 trutherism 07:02, 24 March 2020 COVID conspiracism 22:33, 9 September 2019 (adds pro conspiracist note about 9/11 truther documentary: edit sum: anon ... curious if the perps will delete this info 03:02, 24 June 2018 POV pushing on David Icke, noted holocaust denier and believer of reptilian conspiracy theories, saying such things as: I think the LEAD should voice what wikipedia thinks, not what some random critics say inside or outside reliable sources WP:RS and There is not a shred of evidence that David Icke would express anti-semetic opinions (despite him criticizing some of Israel's leadership and some millionaires of jewish and non-jewish descent), or would deny anything about the Holocaust. That some critics have these delusions is certainly noteworthy, so mention of their view should be in this article... it should not be in the WP:LEAD where it suggests it is a Wikipedia consensus opinion. It is a fringe opinion, held by some Wikipedians as well we can see above. If anyone disagreeds, please provide a quote from David Icke himself, either from Primary Source or a Quotation in a WP:RS attributed to him. There exist 7 billion opinions on this planet, and other peoples opinion should only be in the WP:LEAD if there is some merit in it. [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126]

They are often described as WP:SEALIONing: [127]

They also appear to often accidentally edit logged out in the same discussions they start logged in, e.g. Special:Contributions/81.204.112.85 Special:Contributions/81.206.43.232. And interestingly have crossed paths with User:Icewhiz in the past (but maybe that's a mark of how prolific a disruptor IW was, not anything about this user): [128] and have described their own concerns back in 2013 with "1 natural person, an agent, could control half a dozen socks without wikipedia realizing it, and could even control multiple admin accounts."

There's a long thread from 2018 on WP:AN about blocking the user after it became clear they wanted access to all the many FRINGE-conspiracy things that are deleted from Wikipedia for "for freedom of expression and freedom of collaboration" reasons. This was actually the second such thread they had started, after having their pseudoscience-ridden article Spiral Dynamics deleted back in 2015.

When denied that right which is only given to select WMF and admins, they posted this to their user talk:

Adopt me?

I have come to learn that special interest groups hire students and agents to promote their viewpoint on wikipedia. This might be promoting a firm or a single person, or promoting an entire idea, or slandering the opposition. Combatting this and 'keeping' Wikipedia value-free and fair is very difficult, because when funds are large enough these agents can learn the rules, start Wikilawyering, become Admin, and influence innocent wikipedia editors who are a bit naive and follow the herd. Money can buy a large herd.

I would be happy to learn how to help wikipedia counter these practices. Who will help me?

and this: Wikipedia is 'astroturf' (corporate and special interest fake grass roots).

This user, as far as I can tell, has a contribution history that is ~90% them pushing conspiracy-friendly POVs in various BLP and other articles, fighting the "good" fight against the cabal. And ~10% unnecessary edits which do not improve the project. What do they actually provide to the project? As far as I can understand from these contribs, this user does not understand the essence of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, or WP:V. They are an excellent example of WP:NOTHERE. It seems they skate by with multiple warnings because they edit so infrequently. Why are we tolerating this? competence is required. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink You have failed to notify Mick2 (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as the red notice on top of this page clearly requires. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Was just finishing the thread (you'll notice I'm still editing it) before I did so with a most updated link, thanks for the help. I wasn't trying to pull a fast one on anyone, I promise. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologise. I was just working off the signature time (which, at the time I did that, was about 20 minutes since I read it), and didn't expect that you would prioritise editing over delivering the notice as required. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Textbook NOTHERE. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

More see also spamming on foreign relation pages

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

---

2A02:FF0:331C:DC31:905A:B0B5:6C3E:542A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This has happened at least twice (first, second). Now they're on an IPv6, 2A02:FF0:331C:DC31:905A:B0B5:6C3E:542A (talk · contribs). This is the "bilateral relations troll", apparently. IPs of this person that were blocked include 88.230.104.114 (talk · contribs), 5.176.188.115 (talk · contribs), 5.176.185.154 (talk · contribs), 176.30.230.118 (talk · contribs), etc. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Welp, by the time I finished typing this, @Drmies took care of it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

User:LilianaUwU, it's all in a day's work--and I threw in another range, for free. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Heck yeah, free range blocks! LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Gomati Sharma still adding original research despite warnings and previous block

Gomati Sharma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They've had three stage 4 warnings for adding unsourced content to articles since returning from a 2 week block for the exact same behaviour. Edits like this one are exactly what this user was doing before; adding wives and mothers to historic Indian figures and then creating an unsourced article, usually a copy and paste from an article that they themselves wrote on Bharatpedia earlier this year. Gomateshwari on Bharatpedia would appear to be the same editor as the articles created are the same and with the same content. Just this morning I had to revert this edit as well.

Just before they block they created OR/hoax articles Rachnadevi, Devamala (Shunga dynasty), Bhanumati (Kushana Empress), Kimveka (Mahabharata) and shortly after return they have created more of the same content, just with different kings associated Jayalakshmidevi, Shubhapradha (Rashtrakuta Queen), Tarinidevi, Pushpavati all of which are, at best, OR, and, at worst, hoaxes.

I'm not seeing any improvement, unfortunately. Also straight up denial like this and pot calling the kettle black like this apparent tongue-in-cheek comment, gives me no confidence that things will get better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've indeffed them. They can try and convince an unblocking administrator that they'll change, but they're just deliberately ignoring all calls for sources which is not acceptable. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I couldn't see this going any other way, sadly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just re-opened this. I'm concerned about this edit summary. @Spiderone: have you seen any evidence that would suggest this is actually a block evading or multi-username user? Canterbury Tail talk 16:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There have been a few discussions in various areas about this user and possible socking. I've tried to compile some of it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shravani Chatterjee. User:Utcursch has informed me that they have some more evidence of possible links with other blocked editors and will submit this when they have time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:CARLITOAHUISA

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

This editor has had 11 articles moved to draftspace, 10 articles rejected at AFC, 2 speedy deletes, and 3 AFDs and have received a warning regarding improper article creation last month (see User talk:CARLITOAHUISA). They do not appear to be taking any of the advice given in their talk page and they continue to create articles with the same issues.

I think they have good intentions, but this should be looked at as they do not seem to be taking the talk page notices to heart, perhaps they need a mentor.  // Timothy :: talk  11:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: sorry to say this but it looks like they've just created another problematic article just now, Dapeng Airlines. Would perhaps a mainspace block on new articles be appropriate? This would still allow the user to use AfC should they wish. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

and a rude response Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, boomer

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

---

According to our article, this catchphrase has been used "to dismiss or mock attitudes typically associated with baby boomers [...] Considered by some to be ageist, the phrase has developed into a retort for resistance to technological change, climate change denial, marginalization of members of minority groups, or opposition to younger generations' values."

It seems clear to me that addressing a fellow editor with this, as Mr rnddude did here, is a type of PA, especially considering that it was directed to someone actually belonging to the baby boomer generation. I redacted accordingly, with a brief explanation.

However, according to Mr rnddude, it's "not a PA" (undoing the redaction) but "a standard turn of phrase that is widely used online and in the real world" and so "not what RPA is for".

I would like to ask for some third opinions here: is it okay to address fellow editors like this or not? Should I in the future use {{RPA}} for similar cases or not? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Of course it's a PA. Not sanctionable in any way as a one-time occurrence, but still inappropriate. Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Ageist. Completely inappropriate. Hostile and non-collegial. Sanctionable if repeated. I support a warning. —Alalch E. 13:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Sure, it's a personal attack, but... I don't know, it's drawing an overly broad line. For example, would whippersnapper be considered a PA? What about calling a younger person "kid" if they're in their 20s/30s?--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Also quite inappropriate. Dismissive and non-collegial. —Alalch E. 14:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The other thing too is that this is taking place at WP:RFA which is already an overly heated environment. This particular one for Aoidh has now spawned two or three separate ANI threads and two discussions on WT:RFA. We can focus on individual personal attacks, but we also should be looking at ways to address the longer-term issue there. (I know, I know, we've tried before and it didn't work...) --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL: take a real-life check and be professional. If someone told me "ok boomer" or called me a kid in real-life working setting I would not take this person seriously anymore as a good-faith collaborator. "Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project." WP:EQ: "We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia." —Alalch E. 14:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• It's not a PA. It's like calling somebody a "jerk". Rude? Sure. Sometimes called for? Sure. (Though I didn't think it was in this case.) Worth an RPA or ANI? Never. Levivich (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Meh. For me, this falls into the category of uncivil but not sanctionable (I believe it is still the case that "f*** off" is not sanctionable in and of itself)). It strikes me as having a similar valence to "get off my lawn." Not the kind of comment that I personally think Wikipedia should be policing, but then I some times find myself on the less sensitive side of such things. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks all for your replies. I of course agree that this is not sanctionable as a one-time occurrence. The question is rather more whether {{RPA}} applies, which in mind is directly related to whether we should accept and even expect second, third and further occurrences. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Whether it can be considered an actual personal attack or just uncivil, it doesn't warrant being removed and replaced with {{RPA}}. —El Millo (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment probably does not rise to the level of a PA but it is dismissive and not collegial. I also occasionally make remarks like this and they are rarely helpful. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This is my feeling as well. In this context it's more dismissive of the comment than the person making the comment. Springee (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Uncivil and uncollegial? Yes. A "Derogatory comment" or "egregious personal attack" that would merit removal? Not remotely. CMD (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  If it's not a derogatory comment based on age (as explicitly mentioned in WP:PA), then what does it mean to point out that someone is a 'boomer'? What is then uncivil about it? The fact that it is based on a personal characteristic like age is what in my mind differentiates this phrase from something like 'jerk'. I'm glad to hear an opinion that it doesn't warrant removal, because if enough editors share that opinion I'll know not to remove it in the future. But that must be because it's not egregious enough rather than because it's not derogatory at all, right? Note that while WP:PA advises removal for "derogatory comments", it advises sanctions like blocks or bans for "egregious personal attacks". The discussion here was explicitly meant to be about whether it qualifies for the former, not the latter. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's definitely a derogatory comment based on age, intended to dismiss or discredit another's views in an ad hominem manner. —Alalch E. 15:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a personal attack. Yes it is incivil. No, we aren't going to instablock anyone for saying it. Tell the person to stop doing it, move on with your life. --Jayron32 15:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment by the subject - I must keep my participation in this space minimal, and particularly so as it is past midnight here. You will have to suffer a less that fully considered reply, as by tomorrow the train of AN/I may well have derailed, and I am quite weary. I will not, however, be accused of succumbing to the dreaded flu.

The context for that rebuke – and that is what that comment was: a rebuke – is an invective-laden post from an admin invoking cruel, deceptive, and unethical behaviour (repeatedly in the same post) and the obliterat[ation] of one's credibility for engaging in one of the most uncivil behaviors imaginable of... 'trolling teh forums'. A generally inane matter without consequence undeserving of that vitriol.

As I said elsewhere on that same talk page, that manner of engagement is the exact vehicle by which the 'toxic atmosphere' of RfA is actively nurture[d] and uph[e]ld and is not warranted even when [none] of the standing opposes are merited – and make no mistake, they are not merited at that RfA. They still should not engender the levels of vitriol displayed regularly there.

For context, the aformentioned invective-laden post is this and for clarity I use invective in the sense of 'highly-critical', not 'abusive' referencing the OED: insulting, abusive, or highly critical language. The post is worthy of dismissal, but nothing more. Let me repeat that: the post is worthy of dismissal. And it is the post, and I said that explicitly with this is the sort of empty hyperbole that invites the reply, that I deemed worth that rebuke.

Edit-conflict requiring a clarification: that the editor is apparently of the baby boomer generation did not factor into my reply. It's the exaggerated shock at the scandal! of freeing one's ankle- 'xcuse me, I mean 'trolling teh forums' that elicited it. A foolish behaviour that the younger generations invented and engage in for a variety of reasons, usually mundane. Trolling can, of course, be done with malevolent intent. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

While "ok boomer" originated as a slight against the older generations, it has since become a general term for dismissing someone for having outdated beliefs. Zoomers use it with each other on a regular basis now. Any ageist implication has long since eroded. So, it's not polite, but it's not an egregious personal attack either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Do we really have to discuss a throwaway comment in such depth? I have had this phrase directed at me by another Wikipedia editor (who likes to be known as a stickler for civility) and I haven't dreamt of complaining. I guess that marks me out as a boomer. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• There's a genuine, intractable problem buried somewhere in here, the kind of chronic reflexive rudeness that permeates everywhere on here these days. And, as one of the very last of the Boomers, I did feel a spark of annoyance - just as it was designed to. But we aren't going to solve the problem - or even make a dent in it - by having long ANI threads about a comment that's probably in the 25-50% percentile of jerky comments made yesterday. Mr rnddude has now been made aware that several people think he was being a jerk. He doesn't care. Oh well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• That last bit is presumption, if warranted. I refuse the influence of crowds, however, I accept that views differ widely – as is the case in those expressed here – and tolerate their expression. I don't care if it's disagreeable to me. You are entitled to your views. I will not attempt to censor them, and will reject unwarranted censoring of them. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• It was an ill-advised throwaway comment that doesn't warrant a thread here at ANI. There has been way too much drama over a pair of inane oppose !votes that clearly won't affect the outcome of the RfA. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Incorrect/false grammatical edits with frequent changes of meaning: User:DepthDwellingX

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

---

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

User:DepthDwellingX is a recent account focussing entirely on edits that incorrectly or falsely purport to be grammatical corrections. A worryingly high proportion of these edits are objectively wrong (obviously so to anyone with an idiomatic knowledge of English), and many also change the meaning in fundamental ways. I suspect that that this editor may be deliberately vandalising. But even if not, given their total lack of competence and their failure to respond in any way, some action does seem to be called for. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

On a pseudo-random selection of a few of these "corrections" they range from questionable to plain wrong. That coupled with the absence of any communication look very much like an editor trying to game extended confirmed status. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I have now informed DepthDwellingX that responding to these concerns, here and/or on their talk page, is required before continuing to edit in the same way. If it happens anyway, please add a short message on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Looks like they didn't listen. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notification. Blocked with a link to their talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Syriac563

Syriac563 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suret language: Changed sourced info and a literal quote by an author twice 12 December 2022 8 March 2023

Aramaic: changed sourced info [129]

Turoyo language: changed sourced info [130]

Arameans: removed sourced info [131]

Seems to have a thing for "Assyrian nationalists", a word he throws around a lot, including to our fellow users;

"With al due respect, @shmayo is an Assyrianist who tries to Assyrianize the Arameans in all possible ways. I already asked before if it is possible to block Assyrian nationalists from editing the Aramean page. Shmayo tries to make it look in all possible ways that modern Arameans don't exist and he tries to confuse readers by limiting/minimizing/manipulating information about Arameans to avoid that this name/identity gains any popularity."

"Seems like you are obsessed with your Assyrian identity. Your changes where you change Aramean into Assyrian confirm that you try to Assyrianize the Aramean people by name, identity etc."

I could bring out more diffs of the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour of Syriac563. But meh, I couldn't bothered. Hope this is enough. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Aside from this case, I have one question: Are there sources that very specifically, without the need for SYNTH, state that Arameans do not exist? And if there are, how do they reason their way to this conclusion? Are they clear about how they do that? As you know, there are people today that continue to speak modern Aramaic and identify as Aramean. Are there sources that specifically state that they don't exist? The Arameans "were an ancient" indicates they no longer exist. That is in addition to the fact that at least one government recognizes their existence. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Relevant question. I will try to keep my answer short. I will assume that you have not been involved in similar discussion here before; this is a very complex issue to solve here (or anywhere else for that matter). As I have been involved in these discussions and RFCs here for 10+ years, I will try to add some relevant points here. True statement, some Syriac Orthodox adherents identify as Arameans (mainly in the diaspora, Aramean-Syriac or Syriac-Arameans being common alternative terms they use in the English language). However, the article "Arameans" is the equivalent of, for example, "Assyria", i.e. the ancient peoples. The modern people (in its simplest form defined as Middle Eastern adherent of four major churches, all identifying themselves as Sur(y)oye/Sur(y)aye in Neo-Aramaic) is described in this article. This article, previously under names such as "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" (as you can see, even more terms are used, Aramean probably being the fourth most common in the English language when referring to the modern people), is today named "Assyrian people" per WP:COMMONNAME. However, this article is already in the lead mentioning the different terms used. "Terms for Syriac Christians" is a good complementary article on the identity subject, also referred to in the article in question. I would like to refer to old discussions (e.g. regarding the WP:COMMONNAME) or RFCs, but there have been numerous during the years. But to summarize earlier RFC discussion, or discussions regarding new articles; separate articles for a modern people with an "Aramean-Syriac" (or any alternative term) identities have been created (mostly by now blocked users and their socks) earlier, however all these are WP:CFORKS. Here is one example of an old discussion on deletion of a WP:CFORK, but there are plenty more. Multiple articles (or forks) for the modern people would lead to edit warring in an even larger scale as we have seen earlier (in all articles referring to the modern group, whether it's people, or areas, or any other subject relating to the modern group). Shmayo (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Harassment by several IPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those IPs are chasing my edits, falsely accusing me of disruptive editing and reverting my edits repeatedly based on his/her false accusation.[132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139] Probably these actions made by one person who abuses multiple IPs. I beg administrators to sanction those IPs. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The first two and the last two IPs appear to be proxies.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 00:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Repeated BLPvio, editing warring at Keith Raniere: assassination talk

Raniere is convicted racketeer serving a life sentence.

• Evackost (talk · contribs) Inserts text: "Raniere's affidavit implying that named individiual has ordered his assassination."
  • I removed: "RV huge BLPvio accusing a named individual of attempted assassination!"
• Evackost restores the BLPvio and other edits: "RV, because User:Feoffer has never given reason for reversions here or in Talk:Keith Raniere. Every edit provided is appropriately sourced, and the demand for reopening "consensus" is silly"...
  • Evackost [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Raniere&diff=prev&oldid=1143561958 added the words "without evidence", acknowledging that Raniere's accusation is groundless.
  • Per BLP, I've again reverted

Would welcome any interventions that helps Evackost understand they need to build consensus for changes and not reintroduce extreme BIOvios. I've seen a lot of BLP vios in my day, but falsely claiming that a "hit" has been ordered is one of the most egregious, one which could have dangerous consequences, both in terms of libel AND safety. It probably should be oversighted tbh. Feoffer (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Using primary sources (ie. the court documents themselves) is a massive breach of BLP and SYNTH here - extraordinary claims like this require the most rigorous of reliable sourcing, and these edits clearly don't meet that threshold. Support removal and action taken against anyone reintroducing without consensus. Daniel (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Feoffer is just attempting to rationalize their own edit war behavior.

User:Feoffer first reverted edits to Keith Raniere that had nothing to do with anything talked about here: they were edits that properly called Raniere's brand a "monogram", that the tool used is called an "electrocauterer", and that the procedure was scarification. When doing that User:Feoffer left the totally unhelpful and Wikipedia:DICK-ish note "not an improvement" with no attempts to write what they found objectionable.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Raniere&oldid=1143413296

After reverting the edits and refining them and contributing content --as I have without User:Feoffer raising any objection-- User:Feoffer changed tactics for why they were reverting by libelling me as a murderer.

Dealing with this: Raniere has made two lawsuits against the Bureau of Prisons in which he publicly claimed that he is being targeted for assassination. This is public knowledge. It's been reported multiple times since last year. See:

• Rosner, E. (2022, November 8). Nxivm sex cult leader Keith Raniere claims prison transfer puts his life at risk. New York Post; New York Post. https://nypost.com/2022/11/08/nxivm-sex-cult-leader-keith-raniere-claims-prison-transfer-puts-his-life-at-risk/
• Gavin, R. (2023, February 28). NXIVM leader says he could die in prison like Bulger, Epstein. Times Union; Times Union. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/nxivm-leader-says-die-prison-bulger-epstein-17810579.php
• ‌MCKERNAN, E. (2020). Sat Mar 04 2023 nxivm - clip. KATV. https://katv.com/news/nation-world/nxivm-keith-raniere-sex-cult-whitey-bulger-jeffery-epstein-120-years-prison-complaints-treatment-safety-death-trophy-target-child-porn-colonie-new-york-tucson-arizona-facility
• Borbolla, D. (2023, March 3). Keith Raniere ex líder de NXIVM, asegura que Alejandro Junco lo amenza. Azteca Noticias; Azteca Noticias. https://www.tvazteca.com/aztecanoticias/keith-raniere-ex-lider-nxivm-alejandro-junco-muerte-carcel

Wikipedia:CENSOR. There is substantial information to show that Raniere is making numerous claims, and they are newsworthy across two countries.

Finally, Raniere is also the one who made this claim to begin with; it's patently ridiculous to state that he is attempting to foment his own murder.

In the end I have to say that what really seems to be happening here is that User:Feoffer has taken a possessive view of the article Keith Raniere, in which case they are perfectly free to remove some year's worth of contributions I made that nobody previously had any issue with. Evackost (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Feoffer changed tactics for why they were reverting by libelling me as a murderer. This is the sort of comment which you need to either strike or support with very strong diffs. Looking back at Feoffer's interactions with you, I assume you are referring to this edit; if so that is a grossly bad faith reading of what Feoffer actually wrote and I would urge you to strike it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

And making snarky comments about "deferrence to certain users religious beliefs" in not reintroducing a name which was revdelled as a "serious BLP violation" is at best unhelpful. (Not giving the diff because your new edit without the name in the article text is still toeing the line pretty dangerously on BLP imo, but it's in Special:History/Keith Raniere for now unless an admin revdels that too - I've alerted Black Kite, who revdelled the previous content, on their talkpage). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not striking this, and I reiterate: User:Feoffer. whether intentionally or unintentionally, falsely implied across several talk pages that I am trying to kill someone. It is literally in the title here.

User:Feoffer posted this innuendo my talk page, Talk:Keith Raniere, and here that me posting the name of the billionaire is somehow going to get Keith Raniere killed. That's awfully funny, because Keith Raniere is the one who named that billionaire in a lawsuit that he filed.

And also, why is it my problem that other people are blatantly disregarding the Mexican press? Who named that same billionaire, with none of them being sued for libel or being called murderers? Evackost (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It is literally in the title here. No. It literally isn't. If you actually believe this, you do not have the competence to edit here. The title here doesn't even suggest that you are risking harm to a living person, the claim Feoffer made on your talkpage, let alone that you are actively trying to harm them, let alone that you have actually murdered someone. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That's BS. Literally, I told him to stop being rude, and in a fit of personal spite he tried to jacket me with this disingenuous "assassination talk" garbage.

Elsewhere Talk:Keith Raniere, User:Feoffer wrote the completely bonkers claim that merely repeating Raniere's own claim "could cause Raniere's death" –in what world is it appropriate to imply that I am going to cause someone's death? Really, how dare he.

On every other point, I have clearly demonstrated that Foeffer engaged in bad faith petitfogging and edit warring.

I'll note that I abided by this group's decision about not naming Great and Powerful Billionaire Mexican Media Mogul and not a single person has any issue any more. I even got rid of a NY Post citation against better instinct, because someone wants to make a big deal about the Murdoch press. Seriously, I don't know WTF more people want anymore. Evackost (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I even got rid of a NY Post citation against better instinct, because someone wants to make a big deal about the Murdoch press

That's....not really it. The NY Post is not considered reliable by Wikipedia consensus. See: WP:NYPOST — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I got rid of it, because it wasn't necessary. You continue to talk about it because… I don't know.

But other than that: You might want to actually read Wikipedia:NYPOST because none of the issues listed there were actually a concern there. There's no NYPD issues. It's not Page Six. And the NY Post, unlike a lot of other newspapers, does actual court room reporting which was documented on The Vow. Evackost (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Evackost: The diffs above, where you tried to introduce controversial information about a living person, sourced only to court documents, is a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation, and you should not do that again. Ever. --Jayron32 14:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Jayron32, thanks for your comment. I came here because I saw some weird edits on the Rainiere talk page, and I just warned Evackost for a comment on that talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't "introduce controversial information about a living person, sourced only to court documents," I cited the accusation as it was put on RECAP/CourtListener with the appropriate Mexican news report as context (because the individual in question is Mexican, and multiple Mexican outlets are covering this story).

  To accommodate the superstitions invoked here, I removed the Template:Cite Pacer and the actual name of the "billionaire media mogul," while leaving the well-sourced text. Evackost (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Look, these are not "superstitions invoked". Wikipedia has clear rules against writing controversial information about living persons. If you continue to cast aspersions against people who inform you about these rules, it will not end well for you. When you're already in a hole, stop digging my friend. --Jayron32 17:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's also not casting aspersions to point out that User:Feoffer wrote the Wikipedia:Don't be a dick'ish summary "not an improvement" on a completely different matter before I even posted this material, then proceeded to repeatedly engage in repeated edit-warring reverts without any explanation whatsoever.

  Then they post this libellous tirade implying I am engaging in "assassination talk" when there was nothing of the sort. I'm not going to put up with being defamed, and then being talked down to when I take issue with it. Evackost (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm going to say this for the last time. In providing you with information, I was not opening an invitation for discussion. I was informing you that your actions were in violation of Wikipedia policy, and that if you were to continue them, you would find your ability to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I am not asking for a response other than confirmation that you read what I told you. Every defense you have tried to make of yourself is just self-incrimination. Please stop. --Jayron32 18:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just feel the need to say you are treading a bit close to the legal threat line here--especially where the underlying basis is such a slim reed. Best to defend yourself without the language of defamation. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not threatening any lawsuit. User:Feoffer wrote that my writing "could cause Raniere's death." Am I supposed to thank him for calling me a murderer?

  Everyone here got exactly what they wanted out of me, which is to remove the name of the billionaire who shall not be mentioned, but people just want to make stuff up now. Evackost (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just feel the need to say you are treading a bit close to the legal threat line here

  I agree, the user has repeatedly used the word "libel" to describe what others are saying about them. Wikipedia is not a court room, and we don't tolerate this kind of thing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at the difs of the scenario you are describing, they reverted your changes (with explanations), which were not constructive, to the status quo, which you then continued attempting to re-add. I also cant find any evidence of Feoffer engaging a libellous tirade accusing you of "assassination talk". I would also ask you to stop using WP:Dont Be A Dick as is stated on the page. I personally also take issue with your blatant lack of respect for consensus, which is the backbone of wikipedia. Googleguy007 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  The billionaire's name is no longer on Keith Raniere, the actual complaint is moot. I have dealt with every other issue User:Feoffer brought up on Talk:Keith Raniere. Evackost (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am honestly exhausted. I complied with everything here by removing both mention of the billionaire's name,and any mention of killing, but User:Googleguy007 took it upon themself to just delete the entirety of this text block which has none of the identified issues:

  Judge Raner Collins granted the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the suit on grounds that Raniere failed to exhaust administrative remedies (in line with the Prison Litigation Reform Act), and his lawyer's insufficient service of process.

  Within weeks of the dismissal, Raniere filed another suit against the Bureau of Prisons that is active as of March 2023. Raniere has used the lawsuit to file an affidavit making far-ranging claims about his imprisonment, including a claim that he is in danger of a death in custody akin to those of Whitey Bulger and Jeffrey Epstein should he be transferred to a Communications Management Unit within the federal prison system. He also says "a billionaire media mogul from Mexico" is seeking to hurt him.

  I honestly don't know what will make anyone happy anymore. Enlighten me. Evackost (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Getting consensus for your disputed edits on the relevant talkpage as required by wikipedia's most fundamental policies would be a good start.

  People have explained in depth in this discussion several specific issues with your editing. You have taken none of them on board but continued to argue that you are in the right. If you want to know what people want to see from you, take a break from Wikipedia for a bit until you have calmed down, then re-read this thread with fresh eyes. You should be able to get a good idea of what people want to see from you from that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  …literally, you guys all got what you wanted (which was the removal of a name).

  That is the only complaint that reached ANI. Read the actual complaint.

  On everything else, User:Feoffer put criticisms on Talk:Wikipedia –which I answered in detail. They never replied, probably because I was right.

  My only reason for writing here at this point is that I have been baselessly accused of working to kill someone, and if I don't say something about it then I don't know how anyone in the future's going to characterize this crap.

  Meanwhile, this keeps going on for zero reason at all. You all got what you wanted, which was removal of someone's name (as though it's an unholy incantation). But whatever, that's not enough, now I have to be dragged through a wholle other process. Evackost (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  They never replied, probably because I was right.
  It's never good to assume that because others have not responded, you are in the correct. No one is obligated to respond to you, and assuming silence is consensus is a really bad idea. Wait for others, if any, to take up the banner of your arguments. If they are persuasive, someone inevitably will. It's always better to respond less and listen more in situations like this. The more often you repeat the same accusations or arguments, the less power they have, and the less convincing they will be to others.

  You sound (understandably) very heated about what happened here, and that may be clouding your judgment. I echo the recommendation of others here in saying you should probably step away from wikipedia, come back with fresh eyes, and see if you feel as upset about this then as you do now. My guess is that you will not, and you'll have an easier time understanding the advice others have given you here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Please, be more condescending. Evackost (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Evackost: You'll notice that a lot of other people in this thread have replied now, and told you that you were not right. Feoffer's response is not particularly relevant anymore. As Shibboleth has noted, you're personalizing this matter excessively; it would be best if you just took some time to gain some perspective and let it drop for the time being. --Jayron32 19:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  FFS: can you actually read the complaint and the actual circumstances? I let it drop. The last work of mine that someone summarily reverted contained none of the Wikipedia:BLP material.

  I am now banned from editing the page anyway Not because of the Wikipedia:BLP issue (as stated), but because someone had to take action to justify their own investment after instigating and prolonging this drama. Evackost (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I give up, congratulations on winning the Edit War

Evackost (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

References

• Blocked I have partial-blocked this editor from editing the article. They may still edit the talk page. Enough is enough, really. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! Adios, enjoy yourselves! Evackost (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Evackost has attempted to remove a declined block request whilst block, which is a breach of policy. I have restored the template for this once. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Repeated COPYVIO

Despite being formally warned about uploading copyrighted text (on Shusha massacre), Nocturnal781 continues to add copyrighted material with 70% similarity (from this source), this time, in Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921), where prior to their warning they had also added copyrighted material (from this source) and reinstated it after it was reverted, thereby violating WP:COPYVIO. – Olympian ^loquere 03:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I used anything copyright without changing text to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. I am not perfect and I try my best to go by the guidelines and I am very confident what I added is not against the rules. Can you please show or specify what you mean? Because even for the last part I reworded the entire sentence before I used it is this not allowed? Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Nocturnal781, are you familiar with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and do you fully understand it? Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am starting to familiarize myself with close paraphrasing and will read the rules and do better in the future with paraphrasing. Nocturnal781 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Hi I just checked the page for copyright and it's in the green area with only 13.8% which is very low. [140] Am I misunderstanding something? because it seems like this isn't much of a copyright violation? I am a bit confused because the close paraphrasing is still new to me but the copyright detector does not show issues in the article but a very small percentage. I tried to paraphrase as much as possible but if it is not enough I'll do better in the future. Nocturnal781 (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You're checking the whole article, instead, try checking the COPYVIO percentage of your own contributions which are allegedly copy-pasted from another source. – Olympian ^loquere 23:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So the information you are showing was added before I was warned for the first time not after the fact. Also I checked the tool and I see no violation unless like I said I am missing something. Olypmian please show me the comparison in where I am violating the rule because I want to make sure this never happens again... I take this very seriously. Thank you. Nocturnal781 (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Re-read the original report comment I made, you made another edit adding copyrighted material after your warning, it's the second wikilinked diff. – Olympian ^loquere 00:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Editor making tons of pointless cosmetic edits

Benawu2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making tons of pointless edits to various pages, doing things such as updating the month in a {{Use British English}} template, or adding completely pointless whitespace. It appears that they are doing this so they always have the latest edit on certain articles; if you check the history of these two examples, they always make a cosmetic edit shortly after another user makes an edit. I asked them to stop a few days ago, but they did not reply to my message, and have continued making these pointless edits since. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not happening on a particularly bad scale: I can see somewhere around 10 such edits per week, so I don't think any sanctions are necessary. However, such edits are cosmetic (i.e. they don't affect the reader-facing rendered page), and are largely unhelpful, because they end up on the watchlists of other editors, forcing them to review the edits, and they also clutter the article histories, making it more difficult to figure out how an article's content has changed.

Benawu2, would you be able to please avoid making such edits in future? If the reason you make them is to set up personal reminders (as you say here), then there are other ways to do it. For example, you can create a list of articles on a subpage inside your user space (say, User:Benawu2/sandbox or User:Benawu2/Articles to keep an eye on). – Uanfala (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I will stop updating the dates. The white space however improves the page when editing. This shouldn’t be an issue as a look through my history of edits shows that once a page looks clean to edit i don’t put any further white space in there.

Cheers.

Benawu2 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User:SushiTuna

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

---

Can someone get this TPA off this user please? Evidently they've been using their talkpage for vandalism. I believe their editing is similar to the IP User:190.208.45.244 and they created the account to evade scrutiny. Sheep (talk • he/him) 15:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Already was doing this when you posted. All taken care of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Chronic disruptive editing from UK Virgin Media IP ranges

• Special:Contributions/213.107.0.0/17 - Blocked until July 11, 2023 - Reason: Disruptive editing: Persistent unconstructive editing of several kinds, including multiple childish personal attacks, block-evasion. Also has a history of blocks going back to November 2021.
• Special:Contributions/62.254.0.0/18 - Blocked until March 15, 2023 - Reason: WP:DE. Was previously p-blocked from various pages until July 11, 2023 for "Persistent unconstructive editing of several kinds, including multiple childish personal attacks, block-evasion"
• Special:Contributions/213.104.126.0/24 - Not currently blocked (at the time of this report) but some individual IPs in the range are blocked (usually short-term) or have been in recent months.

IPQualityScore (via Proxy API Checker) reports all of the IPs in these ranges (or at least all of the dozen or so IPs I checked) as "Proxy" and "VPN" and many (most?) are also tagged with "Recent Abuse" and "Bot" (i.e., on spam blacklist).

The disruptive edits for the last 3+ months include primarily adding unsourced claims to articles about films and actors. Some of the edits are obvious vandalism (examples: changing |years_active= for an actor to 2020–2083[141] and 2020–2036[142]), but others are plausible changes, albeit unsourced, like adding claims of Blu-ray release dates to films. Frequent targets include Bebe Bettencourt, Eliza Scanlen, Neve Campbell, The Vanishings at Caddo Lake, IF (film), et al. Some of the target articles were protected for a period, but the disruptive editing just moved to different targets and then returned after protections expired.

1. Since the disruptive editing hops around and is currently operating in Special:Contributions/213.104.126.0/24, can we add a long-term block for that range?
2. Would it make sense to extend the blocks on the ranges out a year or more? While there might be some collateral impact, I note that even on the ranges that have been blocked already for some time, I have not seen on user_talk pages any unblock requests or questions asking why they are blocked.

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User creating poorly written and verified stubs

Resolved

 – N1k1taKozhk1N233 has been indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 for undisclosed paid editing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:N1k1taKozhk1N233 has a talk page full of notes about declined submissions and deleted articles, and those articles/drafts/stubs are just very poorly written and verified. One of them is up at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Drift 3D. The editor doesn't respond to any talk page notifications and doesn't seem to have learned how to write encyclopedically on notable topics using reliable secondary sources--their attempt to improve the article at AfD was this. At some point it probably has to stop: poor AfC submissions are a time sink. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent research

Can I get a review of this? In the absence of the Editor in Chief, and despite numerous people, including myself, askign for it to be held until next issue because it both A. prejudges an active Arbitration case and B. has BLP issues regarding posting attacks on two Wikipedians, it was published anyway.

Should this be unpublished? Any harm mitigation is kind of dependant on quick action. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't agree there were any "attacks". The review of the academic paper named two enwp accounts that were mentioned in the paper. The Signpost even linked to their rebuttals of the paper.

This request presupposes that there is a policy basis for some kind of "gag rule" regarding an active Arbitration case. There is no such policy that I'm aware of. The Signpost regularly covers active arbitration in our longstanding "Arbitration report" (although this was published under a different article title, the principle is the same).

BTW I ran the publishing script and take responsibility as acting E-in-C as the regular E-in-C has been absent without explanation since March 1. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, unpublish it. Now. Is it too late to add this blatant attempt to preempt due process to the ArbCom case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

When The Signpost published a critical review in the last issue, nobody complained, but when they publish a positive review, it's a blatant attempt to preempt due process. Levivich (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither should have been published while the ArbCom case is ongoing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone say that about any of the other arbcom cases covered by the Signpost in the past, which I believe include all the arbcom cases in the past. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the original post until now, I'm not aware of previous postings, I would have objected to them as well. Editorial postings by editors about ongoing deliberations are only going to generate more heat, without being of any benefit to resolving the issues at hand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost has a regular section called "Arbitration report". Levivich (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's not apparent, and for the sake of clarity, I don't regularly read the Signpost. So that's of no relevancy to my point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's apparent. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a habit I'll definitely be sticking with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I have explained here in detail why I do not agree with this kind of criticism (blatant attempt to preempt due process to the ArbCom case). Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If you don't agree with criticism, I suggest you stop dishing it out, in Wikipedia's voice, in Signpost articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not in Wikipedia's voice, it's in the Wikipedia: namespace (where nothing except maybe policies is in Wikipedia's voice), and it's clearly a review in the voice of the author of the review. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

JPxG has been active on both Twitter and Mastadon in the past few days. Perhaps someone should reach out to him to ask what's going on? Just A Regular Kind Of Zeppelin (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The author of this article and the acting editor of the Signpost should be included in the Arbcom case - The Signpost should not be used as a vehicle to win content disputes or to harrass other editors.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Also, editors posting evidence (any evidence, against or in favour) should be automatically included as party in the ArbCom case. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think the best place to seek binding resolution of this would be at MFD which has a structured environment and confines back-and-forth to a single dedicated page. There's precedent for "keep and blank" results, and arguably what's being sought is the projectspace version of draftification. Admittedly the standard runtime is 7 days but if it doesn't snow there its almost certainly not going to snow here either. As a general point, when disputes sprawl over multiple high-profile pages the number of people who are aware of the material underlying the conflict increases sharply which is counterproductive when the dispute is over whether the material should be available. Just a thought. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

For the record, this review saw extensive discussion (likely the most ever for any Signpost piece) before publication where many concerns (some valid, many not) were listened to and addressed. So any claims that it was somehow rushed or otherwise bypassed the Signpost's process are rather preposterous (see also my more detailed response to Adam here). But in any case, as far as I'm aware, ANI is not for alleged violations of the Signpost's internal process customs.

As for WP:BLP, we took such concerns very seriously with this review. If Adam can name specific parts of it that he thinks violate this policy, then I'm happy to address that. For now I'll just point out that this peer-reviewed academic paper's central thesis that seems to be the main point of contention ("attacks") was already featured prominently in the last Signpost issue (where the entire abstract was reproduced and two Wikipedia editors that the paper criticizes were named); also, of course, its claims have already been cited and discussed in numerous other venues without causing allegations about violations of WP:BLPTALK.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

alleged violations of the Signpost's internal process customs are very much within ANI's remit. It is simply absurd to suggest otherwise. 'Customs' cannot override policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The alleged violation of the Signpost's internal process customs that this ANI complaint opens with consisted of Bri moving a Signpost story from "draft" to "published" status [in] the absence of the Editor in Chief instead of postponing it to the next issue as Adam had wanted to do. Regardless of whether this violated the Signpost's internal guidelines about how to proceed in case of an absent EiC, can you explain in more detail why you think this kind of disagreement is very much within ANI's remit? Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Just adding, it's totally unclear what the alleged transgression is here. If it's publishing a link to the research itself, that happened already in previous issues and in the Arbcom notices as well. If it's mentioning parties to Arbcom cases, that's also happened repeatedly and uncontroversially in The Signpost. If it's naming the two enwp editors connected to this specific research, that happened already in in February, also uncontroversially. If it's publication review and discussion, I think HaeB covered that topic just fine. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The transgression here is publishing, in Wikipedia's voice, material that not only preempts arbcom in essentially asserting as fact allegations of distorting the History of the Holocaust, but in doing so fundamentally violates WP:BLP policy. Wikipedia absolutely must be open to external criticism in regard to its coverage of the Holocaust, and it is entirely appropriate (even essential) to take particular regard to academic critiques. Doing so in this manner is however grossly inappropriate. 'Signpost' articles are seen as the 'voice of Wikipedia', and publishing a 'review' which takes a single source as evidence of guilt would be improper even if it were not easily demonstrated that (a) the Grabowski and Klein article contains errors of fact, and (b) the Grabowski and Klein article is clearly and unambiguously derived from material gathered by a globally-banned ex-contributor heavily involved in the topic under discussion. Hit-pieces in Signpost aren't going to solve Wikipedia's issues with Holocaust coverage (which undoubtedly exist, and go well beyond the immediate issue being discussed here). Proper internal discussion just might help, but not if it is going to be dominated by partisan point-scoring and fawning regurgitation of poor scholarship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedias voice", to me, is text in WP-articles. The Signpost is not that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you are massively overstating the importance of the Signpost. The Signpost is not an Official Party Directive, agitprop, or corporate press release. The Signpost does not "speak for Wikipedia" in any capacity. The article in question is clearly not in "Wikipedia voice"---it has the author's byline clearly at the top and it simply does not read like a Wikipedia article. As for "preempting" Arbcom, I doubt the majority of committee members are assiduous Signpost readers, and even if they were, they are not a sequestered jury. They're allowed to read things and form their own opinions about them on any topic at any time for any reason. The notion that a Signpost article has some magical power to singlehandedly sway the outcome of a case by hypnotizing the Arbcom members is ludicrous on its face. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of "how many editors actually do read the Signpost??" (the only times I have are the two issues for which I was personally interviewed, both a number of years ago), the premise behind ArbCom is that they are selected people to whom the community has placed an unusual level of trust. Axem Titanium is dead on in pointing out that they are not a sequestered jury. They can see opinions from any spectrum on any issue they please -- whether or not that happens to please your own political or moral viewpoint -- and your sole recourse against ArbCom members whose stances displease you is not to vote to reelect them. Ravenswing 04:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This request is connected to an intense campaign seeking to censor discourse critical of Wikipedia's coverage in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland. As the author of the review, I must point out the enormous labor that I (and @HaeB even more so) put into the extensive discussion. Now I have to deal with continuing threats to bring me before ArbCom or to unpublish my work. All this creates a strong disincentive for academics like me to review Wikipedia-critical work for the signpost. Consider how powerful the chilling effect would be if these threats materialize.

We should ask: Are such barriers to publishing positive reviews of Wikipedia-critical research in the Signpost good for Wikipedia? How do they reflect Wikipedia's current health as an institution and encyclopedia project?

By the way, is there any Wikipedia policy against "prejudging" an ArbCom case? Or is it just a purported custom that the Signpost not do this? Groceryheist (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of "an intense campaign seeking to censor discourse critical of Wikipedia's coverage in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland". As for academics not liking criticism, most people don't. For any academic worth reading though, it should go with the job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Re evidence: I could point to your own posts on this page?

I'm talking not about about criticism, but efforts to silence. Groceryheist (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Sure, you can point at that, if your intention is to demonstrate how utterly ridiculous your claim of an 'intense campaign' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This request is connected to an intense campaign seeking to censor discourse critical of Wikipedia's coverage in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland. I assume post isn't required to go by WP:AGF or WP:NPA? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not seeing how I'm not assuming good-faith or making personal attacks here. Groceryheist (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

At the moment you seem to be implying that anyone who disagrees is part of a conspiracy to silence criticism of Wikipedias coverage of the Holocaust in Poland. If that's not what you are implying maybe you should clarify. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

To briefly clarify, I don't mean to allege "conspiracy" or even coordination. I mean that a number of actors (mostly, I presume, acting in good-faith), have for various reasons sought to influence my review to be less critical of Wikipedia or more negative towards G&K than would reflect my views. A lot of the extensive discussion was productive and resulted in improvements to the review. A lot was uncivil, perhaps WP:SEALION, and created extra work for Haeb, I, and others. Groceryheist (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So, essentially this 'intense campaign' consists of a lot of people disagreeing with you. And no, for the record, I'm not trying to 'influence your review'. I'm trying to get it removed from Signpost, since it should never have been posted there in the first place. Like anyone else, you are entitled to your opinions of the merits of the K&R article. It is not however appropriate to use something which presents itself as speaking for the Wikipedia community while doing so. Post material in Wikipedia space (which includes Signpost) and you can expect to be criticised for what looks very much like an attempt to preempt ArbCom. This sort of behaviour will, in my opinion, make it even harder to deal with the issues concerning Holocaust coverage that Wikipedia clearly has. The issues need in-depth analysis, not regurgitated toxic Icewhizzery. The issues are deep, and structural, and won't be solved by rounding up the usual suspects and running them out of town. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Groceryheist: As I said repeatedly, this was something that we had to get right, and didn't. A delay might have allowed a right to reply, or we could have censored the Wikipedians' names, at least, to lessen the BLP issues. We didn't, though. There's a host of issues brought up on the Signpost talk page. We could have waited and taken the time to make sure everything was in place. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: This horse is long gone, unpublishing it now would probably bring up more concerns than it solves.  // Timothy :: talk  20:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  and if proper procedure wasn't followed, then that should be looked at, both to prevent future issues and to determine if some bias was involved in publishing.  // Timothy :: talk  20:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• While I think the opinion piece is too harsh on some of our editors, I don't agree that it violates our WP:BLP policies, not at first glance at least. I also think that WP:MFD would have been a better place to have this discussion, as previous Signpost articles have been dealt with through that board. I'll note, though, that when an article that hasn't been published yet receives a lot of pushback from fellow editors, the people responsible for publishing them should reconsider whether they should do so, and maybe ask for a third opinion to more closely follow our philosphy of consensus. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there is any reasonable doubt about whether something violates WP:BLP, you don't publish it anyway, and discuss it at WP:MFD afterwards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• I largely agree with Isabelle--the article isn't contra-policy, but the decision to rush to publish over the concerns of several editors seems counter the spirit of consensus. Yes, publications have deadlines, but sometimes that means an article doesn't make it into this issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's simply wrong to suggest that there was a deadline-driven rush to publish over the concerns of several editors. To the contrary, this Signpost issue had been scheduled to be published on March 5 (as always, one day after the writing deadline on March 4, the day the review was posted to the draft page) [143]. But the pre-publication discussion went on for several more days, achieving what is very likely an all-time record size - no other Signpost draft in living memory has received this much effort to address feedback. Yes, in the end some of the people who weighed in still strongly disagree with the reviewer's conclusions, but that's in no way because of a "rush to publish." Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  From the talk page discussion of the review itself: As a practical suggestion, no an independent newspaper cannot [call an RfC on whether an article should be published]. We've got deadlines, we sign our work, we do not publish mainspace articles. We've been operating in this manner for 18 years. I'm not asserting that there was no review, or even insufficient review, but I have yet to see a compelling case be made that there was an actual consensus to publish. I'll note that I don't even disagree with the sentiment from the quote: a newspaper cannot hold an RfC on a piece several days past issue deadline. But perhaps when one is in a situation where it seems like an RfC would normally be needed to sort out how the community would feel about it, the Signpost is not the venue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd also like to note that The Signpost is not actually an independent newspaper. They are still subject to oversight from the community, and I can think of two occasions off the top of my head where the community forced content to be removed from the Signpost (one was just blanked). Both incidents caused a ton of drama. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Some points:

1. What you call "attacks on two Wikipedians" is actually peer-reviewed literature.[144]
2. The Signpost's charter is to inform the community about such things, and that it did.
3. The author did not opine on the impending ArbCom case, and even if he did that would be acceptable, as long as the paper also gave suitable space for dissent - and it did.
4. The editors also made considerable efforts to accommodate suggestions and criticism, despite attacks against themselves.[145]
5. TBH, editors seemed to make unusual effort to refute the essay's claims (and by extension the review), even delving into such questions as "how does one define the Holocaust", which are entirely outside the scope of the publication and everyone's expertise.
6. On the matter of BLP violations, surely you will agree that one of those Wikipedians' repeated assertions that the authors were dishonest and "lying", and that Icewhiz "co-authored" their paper, are blatant BLP violations against them? It's beyond me why we let accusations like that pass, while fighting to no end to defend some Wikipedians' feelings and reputations.

François Robere (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leave it up but tag it as the opinions of the authors and not the Wikipedia community as a whole, or as factual statements. It was probably a mistake for the Signpost to publish it in the latest edition. It was also probably a mistake for parties to the arbitration to contribute to writing it. But by this point, the barn door is swinging in the breeze and there's no sign of a horse. BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure an analysis piece in our internal newsletter is what's intended by that. Still, it should be tagged as an opinion. In the future, Signpost articles shouldn't be rushed to publication if there's doubt still being discussed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  tag it as the opinions of the authors and not the Wikipedia community as a whole - the reviews in "Recent research" carry a byline for this very reason (see the "Reviewed by" on top), as do Signpost stories in general. From Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About:

  Unlike most Wikipedia pages, each Signpost article carries a byline to indicate its author, and is edited by at least one other team member. We welcome post-publication edits such as grammatical and spelling corrections to articles, subject to review by the Signpost team; we value our readers' efforts to correct simple mistakes and provide needed clarifications. Anyone may submit articles; suggestions and news tips are welcomed on our suggestions page.

  HaeB (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking of bylines, the article currently states that it is By Nathan TeBlunthuis, Piotr Konieczny and Tilman Bayer. Is that correct? Do all three of the named contributors agree with the opinions expressed? I ask, because it seems somewhat unlikely that this would be the case, and if it isn't the case, Signpost should certainly not be implying that it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leave unchanged This isn't even in the same galaxy as a BLP violation. It's well-sourced criticism of the public, on-Wikipedia actions of editors. If this was actually a BLP problem, then literally nearly every discussion in AN/ANI/RFA is an even worse BLP problem; the vast majority of actions of editors do not have academia writing papers about them. And the Signpost is explicitly *not* in the voice of Wikipedia. As for the arbitration case, taking it down for that reason is the equivalent of ad hoc law, and in any case, we don't sequester our arbitration panel from all discussion of cases. If you think an arbitrator is unduly influenced by outside discussions, then the proper solution would be based around that arbitrator, not censoring discussions because of some fear of temptation. That this discussion is actually happening on the level, around these lines, is much more concerning than anything written in the Signpost right now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is, we don't sequester our arbitration panel *in order to provide an additional layer of security* from discussion of cases. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Remove. Failing that, prominently tag as an editorial. Incredibly poor judgement has been exercised here by publishing what essentially constitutes an attack article against editors involved in a long-term NPOV dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Remove per the incoompetence of the Signpost editors.

This request is connected to an intense campaign seeking to censor discourse critical of Wikipedia's coverage in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland

What a laugh! What ballistic naivity. This is almost certainly about intense campaigning. To understand the context of that, which should have made the wikijournos wary of rushing in where angels fear to tread, Antony Lerman's new book,summarized here, should be background reading. A brief account- Lerman was right in the thick of government monitoring and interference with any discourse of this type in global media- is here. Too much time is being wasted by careless disattention to the kind of games countries and people play in these hot-topic areas. It's dopey reportage in any case that boosts a piece of tendentious scholarship tossed up in the midst of a chronic political standoff between Poland and Israel, of which the wiki editors have zero awareness. We should all shut up and leave it to Arbcom.Nishidani (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm misreading you, but to clarify for those reading along, it sounds like you're suggesting that Somehow, the Israeli government is campaigning to unduly influence naive Signpost editors. And that this is a reason to retract the review. Groceryheist (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Another good example of your inability to read straightforward prose. Technically it is a misprision. I said you were unwary and naive, because you appear to be unfamiliar with the extensive documentation of Israeli government meddling in media representations of that state, via numerous supportive diaspora organizations. Newspapers like the Guardian have reported instances of organised tutorials in Israel to teach people how to register on wikipedia and influence articles towards a pro-Israel position. Lerman devotes a full length book to the details of how this is organized. That is the larger backdrop and which you and the other editor appear to have zero knowledge of. And, in your confident nescience of that, one of many factors, you lauded a research paper, commended its results as though they were factual and not just one of many interpretative hupotheses. I know that paper is cranky because if you use their methodology, you could write up an academic paper asserting either that (a) Israeli or pro-Israeli editors have engaged for decades in a concerted effort to manipulate wikipedia in order to buttress their country's position regarding Palestinians (usually by editing in, with poor sources, anything about the latter's terrorism) or (b) argue conversely that the I/P area has been dominated by antisemitic, antiIsraeli congeries of assorted editors who coordinate to defame Israel and distort the facts (people like myself). I know (b) is ridiculous, though claimed onwiki frequently, and offline by the usual dickheads. I know that there is some evidence for the former, and I couldn't really give a fuck about it, because I know this encyclopedic can cope with it by the normal procedures. Every (social) scientist is taught in their sophomore year that if the same methodology can produce diametrically opposed conclusions, then what is causing the dissonance is the respective assumptions of those who use it, not the data. Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• What the Wordsmith said. Leave it up as the horse has bolted, but tag it as opinion. The Signpost is an opinion page. It's not Wikipedia's "official voice," and if it wants to take responsibility for highlighting a piece of Icewhiz apologia then I guess there's nothing stopping it. There's also nothing stopping the rest of us unsubscribing from The Signpost in response (a highly recommended course). Outside of that: Arbcom can certainly cope with having this issue raised during a case on a related topic, and questions of publication timing and internal approvals are matters for The Signpost team. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave unchanged I don't understand what kind of content the Signpost should publish if not things like this. Since the topic is too hot and controversial (past and pending ArbCom decisions, etc) we don't talk about it - this doesn't make sense to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

In terms of what kind of content The Signpost should publish, perhaps it could have less gushing commentary about an article that uncritically repeats accusations from a banned harasser, and more testing of those accusations against the reality of current en-wp pages and other scholarship in this field. The issue is not the topic area, which is entirely suitable for Signpost commentary. The issue is the external authors' apparent acceptance of Icewhiz as a principal and unchallengeable source when his previous misconduct surely disqualifies him from this role.

Of course this is just my opinion and everyone is free to disagree with it. But the "recent research" column is also only an opinion, and should be labelled as such lest it be mistaken for an official Wikipedia view. Alternatively, as I suggest above, those who disagree with the editorial approach of The Signpost are free to simply stop reading it, as I'll certainly be doing following this issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagreee with your the external authors' apparent acceptance of Icewhiz as a principal and unchallengeable source: the article was written by two reputable academics, published in a prestigious journal and, as far as I know, is based on excellent scholarly sources. What you mean is not that Icewhiz is the source, but that G&K conclusions are identical to Icewhiz's. But this is not a convinging argument: Icewhiz, the banned harasser, was banned because he was a harasser, not because he was wrong. Regarding Icewhiz and this line of reasoning ("Icewhiz said the same, so it can't be right"), I've expressed my point of views here, if anyone is interested. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Sure thing, this Signpost article does not look to me as a critical and fair review of the publication by G&K. It uncritically repeats the "central claim" by G&K that WP has promoted antisemitic tropes, such as Żydokomuna, "money-hungry Jews" controlling Poland and Jews bearing responsibility for their own persecution (Four distortions dominate Wikipedia’s coverage of Polish–Jewish wartime history: ... antisemitic tropes insinuating that most Jews supported Communism and conspired with Communists to betray Poles (Żydokomuna or Judeo–Bolshevism), that money-hungry Jews controlled or still control Poland, and that Jews bear responsibility for their own persecution., G&K say). Well, I do believe that G&K has resorted to tricks (such as looking at the old versions of pages and edits by banned users) to prove this point, and they failed to prove it. Simply looking at corresponding WP pages, I do not see any antisemitic tropes promoted by WP. But whatever. If they want to paint the project and other participants that way, this is probably the right of the author. I have seen a lot worse in modern-day Russian press. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave it be: You don't like the piece? Then rebut it. As mentioned above, the Signpost welcomes contributions, and if the article is as flawed as all of that, you should have no issue with getting the chance to set the record straight. But keep on pushing in this respect, and the boomerang's coming hard and fast. Ravenswing 04:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave it as it is Anyone can leave opinions as they would like as long as it is not veering into personal attacks, hate, or harassment. This has not crossed the line. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave unchanged per Coffeeandcrumbs, who sums up my arguments well enough that I don't need to repeat them in their entirety. --Jayron32 12:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Require better notice - The Signpost is anomalous compared to most other cases, because one editor has a huge presence advantage over every other editor - a rebuttal in the comments wouldn't ensure as many eyeballs. Individuals noting that the affected editors (and, for the sake of clarity, I think the review had substantial issues, some but not all related to them. There were also reasonable judgements about said editors) could rebut it by writing their own signpost article. On which - when did the signpost article reach a fair level of content fixation? Did that leave enough time for a reasonable editor to write a rebutting article for the same release? I'd advise Signpost articles about other (active & unblocked) editors have a last submission day 3 days earlier than normal, to allow sufficient time for rebuttal. While it may not have breached BLP, it does make accusations in non-neutral language that should have a full chance to respond - and those responding need an equivalent chance to do so to OP. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave as-is Censorship is the last refuge of the coward. If one does not agree with it, then feel free to go there and give a rebuttal. ValarianB (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Wjemather

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

Wjemather has been unnecessarily undoing good edits from editors (myself and others ) for three years now. Editors have tried reasoning with that person over time, but that person does not want to listen. Several people in private chats have expressed their frustration with that person, simply because they don't know where else to turn to talk of their frustration.

That person's behaviour has not only been unproked, unneeded undoings of valid edits that no one else has ever had a problem with, but hypocritical also; the list is long of the times that that person would spitefully undo the very same type of edits that they themself have done before, throwing logic out the window. In other words, it's okay for themself, but not for others.

One other behaviour that makes that person unreasonable is making things up on the spot: An editor will do a good edit in the traditional way, but then this person in question will undo the edit with the excuse (paraphrasing), "Just because this is the traditional way is not an excuse to keep doing it that way.".

Trying to reason with that person has failed for years with many who have tried.

I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2007 and had never had any real problems from an editor until that one. I've been doing the same type of edits in the same way since the beginning, and in early 2020 that person came along and decided to be the first to take their own personal feelings and force feed them onto the Wikipedia community with uncalled for retractions that no one else had ever had a problem with. Nitpicking at every single turn, unJusifiably.

Most of that person's edits are undoings,, not additions, meaning the main purpose that person has had over the last three years has been to unneededly undo other people's edits, even when having to make up a reason to do so.

Simply to spite me, that person went and undid a good edit of mine on a page concerning a topic that they no absolutely nothing about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_State_of_the_Union_Address&type=revision&diff=1063538815&oldid=1063093800

Also last year, that person went back on a previously agreed upon standard for preparing the WGC MATCH Play page, one in which that person had willingly agreed to the year before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_WGC-Dell_Technologies_Match_Play&diff=1079435859&oldid=1079434098

It gets worse, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't; If you do an edit one particular way, that person undoes it and criticizes you, but then if you do the edit the opposite way, that person still undoes it and criticizes you.

I would have to go and do weeks' worth of finding and citing all the examples of that person's gross, uncalled for undoings. For now, I will show a few recent examples of the kinds of edits that no one else ever had a a problem with, but this person is hell bent on interfering with anyway:

Undoing a perfectly good preparation that is done each week on the PGA Tour, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=1141795948&oldid=1141795855

Undoing more preparation that is done as a normal thing in Wikipedia, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AThe_Masters_champions&type=revision&diff=1141796145&oldid=1141796054

And those are only two examples of a half a dozen interference type of undoings in the last 24 hours. It takes time and trouble to go and post these here, so I'll stop there for now.

Other times, that person will try to get a page deleted, because in their OPINION the page was made "too early", something of which no one else has ever been known to complain about in recent years. There are links to show proof of this.

After three years of constant interference of spiteful, uncalled for undoings, we will not tolerate it any longer. I have been on here for sixteen years without serious trouble for 13 of them. Over the last three years, this constant hypocritical and unneeded interference won't be tolerated. Even the simple act of letting that person know, they lash back as if you are wronging them in some way, playing the victim. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If I may say something before Wjemather has a chance: It seems to me that many of the issues with JohnSmith2116 are of his own making. It seems that many/most of his significant edits consist of adding hidden text (which he calls "preparation") of a trivial nature. WP:HIDDEN allows for "Preparing small amounts of information to be added to the article in the future" but JohnSmith2116 goes well beyond that. A recent addition (7 March) was 11,801 bytes of hidden text, clearly not small. To me a small amount of preparation is ok when it is done a short period before the event and when it's relatively complex. However he's also recently added hidden text to Masters Tournament when the event will not take place for another month. I think JohnSmith2116 would have more credibility if he simply gave up adding hidden text. Nigej (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Nigej, Keep in mind a few things. 1, Until that user came along, I never got anyone to complain about how things were done. 2, That user reverts edits that I make that they don't revert when it's someone ELSE, so, it's a spiteful reverting against me (although who knows why). And 3, the only reason I hide some of the text is to make other editors happy; I used to put all of my additions in without hiding anything at all, but many editors didn't like that, so, when we started having the text be hidden, that is when certain editors stopped complaining. So, I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. Also keep in mind, none of this funny business started until three years ago when that user came along. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Aggressive behavior of User:Hotwiki towards other editors

I think admins should take a look on User:Hotwiki's editing behavior, especially towards other editors. I stumbled upon their edit-war with User:FrostFleece regarding GMA Network shows supposed airing of their shows in 4k format and in 5.1 surround sound. Since the Philippines had yet to broadcast in full digital and most of the major TV stations are still airing in analog, FrostFleece's edits are valid. Even the programs that the network upload in their official YouTube channel are not in 4k format or 5.1 surround sound. Hotwiki reverted back FrostFleece's edits (see here, here and here) and posted a fourth level warning on FrostFleece's talk page. When ForstFleece replied on Hotwiki's talk page explaining their edits, Hotwiki replied aggressively and even threaten FrostFleece that they will report them to administrators (see Picture and audio format of LIVE broadcasts on GMA Network).

I myself have encountered Hotwiki's behavior whenever I edit the 24 Oras and Saksi articles. They may also have violated WP:OWN on these articles since whenever other editors add content on the mentioned articles, they will revert them immediately and tag them "unreferenced". -WayKurat (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Replying to reinforce this topic regarding User:Hotwiki who only greeted me with unfriendly remarks and a shower of warnings.

This all began when I started editing on the Eat Bulaga! article as I noticed the particular detail standing out. Just recently, a reversion of User:Blakegripling_ph's revision on the Eat Bulaga! article reveals User:Hotwiki's intent on maintaining their edit with their summary highlighted here:

"According to who? GMA shows are in Netflix and Netflix are required to be in 4K resolution. Again you have no proof that there are NO 4K cameras being usedwhen GMA Network already stated in their pressrelease many years ago about going 4k. Go look it up before you revert 1 more time"

It stems from this article here (which is frequently cited by User:Hotwiki) describing how GMA Network is investing to upgrade their programs to full 4K format. However, this user is greatly misinformed since it doesn't state here which shows are produced in 4K; nowhere in the article also mentions anything about 5.1 surround sound. This user also cannot provide additional references and clearly made assumptions from the said news article.

Furthermore to refute their claim, TAPE Inc.(Eat Bulaga! producer) is a separate entity and a long-time blocktimer on GMA Network (see news article) and does not produce the show for Netflix; similar to the aforementioned news programs: 24 Oras and Saksi.

I would also like to share that this issue is also spread out across most GMA drama series articles with User:Hotwiki behind changing the parameters of multiple shows also without references. Any efforts on improving these pages are considered futile due to this user's aggressive and persistent revision. FrostFleece (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hotwiki also display ownership on other pages such Twice singles discography insisting that The Feels is not a single of Formula of Love: O+T=＜3 over the objections of other editors. Hotwiki needs to respect consensus when it does not go their way. See [146] and [147]. Lightoil (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lightoil: The issue with Twice was discussed in the talk page of Twice singles discography. The evidence is there and I responded in a very civil way. You could have expressed your opinion in that talk page and you didn't. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Also this was written in my talk page "You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly. Your talk page shows it all". How is that not a personal attack? I did discuss to User:FrostFleece in a civil way, about posting a reference, which he/she failed to do so. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@WayKurat: yes, I do revert unreferenced edits immediately as those articles are in my watchlist. Is there a problem with that? Seeing your edit history, you do the same, though most of your reverts are unexplained which are seen in your contributions page[148]. User:FrostFleece made changes to at least five Wikipedia articles without posting a reference, and I checked the user's edit history, the user did not post any reference to all of his/her edits.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Expounding that statement:

1. "You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly." - I simply described your frequent threats to block me from editing as seen on my talk page.
2. "Your talk page shows it all." - describing your disposition when dealing with other editors.

Taking offense is not the same as a personal attack and I am sorry if those statements did offend you, but let it be known I have never meant it in any way a form as an attack on you.

It's simple. Provide and present references that proves the GMA content are in 4K and 5.1 sound. Please stop relying on that godforsaken article that does not back your claim at all.

I admit, it is tough finding a source that specifically details the show or channel specifications, but that information is readily available publicly since GMA Network is broadcasted across the country. I have no place to lie about it here on Wikipedia.

Please also do your due diligence instead of keeping on harassing editors for a reference you so much crave about.

Do your part too, @Hotwiki. FrostFleece (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Yes, I revert edits, but the edits I revert are mostly obvious vandalism. FrostFleece already provided an explanation on why they did the revisions, and still you acted aggressive towards them. I also didn't saw any personal attacks against you on their reply.

Also, have you watched GMA Network's over-the-air broadcasts or even watch their shows on YouTube? The signal is obviously not in HD, let alone, in 4k. It's only on 16:9 480p. The source that you keep on bringing up only mentions that GMA is capable of producing shows in 4k. Only a few stations in Metro Manila airs content in HD. -WayKurat (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

GMA Network only started broadcasting their shows in widescreen in broadcast television, this year, but their shows have been filmed with wide-screen ratio since 2014 and this is evident from online videos (YouTube/Netflix/Viu) that they uploaded throughout the years. Recent shows like I Left My Heart in Sorsogon, First Lady and First Lady are indeed filmed with 4K cameras, as 4K resolution is a standard requirement for content being streamed in Netflix[149] and GMA shows are available for streaming in Netflix. Shows being streamed in Netflix also uses 5.1 surround sound, not stereo. A 2019 article from GMA Network which was posted in Saksi, Eat Bulaga and several articles backed up the 4k claim. So please, provide a reliable source when you make an edit and claim that GMA doesn't use 4k cameras and 5.1 stereo for their shows. Thank you. TheHotwiki (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say they are not using 4k capable cameras. I'm telling you that they are NOT broadcasting in 4k and in 5.1 surround sound. Just because some of their shows are on Netflix does not mean that ALL of their shows are recorded on what format you are claiming. Heck, Eat Bulaga, Saksi and 24 Oras are not even in Netflix. You are just assuming them. I'm throwing the question back to you. Do you have a primary source that says that all of their shows are being shown over-the-air in 4k 5.1 surround sound? -WayKurat (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is your source @WayKurat:? If we are gonna drastically change audio format and picture format for 5 shows, we should able to back up that with a reliable source which @FrostFleece: failed to do so.TheHotwiki (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)