Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:John Cummings

I highly respect User:John Cummings's contributions to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Foundation, also as Wikipedian in Residence at UNESCO), but I'm worried about some of their contributions highly suspect that they're doing some WP:COI edits without any proper discloure. On contacting them, they have refused that clearly which is okay, but they are autopatrolled and that helps them avoid scruitny especially when they create spam page like QWSTION and its product Bananatex, Piñatex, [1], and many others. I'd leave it to the community how they would like to go with this case, but at least we should remove autopatrolled rights (not meeting guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, properly - visible on their creation Geeetech), so that an independent editor gets a chance to review their new article creations. Thanks! US-Verified (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @US-Verified: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Notification was hidden in a slew of other notifications, and for that I apologise. (Amended 01:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I did that. US-Verified (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

[Disclosure: I know John Cummings, having met him at editathons, Wikimedia UK AGMs, and Wikimanias]

This is an egregious failure to AGF; with none of the claimed respect on show. No diffs have been provided, and no evidence of malfeasance. US-Verified appears to have nominated a great number of John's article creations for deletion, on spurious grounds. For example, Geeetech is described as "Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT. This page is clearly a marketing piece..." and is garnering delete !votes on that basis; again, no evidence of the claimed COI is provided, and no evidence that the page is "a marketing piece". US-Verified also tagged the article with {{COI}}, again with no evidence; and without starting the required discussion on the talk page. This all occurred after John had stated in reply to US-Verified on his (Johns) talk page that he has no COI in the article and asking US-Verified to provide evidence for his unsubstantiated allegation there that John had "not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements". US-Verified did not reply. Furthermore, US-Verified had earlier `removed all the photographs from the article, describing them, falsely, as " complete spam". This kind of hounding of a good-faith editor and positive contributor is not acceptable. Administrative action is required to prevent its continuance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• @US-Verified: You have yet to provide any evidence of a conflict of interest or that he has an undeclared financial incentive. Making unsubstantiated allegations is a personal attack and potentially blockable. Please substantiate your claims or strike them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I do find it highly concerning that an autopatrolled and Foundation-affiliated editor would dump this into mainspace. How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure. The sourcing is not great (largely press releases and non-independent coverage). Or why are we including text like The Simple-Strap system allows bags to be used in multiple ways e.g. from tote bag to shoulder bag to a backpack, it is used on the Shopper, Zipshopper, Day Tote, Tote and Small Tote. or QWSTION bags have multiple carrying options, for example the Office Bag can be carried horizontally, or as a shoulder bag or as a backpack. (with an image demonstrating the use to boot) or QWSTION doesn't follow the seasonal fashion calendar, they iterate on existing products, rather than creating new ones.. This reads like a toned-down PR/advertising piece. If warmed-over WP:CORPSPAM is what Cummings normally contributes, then autopatrolled needs yanked. Hog Farm _Talk 19:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure." The same way it isn't on our many pages about motor vehicles, or aircraft, or video games consoles, or... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It's one thing to include pictures of car makes for say, Ford Focus, to illustrate what the thing looks like, or to have a picture of a book cover so you know what the book looks like. It's another to include a picture of every.damn.product a borderline non-notable organization offers. It crosses the line and becomes problematic when we have content about how wonderful a satchel is that it can be worn/carried in many ways, and then demonstrate the many ways of carrying with images (provided by the company, to boot), of handbag models carrying the thing around in different ways. The article as Cummings left it was little better than a sales brochure. Hog Farm _Talk 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Such conetnt issues should be discussed on the article's talk page; no evidnce has been provided of a pattern of problematic editing worthy of adminstrative action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're being real, if QWSTION were created by a new user, I suspect it would pretty quickly be draftified, stubified, or possibly tagged for G11. It's promotional for reasons Hog Farm explains. But while being a long-time good faith contributor doesn't make you exempt from WP:PROMO, it should buy a modicum of AGF and collaboration. Instead, US-Verified went in hot with assumptions of bad faith. It looks like before any edits to any of John's articles or any communication with John (that I can see), they just assumed bad faith that Geeetech was Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT, and continued to bang the COI drum without furnishing any evidence. The article does look like the person created it has a COI, but there's a difference between saying an article looks that way and making an accusation even after it was denied by someone who we have no reason to disbelieve (and, to the contrary, every reason to believe). Then, without any non-template messages to John that I can see, and without any talk page comments on any of the articles, US-Verified went through John's creations and nominated a slew for deletion. If they were all for promotional reasons, I'd understand, but the next link I clicked was Fidelity Communications, which is largely critical of the subject. It seems to just be WP:HOUNDING at this point. For something like QWSTION, it seems like a good first step would be "hey this is looking pretty promotional, could you take another pass?" YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I've now read WP:HOUNDING and would not interact with them in any sense that gives such impression. My only intention was to bring it to the community's notice. I appreciate what they do and won't disturb them in future in any sense, if the community decides that their work is not problematic. US-Verified (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've put an asterisk on "I won't hound him" with if the community decides that their work is not problematic. IMO you've alerted enough people here; leave it to someone else to take action if necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the autopatrolled right is not appropriate for an editor creating this kind of content. If you showed me the QWSTION revision linked above without any further context, I wouldn't hesitate to assume it was thinly veiled advertising. I don't think US-Verified is unjustified in expressing a suspicion of a COI just based on the content of the articles they linked above (though some of their other comments elsewhere, like describing some of John's contributions as "spam", go too far in concluding bad faith). Colin M (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. I've now read WP:AGF completely (and now aware how this works), so would comply with it strictly. Also, I've striked my comments which were not per WP:AGF. Hope this helps. US-Verified (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. And for what it's worth, it's entirely possible to create poor or problematic articles without having an ulterior motive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your comments. General observation: User:John Cummings created QWSTION on 20:52, 14 April 2022‎ and then on the same day they uploaded more than a dozen product photos to Wikimedia Commons (diff: [2]) and then they were verified by VRT member. Like this photo: it shows that the souce and author of this photo is QWSTION - the company under discussion. Is this normal? In my opinion, this suggests that there was some sort contact with the company and then their representative emailed to VRT team (so as part of the process, it was verified by VRT and released under creative commons license). The same is true for Geeetech, created on 13:26, 30 August 2018‎ (diff [3]), it was tagged (notablity) by @Deb: (diff:[4]), removed by User:John Cummings on 3 September 2018 (diff:[5]). Photos were added by them a day later (diff:[6]). Now, also note that these photos were uploaded by User:John Cummings, like in the case of QWSTION, and then were verified by VRT member after an email was received from Geeetech (as they were the owner of these photos), like [7]. I will share some more diffs as I find some time this weekend. Thank you all. US-Verified (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Milo Edwards, created by User:John Cummings on 6 February 2022 (diff: [8]), a photo was posted earlier, i.e. 27 January 2022 (diff: [9]) when User:John Cummings/Articles/Milo was created. Re Autopatrolled: Mahdi Gilbert, Stephen Clarke (archaeologist) (and the organization: Monmouth Archaeological Society) were created by them, but I failed to find any siginifcant coverage about these topics. US-Verified (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is this normal? It's sometimes true that paid editors or people with a COI get photos submitted through VRT, but that requires a level of wiki knowledge that [most, I'd say] people here for promotion don't bother to learn. They'd probably be more likely to just upload the file without thinking about Commons licensing processes. On the other hand, many of us have, upon writing an article, decided to reach out to the subject for images. I've done this a number of times. More often than not they just say no, get confused, or don't reply, but once in a while you find someone happy to oblige. The first one that comes to my mind is Pocket FM. I had no connection with the company when I wrote that. I think I'd just heard a radio story about it, and now we have a bunch of relevant photos. Realistically, if the person in charge of PR/marketing/whatever is savvy these days, they should be happy to oblige when someone wants to write about you on Wikipedia. None of this is to say I agree with the use of images in e.g. the QWSTION article, but to answer your question "is this normal?", I'd say "fairly normal". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  As you said, On the other hand, many of us have, upon writing an article, decided to reach out to the subject for images. This fits well in your case. You created the article on Pocket FM on 14:12, 20 January 2016 (diff: [10]) and then decided to reach out. A donated photo was uploaded by you on 25 January 2016 (diff: [11]) that means it took around five days which is reasonable. Now, take a look at the case already mentioned. QWSTION was created by them on 20:52, 14 April 2022‎ and but they started uploading photos on Wikimedia Commons before that. Around four photos were uploaded by them (exactly on 19:41, 14 April 2022) before the article creation. The photos uploaded are: 1) [12] (Text: Freunde von Freunden Qwstion Company Profile Zurich) 2) [13] (Text: "QWSTION holdall design process") 3) [14] (Text: "QWSTION minimal collection cutting pattern"), 4) [15]. All uploads on that day [16]. This is not normal. How can they be so sure — by uploading them earlier than the article creation itself — that the company will donate these photos, if they create an article — not one article, but two articles, other one is about the company's product — about them. Also, this odd editing pattern is only visible on a few articles only. Your example of a new user above makes more sense. Anyways, the community deserves a satisfactory answer from them. Let's wait for their response on this. US-Verified (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have a vague memory of tagging one of John's articles, but I also recall that I discussed it with him and explained that he needed to make a reasonable claim of notability, which the article at that time didn't do. I believe he made the necessary changes before he removed the tag. That's all I can say. Deb (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  So the sum total of your evidence for accusing - a very serious accusation - John of COI and undeclared paid editing is a hunch based on the fact that he followoed the correct and advertised process fror getting an artcile subject to provide clearence for the use of their images? It's a pitty many more editors do not take the time and trouble to do that. Do you not realise the chilling behaviour your inappropriate action can have on other good-faith volunteers who may be considerng cnotrbition to our project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nope. If you go through this discussion, then you will find multiple editors who concur with me (partially maybe). If we post any of above mentioned articles on WP:COIN (blind test - not possible though), then you find it clearer. WP:COI issue is not addressed yet - merely rejecting it is not enough. I'll expand on my rationale as I said above. US-Verified (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  You've posted evidence that John has created some problematic articles on potentially non-notable subjects but that is not, in itself, evidence of a conflict of interest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not one single editor has agreed with you that there is a "COI issue". There is no COI issue to address, because you have provided not one scintilla of evidence of COI. And yet you still keep casting unfounded aspersions. This needs to stop, or be stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)~

With no comment on this specific example, it might be a good general principle to have autopatrolled removed from paid editors, including Wikimedians in Residence. It's useful to have that second pair of eyes regarding COI. CMD (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It really would not, for a number of very good reasons, but that's orthagonal to the issue at hand. In none of the articles under discussion was John paid, nor acting as a WiR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's orthogonal. No, a number of unexplained reasons is not convincing for a very rare user perk. CMD (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more from John (and less from Andy) about John's connection with the article subject, if any. I disagree with Harry; an editor creating a WP:PROMO page about a company does, in and of itself, raise reasonable questions about WP:COI, and this looks like a product advertisement. I don't think I've seen a Wikipedia article that looks so much like a brochure before. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: for a new editor or one who has only shown an interest in a narrow range of topics, sure. John has ~17k edits to a variety of subjects. Looking at his last few hundred, it looks like he writes/edits about subjects he sees elsewhere (like the news or a social media feed or in the street) but without the deep knowledge of encyclopaedic writing and notability requirements. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Instead of asking OP to strike, we should be thanking them for bringing this important matter to our attention. Levivich (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this alleged conflict of interest, but there seems to be some original research going on here. For example, take a look at this diff of Manila hemp that adds a step-by-step description of the manufacturing process (the same material is also present at Bananatex and Abacá). Four citations are given: [17] [18] [19] [20] (I've fixed the last link, which was incorrect in the article). There is also this YouTube video embedded in the last two sources. As far as I can tell, none of these citations except the first one describe the manufacturing process in any detail (and the first source only supports the first ~6 images in our gallery). The YouTube video does briefly mention turning the fibers into paper and then into yarn, but it does not give a description as detailed as that given in our article. Am I missing something?

Also (and this is just something I happened to notice), so far three separate users have added the {{advert}} tag to QWSTION, which is not really a good look. Shells-shells (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• The QWSTION diff is really bad. That revision potentially qualifies for G11, and shows a major misunderstanding of what our articles are supposed to look like (too many images), what tone to use for our articles (absolutely should not be hyping up a company/product), and what sources to use for articles (use of neutral sources would probably have avoided the tone problems). The Bananatex diff seems to violate WP:NOTHOWTO. In this user's defense, they haven't created any articles this year, and they have created a lot of species articles (which benefit from autopatrol) in the past. Overall, I'd lean towards removing autopatrol because of the QWSTION diff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've pulled autopatrolled. COI or not, this is blatant spam that would disqualify any other editor from that user right. – Joe (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Good move and having no autopatrol is no big deal. Just means that their new articles will get a second set of eyes. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Good call. Autopatrolled is really the only "user right" that we have that having it or not changes nothing about your own editing, it just manages review queues. Sending this editors pages through NFPP seems a reasonable choice for now. Courcelles (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I had almost pulled it myself earlier, but decided to wait to see how this discussion went. Hog Farm _Talk 15:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The question of whether or not we can determine a COI is somewhat irrelevant. Any editor creating blatant advertisements and spammy pages, as Cummings is doing, is in violation of our policies, whether he was paid to do it, or whether he has any connection besides he thought it was interesting. Frankly, the idea that US-Verified should be sanctioned for failing to assume good faith when the most obvious possibility here is an undeclared COI is ridiculous and smacks of shooting the messenger because someone's wiki-friend is the one being discussed (and haven't we had enough of WMUK protecting their buddies from well-deserved sanctions to last a lifetime?) AGF is not a suicide pact, and I applaud US-Verified for bringing this up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. I'm quite disturbed by the initial response to US-Verified's comments by a couple of users. It's pretty clear there is a problem here. Number 57 17:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, Number 57, Levivich for your comments and calling a spade a spade. Andy's above comments are not helpful and I'm feeling disturbed reading them. US-Verified (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Add me to the list of those who find these edits disturbing, to say the least. US-Verified may have made some errors in presenting this report, but that doesn't invalidate it; there's definitely cause for concern here. If I'd seen this tagged as G11 I'd have deleted it without the slightest hesitation. So here's a plain question which just needs a plain answer: John Cummings, were you paid to create the truly awful page you made at QWSTION? I'm sorry to hear you're not well, but please take the time to answer anyway. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the archiving of this thread, given that John has long COVID and his ability to respond promptly to questions might be compromised. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into the details of this specific ANI report, but there's a broader, longstanding problem with UNESCO and COI that I've raised before - most recently at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 196#Continuing UNESCO COI issues and meta:Grants talk:Project/John Cummings/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2017-2018/Final. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO are exempted from WP:COI? Asking for my understanding - cause, John has edited/created multiple UN-related articles. In my opinion, this should go though WP:AFC process like other COI editors. US-Verified (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm still astonished that a Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO, in receipt of funding from the WMF, would think creating an article looking like Special:Diff/767682017 was appropriate, and to refer to it "as example for training on reuse of open license text". Judging by their acceptance of the report I linked to above, the folks at the WMF don't seem bothered though. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Reply by John Cummings

Hi all

I'm recovering from long covid and taking an extended break from work and going on the computer in general so haven't seen this thread before.

COI

I have already said (as US-Verified acknowledges above) I have no COI with regard to these articles. Nor am I paid for any of my editing, other than as previously declared as a Wikimedian in Residence. I would guess maybe 5-10% of the 100s of articles I've written are about organisations or products, I mostly write about the environment/sustainability/plants, I think I've maybe had 1 article deleted as not notable in 11 years of contributing to Wikipedia (about a man who saved people from a mass shooting).

US-Verified

After no one replied to this post for only 10 minutes US-Verified added COI and other tags to many (I counted 18) articles that I've created and nominated 7 for deletion in about half an hour. Like others here have already said, I have experienced this as hounding.

Previously I have replied on my talk page to them explaining users must provide information on why they think there is a COI, but they have not and have continued to accuse others of COI without explanation e.g ByHours, CarSwap, Guildhawk, Jurga Žilinskienė, Relief Therapeutics and nominated a large number of pages created by others for deletion. They've nominated so many articles for deletion they've had to be asked on their talk page to slow down because they're overwhelming the system. On Thursday they sent me a message on my talk page saying I don't have a conflict of interest... so I am quite confused by their behaviour. I'd really appreciate if someone could provide US-Verified with some guidance on rules around COI because they're continuing to accuse people of COI without providing evidence which cannot be pleasant for the editors. Also to assess the article tags and nominations for deletions they've made.

Article

Regarding the article about QWSTION I agree the tone could be much better, I asked the people who put the tags on the article to clarify which parts were problematic (on my talk page) but received no reply. I'll work on the article again taking this feedback into account when I'm physically able. Please add your comments on how to improve it to the talk page of the article rather than here so they don't get lost.

As others have said I've asked companies/organisations for photos to include in articles I've written, something I'm pretty experienced in guiding people through given my day job. We usually don't have any open license photos for products, or just poor quality ones, but articles for more masculine products like cars, trains, planes, military equipment etc often include images of every product eg Ferrari, Boeing 747. I don't think including every model of a plane or car for a company would be described on Wikipedia as advertising but I understand why it could be seen as this for articles that don't usually have so many photos available. Again if people have ideas of which images to include please add them to the talk page.

Responding

I hope this answers your questions, I will check again next week some time for any replies. I would appreciate if users could @ me in the messages if their questions are directed at me, it's a lot of effort for me to read all this text currently.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'm hoping you get better soon. I don't think this answers the questions asked above. RE e.g.:

• CarSwap was created by User:Isingness who is blocked for advertising
• ByHours, when I discovered this article (btw, I tracked your articles, this article, all other through reverse search using press release or spammy website link) it looked like this. A few problems I noted were use of press releases, ref bombing, and way the awards section was written clearly suggest someone with COI edited it. I was right about this and found that a single-purpose account User:Oneal Rock created the article.
• Guildhawk and Jurga Žilinskienė are interlinked, much like QWSTION and its product Bananatex. These two articles, Guildhawk and its founder have been edited by someone (User:Paxlife) who is sort of maintaining these two for a year now and the tone of their edits suggests that they haven't declared COI yet -- I have sent them a message to declare it. I'm glad you brought these two here so there is a chance we can cleanup its contents now.
• Relief Therapeutics is cited mostly with primary sources (i.e. press releases, company links, and others), edited recently by User:WaterfordWhisperer. Thank you!

US-Verified (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

RE hounding: As I said, I tracked your problematic article QWSTION through reverse search and was the reason that I checked your editing history and found more articles that were not compliant with WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV (I just nominated them, so we can discuss). I've just seen your editing history for a few times and this was done for a "good cause" (as described on that guideline). US-Verified (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

N1C4T97

N1C4T97 (talk · contribs) demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - it's evident this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Some glaring examples from their recent contributions:

• [21] - Removes "cultural genocide" and replaces it with “vandalism” instead, despite the wikilinked article Armenian cemetery in Julfa indeed describing Azerbaijan's actions as "cultural genocide" with reliable sources. In the same tendentious edit, for no logical reason, changes the citation of George Bournoutian - an accomplished historian on Caucasus and beyond, to attributed citation.
• Removes the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article [22]. At the same time, adds unsourced "Armenian war crimes" category in several articles [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], previously added by a sockpuppet IP [29], [30], [31], [32], [33].
• Reverts and edit-wars without discussing when asked for a source for his edits, does not provide a source [34], [35], [36], [37], edit-wars in another article [38], [39].
• According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn’t have an Azeri war crime category since “places cannot be a war crimes” [40], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [41], [42], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article.
• While removing sourced Azeri war crime and category in Talish article [43], adds a partisan and unreliable archive website as some sort of apologia for Azeri Nazi legion [44]. The same website (echo.az) publishes garbage such as this: "Armenia revives myths about "genocide"" [45].

In summary, this user demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - they edit it partisan manner, resort to reverts and edit-warring, their edits push a clear nationalist point of view and they're restoring sockpuppet edits. It’s clear that this user is here to push POV in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, that is - WP:NOTHERE. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to report them myself, they blatantly refuse to abide to the community imposed extended-confirmed restriction, even though I did notify them about it on their talk page, for them just to continue tendentious editing as if nothing happened. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Proposal - Indef Topic Ban for topics relating to Azerbajian/Azeris and Western Asia Countries, broadly construed - I think based on the editors disruptive editing in this area is clear in their partisan editing, and would normally think a site ban would be warranted, but it looks like the user has made some edits outside the topic area and could still work constructively in noncontentious topics.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my report.

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support I reverted the POV edit of N1C4T97 in Gülüstan, Nakhchivan - what they don't mention is that the wikilinked main article in their edit literally has 3 reliable sources for cultural genocide in the lead [46], [47], [48]. Can't comment about the other articles, but N1C4T97 defending his tendentious editing with this misleading wall of text pushes me to support a topic-ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian, I was not actively editing, while I created my account many years ago. So, I am new to Wikipedia, especially to the EnWiki, and I acknowledge that I unintentionally disobeyed some rules. Like, I was unaware of the community-imposed extended-confirmed limits that prohibit new editors from making edits related to the topic area. I stopped making any further alterations to the topic area after I noticed the message put on my user talk page about that.

Tendentious editing accusations against me are made-up and groundless. In this case, the "evidence" against me cannot even be referred to as such, as the difference between revisions were manipulated to deceive the admins. I am not sure why KhndzorUtogh did that, but evidently, he snipped through my edit history, and without even attempting to clarify them with me, he brought a bunch of snippets in an effort to convince admins to ban me.

For example:

1. In this difference between revisions I specified the author "Armenian historian George Bournoutian" because I thought that "primary sources" sound vague. I also changed "cultural genocide" to the "cultural vandalism" as per cited source, which clearly states "cultural vandalism" and doesn't contain "cultural genocide" term. The other source other is a website that is funded by Armenian government (note the text on bottom). I am astounded that KhndzorUtogh did not even bother to discuss this edit before bringing it up to accuse me of tendentious editing.

2. difference between revisions KhndzorUtogh accused me for removing "the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article". In fact, I explained everything in the edit summary, but I will repeat it here. I removed the war crimes category because it is not applicable for the article which is about the village, and I removed "the sourced Azeri war crime" because it was cited to some unknown partisan website, which is based in Yerevan, Armenia. On the other difference between revisions, I was adding war crimes categories to the events where civilians were massacred. There is a difference between an article about village and an article about events. I do not think I even need to explain that to anyone. I was doing that because those events fall under UN war crime classification [49]. I am curious why KhndzorUtogh did not mention anything about the edit summary in which I explained everything. Why is he making this bogus accusation without even bothering to discuss this edit beforehand?

3. "According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn't have an Azeri war crime category since "places cannot be a war crimes" [174], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [175], [176], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article." - This is totally made up; in fact, it is a clear disinformation. On 20 February 2023, I added the Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany category to the Armenian Legion article. That edit was reverted on 17 March 2023 by Kevo327 with the "Category is for persons" edit summary. Kevo327's edit summary convinced me, and I deleted an identical category from the identical article on March 19, 2023. Before we established the consensus that these categories do not apply to these articles, there was some back and forth between these difference between revisions[50] [51], but the point is that KhndzorUtogh's description of these difference between revisions is entirely misleading. I don't know why KhndzorUtogh attempted to mislead administrators into believing that first I removed from one article and then added to another. Time, when edits were made, proves the opposite.

In conclusion, it is apparent, and I have demonstrated, that this report is baseless, and I can not believe that it was filed in good faith. KhndzorUtogh never came out to me on the talk page to discuss my edits, nor did he engage in many of the difference between revisions he provided here. From what I see KhndzorUtogh essentially glanced through my edit history, sniped some of my edits, did not even bother to discuss them with me, and did everything he could to mislead administrators and persuade them to ban me. I hope administrators will recognize this and not fall for this false information.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@N1C4T97, articles on Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts are under an extended-confirmed restriction, meaning they are off-limits to editors under 500 edits. They are contentious subjects that require a solid understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know it now, but I was unaware about that restriction until I was informed on my talk page by another user. I believe making that restriction more visible to newcomers would be beneficial.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked N1C4T97 for 1 week for their violation of WP:GS/AA on March 19 (Special:Diff/1145494935, a series of 3 edits), 3 hours after receiving a notice from Kevo that specifically explained the community sanction (Special:Diff/1145468587). I haven't otherwise investigated their edits, but given GS/AA, discussion of a topic ban at this time seems moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and upgraded to a WP:NOTHERE indefinite site ban following further investigation, considering both the evidence above and additional investigation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  What an appalling display of collaboration we've witnessed! Three partisan pro-Armenian editors relentlessly pursued a new pro-Azerbaijani editor in an attempt to force him out of wiki. At this stage, it's hard to tell whether Rosguill is oblivious to the fact that said pro-Armenian editors are ganging up against a newcomer or if he is consciously supporting their efforts.

  @Rosguill:, I have been closely monitoring your administrative actions within the Ar-Az area for a long time now, and I've noticed you regularly back up pro-Armenian editors and treat pro-Azerbaijani editors unfairly and harshly without distinction to the merit of either side's arguments. In the latest incident, you opted to ban a new user who was clearly being targeted by a group of editors. You banned them immediately for not complying with an extended-confirmed restriction even though they had ceased editing in the area as soon as they had become aware of it, despite that, you arbitrarily decided that a site ban was an appropriate measure.

  How could you immediately site ban a beginner user when it was evident that they was being targeted by a group of editors? Have you forgotten about the principles of WP:NEWBIES and WP:GOODFAITH, or do you choose to ignore them selectively? Did you not consider the fact that the people who reported him were edit warring with him, and none bothered to offer them any assistance or engage him in a dialogue about how Wikipedia works? Strangely, you did not resort to the usual excuses of "content dispute" or "lack of discussion" this time. Did you even bother to read his response, which clearly exposed the bad faith intention of the poorly crafted report, or do you simply not care?

  I implore @Callanecc, Wugapodes, SilkTork, El C, Moneytrees, Nythar, Izno, Beeblebrox, Starship.paint, CaptainEek, Guerillero, and Stifle:, to investigate Rosguill's clearly biased and partisan adminship in the Ar-Az area and to take necessary steps to eliminate any and all disruption caused by his prejudiced and partisan actions, which he seems unable to control/identify. 85.249.29.84 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I stated above and in the block log, this block was the result of additional investigation. I'm happy to share the details of the investigation with any admin. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I have no experience at all in Ar/Az, and also, I’m not an admin. starship.paint (exalt) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure why I have been pinged but this area is not one with which I am acquainted or in which I feel competent to act. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban - @Rosguill: I have to agree with the nominator, I think the report clearly shows N1C4T97’s disruptive behaviour, him editing in partisan manner - this isn't something needed in the already volatile and contentious AA topic area. POV-pushing by adding "war crime" categories and removing them elsewhere based on what/where suits their POV, and then edit warring over it - the pattern is clear. I’m sorry to see them calling the report "baseless" in the face of clear evidence - this shows no insight or willingness to improve. This leaves little hope that editing will be better after the week of block, and therefore I think the tban should be applied as a preventative measure. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Boomerang for Kevo and Rosguill for mendacious lawyering. Fistagon2.0 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    Is this a sock? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    @LegalSmeagolian Yes, it's the same vandal from here [52]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing against consensus at Sheikh Hasina

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

---

AMomen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A.Musketeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sheikh Hasina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently I closed an RFC at Sheikh Hasina dealing with the lead, which followed a go-around at DRN and significant edit warring. After I closed the RFC it was pointed out that the article had not returned to the status quo on my talk page. I did some investigating, and prior to the major outbreak of the dispute and edit warring, there seemed to be a reasonable status quo to return to. At that point, I recommended that the article return to the lead from October 27th at Talk:Sheikh Hasina#Status quo.

Since then a clear consensus of editors, most importantly editors uninvolved in the original dispute such as Seraphimblade, Vinegarymass911 (sorry to pull you two into this crap yet again), and myself have identified the late October lead as the status quo ante from before the dispute. Two editors, A.Musketeer([53][54][55]) and LucrativeOffer([56][57][58][59][60]) have refused to accept that consensus, and are continuing to edit war their prefered lead from the RFC into the article. It takes two sides to edit war, and AMomen88 is also edit warring back to the consensus status quo version, though I am less conerned because there is a clear consensus for the version they're reverting to and they're not reverting to their preferred RFC outcome. It's certainly not ideal, which is why I'm seeking some resolution here.

I think a clear statement from the community that they need to stop edit warring and accept the consensus about the status quo on the talk page should take care of the disruption. If they don't accept the consensus, and the edit warring continues, they should be subject to partial blocks from the page starting at a week and escalating from there. I am specifically not interested in any discussion on the content here, only on the editing against consensus. The content can be hashed out on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. Apologies if I do not understand anything correctly. ScottishFinnishRadish could you please tell us how Vinegarymass911 is an uninvolved editor when it was already pointed out to you that he had previously engaged in edit war in the article to reinstate AMomen88's desired version? Also, could you please tell us who first introduced you to the October version as the status quo and how you came to the conclusion that it is the status quo? LucrativeOffer (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Vinegarymass911 made a single edit to revert to what they saw as the status quo before that particular edit war broke out, asking you to take it to the talk page, and then made no further edits to the article and made a single edit to the RFC, and did not contribute to the DRN. I would say that there is a shade of involvement in the months long back and forth, but it seemed they were trying to head off the edit war. Their making a single edit, versus the absolute shitload (I stopped counting at a dozen, but that was still in December) you made isn't exactly engag[ing] in an edit war in the article to reinstate AMomen88's desired version. Seraphimblade and myself are entirely uninvolved.

As I linked to above this is when it was brought up on my talk page by AMomen88, providing a version from October 28th. Looking at the history, it is clear that this edit on October 28th was the one that began the dispute about the lead, and the lead was more-or-less stable before that. So looking at when the lead was a) changed in a way that led to a dispute and b) reasonably stable, I determined the status quo.

Seraphimblade (who supported the lead you supported in the RFC), Vinegarymass911, AMomen88 (who's edit to the lead is not included in the status quo), and myself agree that this as the status quo. A.Musketeer and yourself do not. At this point there are two uninvolved editors, one editor that is barely involved, and one editor that was involved in the dispute agreeing, and two editors who were involved disagreeing, and edit warring to keep the version they supported during the RFC, which was never a stable version. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. So in summary, you came out from your earlier position that Vinegarymass911 is an "uninvolved editor", to "barely involved". It also appears that AMomen88 is the one who introduced you to the late October versions of the article as status quo and you immediately agreed without consulting the other side of the dispute.

Here is my observation - Sheikh Hasina is a controversial topic and has always been in dispute. It was also pointed out to you by A.Musketeer that the article was a battleground even in October, showing diffs of edit-warring in that month, which makes the late October versions unstable. Yet, you kept arguing it to be the status quo. There was no edit war in the article between 15 January and 10 March, the duration of the RfC, which makes the version at the end of the RfC to be the most stable. The dispute began when AMomen88 started to remove contents that are critical of the subject, hence, I am not surprised he proposed the late October versions as status quo to you since they are devoid of those contents.

In my opinion, ScottishFinnishRadish has been misled about the nature of the dispute which also impairs their judgement about the consensus forming in this case. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: the statement above shows LucrativeOffer understands this is a controversial topic and instead of following guidelines and policy to resolve disputes, they have decided to POV edit war and are doubling down on being "right". We all make mistakes, this look intentional and repeated.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not much has changed in the past two months. The two principal editors came to DRN. After trying to act as a neutral moderator, it was my opinion that at least one of them, and probably both of them, were trying to game the system by appearing to be on the side of the moderator. I failed the moderated discussion, and started the RFC. It appears that User:ScottishFinnishRadish has picked up where I left off, and made progress by identifying the status quo ante version of the article, and found that there was no consensus on the lede, and now the principals are again trying to game the system and appear to be on the side of the moderator (who isn't on a side). The community should thank User:ScottishFinnishRadish for his efforts. I think that the partial blocks proposed by SFR are a minimum remedy at this point. I would support any length of topic-bans at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have a question, although it need not affect the resolution of the dispute. Is Bangladesh within the scope of the India and Pakistan contentious topic? It isn't necessary to answer, because I think that the community will be able to handle this dispute by partial blocks and topic bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it's own nation, and isn't explicitly called out in WP:ARBPIA, so I'm not sure. It feels like it should be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bangladesh was part of Pakistan for about 25 years but has been independent for over 50 years, and they're over 1,000 miles apart, so WP:ARBIPA wouldn't normally apply. In this case, the article's subject wasn't prominent before independence and the disputed lead doesn't mention Pakistan or, her date of birth aside, the pre-independence period. NebY (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Beyond NebY's comments, simple proximity shouldn't matter ... or do we lump in Bhutan, say, as well? The measure should really be rather simple: is there a history of edit warring over Bangladeshi articles, above and beyond the normal run of partisan politics? (No doubt, for instance, we can find a controversial political article or three from damn near every country on Earth.) Ravenswing 19:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I meant more along the lines of Poland being in central Europe, but being part of the EE CTOP, and WP:GSCASTE covering Bangladesh makes it feel like it might be covered. As Robert says above though, we're more than capable of handling this without fancy sanctions, so input on the issue at hand is still very welcome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that User:ScottishFinnishRadish has been misled as to the nature of the dispute, but there may be an unsuccessful effort to mislead SFR as to the nature of the dispute, an attempt to misuse the services of a moderator, but it appears that SFR has seen through that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Reading the deliberations, I have to say it is impressive the extent of the chicanery being resorted too. User:LucrativeOffer is aware there is no consensus for their soapbox lead and as a result they are clutching at straws attempting to use ad hominin to question the integrity of editors. I do not want to relitigate but for the record, the dispute began when LucrativeOffer reverted my edits calling them "promotional" without evidence, this was reverted by User:Vinegarymass911 who urged them to avoid edit warring and discuss, a plea which was roundly ignored. They then proceeded to insert their own lead and ignored calls to refrain from edit warring. I recognise the fact that the lead I produced has no consensus, which is why I have refrained from inserting it, I do not understand why LucrativeOffer and User:A.Musketeer are incapable of doing the same. The lead of 27 October which I support as the status quo contains content which is critical of the subject, I reverted LucrativeOffer's edits not because it contained critical content but because it was poorly written blatant politicking which made unsourced claims, it has no place on Wikipedia, such a lead would be better placed on Medium. I was attempting to revert to the status quo which has been recognised as such by quite literally everyone involved in this discussion including supporters of Lede A, Lede B and uninvolved editors, only two partisan editors who want to insert their preferred lead oppose this. To date all of the bans which have been enacted against me have been as a result of my endeavours to insert this status quo version. LucrativeOffer in particular seems to have an insatiable zeal to edit war whether its on Sheikh Hasina or 2013 Shapla Square protests where they added their opinion without citing a source and continuously reinserted this biased POV content despite multiple reversions from different editors, they were rightly banned for this misconduct. Proportionate measures should be taken to deter such disruptive behaviour, an ascending Tban is perhaps an appropriate option.—AMomen88 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• LucrativeOffer has quite thoroughly summed up the dispute and I have nothing much to add here. I have shown my concerns about the proposed status quo by ScotishFinnishRadish but for some reasons they were ignored by him. I will stick to my assertion that there is no evidence of any consensus regarding which version is the status quo. I do not recall any incident where I have been uncivil in this dispute, neither any occasion where I edited against the policies and guidelines in this dispute. I have faith in the community and will accept any decision taken here. I just have one confusion here. The allegation against me is that I edited against consensus and ScottishFinnishRadish has shared my diffs from 03:01, 11 March 2023. But the discussion on the status quo itself started on 17:47, 11 March 2023. How can you reach a consensus before even starting the discussion?

Robert McClenon which two principal editors are you talking about who gamed the system? If that includes me and since you are a proposing a topic ban, can you show some evidence with diffs where I gamed the system? I was invited to discuss in the DRN and I responded. All my statements were civil as far as I recall.

Before any decision is taken, I would urge the community to also shed light on AMomen88's conduct which has been testing our good faith for several months and have been appalling to say the least. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive conduct by AMomen88

Edit Warring - AMomen88 has violated 3RR straight three times on this article with no consensus for his poorly sourced POV edits in last December to January for which he was blocked thrice within a month. [61], [62], [63]. The article's history clearly shows there has been no change in his behaviour and he continues to edit war without consensus. The DRN also became stalemate when he started edit-warring as the discussion was going against him.

Casting aspersions - Leaves an edit summary: "it is clear the editor has a vested interest", besides, numerous other personal attacks against other editors.

Canvassing - Every time a discussion takes place he would make no delay to leave inappropriate messages to editors with similar POV to support him in the dispute and keeps on forcing them until they respond. For instance, when the RfC started and Solomon The Magnifico expressed his disinterest to participate, AMomen88 reminds him of previous favors in an ANI discussion. AMomen88 keeps on pursuing when Solomon The Magnifico remains uninterested. Finally he expresses his "disappointment" and calls Solomon The Magnifico "disingenuous". All these despite repeated suggestions to not engage in canvassing, [64], [65].

It is quite amusing to see him still allowed to edit with such level of disruptions, misconduct and competence issues. If a topic ban is being proposed against me for editing against an invisible consensus, I guess AMomen88 doesn't deserve anything less than an indefinite ban at least. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban Three Editors

I propose that the situation be resolved by topic-banning User:A.Musketeer, User:LucrativeOffer, and User:AMomen88 from the topic of Sheikh Hasina, broadly defined, for three months, and that they be partially blocked from the article on Sheikh Hasina.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, as the three of them make the article uneditable for other users. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The inability of these editors to resolve their strong but superficial disagreement about the lead section, which is just a summary of the body, only shows how they are not currently making any substantive improvements to the article, while making it more difficult for others to get involved at the same time. —Alalch E. 09:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - The only action I have taken is to restore a status quo version which has been recognised as such. If restoring the status quo is worthy of a Tban I am dumbfounded. I am a regular contributor to Bangladeshi Wikipedia, an area often neglected in what can be a Anglo/European centric community. LucrativeOffer and A.Musketeer are both inactive users, this is not my opinion but a fact based on their meagre contributions. The few contributions they have made have been of a poor quality and heavily skewed, something for which they have both been blocked on multiple occasions. This report was made in response to the disruptive behaviour of two editors, LucrativeOffer and A.Musketeer, who edited against overwhelming consensus, I do not know on what grounds I was added to the report.—AMomen88 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Can we get some more eyes on this section? Edit warring is continuing, and is taking place elsewhere in the article now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Massive time sink. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support an indef topic ban, actually, not just three months. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef ban from the topic of Sheikh Hasina, broadly defined, and a warning that further edit warring elsewhere will quickly result in further bans/blocks. After looking at article and DRN, I don't see any scenario where these editors could work on this article productively, or even a hint of being willing to LISTEN regarding the topic. This has been an enormous time sink. Looking at DRN, I think Robert could have found a consensus, but the participants were not willing to work towards one in good faith. Given the edit historoes at [66], Talk:Sheikh Hasina, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 226#Sheikh Hasina they should be blocked. // Timothy :: talk  19:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment LucrativeOffer is again editing against consensus and attempting to insert their version of the lede despite overwhelming consensus against it. They have inserted poor quality POV content which includes unfinished sentences, you cannot seriously place their actions in the same league as mine.—AMomen88 (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Somehow, AMomen88 gets the idea that adding any content he doesn't like is going against consensus. I have started a discussion three days ago on the article's talk page but AMomen88 has no intention to discuss and kept edit warring. LucrativeOffer (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: If this had been posted to the EW boards, bans would already be in place and this would be over. I have no idea why this has been allowed to continue for so long (months) and continue today. This is clearly an active unrepentant long term POV edit war.  // Timothy :: talk  01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per discussion. Mehedi Abedin 01:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Onel5969

• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First, please note that I'm French and so almost all my contributions are on wiki.fr and English is not my mother tongue. So sorry if I don't know perfectly the rules here and sorry if I don't use the right words.

Nowadays, I consider that behavior of User:Onel5969 are very problematic. I created the article Handball at the Goodwill Games on 24 February 2023‎. I've nothing to say when he added on 4 March 2023‎ templates asking for primary sources and notability, I'm totally fine with the fact that the article is a stub and can be improved. Fine.

But then :

• 10 March 2023 at 11:25 first clearing (so only 4 days after having added the Multiple issues banner whereas, for instance, Figure skating at the Goodwill Games has the banner "One source since October 2012!)
• 10 March 2023 at 15:51 second clearing
• 17 March 2023 at 10:52 article moved to draft
• 24 March 2023‎ at 10:59 third clearing
• 24 March 2023‎ at 14:12 fourth clearing
• 24 March 2023 at 14:39 nominated for deletion.

I really don't understand how it is possible that such an experienced and many many times awarded user can act with without any piece of collaborative behavior nor empathy. If this person does not want people to contribute here, I'll take refuge in wiki.fr, it's not a big deal for me, but if he acts like that with everyone, I think it's a problem for wiki.en!LeFnake (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a behavioral issue, this is a content dispute. Where is your attempt to discuss this with Onel5969? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's rather generous of you. This is a content dispute that the OP has made into a behavioral issue by twice removing the AfD template from the article and never warned; removing it once is at least disruptive but twice is nothing but vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)\

Good point. I was referring to Onel, but you're right that there could be a WP:BOOMERANG here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that I shouldn't have to remove AfD template, sorry for that angry outburst :-( LeFnake (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree with this take, Muboshgu. Obviously it's inappropriate to remove the AfD template, but it's also obviously inappropriate to blank a page four times (not including a move to draftspace), edit warring with two other people, before nominating it for deletion. That's a conduct issue, not a content dispute. Of course a single redirect/draftify is ok, but when challenged edit warring isn't an acceptable solution. So why is the burden only on the newbie to follow basic protocol, and not on the experienced editor, who also made no attempt to discuss beyond dropping a template? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Also a good point. Backing away now like Homer Simpson into the bushes. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• I must say I've found this behavior by Onel5969 (across many different pages, either edit warring to restore redirects for undiscussed articles with no major issues (something that is not to be done more than once); or his draftifications for new articles (ones that don't have major issues) because... I don't actually know why he does that - and he does it sometimes (both redirection and draftification) for very clearly notable articles as well, for example D-I college football seasons, college football teams, etc.) a bit annoying and problematic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Onel5969's behavior has driven away other productive contributors, so I agree that something should change here.  — Freoh 16:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 doesn’t “drive away” anyone who creates articles with decent sourcing to start with, or responds to tags by adding appropriate sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you know how many editors are able to write a decent, well-sourced article on their first try (or one of their first attempts)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I’m pretty sure I did, but in any case, the point of tagging and draftifying to precisely to give the creator scope to improve their work, with suggestions about how to do so. Mccapra (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I've created one article, I reread the appropriate notability guideline several times, asked advice on it and made sure I had my sourses all lined up. I'm now working on getting sourcing for a second. I feel we push new editors towards article creation to quickly, and only afterwards warm them of notability and independent reliable in-depth coverage etc. It would be good if we had a "I see you're trying to write you first article" script to guide new editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. XAM2175 ^(T) 02:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I second this. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 05:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Dare I say Wi-Clippy-tan? –Fredddie™ 05:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is the stub in question. I'd have redirected it too, easily. There doesn't appear to be any other interaction between Onel5969 and John Quiggin beyond that single dispute. DFlhb (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• @LeFnake: As I wrote above, I don't agree with Onel's repeated redirection here, but it's reasonable to expect that an article created on the English Wikipedia (I can't speak to frwiki) in 2023 with only official sources will be redirected or nominated for deletion. New articles are generally expected to be supported by reliable sources independent of the subject which show that it meets a relevant notability criteria. Usually that means making sure there are at least two or three sources with no connection to the subject writing about the subject in some depth. Repeatedly redirecting such an article isn't appropriate, but if you restore a redirect a deletion nomination is all but assumed. While I haven't looked at the newly added sources closely enough to see if they pass the bar, cheers to KatoKungLee for doing the necessary work to find independent sourcing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I wrote above, I agree that removing AfD template was stupid. For me it was the last straw and I outbursted angry, but I shouldn't.

  About new articles, we have barely the same rules on frwiki. When someone logically add templates asking for sources and/or notability, the article goes to AfD if it haven't been improved (or not enough). BUT this process generally takes monthes and transfer to AfD is not made by the one who added the templates in the first place but by another person (most of the time, an admin I think). That's why I considered the AfD was inappropriate now.

  As previously said, English is not my native nor daily language and I don't really know where I can find reliable sources. That's why I asked for help on WikiProject Handball and just had an answer today. Too late unfortunately. LeFnake (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Things used to move more slowly here, with more patience for gradual improvement. We've gradually moved from a focus on quantity to quality, however, and there's now a mostly unwritten expectation that articles show notability at the time of creation. Good in some ways, bad in others. IMO this thread earns a WP:TROUT for both parties for edit warring, etc. (IMO a bigger trout for Onel, who should know better), but at least the article is a bit better now and you know what to expect on the next article, for better or worse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: @LeFnake:, you’re obviously an experienced editor, so you’ve probably had and seen bad moments, which I think explains Onel5969 interaction with this article. It looks like the article will survive AfD, do you intent to ask for sanctions? I believe they have taken this into account, would you let the community know how you wish to proceed? Greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  21:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for asking. I think Onel5969's behavior is not acceptable: he does not have more rights than anyone else to solely decide what is ok or not. Asking for sources and notability is 100% normal. And if improvements are missing or insufficient, the fact that an article goes eventually to AfD, that's also 100% normal. But here, the timing has been very very short and he just considered that his vision was better than the community's one.

  I forget to say it before, but I never previously met him, so there is no revenge or something like that in my mind. In the opposite, I then easily imagine what happend here can't be an isolated incident.

  So yes, I think sanctions would be appropriate. LeFnake (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

so, just for clarity, were you intending to add more sources? If so, how much time do you think would be appropriate? Would you prefer to have your articles quickly sent to AfD rather than draftified? What outcome do you think would be optimal? Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

honestly, no, this way to proceed just discourage me from doing anything. I thought that Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by containing information on all branches of knowledge and that Wikipedia should be written collaboratively. I know now that this time is over on wiki.en and I'm 100% I'll never try to create another article here. LeFnake (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• In my experience, Onel5969's interpretation of WP:BLAR is aggressive, and their interaction with newer, inexperienced users leaves something to be desired. Looking at their talk page just for the last few days, I see User talk:Onel5969#The Lions of Marash. The article, The Lions of Marash, did in fact have sources, though apparently not good enough for Onel5969, who blanked and redirected, and then told off the creator when they came to their talk page for an explanation. It's not up to Onel5969 to decide whether an article passes GNG or not. There's a responsibility for long-time users, administrator or not, to treat good-faith editors with respect. No one makes you edit here. Mackensen (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Page triage is mainly about deciding whether an article meets notability requirements or not. There’s always recourse to AfD to make a final determination but patrollers make that decision multiple times every day. Mccapra (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of article quality or anyone else's actions, Onel was way out of line in blanking the page 4(!) times without starting a discussion. This is unacceptable and deserves a warning at the very least, especially for an editor who's been around long enough to know better. I'm not generally a fan of articles based solely on statistics but these olympics articles are normally built around stats tables and are a rare case where it's acceptable to not have SIGCOV sources. –dlthewave ☎ 22:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Edit-warring in a redirect is never the right decision (and AfD was clearly the right decision if Onel cared enough and they were blatantly aware of AfD being an option considering their edit summaries, but were refusing to start one and instead kept up the edit war). Another problem is trying to do the edit war over an extended period of time, which gives the impression that Onel was trying to sneak through the redirection at a later date to try and get it accomplished without being noticed. Silverseren^C 23:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • - seren - This is what happened to me. I used the site frequently a few years ago then lost interest. Then the new rules were made after the Lugnuts situation finished and the requirements for posting articles got more strict. Within a few weeks of returning here, Onel drafted about 9 articles of mine that would have been eligible before the Lugnuts situation finished. This was completely new to me since I only knew of the AfD process. So I got very upset about it and it really soured me on this site. It created a lot of extra warring, arguments and issues with not only me and him but other users as well that might have not existed otherwise if the articles were just AfD'd in the first place.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Back-Door Deletion

The major complaints about User:Onel5969, and the usual complaints about any reviewer whose reviewing is criticized, are about what I will call back-door deletion. There are at least two forms of back-door deletion, but the concerns about the two forms of back-door deletion are similar. The two forms of back-door deletion are moving an article to draft space, and cutting an article down to a redirect, sometimes called BLARing the article. Are we in agreement that the complaints are about back-door deletion? Are there any other forms of back-door deletion? Repeatedly taking action to delete an article via a back door is edit-warring. The reason that reviewers sometimes edit-war to back-door delete an article that is not ready for article space is that writing a successful Articles for Deletion nomination is work. It is easier to move an article to draft space or to replace the text of an article with a redirect to a parent topic than to write am AFD nomination. An AFD nomination with an analysis of sources is especially demanding, but is sometimes required when an editor is persistent. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There are at least two subvarieties of edit-warring over draftification. The first is moving the same page into draft space a second time, after it was draftified once and moved back to article space by the author. I think that we are in agreement that draftifying the same article twice is edit-warring and should be avoided. There is another way that persistent editors edit-war to try to force articles into article space. That is moving a copy of the article into article space when the previous copy has already been moved into draft space once. Then the spammer or POV-pusher may think that the second copy is safe in article space, because draft space is already occupied. However, some reviewers will then move the second copy of the article to draft space as a second draft with the numerical label '2' to distinguish it from the first. The more appropriate action would be to nominate the article for deletion, which does however require more work than just moving it to draft space with a number after its title. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we in agreement that the controversy is primarily about use of back-door deletion by Onel5969, when a formal deletion process should be used? Are we in agreement that a logged warning to User:Onel5969 is the appropriate action? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - Onel does three things that create problems: 1) He marks articles as drafts instead of nominating them. While he says he does it so writers can improve the article and not get it deleted, which very well could be the case, it can also be taken in a negative way like I took it - as a way to get around the AfD process and basically force an uncontested deletion. This leads to another problem: 2) The user then has either make edits to the article, they have to remove the draft tag, which can be seen as edit warring or they have to have to hope someone else sees their situation and nominates the article for deletion themselves, since User:Rosguill had stated that users cannot nominate their own articles for deletion - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KatoKungLee&oldid=1135792356. I can't find any proof that this is a rule either, but when you un-draft something, you already feel like you are taking a rebellious action and nobody wants to ruffle someone else's feathers as well. The third thing that happens here is that - 3) if you do remove the the draft tag, Onel does not nominate the article for deletion immediately. Again, it may be so the article can be improved or it may just be an "I didn't get to it yet thing", but it lead me to believe that no further action would be taken, when the article was just nominated later, which just creates more tension. The problem is that if a user doesn't back to wikipedia for a while, that article could be gone before they could even make my case of it and waiting for Onel to decide to nominate an article or not is very frustrating. The situation got so out of control in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Sperl that User:GhostOfDanGurney had to step in and nominate the article for deletion just so we could get it over with, since I was concerned that publicly asking people to nominate my own article could be seen as some kind of bizarre meatpuppetry move.

I would personally much rather have articles nominated than deleted. Sometimes the nominator gets it wrong and the article should not be drafted or deleted. Sometimes, the afd process can lead to other people finding sources and improving the article, while nobody ever sees drafted articles. And if nothing else, the AfD process just provides extra sets of eyes who can provide extra takes on the situation.

I also do not believe that users know that they can remove the Draft tag on articles, which leads to more confusion and problems.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

sorry but I think the point above makes no sense. If a NPP reviewer sends something to draft they are not personally bound and responsible for bringing it to AfD themselves if the creator moves it back to mainspace. Indeed if they do, they will be accused of hounding, and editors who have created a run of new articles with inadequate sourcing will claim they are being victimized. Better to leave it to someone else to take a second view and bring it to AfD if they think it appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Mccapra - Unfortunately, Onel is marking articles as drafts, then after the author rejects the draftifying, Onel nominates the article for AfD. As you said, it comes across as exactly like hounding, especially after it has happened 8 times like it did in my case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamburg-Eimsbütteler Ballspiel-Club, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harburger TB, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Bengs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lars Kindgen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Sperl, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fritz Sommer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Oeldenberger and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Cavaletti.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Now I’m lost. In your points above you were complaining about instances where Onel5969 didn’t quickly take your articles to AfD, and now you’re complaining about when they did. I’m not sure what to make of this: perhaps that NPP patrollers shouldn’t draftify, shouldn’t AfD, and should just tag and pass? Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Mccapra - As I said above, I think taking articles to AfD is the preferable move from the start over draftication. It avoids edit warring. It avoids continued arguments. It avoids situations where articles were incorrectly marked as drafts. And it also avoids situations where an article gets marked as a draft and then gets forgotten about and eventually deleted. It also avoids situations where an article's draftication is rejected, then put in post-draftication rejection purgatory where the person who originally drafted it can put the article up for AfD weeks and months later when the author may not see it.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec) This is an approach that I consider entirely appropriate. In many cases an article could go straight to AfD, but sending it to draft instead is a courtesy to give the creator an opportunity for fixing it up before it gets thrown to the wolves. If the creator doesn't want to take that option, then back to the main sequence we go. If it seems targeted in your case, that's probably a consequence of Onel checking up, and then following up, on past creations of the same editor based on finding something in need of handling. As one should. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Elmidae - As I said above, with draftifying, while you may take it as a courtesy to avoid the wolves, I and others take it as a way to backdoor an article into deletion. My dog thinks he is helping me by barking at night when he hears something, but I don't find it helpful as it ruins my sleep. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm confident that most article creators don't share your preference of slugging it out at AfD over being told "this is unsourced, I am assuming you actually have sources somewhere, please add them to this draft before someone deletes the entire thing". You may complain about being shown extra consideration, but frankly that's your own lookout. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 is a very active patroller and I think they make mistakes given the volume of articles they try to review. I get frustrated when I see an article draftified several times and I just came across an article moved to draft space 4 times though not all of the moves were by Onel5969. But I think that is often not an instance of move-warring but a mistake of not checking the page history before draftifying a second time. But there have been a number of threads about Onel5969's patrolling on ANI and so I'm not sure how much of an impact this one will have. We can address the OP's article but I don't see anyone suggesting sanctions here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t agree with the characterization of draftifying or redirecting an article lacking adequate sources as being “back door” anything. Both are valid courses of action, depending on the circumstances. Some article creators object if their work is draftified or redirected, but they will equally object if it is brought to AfD. If the community wants to direct NPP not to draftify or redirect but to bring all articles of uncertain notability straight to AfD that’s fine, but that’s not how it operates at the moment. In fact the opposite - we are supposed to try alternatives to deletion. When we do, we’re accused to doing things by the “back door”. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Mccapra. It is common enough to hear actions such as redirecting referred to as alternatives to deletion, especially at AfD. It is not uncommon for it to be argued that such options should take place before an AfD. A logged warning for following a common AfD argument is a terrible idea. (Regarding drafting, it is quite common to see it increasingly referred to as almost a form of deletion, but this is not a firm consensus either.) CMD (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The argument isn't that it's wrong to BLAR (of course not, it's perfectly fine to do so), it's that it's wrong to edit-war about it. If you BLAR or move to draftspace and get reverted, you have to AfD the article if you think it should be deleted; you can't just repeat that action again. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The argument was explicitly "Are we in agreement that the controversy is primarily about use of back-door deletion by Onel5969, when a formal deletion process should be used?" CMD (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is a form of back-door deletion. Let's say you're a new editor and you start an article, and that article is suddenly moved to the draft space and has the AfC template slapped on it. It sure feels like deletion, but without the additional oversight that comes with AfD. I've seen this done to articles that could obviously survive AfD (and in some cases did). Is rejecting the draftifcation and moving it back legitimate? Probably, but that's not obvious and if a new account does that I'm sure someone will decide that's worthy of sanctions. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It is absolutely wrong to BLAR a reasonably well-developed article with reliable sources, particularly if it reflects the work of multiple editors, if the basis of that action is the BLARing editor's personal philosophy that the topic of the article should not exist. Just imagine an editor BLARing US Senate career of Barack Obama to Barack Obama because Obama's tenure in the Senate was relatively short. This would remove sources and content not found elsewhere in the encyclopedia, so would amount to a removal of notable information without discussion. BD2412 T 15:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Is rejecting the draftifcation and moving it back legitimate? Yes, definitely, it's called a "revert". It is a shame that a new user would probably get sanctioned for it, but that's a problem with the (hypothetical) sanctioning admins, not with our policies, IMO. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason draftification is "back door" deletion is because a (non-admin) editor does not have the power to unilaterally remove something from mainspace; that requires one of our deletion processes; except to draftify, which is kind of a loophole in our general "one person can't unilaterally delete a page" rule, hence the "back door". That back door is fine to exist so long as we all use it responsibly... Levivich (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If one person unilaterally added it to mainspace, one person should be able to unilaterally remove it if it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. If the two disagree about whether it meets the criteria, then we have a discussion. NPP do a difficult and thankless task keeping crap out of the encyclopaedia. Mistakes are inevitable, especially as we can't expect patrollers to be experts on every conceivable topic of an encyclopaedia article, but it boils down to "if you think the subject is important, demonstrate that it's been written about somewhere else first". If an article creator doesn't do that, they can have no reasonable expectation that their article will stay. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If one person unilaterally added it to mainspace, one person should be able to unilaterally remove it if it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. If the two disagree about whether it meets the criteria, then we have a discussion. Doesn't the person removing realize that by rule of this logic a discussion is required for the removal since the disagreement is apparent by virtue of the fact that the person who unilaterally added thinks it meets inclusion requirements or they would not have added in the first place? It seems fairly obvious to me that there is a disagreement the moment someone decides anything other than what was added should be modified. I guess what I'm asking is, why does your rule suggest we wait until a second objection has been raised before a discussion begins after a first objection has already been raised with the removal itself? To me, a rule like that seems like it would be a barrier to discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking on it some more I realize the rule suggests we wait until a third objection has been raised before discussion starts since the first objection technically begins the moment one person "unilaterally" adds, and it becomes explicitly implied that they would object to any removal. The moment another person performs a unilateral removal, the second objection is also implied. Why force the adding party to object twice before a discussion occurs? If we are going to have an "I can remove if you can add" mantra, then at least make the rules for it equally fair like maybe one objection each side requires discussion. That means I assume good faith that you would object to my removal, and knowing this would be a disagreement since I object to your addition, I take it to the appropriate discussion venue because I know your objection plus my objection equals one objection each. Me making you go object one more time just to make absolutely sure you're pissed about it is why Wikipedia needs to change. Huggums537 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think they make mistakes given the volume of articles they try to review. I know this is heresy on Wikipedia, but maybe they should reduce the volume? Levivich (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Onel's volume is fine. His ability to judge notability is top notch. His method involves a careful evaluation of the sources (I know this because he taught me his method when he was my instructor during NPP school), and his knowledge of notability has been calibrated through participating in thousands of AFDs. Keep in mind that Onel is the NPPer that handles the borderline articles that sit at the back of the NPP queue that no one else wants to touch, so that may skew his AFD stats a bit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

A logged warning to not edit war over drafting a article, especially not over an extended period of time, is warranted. Other than that editors don't like having their articles drafted/redirected or sent to AfD but that's not against policy. Maybe a centralised discussion about the acceptability of WP:ATD-R and WP:ATD-I would be a way forward. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 never responds to these discussions, and this is a deliberate choice: [67] I am also appalled by this and this which are blatant personal attacks. --Rschen7754 17:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I have left him a note suggesting that he drop by. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That is significantly more concerning than drafitfying an article with no reliable sources. That suggests a behavioural problem, especially when taken with the edit warring to redirect an article, to the point that I'd be tempted to revoke their NPP rights. The first person to find a new article does not get to be the final arbiter of its fate, and disputes should be settled at AfD rather than editors insulted and belittled. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

My response to Refrain from adding templates regarding the article's notability not being notable enough in the future until you learn what notability on Wikipedia is. would have been equally short. I can also understand Onel5969 reluctance to respond here, given the nonsense of past fillings. However they should post something here to the context that they won't edit war in this way again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I find the two diffs of personal attacks to not be as bad as they look. The new user ImperialMajority, with 200 edits, patronizing an experienced NPP by telling them until you learn what notability on Wikipedia is, is really rude. While ideally we should not respond to rudeness with rudeness, it is a mitigating circumstance here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Arguing with a jerk is not a big deal. Not ideal, but not a big deal. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Mackensen has kindly invited me to participate in this discussion. I rarely do so, as there seems little point in participating in the drama. Especially with how often I'm brought here. I’ll try to keep this brief, but there are quite a few things to point out, so apologize in advance for the length. And these are in no particular order. First, since they so kindly invited me to participate, Mackensen’s comment “It's not up to Onel5969 to decide whether an article passes GNG or not” shows a complete lack of understanding of one of the purposes of NPP. They then followed with a comment about treating editors with respect. I treat the folks who come to my talk page with the exact same respect they give me. That editor came to my talk page and told me what I should do. I responded in kind by telling him what they should do.

Going back to the original OP, I find it interesting that neither they nor the other editor who “edit-warred” were admonished for doing so. There’s another editor in this thread, who I will not point out, who’s behavior regarding poorly sourced or non-notable articles led them to getting blocked. A block, which has since been reversed, and I may add, they have acquitted themselves quite well since they were unblocked. But they obviously have some latent bad feelings towards me. In addition, we have an admin calling me out for personal attacks who has their own history of personal attacks (see this, this, and this. And that's just towards me.

Finally, at NPP we endeavor to avoid AfD, not because we don’t want to go there, but because there are better ways to solve issues than throwing everything to AfD. I almost always tag something and give about a week for improvement before going back to the article. At that time, if no improvements have been made, I'll take another action, either redirecting, draftifying, or AfD/Prod, depending on the circumstance. I think we have to decide whether or not we intend on being an encyclopedia, or just another fan wiki. You call what I did on that article “edit-warring”, and looking at the definition, you are correct. However, per WP:IAR, I look at it as trying to avoid creating more work for a lot of editors by clogging up AfD. I would hazzard a guess that about 90% of the time it is successful and ends up with the articles getting proper sourcing, but I admittedly have no data to back that up, just my own personal anecdotal experience. But if you want EVERY redirect which is contested, no matter how ludicrous the contention, sent to AfD, so be it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating. Two observations:

• I treat the folks who come to my talk page with the exact same respect they give me.: leaving aside that this contradicts the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Civility, this strikes me as the exact wrong way to work with editors involved in new article creation. If you're burned out, do something else.
• You call what I did on that article "edit-warring", and looking at the definition, you are correct. However, per WP:IAR... (emphasis added). If you look to WP:IAR to justify your standard mode of engagement, you're in the wrong. WP:IAR is an escape hatch, a safety valve. I appreciate why you think it's necessary, but if you're edit-warring in order to avoid sending an article to AfD, you're explicitly working against Wikipedia:Consensus and you need to find a different approach.

Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's just agree to disagree on IAR. If you think leaving articles on WP which do not meet the notability or verifiability criteria makes WP better, I can't agree with you on that. I look at this as an encyclopedia, not a fan wiki. Regardless, I've stated that if you folks want stuff to go to AfD if the redirect is challenged, so be it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 – You wrote: If you think leaving articles on WP which do not meet the notability or verifiability criteria makes WP better, I can't agree with you on that.. That's a strawman argument. The question is not whether to leave the cruddy articles on WP, but whether edit-warring to remove them is better for WP than the use of AFD. The spammers who repeatedly revert a WP:BLAR may honestly think that putting their cruddy articles on article space makes the encyclopedia better. That is why we have consensus processes such as AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

if you want EVERY redirect which is contested, no matter how ludicrous the contention, sent to AfD, so be it That is what should be done (unless the article could be CSD'd, but in most cases that wouldn't apply). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Would just like to add, that while this conversation was ongoing, and they were participating in it, this edit was made, reverting a redirect with a single google maps source. Just saying.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes and clearly if that is not notable, it will be deleted at AfD. It's better to follow the procedure here, even though that can obviously be a bit frustrating at times. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I would just be happy, Onel5969, if you didn't draftify an article more than once. Although I check the draftification list daily and see some of your page moves reverted, I'm fine with one draftification. But if the article creator objects and moves it back, you shouldn't persist. And that's my view for every NPP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: A wise and perspicacious view. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

IAR is great, unless the Community says, "Nope. Not this rule in this circumstance." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, IAR should be invoked as sparingly as possible. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 23:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Not that anyone needs my opinion, but that strikes me as an entirely equitable and sensible conclusion to this issue. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This user is also trying the delete NRL team's season articles, funnily enough edited this article and didn't try and delete it.. looks a bit like personal preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs)

• I took a look at User:Onel5969/Draftify log and see from just this month, over 1,250 draftifications. Does that seem like a bit much to anyone else? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  High volume doesn't necessarily correlate with low quality. Keep in mind that Onel is one of the top NPP reviewers by volume. Got any specific draftifications you object to? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I doubt there are any numbers, but how often would you say NPP-ers get it wrong? For the sake of demonstration, I'll assume 3 errors in 1000 page reviews, which is a 99.7% success rate. With 2100+ reviews in the last 7 days, just based on the law of averages alone, Onel has likely made 6 errors this week. I think that is what @BeanieFan11 was really alluding to; that Onel reviews so many articles that on average there would be more errors than any other editor.

  I'm not going to suggest that we pore over Onel's logs and contribs to find errors, Ain't Nobody Got Time for That. What would be better is if the people with the NPP right who aren't listed on Wikipedia:Database_reports/Top_new_article_reviewers picked up the slack a little bit, or we grant the right to more users so Onel doesn't have to review 2100 articles per week. That way, it'll be easier to spot check how a reviewer is doing, the process improves, and the community improves. –Fredddie™ 00:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How many pages have they reviewed for NPP in that timeperiod? --JBL (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

In the past year they're responsible for marking over 26 thousand articles and 7,300 redirects as reviewed, based on Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers. Their Xfd log is also quite long. They are by far the most active NPP reviewer. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Just realized you asked for the past month, so I'll point you towards the 30 section of Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers#Last 30 days. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I would say that 1250 is not a particularly large number in the context of the number of pages they're reviewing. --JBL (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That number also doesn't factor in that they routinely tag pages and move on without marking a page as reviewed, draftifying, or sending to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope, not in proportion to the number of pages they review. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Onel reviews a lot of pages, so this isn't really surprising to me. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Support warning. Thank you Devin Futrell. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

For context, Onel placed a notability on the Futrell page before they just draftified it, when I have taken care to include multiple sources. Now I cannot send Futrell to DYKAPRIL. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I only see one GNG source there (Tennessean). Levivich (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent claim by onel5969 that he can use AfD for cleanup

In this AfD today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022–23 Michigan State Spartans women's basketball team), onel5969 appears to claim that they have been directed by a "consensus" at ANI that they can/should nominate an article for deletion: (i) without doing a WP:BEFORE search, (ii) even where abundant SIGCOV is revealed by a simple BEFORE search, (iii) simply because the article needs improvement (which would be contrary to both WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:INTROTODELETE ["When not to use the deletion process: Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing."]). Even when abundant SIGCOV was presented at the AfD, they refused to withraw the nomination. This is simply a time waste. Cbl62 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I suppose one benefit of making them actually use AfD is it really more directly reveals to a wider group of editors just how bad Onel's deletions frequently are, with little regard for notability and content. Silverseren^C 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, while some of his AFDs are ridiculous, I'd much rather prefer that to lots of articles wrongly draftified / redirected and removed through the backdoor - at least with afd you must have people comment or it gets relisted, oftentimes with the draftifications and redirections nobody ever goes back and it works as a backdoor deletion when it shouldn't. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Solana blockchain article

• Solana (blockchain platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We're seeing an uptick of brand-new editors on this article (which falls under the cryptocurrency community sanctions) who aren't very happy about how it is following the (mostly negative) independent sources. This is apparently because Solana's head of communications has been complaining about it on twitter. I recommend a preemptive semiprotect of the article under the GS, and if some folks wouldn't mind keeping in eye out on the talk page that would be helpful as well. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Having worked with MrOllie on the article talk page to try and explain our policies to the new editors, I am certain of meatpuppetry. I am especially worried with the linked tweet's explicitness that there is a concerted effort to impose a POV upon the article; I think a short-term protection is necessary. I'll add it to my watchlist to ensure long-term protection. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I've invoked the general sanctions to impose an indefinite ECP. Courcelles (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: At the risk of WP:OUTING, I don't want to share the posts here but I have definitive evidence against multiple editors who have made public posts regarding their SOAPBOXING and POV-pushing on several articles related to this. What is the right course of action? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Offwiki stuff like that? User:Arbitration Committee, email that account and let ArbCom take a look. Courcelles (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll send all of the relevant details there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone on Reddit is claiming the article is "being manipulated", and is canvassing there. The tweet you referenced is linked in that Reddit post. Michael60634 (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael60634: I scanned the thread but couldn't find any evidence of any specific account associated with these would-be POV-pushers. That said, the thread does make for some funny light reading—particularly the insistence Wikipedia is becoming editorialized (they've been saying this since before I could read!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm chiming in as an uninvolved editor (and one who is not a fan of cryptocurrencies): I think what is happening here is a vicious cycle of crypto people getting frustrated at what appear to be at least plausible NPOV/UNDUE issues, and responding in extremely aggressive and very bad ways, including attacks on good-faith efforts by e.g. Mr Ollie, which in turn has set the stage for a sort of interminable gridlock. The aggression/meatpuppetry/canvassing is a frustrating factor that requires additional effort on our part to sift through, but underlying claims of NPOV/UNDUE issues may still be valid. I've made a few changes to that effect and will try to work with others on the talk page to continue to do so in the coming days. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

New evidence of coordinated efforts

After I saw the now-blocked Nona phase gleefully admit to meatpuppetry, I went looking for further evidence. There's a significant number of discussions occurring on both Twitter and Reddit regarding this canvassing—see an example here and here. I'd really appreciate if an uninvolved admin could take a peek. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Block review - AndewNguyen

A few days ago, Moneytrees (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked AndewNguyen (talk · contribs) with a rationale of "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia-- Endless tendentious editing to promote a fringe POV". [68] This morning, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) unblocked, describing the block as "a blatant case of admin overreach against an ideological opponent". [69] This unblock has been criticised by Courcelles (talk · contribs) [70]. As nobody wants to wheel war, I'm bringing the block here for review.

In summary:

• Was the block of AndewNguyen good? Or could he be unblocked with a topic ban from race and intelligence instead?
• Was Moneytrees' block a reasonable exercise of admin discretion?
• Was Dbachmann's unblock the same?

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the unblock could have eventually happened with an R&I topic ban imposed under the CTOP protocols, but the undiscussed unblock? That was a misuse of admin tools contrary to the usual rules of their use. The block wasn't so clearly improper that it needed to be undone without a word of discussion (such obvious mistake blocks would never have lasted three days, anyway). I don't have any particular interest in restoring the block as it was, but the process that led to the unblock was an example of the culture of long ago. Had Dbachman attempted discussion and then unblocked and imposed a CTOP topic ban over R&I I'd seen it as a reasonable compromise, but not a straight unblock without any attempt to discuss. Courcelles (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

DBachman did post to Monetryees' talk page seconds before unblocking; not really an attempt to discuss as no time was allowed, but at least a notification. Schazjmd (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Courcelles on this. I haven't done a deep enough dive into the contribs to have a firm opinion on whether the original block was justified, but deciding to unblock without prior discussion with the blocking admin was very poor judgment in my view. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Dbachmann stated "I am reverting this block, after my attention has been drawn to it, for the following reasons".(emphasis mine) I would like to hear how their attention was drawn to it. Fram (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I found that a bit strange, given the last entry in Dbachmann's block log was 12 years ago. Not even a vandal or spammer blocked in over a decade and then this. Courcelles (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Bad unblock by an Admin who rarely edits and uses his tools even less often (12 years is a long time, we really need to tighten up our requirements and I think this is a good example. I'm pretty sad about this as he's a long time editor and Admin. He could have brought it here for an unblock review if he felt strongly about it, there wasn't a need to rush it. I'd also like to know how he found out about it. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about tool use, 12 years seems a misleading statistic to me. While they might not have been involved in blocking, they seemed to be semi-regularly doing page move deletions in 2016-2018 (probably earlier). While their lack of experience with blocks does make their recent unblock highly questionable, I'd argue they were using the toolset enough to justify them being an admin in 2018. We don't require admins use all aspects of the tool set and I'm not convinced we should tighten our requirements so that admins need to regularly use all aspects. Although since they can we do need to trust them to do so which includes when not to do something e.g. if you haven't done it in a while. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Never thought I would say this, but the activity requirement may need tightening -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting all admins need to use all tools. For one thing not all of us are competent with all tools; it's good that we know which ones we aren't competent at and stay far away. But to revert a very recent previous admin action in an area in which you haven't worked in twelve years is very strange. Valereee (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to hear that as well. An admin who hasn't touched a particular area in a dozen years, and who not only suddenly does so now, but does so to countermand another admin action? I hope and trust we're not expected to believe this is a freak coincidence. Ravenswing 14:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Echoing the cry, @Dbachmann: How was your attention called to it? Why did you not bring the block here for discussion? Per all of the above. Bad unblock -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment - just for clarity in future situations, it might have been helpful if the block had been placed (both in the communication of the block itself, and in the log) in the context of the R&I WP:CTOP. R&I was part of the discussion in the context of which the block was placed, but seems to have been unfamiliar to the unblocking admin (in fact, I'm not sure Dbachman is familiar with CTOP protocols at all, given their suggestion if they are convinced that this user is really beyond the pale for the purposes of generating a "neutral point of view" by means of a weighted representation of every possible perspective to take the proper channels to impose a community ban via arbcom, which doesn't reflect familiarity either with the former DS regime or the current CT one). This clash of expectations may have contributed to the incipient wheelwar, and strikes me as a good reason to lean into the current CTOP framework where it is relevant (as in this instance). Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't find tool abuse by Moneytrees. If someone could me show the way? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This was an exceptionally poor unblock that in my opinion rises to the level of tool misuse.

• On Moneytrees' talk page they claim that they reversed the block because Moneytrees blocked an ideological opponent [71]. They have provided no evidence whatsoever to support their claims of a political motivation, this is simply casting aspersions.
• They made no attempt to contact Moneytrees prior to reversing the block, leaving a message literally seconds prior to reversing it. When asked to explain their actions they claimed they were busy and would be unavailable for hours.
• Their repeated criticism of Moneytrees for acting unilaterally and without consensus is without any basis in policy (it is completely acceptable for an admin to block an account as an individual action), and is the height of hypocrisy, given they themselves were acting unilaterally and without consensus.
• Their claims that they "had their attention drawn to the block" following weeks of inactivity suggests some kind of canvassing or off-wiki conduct.
• Their "instructions" to moneytrees show they have no understanding whatsoever of blocking policy or practice. It is ludicrous to suggest a fourth opinion would be required for a temporary block, or that a full arbcom case would be required for a routine disruptive editing/NOTHERE block.

This is another legacy admin who should not hold the tools. They haven't used the tools in half a decade and have now shown up after a massive period of administrative inactivity to make an extremely poor unblock. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Bad unblock. Whether the block, or a topic ban is what should be imposed now could go either way. But it's time for Dbachmann to resign their tools as, per their own admission, they're using 2004 standards for their actions. Never mind the clear canvassing bringing it to their attention, which raises a positive COI with Nguyen Star Mississippi 15:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• The twenty-first unblock in an 18-year administrative career and this is it?...wow. Just, wow. Per above, then. SN54129 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  And the first in fourteen years? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• I fully endorse the comments made above by the Oxford IP. Astoundingly poor judgement by a legacy admin, who should resign before the tools are taken away from them by force. The baseless "ideological opponent" comment was absolutely beyond the pale. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Not surprising considering this is the guy who once wrote "the major races of H. sapiens would normally be categorized as subspecies, and on their extreme ends possibly as species". Levivich (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Levivich: Thanks for showing me a new way to link diffs, I didn't know you could do it like that. That said, I second the WTF of the first editor.

  I have no interest in "racism" whatsoever, you are the one who keeps dragging it into anthropological discussion. Your "WTF?" is what I mean by "obvious reasons", objective classification of Homo has become a political minefield because of misguided ideological hysteria as exhibited by you. That's fine. What isn't "fine" is your smear-campaign against perfectly reasonable anthropology which just so happens to use terminology some people have decided is now "racist" beginning c. 2010. This is insane. "Racism" is an ideology attaching value judgement to racial classification. I invite you to show any statement by me that makes such value judgements. As opposed, I might add, to your editing behavior, which seems to be dedicated to do nothing else. Ghirla's statement is correct, the major races of H. sapiens would normally be categorized as subspecies, and on their extreme ends possibly as species. Any palaeoanthropologist will be aware of this as a perfectly unremarkable fact.

  This person really shouldn't be an admin. This is clearly racist and is not conduct becoming of an adminstrator. I think given what was said at the case request to desysop Athaenara, this is a completely reasonable stance to take. Seriously, how could anyone who falls under this person's classification of subhuman feel safe working with them? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• While it's patently obvious that this a completely craptacular unblock that should result in the striping of admin tools and may be motivated by the unblocker's own fringe POV and battleground mentality, let's be correct here and not that the above quote calls no one subhuman, but instead refers to the taxonomic concept of subspecies, where separate populations of a single species show distinctions brought about by isolation from other populations of the species. It doesn't apply to humans because humans do not have such isolation (there no massive gap in human population distribution), so trying to apply it to people as some sort of justification for race is a fringe position that falls under so-called "scientific racism", the misapplication of scientific knowledge in an attempt to justify racism, a position that can only be described as "stupid as fuck" (and I will in no way tone down calling it out in such language). But if we're going to strip tools from someone, we have to do such based on accuracy. They've clearly done enough without needing to misquote them. oknazevad (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Oknazevad: I'm glad you don't think this behaviour is okay and that it's "stupid as fuck" with no scientific basis. However, doesn't the whole "on their extreme ends possibly as a species" and their thoughts wrt racial classification imply that there are some people they consider to be subhuman? Especially here in regards to the Khoisan peoples. Again, this was in 2018. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I wouldn't use quotes around a word that isn't outright stated. Their actual words show enough BS without having to put words in their mouth. That just gives them an opportunity to claim unfair treatment later when they get rightly pilloried for their actual issues. oknazevad (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Oknazevad: I've removed the quotation marks from subhuman, you're right in that word specifically is not an actual quote. I think I intended to italicize it for emphasis? I consider everything that went down after Athaenara to be precedent for the concept that the majority with editors aren't comfortable with admins who espouse hateful beliefs. But I concede that this is a very fair point to make. As for claiming unfair treatment, I'm not sure if they're actually going to respond to any of this. If they do, I'll deal with that when it happens. I'm even okay with waiting a little bit (although the persistant dewiki editing isn't the best sign). I don't think there's anything they could really say that would eliminate my concerns, but they can say something if they want to. I went to ArbCom because I thought it was the best place to actually address all these issues. ANI can't really do anything other than endorse reblock and turn into a bunch of comments about how the other stuff isn't okay. But it's not like we can perform a desysop and an admin doing something like blocking NOTHERE at this moment in time would just cause more drama. I think it's important not to tolerate this sort of thing and would like to echo Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. Apart from that, I'm very willing to have an open mind. My life experiences have firmly entrenched the belief that reasonable people can disagree on many things. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've restored the block, with the following notation in the block log: "Restoring block for "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia-- Endless tendentious editing to promote a fringe POV"; overwhelming consensus at ANI is that this was a bad unblock (I'm just enacting that consensus, so this isn't wheel warring). A way forward, expressed by several people at ANI, might be on an on-wiki unblock request, possibly resulting in an unblock with a topic ban from R&I. But if the editor wants to remain retired, that's OK too."
  If people want to continue the discussion about dab's unblock, they certainly can. I note that he has said somewhere (can't recall where now) that he will try to reply in more detail tonight (wherever "tonight" is for him). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think the discussion is now about whether Dbachmann should resign the bit. The unblock and the expressed lack of tool familiarity make a strong case for resignation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely. Their first use of the tools in five years, their first entry in the block log for twelve years and it's to make an extremely controversial block, riding roughshod over the well thought-out rationale of an admin who is actually active on this project and conversant with 2023's expectations for admins? Add in that this was apparently canvassed off-wiki and I don't see how their position as an admin is tenable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Endorse reblock. Just to remove any doubt.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Endorse all of the above I'm not sure if the evidence points to Dbachmann being canvassed. They have previously shown an interest in race related matters, voicing similar views of different races of humans as potentially being different species/subspecies of Homo [72] and may have just been following the previous AN thread. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Endorse reblock and encourage Dbachmann to resign as administrator . That's the only way to minimize the inevitable drama. Cullen328 (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Endorse reblock. This is a block that absolutely should not have been removed without significant discussions between Moneytrees and Dbachmann. I'm neutral right now on whether or not Dbachmann should resign or have the tools removed as I'd like to hear what they have to say in response to this, however I would suggest that if they do not resign or otherwise have the tools removed that they should seek mentorship with another experienced admin so that they can get up to speed with the current expectations surrounding administrative actions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure if this is a case of ANI flu, but Dbachmann's continued silence on enwiki while making edits on dewiki is very much not what's expected per WP:ADMINACCT. I was hoping some explanation for why they took this action and how that contrasts against the clear community consensus that this was a bad unblock, and in light of the diffs of some extremely problematic prior edits that some acknowledgement of and apology for those past contributions and a commitment to do better, but it seems as though that won't be the case.

If Dbachmann can't or won't come here or to ArbCom to defend themself, then yeah it's pretty clear that the tools should be removed. And we or ArbCom should look at whether we need an indef NOTHERE block, or whether a R&I TBAN is appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Terrible unblock; the projection & hypocrisy in the unblock rationale are extreme, and I agree with others that Dbachmann resigning as an administrator would be an appropriate outcome. --JBL (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Bad unblock. In 2021, the user voted for the science on race and intelligence to be considered "mainstream", and seems to be attempting to relitigate that by derailing loosely-related RfCs. These were clear behavioral problems; nothing to do with removing an ideological opponent. DFlhb (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

(this was mostly written before @Floquenbeam restored the block off of consensus here-- thank you for that) I was initially planning of taking the unblock to Administrative action review (or AN/ANI if it was more appropriate), but thank you @Ritchie333 for opening this while I was away. I'm completely uninvolved with the R&I area and have never edited in it, and I've also never expressed what my views on the area are, so I don't think Andew can be construed as an ideological opponent of mine. On the other hand, I think there is an argument that @Dbachmann is WP:INVOLVED with regards to the topic area and unblocked because his views align with Andew's, at least based on this 2018 talkpage discussion and however his attention was drawn to the block. While I don't attach any diffs to what I wrote in my block rationale, I provide two links to all of Andew's talk: and Wikipedia: contributions, which are completely exclusive to the R&I topic area. Reading over his contributions to these discussions substantiates my proceeding rationale. If further evidence is needed, I am willing to do a breakdown of Andew's comments at Talk:Eyferth study, which exactly fit the pattern I describe in my rationale. Otherwise I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said.

I could've made this block a one-year AE one and then indef, or a regular indef with an indef AE topic ban since R&I is a contentious topic, but I didn't, partly because I thought it wouldn't be necessary... lesson learned. I get that this block can be construed as a "bold one", but I believe we need to get "meaner" with editors who are only here to promote a specific (fringe!) point of view, sometimes "civilly", and contribute little to mainspace. Not blocking editors like this allows them to become "ingrained" in the community, so when they cross a line down the road they become more difficult to sanction. We are only going to see more accounts operating along these lines in the future-- remember a few years ago during the beginning of the COVID pandemic where all these thinkpieces talking about how Wikipedia is one of the last few places on the internet with "accurate and fair coverage" or whatever were coming out? We have an increasing influence and popularity, so now there is increased incentive and interest in undermining us. And if a block like this can't be made, it's a bad sign. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I think more ROPE is acceptable versus a unilateral indef (I see your concern about "entrenchment", but I've never actually seen that be an issue in recent years, because all the "problem children" we deal with are almost all long timers. We have far more of an issue with newbie biting than we do long-term time sinks that are in "good standing" versus LTAs and the like.) That doesn't excuse Dbach's conduct here, but 0-100 blocks are always going to be more controversial. Newimpartial's advice here is good to keep in mind for the future as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

AndewNguyen's talk page shows he has had a history of problematic edits over more than three years. I think he's had plenty of rope. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

AndewNguyen is not a "problematic editor". Nor is he an SPA. The block was egregiously bad in my opinion. AndewNguyen was never warned, never told that his behavior was problematic, and never given a shroter-term temporary block as is customary in these situations. You don't just start with an indef block, especially when its far from clear that AndewNguyen has done anything to deserve a block, short term or otherwise. The larger problem is this - there are many editors and admins here who find the whole R&I discussion to be so distasteful, that any topic even remotely touching on it immediately becomes a minefield. And because the majority of wikipedia users fall on the side of "nurture" on the nature/nurture debate, anyone advocating for any type of biological determinism is held to a totally different standard and are at risk of sanctions simply because of their ideological view. The original block by Moneytrees was a ridiculously bad one - without question the worst I've seen in my time here. AndewNguyen has done nothing to deserve any type of sanction, much less an indef block. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

ETA - On Dbachs user page, Moneytrees commented: "...I would be opposed to any unblock without a topic ban on the talk page.". Again, this is a perfect example of what I discussed above. AndewNguyen while certainly not an SPA, is still a prolific and valued editor in the R&I topic area. Moneytrees is more concerned about removing AndewNguyen's voice from said topic area than anything else. I've said it before, I'll say it again - editors have attempted to turn any genetics-related topic into a political football, instead of a scientific approach. Human genetic variation is a fact - not a fringe idea. No amount of RFC's or banning editors will change that. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You can keep saying that, whoever you are, but it won't make it true. Good block, bad wheelwar, waiting to hear from Dbachmann as to why they think they should keep their +sysop bit. — Trey Maturin™ 17:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

+1 --JBL (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Question. Am I correct in my understanding that a de-sysop would need to be done by ArbCom? Because if that is the case, given the circumstances (notably Dbachmann's overt involvement in the topic in question, as noted above), I honestly can't see how anything Dbachmann could say in response would mitigate this abuse of admin tools by someone who clearly sees little use for them otherwise. Wouldn't it be simpler to cut to the chase and take it straight to ArbCom, given that the result would seem a foregone conclusion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we'd like it better if he just turn in his mop without forcing us into melodrama. I suppose the Arbs could do it by motion at this point. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

He edits sporadically, so it might be a while for a response. I guess this thread should play out and then we take it from there based on his responsiveness. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra They've spent the evening editing the German wikipedia [73] At this point it seems that they're deliberately avoiding replying. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: Gott im Himmel! Dass ist schrechtlich! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I think an arbcom removal of bits (either a full ADMINCOND case or removal by motion) would be premature at this time. We've all messed up at some point, what matters more around here is what we do after we make the mistake, and I'm waiting to see what Dbachmann chooses to do once they've seen this thread. Easy on the lynch mob, please, folks. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like to see them resign the tools with dignity at this point. If they use them again without comment, and especially if they use them in such an egregious manner again, then it's a matter for ArbCom. But they can and should do the right thing and I trust they will do so. — Trey Maturin™ 18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a lynch mob, but the best thing to do would be for Dbachmann to hand in the admin tools since they appear not to be able to use them correctly ... or, I suspect, ArbCom will take it out of their hands. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Theoretically, I'm not aware of anything stopping us for topic-banning someone from admin actions as an ANI action, though that's just an off the cuff thought. If someone under such a ban were blocked for using the tools, would that block prevent admin actions as well as normal editing? Resigning is simpler for this case though, and ArbCom would be a cleaner break to actually remove the tools than a topic ban though. Best to wait and see what Dbachmann has to say for now. KoA (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Has there ever been any attempt to evaluate issues with admin actions and see what proportion of them are caused by legacy admins? Between the sporadic activity and the open racism, Dbachmann would have never passed RfA if they tried to become an admin in 2023. There have been so many calls to reevaluate legacy admins, but nothing ever comes of them, resulting in drama like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  The drama involved in reassessing every very long-term admin, either systematically or ad hoc, would obviously vastly overshadow these occasional AN/ANI microdramas. — Trey Maturin™ 19:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  This assumes that all future issues will be the same as all past issues. It also overlooks issues with legacy admin behavior that go unreported, which likely makes up the vast majority of such incidents. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Could you define "legacy admin"? Are we talking about a specific window? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm talking prior to 2005. I don't believe that all of them (or even the majority of them) are problems, but I find it shocking that there are still admins who haven't gone through the scrutiny that we expect today. Given that admin tools have expanded more quickly than admin recall procedures, and given that problem-admins only get "caught" when they do something dramatic like this. I'm not convinced by any "we'll catch them as they come up" argument. Again, I don't think this is some existential problem, it's just something that's been carried over from early Wikipedia but doesn't mesh well with modern Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  There are ~900 admins, and about 850 have been admins for longer than 5 years, and only like one or two a year are a problem. It would take far more effort to audit the legacy admins than to desysop problematic ones as they arise. Levivich (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Me, for example. I was made an admin in 2004, and while I've stayed active I freely confess that I don't really recognize some of the acronyms that get thrown around. On the other hand, I also don't go around making insane unblocks... Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Someone who expresses the view that large numbers of the project's membership are human sub-species should not be on Wikipedia, never mind being an admin. (Oh, and even without that, I fully support Harry's reasons above). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he arguing that all members of the project are human sub-species? I.e. each major racial grouping belonging to its own subspecies. I know nothing about anthropology or taxonomy so it may well be completely fringe and inappropriate, but it seems like that's how taxonomers used to classify humans until it fell out of popularity in the 80s or so as per Human taxonomy#Homo sapiens subspecies. I'm not at all endorsing his statement, but my reading of his comment doesn't seem like he is considering certain editors/races as "subhuman" (which to me would warrant an immediate block and level 2 desysop). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  What fell out of use in the 1980s was classifying fossils as subspecies of Homo sapiens. Nobody was classifying races as subspecies. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, like I said I have little understanding of the topic. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just changed that line from "1980s" to "World War II". See Historical race concepts for a more detailed history. "Subspecies" classification (like mongoloid, negroid, etc.) is now considered scientific racism. Levivich (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Two things are true: (1) the statement in question is not the same as the statement "some races are sub-human"; (2) only racists entertain the idea that human races are actually different species. --JBL (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's a faux talking point (is "trope" the word I mean?) used by racists to try to pretend they're not racists. The claim that human racial groups represent subspecies has no mainstream biological support whatsoever - it's racist fringe BS, intended as a stepping stone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  And looking over where he's expressed opinions on the subject, and the people he supports, his actual position seems clear enough to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  And the reason why it has no mainstream biological support is effectively summed up in the sentence "There's more genetic diversity within a group of chimps on a single hillside in Gomba than in the entire human species."

  I would support desysoping this admin; we should not tolerate such beliefs in admins, regardless of whether it affects their work as an admin. I also see no reason why we can't do so ourselves rather than waste time going through ArbCom; the case seems obvious, and there is no policy preventing us from doing so, only convention which may change. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The simple fact is that we cannot just desysop somebody ourselves. We have neither the policy nor the technical ability to do that. Consensus can change, sure, but not as a result of a single ANI thread about one incident. Our options (if this thread achieves consensus for a desysop) are to make the request to Arbcom, the Stewards or to Jimbo. The latter two probably won't intervene except in case of emergency. The good news is that with Arbcom, there's plenty of precedent for it. There have been cases where an ANI thread (or an WP:RFC/U in a previous era) closed with a strong consensus to desysop, the request was made to Arbcom as a formality, and they passed a quick motion to make it official and have a Crat yank the mop. It doesn't have to be a months-long case. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  We don't need a policy to permit us to do something; as long as there isn't a policy establishing that we can't (and there isn't) a consensus at an ANI thread is sufficient.

  The technical ability aspect shouldn't prevent us; just as when the is a community consensus to block an editor an admin implements that consensus, if there was a community consensus to desysop someone a bureaucrat would implement that consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  If an administrator abuses administrative rights, these rights may be removed by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain functions or placement on administrative probation...There have been several procedures suggested for a community-based desysop process, but none of them has achieved consensus. is in fact policy. Also policy: The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:...

  1. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;

References

• Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. is also policy.

  If the community wishes to siteban Dbachmann it certainly can. I hope the community will one day find consensus to have a non-arbcom desysop process (I have supported some previous attempts). But it is not correct that a local consensus of editors can over rule previous consensus enshrined into policy and desysop Dbachmann. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse reblock While we shouldn't get out the pitchforks just yet, the WP:ADMINCOND concerns here are real and we need Dbachmann to discuss what's going on and answer the legitimate questions asked above, especially Fram's question of how he became aware of the issue given no apparent connection between them. If he cannot or will not give satisfactory answers in a reasonable amount of time, the next step would be requesting a desysop from Arbcom. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• That's not even the issue, to be honest. Regardless of how Dbachmann found out about it, the block was correct, the unblock was not, the rationale given for the unblock was ridiculously bad and given the amount of time since the tools were used in this way, needs to result in the removal of them. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the unblock was bad, and tool removal is probably needed here (I doubt the "satisfactory answer" I mentioned above actually exists or will be provided). Certainly the reasoning we've seen so far is not encouraging. I just want to give some time for Dbachmann to fully respond and explain himself so we can have all our ducks in a row before escalating to Arbcom, otherwise they may reject it because we haven't done enough dispute resolution. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  @The Wordsmith They've been editing the German wikipedia all evening, instead of responding here [74]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  And more today -- exceptionally bad look, on top of everything else. --JBL (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse reblock, waiting to hear from Dbachmann before opining on that side of things. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• This was obviously a very long time ago, but I'm going to stick it here anyway in case anyone finds it relevant: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Dbachmann reminded. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh so this has only been going on for almost 20 years.

  2005: These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, and it is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them.

  2007: ... the Hindus are hopeless, let them build their dreamworld. Instead of commending the few Wikipedians that still hold out attempting to let sanity prevail, the verdict seems to be that they are somehow culturally insensitive for not letting the "ethnic" people revel in their own truth ... I keep getting attacked as "racist" for my fundamentally anti-racist position that everybody has a brain and is expected to use it, regardless of where they are from. It is not alright to disrupt Wikipedia with bad faith tactics or utter stupidity just because you are "ethnic" ... apparently it is much more acceptable indulge in dishonest revisionism if you are a Hindu, don't ask me why.

  2008, Arbcom: Dbachmann ... is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved, and to avoid misusing the administrative rollback tool for content reversions. Levivich (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  It may be old, but inappropriate use of the tools when WP:INVOLVED, failure to explain himself and user conduct issues in racial/nationalistic areas seems extremely relevant. I'd also note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3. Having three WP:RFC/U and an Arbcom case named after you all for the same issues of inappropriate admin conduct is alarming; I'm not sure how he's flown under the radar all this time with his flag intact. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it's not that hard to keep the flag intact, is it? :-P Levivich (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just putting it out there, but I wonder if we actually need a block here to prevent any further misuse of the tools. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not willing to personally as I won't be online consistently this evening & tomorrow for questions, but I'd absolutely support it. Clearly there's history to go with the potential of being canvassed to act. Star Mississippi 21:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I thought about it too. Blocking an admin is always a can of worms, and I'm not sure it is necessary to open that one just yet. If Dbachmann makes any edit or admin action that even approaches INVOLVED or inappropriate tool use then it would be preventative and I would absolutely issue a block. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the merits of the block, unblock or reblock, is "legacy admin" just a term that was invented on the spot here? Seems highly pejorative in this context to me. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 23:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've seen it used before; I believe it usually refers to admins who became one when standards were considerably lower than they are now, and would be SNOW-rejected under current standards. BilledMammal (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  But, yes, its use is often pejorative. Valereee (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  In fairness, so is "admin". Levivich (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So true. Which makes 'legacy admin' a bit redundant, no? Valereee (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  How so? Both parts often being pejorative isn't redundant unless they carry the same pejorative meaning which they don't. The "legacy admin" problem exists no matter what we call it, we can call it the "Great Purple Clunifus" and we'd still have a problem with early admins who don't meet the community's current basic standards. "Rotten admins" is another I've seen but that seem to be a bit too far into PA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect some of the the usage is influenced by how the term is used in software development, though I'm not sure to what degree. In that field, legacy code is just used to refer to code that has been around for a while, and is typically used to distinguish between the latest redesign versus what was there previously. In that context, it's non-pejorative and can be roughly thought of as previous generations of code. If applied in this way to Wikipedia admins, it would refer to earlier cohorts of admins, thus incorporating changes in both the community and the project's needs, without passing judgment. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I don't really find either term, "legacy" or "admin", insulting. Mind you, I've only been an admin since 2011. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure Dbachmann is aware of this thread. As he's been editing on DEWIKI, I left him a note there.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not new to this discussion, but tends to come out of this type when a relatively inactive admin takes an action that doesn't reflect current practices. I don't find the term as problematic as the content that tends to lead to the label. Disclosure, I am one. Star Mississippi 00:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Me too -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Nah, at one point in the past but not today. With 10-20k edits in the past 12 months, you are both too active to be "legacy admins". You're both now "veteran admins". Congratulations on your promotion! Levivich (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I needed that -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

and he did it without calling us old, my okra COI friend! Star Mississippi 01:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

DFO laughs, then weeps -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

My back already has that one covered. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has existed for longer than I have – I'm 20. Deepfriedokra, The Wordsmith, and Star Mississippi, I apologize if this makes you feel old. I think you're all great. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh oh, grounds for an indef for taunting right there @Clovermoss :D Star Mississippi 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"I'm bent and grey, and I've lost my way. All my tomorrows were yesterday." --Cat Ballou -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• A laughably ban unblock, showing no understanding of current practice and sounding like he's half-remembering stuff from years ago when he was active - what on earth is a "community ban via arbcom"? He should resign as an admin. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  (cringe) I think that's the sort of claptrap I've seen from other "fringe theory" enthusiasts. But it's moot. I have resisted kicking and screaming taking part in CTOP, but the ArbCom have given the admins the latitude to act on there behalf in these areas, and the block was tantamount to a CTOP block without the bureaucratic trappings. Dbachmann needs to update his skillset in that regard. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The unblock was hasty and not a model of responsible tool use. The original block was egregiously bad. AndewNguyen was the defender of Wikipedia at Talk:Eyferth study, advancing quality sourcing against a local consensus to disregard WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If there is any admin action in this area, it should be to investigate aspersions and a questionable RfC close at Talk:Eyferth study. Sennalen (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If you disagree with the close, it is being reviewed at WP:AN#Eyferth study - Inappropriate RFC Closure, where so far uninvolved commenters have unanimously endorsed it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen I lost track of the number of warnings you've had on your account. And your comment on the RFC closure doesn't reflect what I see there. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You can join the discussion on the RFC closure[75]. If you want to look into the aggressive templating and intimidation attempts on my talk page, that would be great too. Sennalen (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen who are you referring to? Doug Weller talk 13:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeking relief for any particular incident right now, just commenting on the general phenomenon of involved editors leaving nasty legalese on talk pages in lieu of discussing content. Sennalen (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Shall we close? ArbCom is spinning up and the consensus here is clear. Might we not close this?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That would be great. Also here is the ArbCom request for those who are interested. --JBL (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Edit: actually honestly someone should just indef Dbachmann, I think it's easy enough to find consensus for that in this discussion. --JBL (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  +1. That would save many editors many hours. Levivich (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse reblock - Good block, very bad unblock, probably requiring desysop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• I'm willing to block Dbachmann. I'm uninvolved and have seen enough support for that here. My only concern is whether it would just create further drama vs. allow us to close this and move on. Any input? Valereee (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think we need to hang back a bit and wait. Dbachmann has only made 14 edits this year, and is not actively being disruptive right now aside from their "radio silence" here. I've dropped a head's up on their talk page that this is being proposed and they ignore it at their peril; for now, I think that suffice. Arbcom can always propose motion to desysop and site ban in due course, if they feel it's required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The point of indefing is to not have to use up the time of a dozen arbitrators to propose a motion. The fact that he's only made 14 edits this year and still unblocked somebody without discussion, and then refused to respond while editing on another project, are arguments in favor of, not against, blocking, in my view. Frankly, I don't understand why we need a dozen arbs to "review" this at all, they have more important things to do. Levivich (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Valereee see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Dbachmann:Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> Doug Weller talk 15:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Someone needs to put it before the Community as proposal if we want to indef. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Only if we want to do it as a community action, no? If I blocked and someone else unblocked, I wouldn't wheel war. I just don't want to initiate that drama. Valereee (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, I think we require the Community's advise and consent. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It's your choice. I think it's possible it'd cause more drama and was hoping the ArbCom case request would minimize it considered they're the only ones who can actually desysop. As I said there, I think it's a bit weird to have this sort of catch-22 where can discuss indef-blocking an admin vs whether or not they should remain an admin. As I've said here, I'm okay with waiting a little bit (3 months isn't the timeframe I had in mind but it doesn't have to be the choice between now and that). At the same time, the case request seems to imply that that this action is something that's within an individual admin's discretion. If someone's blocked, they can still defend themselves through contacting ArbCom, correct?

  Disclaimer: I'm the one who filed the ArbCom case request. I'm also not an admin so it's not like I have personal experience of dealing with potentially controversial adminstrative actions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Endorse reblock and encourage Dbachmann to resign as administrator Also endorse a review by Arbcom if that doesn't happen. Regarding comments made admins often self-select in which areas they operate (including some non-tool ones) based on various factors, and so I don't consider inactivity with with just one type of tool to be indicative of inactivity-based competency issues. But long and broad admin inactivity is. And combine that with them being from an era when it was far easier to get in means that havng passed RFA is less of a meaningful factor when making assessments. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

IP edits

Ancilliary issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

After their last few comments (particularly [76] and [77], I've come to believe that 2600:1700:1250:6d80:947a:51e4:eb45:1fb4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the person who was formerly editing on range 2600:1004:b100::/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and was topic banned from this area. Can something be done about this? - MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I had been considering a separate WP:NOTHERE block for the /64, and was mostly waiting for someone to make a connection to a previous account/IP before acting, so that edit definitely tips me that direction. (NB the topic ban of interest is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Trolling.) I've given them a month off now. Izno (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) (Comment moved here from Izno's talk page per request.) Thanks for giving the disruptive IP a month off. Just FYI, in the closure review currently at AN, this IP range also copped to editing in the ranges 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0/64, 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0/64, and 2600:1012:B014:8929:0:0:0:0/64. The first two are owned as "I attempted - several times..." in the OP comment, and the third one is owned in this comment. Another arguably disruptive comment by this user was posting "Casualties of the Cabal" at the bottom of AndewNguyen's talk page. I'll leave it to you to determine whether a more expansive range block may be required. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Block evasion from this IP user is coming on hot and heavy now in the range 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:0:0:0:0/64. Courtesy ping to Izno who asked to be informed here if the evasion continues. According to this comment on my talk page, they claim not to understand that they've been blocked at all. Note however that per the diffs in my comment above, this is clearly the same user who was blocked by Izno. A more expansive range block appears to be necessary to give them the intended month's vacation. Generalrelative (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) This is exhausting. I am NOT the same IP who is responsible for the vandalism. Generalrelative has repeatedly accused me of being responsible for edits that I had nothing to do with. If I've run afoul of procedure, then by all means, block me! But please don't block me for an imagined transgression. [Generalrelative] is unique in that he steadfastly refuses to discuss anything with me. I've tried going to his TALK page several times and am reverted evey time. Please investigate further to see what I'm talking about. 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Please re-read this section. You are the OP of the RfC closure review on the Eyferth study, 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64. Please click that link to confirm that you are in fact blocked for 30 days. In that discussion you copped to also being the user editing in the ranges 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0/64, 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0/64, and 2600:1012:B014:8929:0:0:0:0/64. Now you are continuing to edit in the range 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:0:0:0:0/64. If you actually did not understand this before, despite being told repeatedly, now you are aware that you are engaging in WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Can an admin please block this block-evader? --JBL (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC) FWIW, they have promised to "refrain from editing henceforth" on my talk page. I hope they keep their word. Generalrelative (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC) WP:ARBECR R&I. Levivich (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I have also seen these IP addresses as well on the same talk page that might also be related Special:Contributions/12.31.71.58 and Special:Contributions/2601:581:C180:1980:206E:CD5B:8C72:BCC0/64 Qwv (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks Qwv, but these IPs do not appear to be related. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to Indef DBachmann

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

---

DBachmann is blocked from editing indefinitely for abuse of admin tools and unresponsiveness per WP:ADMINACCT.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• (no !vote)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Of course he should be blocked. The amount of editor time wasted on any subject seems directly proportional to the obviousness of the action needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. De-sysopping would certainly remove most of my concerns. Topic banning may well be an option. I'd rather wait until Dbachmann replies, if he does, and wait for the ARC to run its course. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose a desysop (Arbcom can decide) and a topic ban from R&I (available under CTOP protocols) would be enough to handle this. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Was never CTOP alerted, so no. But we can TBAN as a Community. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Overkill in the wrong place (ability to be an editor) and lack of action / displacing of action in the correct place which is review of admin status. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose an indef, however I do feel that they should lose the admin tools at this point, and a topic ban from R&I would be needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I'm changing this to a Support in light of some of the edits and the apparent off-wiki material. If this was not an admin, it's very likely an indef would happen without hesitation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's been more than 48 hours now and Dbachmann clearly thinks he's more important than enwiki, so we should ensure he can't disrupt the encyclopedia again. Since ANI can't desysop, we just block. This isn't a difficult concept, and we're not really losing anything anyway, since he only has 14 edits this year. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. The comment about entire populations of people "arguably qualifying" as a seperate species is more than enough for me, especially given the recent unblock citing "ideological opponent" grounds. I think that determining a consensus here about whether or not this is something that should be done is better than purely individual adminstrator discretion as alluded to earlier. I don't think this is conduct becoming of an adminstrator or a regular editor. I'm conflicted about how this would impact the ArbCom case request, though. I'm under the impression that they can still contact ArbCom to defend themselves, correct? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC), edited 18:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  In full cases concerning a blocked editor, there have been times where ArbCom has agreed to temporarily unblock with the condition that they only edit case pages. A block or not would not be a detriment to the editor participating in arbitration should they make that choice, the Committee has various ways to ensure that the editor still has full participation. Courcelles (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now He isn't editing, and isn't causing any current disruption that a block would relieve. There currently isn't any preventative purpose which would make a block purely punitive. Let's let this thread and the Arbcom case proceed to a consensus to desysop, maybe topic ban, and if he starts acting disruptively then we can issue a block. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would still like to see them appear here, offer an explanation (which would've been the norm, if I understand it, even back when they were first +sysop) and resign with what's left left their dignity. The failure to engage here, whilst still editing happily on other Wikimedia projects, goes beyond ANI-flu and is basically now just fucking with us. Every minute of silence from them just makes it more likely that they will be community banned in the end, but with extra drama. Or we could cut to the chase. — Trey Maturin™ 18:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support as straightforwardly preventative of any repetition of inappropriate behavior, either as an editor or admin, in a context in which Dbachmann has had ample opportunity to present an explanation or defense but has opted not to. If Dbachmann wants at some point in the future to contribute to en.wiki, they should at that time make the case that they can do so constructively, via an unblock request. --JBL (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I was instinctively going to oppose, as it's in ArbCom's court. But having seen a lot of his comments now, together with some very disturbing off-site material, I support a community ban (or indef, or whatever closes the door on him). Whether whoever judges the consensus sees my reason as valid or not, I simply don't think racists, enablers of racists, or promoters of "scientific racism" tropes should be allowed to be part of any project that values equality and inclusivity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: And thereby hangs a tale. I guess you sent the juicy bits to ArbCom? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  They already know, I'm quite sure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I preferred indef as a normal admin action because that would stop the rest of us from having to spend time on this, but this works too. Based on a long term pattern, including multiple arbcom cases about this editor already, evidenced by diffs from 2005-2023. (The 2023 diffs are the unblock and comments surrounding it.) Levivich (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. We seem to be faced with a refusal to acknowledge WP:ADMINACCT by someone who is willing to use admin tools to promote a thoroughly offensive POV, and who provides little constructive input to the project. We can manage well enough, with a lot less drama, without them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as it violates the spirit and letter of WP:BLOCK Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't it a bit illogical, that the community can't directly desysop admins, but we're allowed to indef them when we feel they need to be desysopped? Feels almost like a loophole; either desysopping is up to the community, or it isn't. I think I roughly understand why we relegated desysopping to ArbCom (to avoid turning it into a popularity contest, and minimize the risk of poorly-attended discussions by INVOLVED users resulting in desysops), but the idea of indeffing for WP:ADMINCOND issues makes me uneasy. DFlhb (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: It is odder still that the relatively few drama-seekers who patrol ANI are considered "the community". Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• It is an odd hole in our policies, but partially because indeffing an admin basically always ends up at Arbcom anyway. Either because the user unblocked themselves (which was possible until recently) or somebody else unblocked and wheel warring ensued. There's no specific community desysop procedure, but there is precedent for the community achieving consensus here and formally requesting Arbcom do the desysopping. I think the very first Arbcom motion might have been for that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  there is precedent for the community achieving consensus here and formally requesting Arbcom do the desysopping Sounds like something worth formalizing, regardless of what happens here. DFlhb (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've thought about it before. I was planning on making a proposal here with the wording I just threw onto User:The Wordsmith/Workshop#Community Desysop Proposal after this thread had been open for a day or two so consensus could form and the user had an opportunity to respond, but it was brought to Arbcom early before I had a chance. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  In my view, the problems go way beyond ADMINACCT, which is probably the least important of the problems. I wouldn't support indefing just for an adminacct issue. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The remedy for abuse of admin tools and unresponsiveness per WP:ADMINACCT is surely de-sysop. It could potentially move on to indef if there are problematic issues relating to general editing established - such as discussed below in the context of the TBAN. But that's not the proposal and doesn't seem to be established either per my weak oppose of the TBAN. He should definitely be de-sysoped by Arb Com of course. I don't think there's much doubt that that will be the Arb com outcome so I don't think ANI need do anything further on that particular issue. DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose No, they've done nothing to indicate they should be disallowed from normal editing. Misuse of the admin toolset is a different matter from editing Wikipedia articles. Desysop should be the appropriate response. Blocking is the wrong response entirely here. --Jayron32 16:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Outside problematic use of admin tools, supposed evidence of any problem with Dbachmann's editing is extremely stale and contrived WP:SMEAR. Sennalen (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as a response to "abuse of admin tools and unresponsiveness per WP:ADMINACCT". The correct solution for that is a desysop. Weak Neutral as a response to race topic area ickiness, but the topic ban below is marginally better IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Floq and several others above. This is sledgehammer to crack a nut territory. Serious infringements of ADMINACCT lead to a desysop, not a ban. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Boing! and Lev. The editor can not be trusted to edit with the integrity of the encyclopedia in focus. The disruption and drama only adds to the net negative. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Topic ban proposal

It's come up as a motion in the ArbCom case request, and I think it's something the community should decide rather than ArbCom. So I propose that Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from pages about Race, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. The ban would be in addition to any indef block or any other sanction, should such be decided.

• Support as proposer who copied it over from ArbCom (updated). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Despite claims to not being involved in this topic area, I think their unilateral unblock of someone who was blocked for their editing in this area was an involved. action.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Lightburst: It is not conjuring to say that an admin who has had problems in a topic area in the past who then improperly unblocked a user in that topic area has acted unacceptably in that area, especially while thumbing his nose at WP:ADMINACCT after being required to account for that unblock. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  The subject of a topic ban was deemed not appropriate for ARBCOm and was returned to where it belongs--ANI. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: Aside form the already belabored unblock, I saw no recent problem edits in at least a year. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Question Is this proposal based on the three diffs at the beginning of the Arbcom case (from 2005, 2007 and 2018)? Are there other diffs that should be considered? DeCausa (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good question! Dbachmann said "not involved" when he made the unblock. This question is the very crux of the matter. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's essentially based on my transfer of the proposed motion from ArbCom. But, I've seen a number of disturbing comments from Dbachmann, both on- and off-wiki (and I don't know if what I've seen on-wiki is covered by all the diffs - I don't think so, and if I can find more I'll post it). Essentially, the long-term totality of what I've seen, in both words and actions, convinces me a topic ban is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, and for anyone who hasn't yet, I think it's worth reading all the thoughts over on the ArbCom case request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Essentially, the long-term totality of what I've seen, in both words and actions, convinces me a topic ban is needed. But what about everyone else? Can someone link to the other diffs? Tbh, diffs from 2005, 2007 and 2018 with a non-specific comment that there are other disturbing edits is a weak case for a topic ban. DeCausa (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  That alone is perhaps indeed a weak case, but people can (and should) do their own research rather than basing their decision solely on what the proposer says. Dbachmann has not protected their real-life identity, and it's not hard to find. But I don't want to risk going too close to outing, so there are links that I don't want to post here - but others can find them if they want to try. But in essence, even with just what has been presented in this discussion so far, I'm seeing something that I think is pretty clear. Dbachmann has argued that different human races are different sub-species (totally against mainstream science), and that some, including the Khoisan, are even different species (again, way outside mainstream science). I don't know if a search might uncover more recent evidence of his "scientific racism" tropes, but he doesn't seem to be very active in the topic area these days. But he has defended (and unblocked) another editor on the grounds that those very same racist tropes are merely a different opinion, in 2023, this month. And you can't get much more recent than that. It's certainly enough to convince me that he hasn't changed his views on race since the diffs we've seen. And I do not think we should welcome anyone who considers some of his fellow editors to be different species. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  That alone is perhaps indeed a weak case, but people can (and should) do their own research rather than basing their decision solely on what the proposer says. That's not normally the expectation when when someone proposes something here. DeCausa (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's fair enough. But I always do my own research before I !vote on anything, and I never go only on what the proposer says. (Even if I !vote "Per someone", that just means I agree with them, but I've still done my own research.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: "Go only on what the proposer says" is nothing to with what I said. Please don't misrepresent me. It's that you haven't produced the diffs. I'm not interested in opinions or "what you said", only the evidence. Time and again, when OPs make vague assertions inadequately supported by diffs they are turned away here. Never is "do your own researcH' an appropriate or successful response. The onus is on the OP to furnish the evidence to support their case. It happens less when a proposal is made in an existing thread - usually the diffs have already been provided earlier in the discussion. This thread is unusual in that. No one seems willing or able to produce evidence outside of those 3 diffs. I'm not going to dig around looking for the evidence to support what you propose. If you can't produce the diffs, I'm going to oppose what you propose, and that's what I've done. If you or anyone else is willing to produce the evidence to support your proposal in the form of diffs, then I would be happy to chnage that. DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: Apologies, I didn't mean to misrepresent your view - I do know what you meant, but I worded it badly. I won't try to explain any further in case I dig myself in deeper ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support for same reasons as my vote above. Levivich (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The comment about the Khoisan is so utterly at odds with both mainstream science and basic human dignity that it would justify a topic ban (as an absolute minimum) on its own. And frankly, I very much doubt that if a new contributor had made such a statement we'd even be debating the matter - we'd just indef block and leave it at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Conjuring up sanctions on an admin for simply unblocking is not what the project needs. This reminds me of the blocks editors get for daring to ivote oppose at RFA. I see this is at ARBCOM also, how is that for ratcheting up pressure? Lightburst (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Because the feedback from multiple people was that a topic ban was inappropriate for ArbCom to consider I have withdrawn that motion so it's no longer being considered there. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Barkeep49: It is crazy that we consider that this rises to the level of an indef or a topic ban. "There but for the grace of god go I." We should all move on, there is clearly no ongoing disruption or need to protect the project. So then this is punitive. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose (for the time being) Per the answers to my question above, 3 edits from 2005, 2007 and 2018 are too old and, to some extent, not egregious enough to bring dow a TBAN. The Khoisan edit is...well bizarre. It might be racist but could also be crazy WP:FRINGE. But either way making the "sub-species" argument once in 2018 is not enough. Some decent diffs would switch me to "support" but I think, in principle, it's not right to put forward a proposal based on a weak case and say "do your own research" to get up to speed. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  "It might be racist but could also be crazy WP:FRINGE." What would be an example of non-racist crazy FRINGE? I am having a hard time imagining any non-racist explanation. Levivich (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Getting too analytical in the world of crackpot theories probably has very limited benefits. I can't tell from that one diff in 2018 exactly where the guy is coming from. Maybe you can. Most people here seem to think they can and maybe they're right. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Bans, like blocks, should be preventative. Topic banning someone where the evidence is from 5, 15, and 18 years ago seems just silly. If we have a pattern of recent problematic behavior in the topic under discussion, please present that. Like the indef block proposal above, this seems like a non-sequitur over-reach for the terrible use of admin tools. The appropriate response for misuse of admin tools is desysop, and that's it. The rest feels like overkill. I'm fully willing to consider other remedies for other problems, but no one has, at yet, really provided any evidence that Dbachmann is currently behaving in such a way that any kind of ban or block is needed. The evidence of the three diffs that have been provided is fantastically unsavory, and if all three were from the past year or so, I'd be totally on board with a ban or a block. But it doesn't seem right to dig that far into the past for evidence, it feels unfair. --Jayron32 16:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support as one obvious remedy for long-term disruptive behavior. --JBL (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support - It looks as if ArbCom will desysop -- which is appropriate -- with a suspended case, but has rejected considering a topic ban by motion, so it's up to the community to take action. Dbachmann has not only expressed racist opinions for many years, they have acted on them in their editing, and that is something that we simply cannot have here. There is no excuse for waiting for them to take further steps to skew our articles in that direction, and failure to topic ban now will only encourage those of similar beliefs who are waiting in the wings to edit in the same fashion (you can see who they are by a careful reading of the comments in the arbitration case request, but anyone who's been following the R&I issue for years knows who they are). A topic ban is clearly necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Might I suggest a slight tweak to the wording of the proposal? The phrasing "pages about Race" leaves Dbachmann perfectly free to make comments about race elsewhere. I would therefore suggest the ban be from editing material related to race on any page in any namespace, and from commenting about race in talk comments in any way anywhere on the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The pages wording is how ArbCom has worded "don't say it anywhere", while using "Articles" for well articles. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - I just copied the words from the proposed ArbCom motion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, including Beeblebrox's suggested tweak above just to make it even clearer. It's not a frequent issue, but it's a long term one, and it's icky, and they unethically unblocked someone because of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, I think that's the crux of it. The diffs of past comments are old, but the unblock was clearly in ideological support of a purveyor of racist tropes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Sadly Oppose While I find the characterization of Dbachmann to be accurate and I certainly won't lose the tiniest wink of sleep if he's topic-banned, I have real problems with doing it for this set of facts. It does come off as punitive rather than preventative, given the time since 2018 and the lack of any kind of disruption. Jurisdiction over his administrative actions is elsewhere, and I don't think we can fairly use the block itself as part of the evaluation. What we're left with is some very old posts, 2018, and assuming bad faith -- I think we can take into consideration this even if not the block itself -- and I'd have a hard time believing that anyone would score a topic ban just based on that. And while the off-site comments leave me with little doubt as to his character, there are real problems with using that as a proxy for Wikipedia behavior that didn't exist. Applying ad hoc policy, especially in a situation where there was no disruption that's not being reviewed elsewhere is just something I find to be a very poor idea. The case that it's needed to prevent future damage is weak and if something should happen, it's very easy to resolve. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  ...except for the 2023 unblock and comments. I don't understand why so many editors are saying the most recent evidence is from 2018. We're here because of something that happened this week. Levivich (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  But we're not, actually. We're *only* here because of an improper unblock. But that's already being handled by ANI, the proper forum for that issue. Stripped of the improper unblock, there's no here, here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Err, ArbCom (sorry, early and did not sleep well) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, yeah, if you remove the "there", then there is no "there" there. But the "there" is the unblock (and comments, like saying Money was an ideological opponent of AndewNguyen, an absolutely ridiculous claim, but even more ridiculous because of Andew's ideology, which is why Andew was blocked in the first place). Oppose the tban if you think a desysop is enough to address the 2023 problems, but don't say there has been a "lack of any kind of disruption" since 2018, because we had disruption this week. Serious disruption. Levivich (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there is a desysop at all, as it begins to look like ArbCom in starting to shy away from taking immediate action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Digging up old posts seems punitive and even vengeful at this time. If he continues spewing the same racist garbage, I'm all for it, but I'd prefer if it was based off of recent, on-wiki evidence. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  19:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  There is nothing "vengeful" about presenting evidence of a long-term problem. If the historical evidence wasn't presented, people would be saying that we can't topic ban solely on the strength of one recent incident. It's the history that justifies the topic ban, and the ADMINACCT behavior (among other problems) which justify the desysop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Something does not add up. If he's not racist or made racist edits, why would we want to topic ban him from "race"? On the other hand, if he has... well, this is the first time I have seen on Wikipedia, where we came across a racist and said, "let's not lose a valuable contributor, we can give him something else to do". And, even putting aside the lack of precedence, someone who is racist or has made racist edits in the past will have managed to have compromised NPOV in the articles they had touched, and in the future, could compromise NPOV in other articles without ever bringing up race. Just as an example, a hypothetical racist editor who's prejudiced against Indians and thinks Indian Mathematics is overhyped by ineloquent, non-resident, Indian-nationalist teenagers, could, without ever bringing up race, prevent "globalisation" of mathematics articles by reverting edits that add text about Indian contributions, for containing typos, grammatical errors, or too much detail. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just for the sake of clarity for the closers, @Usedtobecool, could you clarify whether this is a !vote or simply a comment? If he's not racist or made racist edits, why would we want to topic ban him from "race"? sounded like possibly an oppose, but the rest sounds like a support. If I were closing, I might treat it as no !vote, just a comment. Valereee (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking at the state of voting at the arbitration request after Dbachmann posted their non-explanation explanation there, it seems quite possible that a desysop could be a long drawn-out procedure as the arbs try to settle whether to open a case or desysop by motion. (Both of the desysop and suspend motions are now failing due to the removal of one arb's vote in favor of a full case, and the desysyop motion has only two support votes.) Given this, it seems to me more necessary then ever that the community take action here and put a topic-ban in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not really. Dbachmann isn't editing on en.wp and from their terse "done-with-it tone" (as Valereee rightly describes it) in their statement at ArbCom there's little prospect of them coming back to edit disruptively. I can't see any preventative rationale here. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Images

Given the racist views on human lineage by DBachmann uncovered above, can someone explain why we are relying on a diagram of human evolutionary history by DBachmann from 2018, claiming to show the human species as having diverged into multiple subgroups and using distinctive colors to emphasize that supposed divergence, in some eight of our articles on the topic? With at least three more related images by DBachmann also in use in article space [78] [79] [80]? The hosting of those images on commons is a separate issue off-topic for here, but their use on en is a matter for en. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Although sources are cited, the specific visualizations are completely OR, unless Dbachmann is a subject expert, in which case they should be citing themselves as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The diagram from 2018 is very different from the figure it claims to have been "based on"; all the brown pointy bits are just drawn in. The next citation in the image description is a lengthy quote from a blog post by Razib Khan. As the absolute best that could be said about the 2018 diagram is that it's unacceptably synthetic, I've removed it from article space. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Nordisk Plus

Nordisk Plus (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly copying content from the Yellow vests protests infobox to 2023 French pension reform strikes ([1][2][3][4]). The first time around included the leaders of the yellow vests in the infobox; I reverted it as background. The second attempt referenced the convoy protests for no apparent reason so I reverted again as inappropriate. By the third instance, I had noticed the copy-pasting and posted a notice at the article talk page and a warning at Nordisk Plus's talk page. I removed the content the next day. What followed was the latest infobox transplant, this time including the French Army as party, which it isn't. Nordisk Plus has never posted to discussions. RAN1 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

On Healf of Nordisk Plus, I decided to remove copying content from the Yellow vests protests infobox to 2023 French pension reform strikes to avoid block from editing. We can't reports of Police Brutallity or looting in France for Now. So Thanks for your help. Nordisk Plus (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment I assume 'on behalf of' is what was meant to be said. Nordisk Plus, is this an account with multiple contributors? Please clear this up immediately, because accounts are not allowed to be shared among a group of people. Nate • (chatter) 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Reiterating the above, @Nordisk Plus:, please declare if this is a shared account or not (the use of 'we' rather than 'I' also concerns me). Ignoring this thread is not going to make any scrutiny disappear, and your response is very lacking in any detail. Nate • (chatter) 22:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I will clear this now, for accounts are unallowed to shared among groups. The French military will not mobilized as of yet during that pension strikes. Nordisk Plus (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Just keeping this updated: Nordisk Plus reverted the self-revert, and then partially self-reverted after this last reply. RAN1 (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Section break

Based on the above response (which feels like it went through a translation mill) and going through their past edits which have needed cleanup from other editors, I feel like N+ has a low level of English proficiency, or has someone assisting them, though poorly, and N+ should disengage from editing until they have a better understanding of how to edit en.wiki. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

User Jaredscribe

Jaredscribe (talk · contribs)

I am concerned by this editor's recent edits. Their contributions at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla master plan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian Democracy Movement have been substantially tendentious. Also, they have been making some substantial (and reverted) changes at Wikipedia:Competence is required, which naturally makes me question their competence. I considered discussing this on the user's talk page, but there are already two years worth of warnings and multiple previous blocks, suggesting this is a pattern that requires administrator's attention. Walt Yoder (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I should note here that beyond the Tesla nonsense where I've been most deeply involved, there appear to be numerous other issues in regards to Jaredscribe's behaviour which probably also need consideration, concerning unrelated matters, though as someone involved in that mess, I'm probably not best placed to make a fair assessment. As just one example, take a look at this [81] series of edits, where a 'humorous essay', WP:WikiDwarf, was turned into a hostile diatribe. After I reverted this, JaredScribe went on to restore his attack piece as Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf. And see also Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired, where the same thing has been done with a core Wikipedia explanatory essay, after his dubious and distinctly pointy edits to WP:CIR were rejected. This, along with more or less everything I've seen of JaredScribe's recent behaviour, seems to indicate a chronic battleground mentality, and an abject refusal to accept that he isn't going to get his way with everything. Frankly, I don't think JaredScribe has the necessary attributes to engage in a collaborative project, and we'd be better off without him - though rather than taking my word for it, I suggest people look for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I've made a number of essays on wikipedia, including WP:Bold-refine and WP:Obversion, and have substantially improved WP:CANDOR, which is needed here.

It should be noted that the essay Competence is required is an attack piece as currently written, it is widely seen as a personal attack, and its not a policy or a guideline or key consensus document. My re-write substantially softened that, in agreement with WP:Competence is acquired. It also removed the threat of indefinite block that CIR implied.

After my proposed re-write was rejected, (apparently the incumbents wish to maintain a battleground mentality against newcomers and marginalized editors) I accepted their consensus and gave up, and am now doing exactly what editors suggested I do in the talk page discussion: write my own essay.

Wikipedia_talk:Competence_is_required#Three_Essential_Competencies_for_Managing_Editors

After I improve Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired, I intend to propose it at the village pump and get feedback and invite other editors to contribute. This is a WP:CIVIL process, exactly, what I'm supposed to do. Is it not?

Also, Mr. Grump forgot to mention that he reverted my recent contributions to WP:SCREW, and did so, according to his edit summary, on [82] on orders from the "go-write-your-own-polemic-somewhere-else-cabal". So in response to his instructions, his polemic, and to the existing polemics against newcomers and marginalized persons, that's sort-of what I did. Although would call it an "argument" rather than a polemic, because I don't resort to the type of circular reasoning, informal fallacies and vulgur personal attacks to which Mr. Grump habitually and deliberately resorts.[83]

If anyone wants to collaborate on improving the diction or tone of my essays, they may. Or they may nominate it for deletion. (CIR has been nominated twice) That would be a civil process. If Mr. Grump and friends object to my essays, why not just do this? But accusing me of "lacking the necessary attributes to engage in a collaborative project" simply because they don't like my inclusion on Tesla master plan or Tesla, Inc. of sourced material on sustainable development and renewable energy transition, or my opinion in the essays on the right to logical and dialectical self-defense, is a polite way of attacking me to have me removed from the project. Using ANI as a content battleground - which is what they are doing - strikes me as an abuse of process.

Does a Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf have the right to defend himself when attacked by a a group of WP:WikiKnights? I hope so. If not, please explain why.

Is a defense piece, permitted, in response to the attack piece that is maintained at CIR and the attack mentality that's being deployed here by my adversaries? If not, please explain why. Jaredscribe (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A simple look at the edits to WP:CIR by JaredScribe will amply illustrate the falsehood of the claim that the intention was to 'soften' the essay. Adding section headers entitled 'Incompetence by policy enforcers' and 'Administrative incompetence' clearly wasn't 'softening'. Nor are comments about 'groupthink'. As for what I didn't like about the ridiculous Tesla master plan article (which even JaradScribe seems to have given up trying to defend, since he is now requesting draftification), I made this perfectly clear at the AfD. A blatant POV fork, consisting of nothing but regurgitation of Tesla material. There is absolutely nothing in it concerning "sustainable development" or "renewable energy transition" beyond Tesla's promotional claims on the matter. Absolutely no secondary-sourced commentary on the consequences of Tesla's activities on such issues whatsoever. Or secondary-sourced commentary to speak of on anything else either. The article is grossly unencyclopedic fancruft, self-evidently created as a POV-fork of an article, (Tesla Inc.) that JaredSribe had made no effort whatsoever to engage with before embarking on his futile attempt to present promotional material for an electric-vehicle manufacturer as some sort of master-plan for saving the planet. Abusing Wikipedia facilities to engage in such time-wasting nonsense is a behavioural issue, and one that needs to be addressed. Just like it needed to be the last time JaredScribe chose to engage in a facile attempt to impose his own (frankly bizarre) take on article content, where he somehow thought that the Rudy Giuliani article would be improved by adding a section on supposed 'Transvestism'. [84] This last incident led to a topic ban, but seems to merely have moved the problem elsewhere. Which is why I suggest stronger measures are likely to be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Despite being notified, JaredScribe is continuing to engage in further battleground behaviour [85][86] rather than responding here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I made those edits before reading my talk page or becoming aware of this ANI incident. I will desist from further editing in that area until this is resolved, and I ask that @AndyTheGrump and his ally do likewise, and respond to the discussion I've initiated at Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Business_Strategy_=>_Sustainable_energy_economy instead of doubling down on their reversion-war and WP:Status quo stonewalling, which is a passive-agressive form of battleground behavior. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I will contribute where I chose, as and when I chose. Though thanks for reminding me of your WP:OWN behaviour, which clearly needs discussing here too. See e.g. this edit [87] which is a blatant attempt to assert control over who participates in talk page discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Responding to @Walt Yoder accusation of Tendentious on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iranian_Democracy_Movement, an article and a deletion discussion in which he was not involved.

I have accepted the decision of the closing administrator @Vanamonde93 and acknowledged that it was a "mostly fair decision".

User_talk:Jaredscribe#Nomination_of_Iranian_Democracy_Movement_for_deletion

That was my first participation in a major AfD; I'm still figuring this out.

I did respond to most of the arguments to delete, perhaps too much. My counter-arguments were not tendentious, but valid and sound, although not ultimately persuasive. The number of citations went from 3-4 to over 60, it was fair to mention that. The allegations of hoax were unfounded, it was right to refute that. The need for a Farsi perspective was appropriate to mention. I dissent, but I dissent respectfully. I agreed with aspects of my critics' critiques, I offered a compromise in renaming the article. If I've offended anyone, I'm very sorry, and will make any corrections needed.

Regarding the allegations of "questionable competence", I've responded above. @Walt Yoder's reasoning is circular, and amounts to a mere appeal to the authority of the essay above, for an argumentum ad baculum As I argue above, that essay is not, and should not become, a key consensus document of the wikipedia project.

If they are undertaking to enforce compliance by threatening to have dissenting editors permanently blocked from the project, this will prevent the scholarly exchange of ideas, degrade the quality of the encyclopedia, and reduce the competence of those who edit it. QED Jaredscribe (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing isn't an essay. It does however state that Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks If it makes you happy, maybe we could avoid 'circular reasoning' by blocking you for that instead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment no administrators have commented on this yet. I am quite concerned by the reply It should be noted that the essay Competence is required is an attack piece as currently written, it is widely seen as a personal attack, and its not a policy or a guideline or key consensus document. My re-write substantially softened that, in agreement with WP:Competence is acquired. It also removed the threat of indefinite block that CIR implied. My understanding is that you can be blocked for incompetence, and I'm not sure how that principle is a "personal attack". I think administrators should be extremely interested if an editor is trying to unilaterally change that. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

To add to that, I'd have to suggest that entitling an essay Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired in response to the long-established Wikipedia:Competence is required explanatory essay is confusing given the structure - a POV fork of the CiR essay - perhaps deliberately so. The 'desired' essay is so close in structure to the established 'required' one that it could easily be mistaken for it. Given the highly-questionable content added (see e.g. the section on 'Administrative incompetence') this is self-evidently undesirable. To be clear, I have no objection to anyone writing an essay critical of Wikipedia processes, but such essays clearly need to be identified as personal opinion, not 'Wikipedia:' namespace material purporting to represent community consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaredscribe's edits at WP:CIR and its talk page were pointy and disruptive, which I noted here. If this is spewing out to other pages, as evidenced by AndyTheGrump above and below, then I think the edits need to be reviewed.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The CIR essay itself is pointy.

Yes, I pointed that out. WP:Competence is acquired points it out too, and moreover disrupts the premises of CIR, and rightly so. And it had a unanimous KEEP when it was nominated, unlike CIR. Its also better written than CIR, more WP:CIVIL.

But if you wish to have a policy debate with me, lets undertake it at the Village Pump, shall we? Jaredscribe (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

After my WP:BOLD proposal was reverted by @AndyTheGrump, I did not attempt to re-insert it. I went to discussion. This is called WP:BRD, and that is a key consensus document of wikipedia.

When the consensus turned against my proposal, I accepted that outcome and gave up.

Nothing I did in the explanatory essay or in its talk page was "disruptive", except in the logical sense in which I've successfully pointed out some basic political and moral flaws in that explanatory essay, which ought to be corrected or at least subjected to scrutiny from the wider wikipedia community.

Jaredscribe (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This whole scenario has come about because I cited that essay at the discussion Talk:Tesla master plan § Plan for a Sustainable Energy Economy, in response to @AndyTheGrump doubling and tripling down on the accusation of "marketing-bullsh--". I said that, IMHO, he is per WP:CIR "not competent to be acting as a managing-editor".

I immediately realized my error, and tried to atone for it by editing that essay to remove the threat of indefinite block, and to suggest that incompetent editors be given a lesser penalty - such as a temporary topic ban and a slap with a wet trout, or a prohibition on using the "undo" button, and this is what the new proposed essay recommends.

Nevertheless, for my earlier assertion, @Anachronist has faulted me on the talk page for making a "personal attack".

As stated on the talk page, I retract that, and I deeply regret citing that essay. I understand now that it is an uncivil attack piece. I won't do it again. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

RE: Allegations of "Tendentious" at Tesla master plan

From Talk:Tesla master plan § Not Marketing, not Promo, not Fancruft, not POV-fork

The official corporate documents are WP:PRIMARY sources, and we cite them here in accordance with Wikipedia content policy: We may cited primary sources for the bare facts, but we may not use them to make statements analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. This essay does not make such statements, and if it does inadvertantly, those may be individually challenged and excised.

analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis That has to come from WP:Independent WP:Secondary sources, and we are willing to do that.

Now that I've had time to do more research (in spite of the distractions above), a dozen or more secondary sources from the mainstream media have been cited in the article. And the article can be expanded with critical analysis and commentary drawing from these, and assessments of how and whether Tesla has met its own goals so far. (A critical negative evaluation from Bloomberg had been the only one to date)

The company's strategic plan for a sustainable energy economy may or may not help their marketing (some investors would say that the idealism is a distraction), but that is tangential to the issue. And insofar as it is marketing, its not "bullsh--" - its not empty worthless hype. According to Tesla investors at least, it worked. The company is not only the industry leader, it is revolutionizing the industry, like Ford motors or Toyota did in their day. An article about their industrial engineering is a topic unto itself, and thats why this is not a POV-fork any more than Fordism or The Toyota Way is, and they are not.

I shouldn't need to remind us that that world we live is not a fictional universe, and the resources we consume are assigned by the roll of dice or the draw of card, as at a fantasy football or pokemon gathering. The allegations of "FANCRUFT" are a false equivalence, a denial of reality, and an appeal to ridicule: an unsound argument to say the least. That so many "editors" find it persuasive says more about their intellects than it does about this article.

It is possible for us to report on the futuristic, environmentalist strategic plan of Tesla Inc. without hype, without exaggeration, with advertisment or promo. Tesla Inc. should be held accountable to the "forward looking statements" that it gives to investors and to the world at large, and an article like this is one way to do it.

@AndyTheGrump and his cohorts and enablers want us to believe that the myriad Tesla customers, investors, employees, students, and imitators, are nothing more than "fans" and that they're all spoonfeeding themselves "feces" from Mr. Musk. This is perceived as a personal attack against every Tesla Inc. employee, customer, investor, and sympathizer. Disregarding for a moment the vulgur and exaggerated ridicule that ought to have no place in an encyclopedia, the assertion that "the Tesla Inc.'s master plan is worthless", is verifiably counter-factual: Isn't Tesla Inc. the most valuable company in the world? Hello? And even if it weren't, the assertion is a priori absurd.

It appears from the AfD that this article will be deleted; I'm only one against almost a dozen who have voted to delete on the very presumptions that I refute here, and now I've been hauled to ANI and am being threatened with expulsion for "incompetence" or "disruptive editing". Nevertheless, my conscience is clear. This was a good-faith attempt at a scholarly analysis of Tesla's industrial engineering and environmental ethics.

I'm sorry that I published the draft before it was ready; I had hoped to attract intellectually curious people who would research and contribute. I realize now that this not to be expected from the english Wikipedia "editor" community, at least not from this corner of it. Apparently, most of them prefer to revert, delete, and scoff.

To those few who contributed, I want to share with you some leftover Dobos torte, it was more than I could eat.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The above attempt to justify a blatant POV fork through a wall of text is sadly typical of JaredScribe's talk-page behaviour. A gross misunderstanding of multiple Wikipedia policies, unsourced speculation dressed up as fact, pretensions to 'scholarship' entirely at odds with the content of the disputed article, and an abject failure to get the point on multiple levels. Fractal incompetence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

More battleground behaviour

Even after this thread is opened, JaredScribe is still engaged in spamming attacks on anyone and everyone across the project. From Wikipedia talk:List of cabals:

The WikiKnighthood cabal

The WP:WikiKnighthood exists to defend eachother's honor and that of the wiki, but not to learn anything from it.

Their habit is to revert the good-faith contributions of anyone who disrupts the status quo of the inadequate articles that they often manage, often with a dose of misinformation or ignorant mockery in the edit summary. Those who courageously resists this hostile treatment, can be accused of misbehavior. The knights who say "ni" enforce their regime of groupthink by making an appeal to an administrative notice board, and by shaking down their victims for payment in the form of shrubbery. Most editors recognize the dyslogic here, but they let the knighthood get away with it anyway, because they're too scared to do otherwise: If a knight calls you "incompetent" for having failed to comply to his arbitrary and whimsical decree, it could lead to an indefinite block.

They have a strong aversion to reading, writing, research, or having to study anything new - either on-wiki or off - and they take great pleasure taken in demanding that others educate them on the obvious, which they often decline to learn.

Those of us who resist the knighthood disavow membership in the Shrubbery cabal (see above), but we may ally intersectionally in certain operations.

Jaredscribe (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

diff [88]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a {{humor}} page.

If you think its not funny enough, then give a witty rejoinder. Expand the existing section on the "Shrubbery cabal" mock me and my friends for "pointy and disruptive and incompetent behavior", if you want to. You're allowed to do that there. I promise I won't report you to ANI for it. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that there is a reason for concern with Jaredscribe’s edits. Even after being made aware of his forbidden synthesis in numerous articles, he still continues to make such edits. In one of several recent examples, Jaredscribe tries to change the subject of an article to prevent it from being deleted. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have responded here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The future of Iran’s democracy movement § Notes to these exaggerated and false claims of SYNTH in "numerous" articles:

  @ParadaJulio either misunderstands our WP:Content policy and needs to be educated, or is WP:Tendentiously mis-applying it in order to undermine articles in the content area of the Iranian opposition.

  This is not SYNTH:

  Talk:National Council of Resistance of Iran § 2023 U.S. House Resolution 100

  This is a WP:Verified fact, its also not a HOAX as he has earlier claimed, twice, in the AfD and then in a Sockpuppet investigation, assuming bad faith from the outset and never retracting the falsified allegation. Alleging SYNTH here appears to be disruptive WP:Status quo stonewalling, on an article that was demonstrably incomplete with glaring omissions.

  The Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran is a verified fact too, and it originated in The_future_of_Iran’s_democracy_movement, summit meeting, which is why we have unanimous consensus for the move, from the constructively contributing editors. I invite good-faith contributors to tag or remove any unsubstantiated or synthetic claims in that article, if they find any. (And on all other articles I've improved) But don't make false accusations or remove verified content. The AfD itself is disruptive process initiated by @ParadaJulio, who failed to do even a cursory web search for secondary sources on the ADFI, before nominating the article for deletion.

  The article in which the synthetic statement did occur, is now renamed (as I had proposed) and is being incubated at User:Jaredscribe/Iranian_democracy_movements. It has been shared with WP:WikiProject Iran and eventually will be published with more sources and without the problematic name (which was the only "synthetic" claim in the article). In the AfD itself I had acknowledged this problem - I'm not unaware or insensitive to it, and I will accept a consensus decision by constructive writer-editors on whether to keep that name, or to call it Iranian opposition, or its original name before a merge, Iranian dissidents. Whatever happens, I agree to abide by our WP:Content policy including the prohibition on WP:Original research, and to abide by the mostly fair decision of the closing admin in that AfD case.

  The allegations that I have a conduct disorder, are an extension of the initial refusal to WP:AGF. @AndyTheGrump also assumed bad faith from the outset. He has WP:HOUNDed me all over wikipedia (and even onto humor pages), canvassing support on an AfD he has nothing to do with, merely on a campaign to have me permanently removed from the project, apparently recruiting @ParadaJulio to assist. I suggest that they each go read a book instead, or at least a magazine.

  Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  canvassing support on an AfD he has nothing to do with I assume this refers to this post of mine. [89] Pointing out that someone doesn't understand how to properly participate in AfD discussions, and giving advice on how to do it properly, while explicitly stating that I wasn't going to !vote, isn't 'canvassing'. As for 'hounding', when the same disruptive behaviour is evident in multiple places, including core explanatory essays as well as articles, it is legitimate to comment on the matter. Maybe if JaredScribe hadn't already demonstrated a monumental lack of clue over the Rudy Giuliani 'cross-dressing' nonsense (which I took no part in, but was well aware of) I'd have taken less note of his behaviour, but it was self-evident from a quick look at his talk page and recent editing history that there were problems all over the place - the most fundamental ones apparently being a total inability to take advice concerning his misunderstanding of policy etc, combined with an immediate assumption that he is being conspired against. AS for WP:AGF, it should be noted that the first comment regarding 'competence' in the now-deleted Talk:Tesla master plan came from JaredScribe, not me. Frankly, if, as it appears, JaredScribe really thinks everyone on Wikipedia is engaged in some vast conspiracy to sabotage Elon Musk's supposed plans to "prevent civilizational collapse" (a direct quote from the deleted article lede) he needs to find another soapbox to tell everyone about it, since he clearly isn't going to succeed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Jaredscribe: it's not just me who said you were engaging in forbidden synth, it was also the closer in the last RFC. You're now doing exactly the same in The future of Iran’s democracy movement. The underlying issue (brought forward by different users here) is WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:CIR. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is a more civil approach and more appropriate forum for your content dispute with me. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard § Analysis/Synthesis dispute at articles on Iranian opposition Jaredscribe (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Post-close comments

The nomination has been closed and article was deleted (though the closer kindly placed it back in JS's sandbox)...and they responded with this after below the close, including a new personal attack. I've warned them about both and reverted the comments. Nate • (chatter) 22:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that Jaredscribe is ill-willed, but I don't think they understand how Wikipedia works. Or, to the extent they understand that, they derisively call it "the Borg" or "hive mind". (I have used the words "hive mind" myself, the difference is that I wasn't derisive.) They seem to be on a crusade to reform the ways of Wikipedia. Again, not because they would want it to fail, but because of their inability to comprehend the greatness of leaving our personal opinions at the door while editing Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I would never go on a "crusade" for or against anything, not even against you or your hive, or your Borg colony to which you want me to assimilate, or to whatever you call it nowadays. And no, I don't that wikipedia is such, and I don't think you can speak authoritatively on "how it works".

But if you want to bring in tangential philosophical debates on the nature of academic discourse, please give diffs and context, and be forewarned: I am scholastic. Or better yet, don't, and go read a book instead. There are some good ones for on the #Bibliography and #Recommended Basic Curriculum at the foot of my user page. And if you don't like those, go write your own, and then tell me about on a talk page if you want to, or write an essay. This is tangential.

You led a failed campaign once to have me blocked. (or should I instead call it a "crusade"?)

I was too busy to even respond; I don't even remember what it was about - lunacy, I suppose. I'm grateful that the admins in that case saw through those WP:Tendentious charges, and dismissed it. Would you like to appeal to the mob, by providing a link to that closed decision, and so that we could all re-litigate it here, @Tgeorgescu? Or are you just looking for applause from the undergraduates? Jaredscribe (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You basically called Wikipedia antisemitic. I was simply told that your POV amounts to free speech that has to be tolerated. Which I have abode by, but in exchange I also request that others tolerate my vitriolic comments about religious fundamentalists. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I have never called wikipedia antisemitic, and if you want to put words in my mouth, you'll have to provide a diff and link, otherwise this is WP:Tendentious. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to re-litigate that thread, but I clearly stated therein that you have accused Wikipedia of being antisemitic, and I have provided quotes and diffs to the satisfaction of the then present admins. I was simply told to be more tolerant of people who call Wikipedia antisemitic. I wasn't told therein that I had made baseless accusations.

In that thread I was lambasted for accusing you of being wrong on the internet. But nobody has accused me therein of making up the accusations against you.

I have just consulted your user page, and at User:Jaredscribe#Traditional Antijudaism intersects with modern Scientism in unsound, ignorant, and dogmatic minimizing of the Hebrew Bible there still are the quotes which I have reported as evidence at that ANI thread, perhaps with only minor changes, basically hammering the same point, namely that Wikipedia is antisemitic (search for "anti-jewish propaganda" and "anti-Jewish bias"—your capitalization is not consistent). Why is Wikipedia anti-Jewish, according to you? Simply because it does not take the Bible at face value (see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). You wanted evidence, now we have evidence of your POV. But I'm not asking once more to be punished for being wrong on the internet. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Asserting the presence of Anti-Jewish bias in Academia and consequently on Wikipedia, is not the same accusing "antisemitism", and I wish you would stop being so careless with your words.

I've never asked you to take the bible at face value, except for establishing bare uncontroversial facts about what it claims, as we would also do for any WP:PRIMARY source: no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis (And I didn't make analytic, synthetic evaluative claims about the primary sourced Tesla master plan either, I let the secondary sources do that.)

You succeeded in totally driving me away from that content area, and I've been ignoring you and it for years, to the loss of the whole project.

I've now responded substantially here:

User talk:Jaredscribe § CHOPSY

Now stop the exaggerations, caricatures, and straw man arguments. It makes your judgement generally untrustworthy.

Jaredscribe (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

1. If an interpretation of the Bible passes WP:N, you don't have to perform WP:OR, but simply WP:CITE modern Bible professors (and, yup, there are many Jews for Judaism who are Bible professors); and you show know that Wikipedians WP:CITE the Bible only for fairly uncontroversial stuff, such as MOS:PLOTSOURCE.
2. If fail to see the difference between anti-Jewish and antisemitic, and I do not necessarily find that anti-Jewish means the same as Antijudaism. But pursuing such arguments is moot.
3. You think that Wikipedia:No_original_research#AEIS is carte blanche for performing WP:OR upon the Bible; it isn't.
4. I am not against Jews. I am not against Christians. I am not against the Bible. But I am for the Ivy League understanding of them all. I am not even saying that's the only understanding there is. But it is the best scholarly understanding on this planet. I am not even claiming that Orthodox Judaism is wrong, just that it isn't the mainstream academic view.
5. As for Christianity being a "solarian religion", most Christian theologians would not understand what you're hinting at: the "solarian" calendar was chosen for practical reasons, not for theological reasons. There is no link between the Nicene Creed and adopting a "solarian" calendar. The "lunarian" calendar was suppressed for being impractical, not for being heresy. Most of the people who follow a "solarian" calendar are not Sun worshipers, as it would be apostasy in Christianity and Islam. The only powerful Christian who was at the same time a Sun worshiper was Constantine the Great. But he did not decide upon Christian dogmas, but simply made theologians clear that they have to preserve the unity of Christianity. And his Sun worship was an inconvenient truth for the Christian Church, they tried to hide it.
6. I don't say that you have to agree with my POV. I'm just saying we have to agree upon WP:RS. And the Bible is most definitely not WP:RS for theological claims. Mainstream Bible scholars are the authority upon the Bible; the Bible is not an authority upon the Bible.
7. And, yes, I am very head-on, but generally speaking not uncivil to fellow Wikipedians. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"be forewarned: I am scholastic". Wikipedia:No academic threats appears not yet to be policy. I shall endeavour to rectify this oversight immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

If my comments are vitriolic, your comments are by an order of magnitude more vitriolic. At least I did not accuse all religious fundamentalists of being in cahoots with Hitler. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I have never brought up that name in conjunction with you or another editor, or even with another group. What are the "your comments" that you're refering to? These exaggerations have now crossed the line. Once again, if you are going to put words in my mouth, so that you can accuse me of something, you'll have to provide a link or a diff.

Otherwise motion to dismiss, failure to state a claim. And the accuser should warned not to bring accusations without evidence.

This is not even something I can even respond to.

However I will go back and review that past case, and will endeavor to respond, as I was not able to do at the time.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Again: my intention is not to re-litigate that ANI thread. I was told to be more tolerant of free speech and I have adapted to such request. I had provided quotes and diffs in that thread, it is publicly archived and can be read by anyone. Neither you, nor me were found guilty of violating WP:RULES in that thread. So, the idea that I had baselessly accused you in that thread it is a baseless accusation itself. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I've responded here - User talk:Jaredscribe § After AfD comments

As anyone can see, who reads the differential link that my accuser provided, no personal attack was made - only a self-defense against my accusers, who persist in assuming bad faith.

Please refer to me in the singular as "he", or else the neuter "ed" if you can't perceive my sex or gender. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaredscribe has now attacked my competency (using an essay they heavily modified and another they created) for the above action. I feel I was appropriate and neutral in my warning and stand by it fully. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It is true that I have "questioned" @MrSchimpf's competence, and that of everyone else who cited the CIR essay, including myself once upon a time.

I the essay I drafted, though DOES NOTE propose an indefinite block, and it holds all users accountable rather than merely newcomers and minorities. That what makes mine CIVIL.

@MrSchimpf on the other hand, has not only "questioned" my competence, he has implicitly threatened an indefinite block with CIR, and is now working in tandem with all these other accusers here to accomplish exactly that.

Thats what makes his attack UNCIVIL, imho, and contrary to a foundational principle of Wikipedia - that it is open to everybody, and that there should be no cabal. Therefore, the "establishment" must be held accountable no less than the "outsider".

With 3+ years and 9,000+ edits, and having contributed to some policy documents and published some essays that are now cited, I am now a veteran editor and part of the "establishment", at least from the perspective of the newcomer and novice. It amazes me sometimes that I got this far, and I really love this project. I dearly do not want to be kicked out. I am one of y'all now, as much as we all might be averse to that situation, and I intend to make the best of it by reforming myself, desiring competence and acquiring it daily, and striving to learn something new every day I edit. Anyone, no matter how simple or unlettered, or "outside" our "hive mind" here, is capable of this. Therefore, we must be accountable to the same principles that we insist others adopt. We must cultivate the same virtues that we insist outsiders cultivate. And furthermore we establishement editors can be guilty of incompetence no less than newcomers and outsiders can. In fact our incompetencies are even more dangerous, which why these periodic purges occur and scapegoats are sought.

I am alleging that there is a "systemic incompetence" here that is not the fault of any one of you, and that is why I have deprecated the essay CIR and ask that everyone stop referencing it until a wider discussion can be had at the village pump. And I need a few weeks to finish my drafts and publish them, before they are scrutinized. I share the drafts here because Mr. Grump examined my edit history and leaked it. And perhaps it can be an inspiration to all of you to go do something constructive, or engage in some original thought. (off-wiki of course)

And if you don't like my essay, you can go write your own! Eventually we will all have a policy discussion about this, and it shouldn't be done under the threat of expulsion.

I think we should all admit our incompetence now, and just declare a general amnesty on that. I for one, would never block someone on the grounds of mere "incompetence", before first giving him a block on the "undo" button and an education, and perhaps a temporary topic ban if necessary.

Jaredscribe (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I should make it clear that, since I'm presumably included amongst the 'accusers', that I don't consider this to be an issue of 'bad faith'. It is instead a question as to whether a contributor so demonstrably at odds with multiple Wikipedia policies, and so unwilling to accept that he may be in the wrong despite the advice of so many others, can usefully continue to contribute. It is entirely possible (and indeed sadly quite common) for a contributor to be simultaneously 'good faith' and yet disruptive to the extent that the project would do better without them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Lessons learned through a hostile AfD

User talk:Jaredscribe § Lessons Learned through a hostile AfD I invite neutral admins and competent, non-involved editors to respond here or on my talk page.

Everyone else may respond too, but expect that I will hold you to the same high standard of competence to which I hold myself, which most of you have never known and have explicitly now rejected.

I know that the "stub" article I made was very much WP:UNFINISHED, and was probably not fit to remain published in its present state: I don't deny that or defend it as such. I am defending my own good-faith and semi-competence in taking an "inclusionist" stance, and on assuming that others would perform competent due-diligence, which IMHO, they did not, as most are POV-hostile to the topic itself. And I had not been diligent myself, on several counts that I admit. And I'm acknowledging that I would like to acquire more competence. If any of you wish to join me in that endeavor, you may.

Thanks for your consideration. I intend to avoid this content area for a good while. And after I finish up another outstanding content dispute in which conduct issues (not my own) appear to be present, I will voluntarily take a few weeks or months off-wiki entirely, to reflect.

Have a good weekend. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You're adding unfiltered PR onto the encyclopedia and textwalling everyone who dares disagree with you (and I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks you need to learn to edit your responses), and may I remind you, attacked my competence for simply stating that you shouldn't attack others. That you're still not blocked despite all of this and just had a personal attack here oversighted; just stop. Read our guidelines. We're not here to get you blocked, but to help you edit better, and if you refuse to do so, you won't be editing any longer. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The oversighted post may have been caught up in deletion of unrelated content, rather than being problematic itself - see the history of this page, where three posts are removed, presumably due to the original one by an IP needing oversight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification (wasn't sure if both were related); struck that. Nate • (chatter) 15:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be noted here that inspection of the 'Lessons learned' linked above yet again demonstrates that JaredScribe has failed to learn the actual lesson of the AfD discussion: that Wikipedia policy does not permit the forking of an established article on an electric vehicle manufacturer (or anything else), based solely on a selective reading of three minor primary-source publicity/promotional documents ([90][91][92]), that a contributor (but no cited source) wishes to claim are somehow of independent notability, beyond that of the company itself. This was made abundantly clear in the AfD discussion, which was (bar JaredScribe's failure to get the point) utterly unanimous on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment all of the above was painful to read (even with ice cream). I think JaredScribe responses mean that WP:IDHT needs to be seriously addressed here to provide them clarity and to hopefully prevent future DE. They stated I intend to avoid this content area for a good while is a good start, but if IDHT follows thats a problem and the close here should ensure they have clarity of the consequences of further IDHT. Since they open above with Everyone else may respond too, but expect that I will hold you to the same high standard of competence to which I hold myself, which most of you have never known and have explicitly now rejected. I don't have realistic hopes any warning will sink in, but it will be a helpful reference in the next predictable ANI (now back to ice cream).  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The problem is that when experienced Wikipedians tell Jarescribe how we do things around here, he considers that they are attacking him, and he builds defenses. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Propose block

Everyone else may respond too, but expect that I will hold you to the same high standard of competence to which I hold myself, which most of you have never known and have explicitly now rejected.

With the above, and all the prior invective posted throughout this thread, Jaredscribe has declared that everyone else must be held to his standards of "competence." This refusal to learn and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, while adopting a combative approach to editing and interaction with others, tells me that he is not here to edit productively with others. I propose an indefinite block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support unless he promises to change his ways soon and actually does that in practice. He should be given a chance to repent, but not carte blanche to continue with his present behavior. He accused me of baselessly stating that he claimed that Wikipedia is antisemitic, simply because he does not find that anti-Jewish is synonymous with antisemitic. I'm not making an April's Fools Day joke about it, see [93], [94] and [95]. Yup, he never called Wikipedia "antisemitic", he just called it "anti-Jewish". And I was supposed to parse words in order to realize there is a difference between "antisemitic" and "anti-Jewish". In his own opinion, "anti-jewish propaganda" and "anti-Jewish bias" do not mean antisemitism. Up to and including [96] he was the sole editor of his user page, so I don't feel compelled to provide diffs, just search that version, it is all of his own writing. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

And even the present version of User:Jaredscribe it is all his own, except for the correction of a typo. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block, per continuing WP:IDHT. And because, despite his protestations to the contrary, JaredScribe appears to have done nothing significant to 'acquire' further 'competence'. You don't do that by attempting to redefine what 'competence' is, in multiple venues, even while the requirement to comply with basic elements of policy, and the need to accept that the informed opinions of others may prevail when engaging collaborative work, is under active discussion at ANI. This isn't a dispute over two or three articles, it concerns a repeated pattern of behaviour which seems to have at its core an almost unerring certainty on JaredScribe's part that he is always in the right about everything. Nobody is, that isn't possible. It isn't something any sensible person should even aspire to. We all make mistakes. We are all absolutely certain about things that just ain't so. The best of us try to learn from our mistakes, and expect to make more.

JaredScribe is a poor fit for Wikipedia. And, I'd have to suggest, Wikipedia is a poor fit for JaredScribe. He's clearly got some talents, but the evidence suggests they aren't the sort that work well in a collaborative environment. I honestly think it would be better for JaredScribe if he were to take his talents elsewhere, to venues less constrained than an online encyclopaedia burdened by decades of (apparently necessary) 'guidelines', 'policies', and essays that explain that thinking you are right - or even being right - isn't good enough, and that you have to accept that others may prevail. And that if you won't, you may have to be shown the door. A door, it should be noted, to a whole damn world outside. With plenty of other things in it that need fixing. Go fix them instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, this seems to be the problem: he has high encyclopedic standards, but his encyclopedic standards are alien to Wikipedia. He is inside Wikipedia Community like a Marxist inside Conservapedia community. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't consider your analogy to be at all helpful. This isn't about politics, or about 'encyclopaedic standards'. It is a behavioural issue, not an ideological one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I did not mean that he is a leftist, nor that Wikipedia is rightist. I meant that what he deems that should be our encyclopedic standards, aren't in fact ours. My overall meaning is that he hasn't understood how Wikipedia works. I mean he knows how the text editor works, but he hasn't understood how to edit according to WP:RULES. People have explained him how to edit according to WP:RULES, but he considered they were attacking him. And, yup, he is persuaded they tried to impose an ideology upon him. you or your hive, or your Borg colony to which you want me to assimilate, or to whatever you call it nowadays is not a joke, he means it. As Allan Bloom has put it, "The combination of hardness and playfulness found in their writings should dispel all suspicion of unfounded hopefulness. What they plotted was “realistic”, if anything ever was." Meaning: although it sounds funny, he means it. He sees himself as Captain Picard sabotaging the Borg ship. I think that Wikipedia is the Borg, and being the Borg is good. He thinks that the Wikipedia is the Borg, and being the Borg is bad. It takes someone with highly complicated thinking to recognize someone with highly complicated thinking. Same as his statements about "solarian religion" are very complicated to parse, but I know what he meant. It's an elaborate conspiracy theory that people who follow Sun-based calendars rather than Moon-based calendars would be in fact Sun worshipers. While people who follow Moon-based calendars would be worshipers of the True God. He claims that Sun worshipers "suppressed" the Moon-based calendar, and that all mainstream Western people are Sun worshipers. Basically, he claims that heathens suppressed the Jewish calendar in order to suppress true religion. And Wikipedia would be part of the conspiracy to suppress true religion, mostly due to being based upon the Western academic mainstream. And his task would be to redress such injustice. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

JaredScribe certainly seems to have picked some unconventional Great Wrongs to Right, but the details don't really matter for the purposes of this discussion. The issue is behavioural, and IDHT isn't a particularly complicated concept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Redressing some injustice of the past is not what irks me. It is redressing it through original research. You may search yourself Wikipedia for "Non-solarian religions" and you can bet there is no WP:RS for it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I've certainly noticed a whiff of WP:OR in some of JaredScribe's contributions, beyond the ones discussed in this thread, and they probably need scrutiny. Regardless of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. As annoying as the editor's behaviour may feel, the level of damage they might have caused to Wikipedia's consistency and reliability is fairly low. Yes, they have added some poorly sourced or unsourced passages; yes, they repeatedly fail to get the point and keep fighting back, and all of this is exasperating. But just being annoying and a poor editor is not an offence punishable by an indefinite block from editing as long as WP:GF is there. The normal route is an AN discussion, then article ban, a topic ban, an article creation ban, and/or a block of an increasing duration. Nuclear option, however, as tempting as it may sound, should not be the first one to use in such cases. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If this were his first offense, I would agree with you. But he features prominently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force#Lunisolar and Lunar religions, confessing in his own words he was already told he's WP:NOTHERE. That was roughly two years ago.

The only mentions on Google of "solarian religion" or "lunarian religion" are people discussing fantasies about extraterrestrials.

And there was a solar religion in Ancient Egypt. Also the god Sol Invictus. But AFAIK no lunar religion ever. And "lunisolar religion" has no results according to Google.

So, lunar religion and lunisolar religion are his own fantasies. He was calling for Wikipedians to mobilize in service of his own concoctions, to serve his own WP:OR fantasies. If he faked it for so long, what else does he fake?

"Lunar religion" and "lunisolar religion" are fake scholarly terms. And not even WP:Notable pseudoscholarship, but simply his own fantasies. Lunar religion seems to be mentioned at https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22lunar+religion%22 And Solarian religion was a fantasy of Tommaso Campanella. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The user was previously blocked for 24h and 7 days and no topic ban (there were two page bans). Given that a lot of their contributions were constructive and have been kept, I'd normally go for a longer block (1-2 months) along with an indefinite topic ban (certainly religion, possibly others). This should be sufficient IMO to prevent further damage and annoyance. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised by AndyTheGrump that Jaredscribe copiously engaged in original research. I don't know if that is true: even if I confronted Jaredscribe several times, I did not check all his edits (nor even most of them). And, frankly, from the diffs I have provided, he thinks "RS for thee, but not for me." Also, he started many drafts which he later abandoned, simply because there were no WP:RS to get his drafts accepted as Wikipedia articles. So, yeah, while he has read a lot books, he started drafts which I would not start, because I would know in advance that it's hopeless to get them accepted. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it a grave sin to start a draft and then abandon it due to the lack of sources? Or to abandon drafts in general? — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't a grave sin. But he has done it often enough to notice that he overestimates his own capacity of writing a cogent article. And very often he cannot write a cogent article because there are no sources to WP:CITE. While a minimal prudence asks that one should first seek two or three sources and only then proceed to write the draft. For example, he started a draft of the 40 years wanderings of the Israelites through desert. Besides being probably a WP:POVFORK of the Exodus, he did not WP:CITE any WP:RS for his draft. And it was a bit skewed against the academic consensus. I added some sources therein and made the draft more in conformity with the academic consensus. So, it looks that he likes to pontificate and push minority POVs rather than perform encyclopedic work and abide by WP:DUE. Here it is: Draft:40 years of wandering. All RS have been inserted by me. Do you get the point now? He wants to achieve huge results, with very little effort in achieving those results. And instead of seeking RS for improving his articles, his efforts concentrate on blaming his critics and skewing very popular essays in his own favor. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The 'Tesla Master Plan' article at the root of much of the immediate problems has been deleted, so clearly an article ban there isn't going to have any immediate effect. As for topic bans, which topic? Electric vehicles, Iranian politics? 'Solarian religion'? Wikipedia essays on policy? I can't think of any way to frame a topic ban that would prevent similar problems arising elsewhere, and previous sanctions regarding the truly bizarre Giuliani 'cross-dressing' nonsense appear to have had no effect whatsoever - you can see exactly the same pattern of IDHT and allegations of being conspired against in the thread on that (2022) incident, on his talk page. Along with the same from an earlier (2021) incident resulting in a block. This isn't the first time JaredScribe's behaviour has been the subject of serious concern. And if he isn't blocked, I sincerely doubt it will be the last. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, and he wasn't unaware that it is his own coinage: [97]. "Non-solar religion" does not appear on Google. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring by Beyond My Ken

Over at Nazi symbolism Beyond My Ken is edit warring to restore poorly sourced material [98] [99] [100] as noted by Bloodofox at RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nazi_symbolism_article,_cardcow.com,_liveauctioneers.com,_symbols.com,_etc., the sources that were removed were clearly unreliable. BMK has made no attempts to actually justify the credibility of the sources, simply saying that they were "sufficient" and there was "no consensus" [101] for the changes, despite the fact that nobody aside from BMK actually objected to the removal. BMK has been blocked 10 times by admins over the years for edit warring [102] and has been subject to previous ANI threads on the issue Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Beyond_My_Ken. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Full protected for 48 hours - multi-party edit war. Get consensus on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• You protected it in the wrong version!! Just FYI, I've backed away from the article entirely, removed it from my watchlist yesterday. Bloodofox's refusal to discuss their edits and get consensus for them, combined with Hemiauchenia's blanket reversion to the non-consensus version along with a PA in their edit summary (that after 18 years and almost 300k edits I have no idea what "consensus" is -- which is certainly possible, but seems somewhat unlikely), were sufficient to drive me away. My congrats to them, well done! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Given your long history editing Nazi topics (and wide experience overall) your participation there would be more helpful than walking away, and I'm sure you'd agree on cool reflection that the existing sourcing was thoroughly inadequate. Mackensen (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

SeanMcCann1

SeanMcCann1 (talk · contribs)

His talk page is a long history of warnings for various incompetencies, and I blocked him in April 2022 for the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs. He continues to add unsourced content to BLPs. I think a longer block is in order. GiantSnowman 21:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit shows that they are capable of adding sources to BLPs. I'm not sure why an experienced user like Sean is still doing unsourced edits. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User:NCdave

User is currently POV-pushing while affected by a COI [103] at CO2 Coalition [104]. Users at WP:FTN suggested a warning followed by a block. However, a quick look at the user's talk page reveals that they have already received several different final warnings in various editing disputes as well as a number of temporary blocks for edit warring and POV pushing. I suspect the reason heavier sanctions have been avoided so far is that the user has been mostly inactive since 2008. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a bunch of issues here. They've clearly got a COI and their arguments otherwise aren't convincing. The repeated bludgeoning and walls of text. The unwillingness to accept that the consensus of reliable sources is that the CO2 Coalition's position is fringe, and their attempts to use WP:OR to argue otherwise, along with ignoring everyone who has repeatedly told them they need to rely on WP:RS.

Given their refusal/inability to understand the many attempts by various editors to explain to them what they're doing wrong, and their repeated misstatements about policies, I think they're either WP:NOTHERE or it's an unfixable WP:CIR problem. JaggedHamster (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This post by NCdave defines them as having a COI with CO2 Coalition, a COI that is cemented by their repetitive, tenditious, POV-pushing efforts here, here, and especially here. The clear COI, when combined with the examples of bludgeoning and failure to accept consensus as reported above, indicates that NCdave merits a topic ban from CO2 Coalition, broadly construed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This guy is violating our NPOV guidelines. He needs to be banned from not only the CO2 Coalition article but all global climate change topics, broadly construed. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

User PaUZz LYte

I'm not sure how to proceed with a newbie, PaUZz LYte, who has repeatedly removed content at Codrus, claiming that it is sourced to another Wikpedia article rather that the actual source, which is here. Here are the reverts: [105], [106], [107], [108]. I've tried to reason with this editor on their talk page ([109], [110], [111]) and on the article's talk page ([112], [113]). I would appreciate any advice. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello there. Just wanted to add my latest comment on the matter:

Yep I read it again, not seeing anything about Aristotle having an alternative view on what happened specifically however. Only more confirmation of the original story as a matter of fact. I like this bit on the first page: "it is now generally accepted that the current manuscript (MS.) is not the work of Aristotle but very likely one of his students"

PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@PaUZz LYte: Why did you repeatedly claim that the source is another Wikipedia article? If you want to challenge the actual source, you first need to restore the material that is the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, then take your concerns to the article's talk page instead of repeatedly removing the content with the false claim that it is sourced to a Wikipedia article. Sundayclose (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the original poster of the claim did not source it the way you properly did. This all came about when you began putting up, the very clear at the point, false information repeatedly. I assumed it was sourced and cited the same way as the original poster did and for that I apologize

but hey now we can both move on considering how fals, as I clearly proved, the information is. I'm sure we can both agree we want what's best for the page correct?

hatT PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation was clearly to a source external to Wikipedia. All I did was to provide a link. The original editor who made the citation may very well have viewed the source in a library. Citations do not have to be to web pages. Again, why did you repeatedly claim that the source is another Wikipedia article and make multiple reverts with only that excuse? Sundayclose (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Despite this being irrelevant at this point; Because again, the original poster included no links what so ever but regardless someone claiming they read something in a book so therefore this or that should be changed or added etc is not a legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards. PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, citations do not have to be to a webpage. The citation was legitimate. Your repeated removal without discussion was edit warring. Why did you repeatedly claim that the content was sourced to Wikipedia rather than the actual source instead of taking your concerns to the article's talk page? Sundayclose (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation is perfectly valid, and books are definitely a 'legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards.' We do not require all citations to be available on the internet. MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Well now that were asking each other irrelevant questions, why did you repeatedly add and citate information ive proven you havent bother reading yourself? You mean you didn't even read the source you kept trying to claim was true? And you even redid the revision I made where I clearly state "it says nothing of the sort". Wait, so you added information without even checking to see for yourself if it's true or not? That's how misinformation gets spread around young one, through people such as yourself apparently. Have a good one! PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I read the source, which is why I reverted you. The only thing you have disputed is the authorship of the source, not the other content that you repeatedly reverted. And you didn't dispute the authorship until you finally glanced at the first page of the source. You should have taken concerns about authorship to the article's talk page rather than removing everything cited to the source. I'm finished here. I'll leave it up to administrators to decide what to do about the edit warring. My apologies if we have wasted administrators' time here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

someone claiming they read something in a book so therefore this or that should be changed or added etc is not a legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards

This is blatantly incorrect. The entire point of citing a book is that people can find said book (purchased, at their local library, or online) and check the cite themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also see User_talk:MrOllie#So_I_can_just_claim..., where PaUZz LYte is doubling down on the 'books can't be used as citations' argument. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User: 49.190.240.37

49.190.240.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't really get into much disputes but I guess it is going to be expected when you make over 100 articles.

Talk:Battle of Fakashan
Talk:Battle of Laoshan

Basically doesn't like the content on the page so starts just throwing disruptive comment and even managed to throw WP:PA at me predictably. Short edit history shows rather high anti-China bias and rather hostile mentality.

Most likely a case of WP:NOTHERE. Possible WP:SOCK

Edit: Seems to be the case with this

Please advise

Imcdc Contact 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not even a personal attack. Know the definition. Stop trying to deflect and self victimise yourself, and you are now accusing me of being a sock because you want people to be banned whenever someome challenges your opinion and references. Your sources are unreliable and are one sided. Third party sources are widely unavailable to those articles. Your sources are very pro-China bias, as evident from your history. Also, those were done on the talk page which didn't affect the article in anyway, just a discussion as to why the sources are unreliable in nature. And now you are WP:PA on me by accusing me of being a sock because your sources were challenged on the talk page.49.190.240.37 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is WP:NOTHERE. Qiushufang (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Qiushufang, the revert you did is unacceptable. First of all, the source is not rs

because it is an American newspaper agency done

about after the American withdrawal from the Vietnam war and is biased. Second of all, it doesn't say which "analyst" or "analysts" specifically quoted "they beat the hell out of the Vietnamese" or "it was a Chinese victory". Which is already not rs. 49.190.240.37 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

it is an American newspaper agency doneabout after the American withdrawal from the Vietnam war and is biased

This is just absurd, and basically says that any cite that originates in a nation cannot be a RS for reporting on said nation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that. I am talking about the date which said quote was presented. After the American withdrawal from the Vietnam War, they did not admit their defeat, and during the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, the Americans supported China. Sources pertaining to so called American "expert abalysts" (who?/doesn't even quote any specific "expert") is already not rs in nature. The newspaper was also made in 1979, 4 years after the Americans withdrew from Vietnam. It wasn't until 1995, that the Americans started to lift the sanctions and embargo, and another 10 years for relations to finally become stable, and Americans did not have good relations with Vietnam at that time, why would their media and political entities not admit their failure in Vietnam, and would support and favour China especially in the media and political discourse, rather rhan Vietnam during those time periods? I would not take any quotes from some random nobody (if there even was one in the first place)/biased entity saying "they beat the hell out of the Vietnamese" seriously. It just seems like an effort to POV push by some chinese wikipedian nationalists by finding an obscure and unreliable source.49.190.240.37 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Your entire argument is that an American newspaper can't be a reliable source because it made in 1979, 4 years after the Americans withdrew from Vietnam. You're going to have an uphill battle proving that this excludes the source from being reliable.

And with this comment: It just seems like an effort to POV push by some chinese wikipedian nationalists by finding an obscure and unreliable source.

It seems you came here with an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I already listed WHY it's unreliable, yet you didn't read the full argumentative point. You just picked two point headers but didn't see the explanation for it. The quality of wikipedia for topics like these is just abysmal. People are quick to skim bits and pieces here and there without reading the full entirety of its context. Thanks for a whole lot of nothing. EDIT:using cellular data, hence the IP.120.21.31.232 (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Fostera12 - incivility and personal attacks.

Editor was upset over the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhodhayam, left several messages containing personal attacks:

1. On User talk:DaxServer, see User talk:DaxServer#Learn to help fellow editors and User talk:DaxServer#Half job done by you on crucial discussions.
2. on User talk:Mushy Yank, see User talk:Mushy Yank#Unconstructive edits by @User:Star Mississippi
3. on my talk page, see User talk:Onel5969#Subhodayam, as well as User talk:Onel5969#Independent sources - Subhodayam

User began recreating the article and refusing to abide by the consensus of the AfD. The discussion is at DRV, which they have been counseled to take part in, but have refused. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have dropped Fostera12 a note saying I'll block them for disruption if they carry on screaming in bold all caps. That'll suffice for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And then they just dropped this in their edit summary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. Not very civil or collegial. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a troll. Well, at least I'm not an ogre, which is much worse, they'll make a soup from your fresh skin, and squeeze the jelly from your eyes. (Actually it's quite nice on toast....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not interested in this discussion of open abuse of the afd process by @User talk:Onel5969 and ignoring other editors votes or comments in the afd discussion panel, and other editors views on proper independent sources on Subhodayam. It is sheer abuse of the system by @User talk:Onel5969. No personal attacks made on anybody by me. All attacks were made by @User talk:Onel5969 during the afd process and discussion was closed without reaching consensus. Fostera12 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal attacks by Onel5969 in that discussion, and it's not clear how anything here is an abuse of process. Unless you can provide diffs substantiating these allegations, you should retract them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is making personal attacks on anyone, it's you, @Fostera12. On Onel's talk page, you called him a STUPID FELLOW, accused him of wasting everybody's time as well as manipulating processes and policies for personal gain. If anything, Onel's interpretation and implementation of the relevant processes and policies are correct and fair. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and full protected Subhodayam for one week with the reason being edit warring. That will stop the revert war while the DRV takes place. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ahh yes, our colleague who said I disagree with your nonsense, and manipulation, why should i go for deletion review. As always, happy to have a close reviewed, but that was not productive.Thanks @ONUnicorn for the protection. Star Mississippi 00:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

oh and they're also creating it at alternate spellings to evade AfD. Wonderful. Star Mississippi 00:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Having looked into this a bit deeper, I see Fostera12 has been brought to ANI a couple of times before for temperament issues: here and here. They continue to call other editors trolls as they're deleting material on their talk page. I don't think that Wikipedia is for them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Fostera12 for two weeks for incivility and inability to edit collaboratively. After all that has been written here and on their talk page, they have again dismissed the good faith edits of others as trolling.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure they know they've been blocked. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Catfish Jim and the soapdish they know, they just don't consider notifications of value. Apparently. Star Mississippi 16:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I missed that somehow. Thanks Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good block. Fostera's behavior has been genuinely appalling. The examples I had posted were wrong (wrong diffs) but I feel my point still stands. Hopefully they'll conduct themselves better after their block. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Related issue

Would someone more familiar with Indian cinema have a look at Three weeks in the life of Prime Minister Nehru and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Prime Minister where we have major verification issues present? Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC) (added by Lampyscales (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC))

The reference that I could see in both articles (Three Weeks and Our Prime Minister) did not in any way support the statement made, and was cited with an incorrect title. The actual title of the cited work is "India's Growing Might", presented title is "Nehru", article is about the history of animation in India. Neither documentary is mentioned in it. I saw similar issues with the deleted article with altered reference titles. Deceit? WP:CIR? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's what I'm afraid of, and they have a few articles still live which makes me worried about a larger issue. Thanks @Catfish Jim and the soapdish Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've had a look around their article creations and most seem okay-ish. They appear to be writing an article about some old film they've seen then trying to find references to demonstrate notability. Some are evidently more difficult to find references to than others. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) That makes a refreshing change from the huge number of stub articles on Indian films (many of which have been around for a decade or more) apparently written in the hope that someone or other will do the research that proves their notability. Narky Blert (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Both AFD'd Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfair treatment.

Please see: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:47.232.88.19" at the bottom. Can someone please tell me if this guy is right and not just out to get me and if he is right specifically why he is right? He just posts links to entire articles as an explanation but not what part of it he thinks I am not following. Totally unfair and uncool. As far as I know I am totally within the rules here and I was totally on topic. I was literally agreeing with something someone else wrote on there and my comment was basically similar to another comment posted there but that guy got to keep his comment and I was not. This is totally unfair! And then he gets cross with me when I ask for explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.232.88.19 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, sorry if wrong place to complain, please let me know where to file the complaint if this is wrong place. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

People just love taking me to ANI You've failed to notify me of this discussion per the bright red notice at the top. While that's technically moot now since I'm aware of this discussion it's still something you should do. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I did. Read the comments at the bottom of the thing. I told you that I posted it here and even provided a link 47.232.88.19 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually read it a bit more carefully. The notice says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.". You did no such thing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I did! Look at my talk page where you were scolding me. I directly replied to you with a link! 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How about I actually bold the relevant part for you. "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." Not the person who is reporting's talk page, the user who is being reported's talk page. You never gave me any notice on my talk page. In fact, I didn't have any talk page notice regarding ANI today until User:Tails Wx came along and added it (only to revert themself since I was already aware). I think you need to take some time and read things completely so you actually understand what you are being told. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh come on. Cut me a break. Clearly I was trying to notify you, but apparently misunderstood the word editor to mean myself. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you not read what Blaze stated? When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. Pings aren't sufficient, see this discussion. Tails Wx 18:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the IP understands that, judging by what they're saying --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mk. Just a clarification, to the IP, I'm sorry if I was a bit bite-y. Tails Wx 19:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The difference between ScottishFinnishRadish's comment and your comment was that ScottishFinnishRadish was discussing the article, and you were discussing Mr. West. ScottishFinnishRadish's comment was made in December, and was discussing the categories at the bottom of the page. If you check the current categories, Mr. West is no longer included in Category:American neo-Nazis. You came along 3 months later and made a comment that did not address what should or shouldn't or is or isn't in the article, rather expressing your thoughts on West as a person. That's the difference. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this characteriazation. I was basically repeating what he said. IT wasn't even my own opinion. I was seconding someone else's. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And the page actually still says he identifies as a nazi. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait. If a topic is still kept up does that mean it could still have possibly been solved? I thought it meant it was still an open discussion. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

While a discussion that hasn't been closed properly (via the various methods at WP:CLOSE) can still be replied to, if there haven't been any responses in a while (usually around 7 days/1 week for most things) then it can be safe to say that the editors have moved on and there's no need to reply. If you think there's a good reason for you to make a comment feel free to do so (there's technically no official policy or guideline against necroposting, tho I myself don't see it as very constructive depending on how long ago the last reply was) so long as it isn't actually closed. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Blaze Wolf was correct. Please read WP:NOTFORUM Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, but they've already "skimmed" that page, and their takeaway from it was that random forum-like comments are fine and tu quoque is a valid position to argue from. So that's us told. — Trey Maturin™ 16:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• The IP is apparently unaware that the official WP position is "new editors can fuck right off". I'm sorry you went through this, IP. There are a lot of smug editors here who enjoy throwing their weight around, because they're too cowardly to quote "NOTAFORUM" to User:ScottishFinnishRadish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! And you were the person I was agreeing with by the way. But apparently me posting that I second your opinion is against some as of yet unknown rule. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I believe this was intended as sarcasm. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am NOT being sarcastic. Sorry if it came across like that, but I was not being sarcastic. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not referring to your comment. I'm referring to User:Floquenbeam's. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hey but while you are here, can you actually explain, withOUT getting cross with me, why others who had similar comments were given a pass, but for me my first comment was immediately flagged and removed? You referenced a bunch of article on policy, but did not actually mention which part of those articles you thought I was in breach of. From what I read, I think I am within the rules. Also, I've recently encountered something called wikilawyering. I think that this whole thing counts as lawyering. A small comment being attacked with this much force? I mean I feel like you are basically telling me that I just can't participate period if I have to second guess every single thing I have to say. I wasn't disrespectful at all and was totally on topic! 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Blaze Wolf: It was sarcasm in the sense that we probably shouldn't act like new editors can fuck right off, but it was serious about you doing an extremely poor job of interacting with this editor, and Catfish Jim and Trey Maturin didn't help either. If someone had told the IP editor what ONUnicorn took the time to tell them, above, I doubt we'd be where we are now. Just because the comment wasn't helpful doesn't mean we need to edit war with them and then refuse to explain. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The IP was referred to the policy page in question, agreed that they had read it (and then said they'd skimmed it) and what they took away from reading/skimming the page was that they were right and should head to a drama board and attempt to get sanctions against the person who pointed them to the page. I'm sure we can simplify most of our policy pages down to a single paragraph in order to make them graspable, but should we? — Trey Maturin™ 18:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Pretend you don't know much about WP. Now follow this link: WP:NOTFORUM. You didn't do it, did you, because you think you know what it says, but humor me. It links to the middle of WP:NOT; a giant, sprawling catch-all page. The fact that it links to a specific section of that page is not obvious to a new editor; you have to know what the shortcut box means, and you have to know to look at the right margin to see it, you have to know how it applies to your situation. The section in question isn't highlighted, it's just floating there mid-page. Add to that the fact that, frankly, this is an edge case of NOTFORUM at best; you could make a case that it applies, and a case that it doesn't apply. It's OK to link to NOTFORUM at first, because there are only so many hours in the day. But when the IP politely said they didn't understand, they got nothing but attitude. We see hundreds - probably thousands - of comments like the IP's comment every day, many by more experienced accounts, and many actively harmful, instead of this harmless "me too" comment. Personally, I think it harms WP more than it helps to remove a harmless comment like this. I don't know why Malerooster chose to revert this particular comment, but at least they were polite about it and left a welcome template. I really don't know why Blaze Wolf chose to edit war with the IP about this one, and answered with more useless bluelinks and templated warnings. Established editors forget to notify people every day, but we're spending multiple paragraphs yelling at the IP they didn't do it. The IP did not ask for a sanction, but you're righteously indignant, convinced that they did. This is all just an example of the smug "new editors, especially IP editors, can fuck right off" attitude you're displaying. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  That last sentence is unworthy of you, Floq. — Trey Maturin™ 19:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  OK, struck, but that was like 5% of my post. And rude or not, unwise to say out loud or not, it is honestly how I feel about the response here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps I was a bit short and shouldn't have answered the question as put, as a binary choice (I agree, it did come across a bit WP:BITEY). I doubt Blaze Wolf is just out to get the IP. I would be happy to offer some mentorship to the IP. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh wait. I thought Scottish was the guy who wrote this comment. Scottish was the guy I was agreeing with. But still thanks regardless. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• It seems like we have a WP:BITE problem here. IP47 was mistaken about how Wikipedia talkpages work, but instead of having it explained to them they were reverted and templated. I don't really blame BlazeWolf in this circumstance, I'm sure that page gets a lot of nonsense. But we should try to remember that West's page is probably a magnet for new editors especially now, and we should probably avoid reverting comments just because they're not fully relevant. Reversion of talk page comments should really only be for blatant trolling, vandalism, BLP vio etc. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Reversion of talk page comments should really only be for blatant trolling, vandalism, BLP vio etc. I'm not following. So you're saying we should keep talk comments that violate WP:NOT, which is policy, if it isn't obviously vandalism? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you really hate pointless comments that much you could've hatted it, we generally frown on deleting other people's talk page comments after all. But since it didn't get in the way of any ongoing discussion and the editor cannot be expected to be aware of any of the applicable parts of WP:NOT, and even apologised in their comment for not being aware of the rules ahead of time, the better approach here would probably have been to just leave it be and place a welcome template at the IP's talk page. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I know that WP:NOT says "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines" (emphasis mine) but that doesn't mean that reverting and warning is always (or even usually) the best option. When a comment in a discussion seems to be made in good faith, or a new editor doesn't understand how talkpages work, it is often a better option to reply and explain to them. Lots of people come to high profile talkpages to troll or spam, and removal of those is fine. With someone who might become a real editor we try to be a little more flexible with how strictly we enforce the rules. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are you really arguing in defense of biting the newbie? Chalk me up as one agreeing that this could have been handled a good bit better, and that there is no frigging useful reason to keep on taking swings (tacit or otherwise) at the IP? Ravenswing 20:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear to me what part of WP:NOTFORUM the IP address here violated. Can someone point it out to me, and explain how the IP violated it? Shells-shells (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm ScottishFinnishRadish, and it seems I've been mentioned a lot in this section. It's likely that I've removed more talk page posts per NOTAFORUM and SOAP than everyone in this section combined, and I would have let that stand, or if I had removed it and was reverted, starting a discussion explaining why I had removed it. In my view, NOTAFORUM/SOAP is a tool to cut down on talk page disruption, rather than a bludgeon to police talk pages. I've been seeing it used a lot more often lately, and in some pretty dubious situations, e.g. after another editor has replied, and I think editors should really think about whether it is disrupting the talk page, rather than a bit FORUMy, before invoking it. Also, the IP agreed with me, so they can't be all bad, right? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, also I don't think necroing an old section is disruptive on it's face. Plenty of talk pages are slow enough where a few passersby will comment in a section over a year or more and eventually it will demonstrate consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hence why I said depending on how long ago the last reply was. To me if someone replies to a post that hasn't seen activity in 10 years that's not all that constructive to me (usually it should be archived by then but some pages probably aren't frequented enough for archiving to be useful). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not constructive is different from disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This thread is of the "tense" and "strong feelings" variety. 61.8.194.45 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Can we agree to close this thread with a general advisory that we should make an effort to be a little more lenient with IPs and new editors when they are attempting to contribute in good faith? The essay Wikipedia:Don't come down like a ton of bricks seems especially relevant here. Nobody has suggested any sanctions against either Blaze Wolf or IP47, so it seems like our time would be better spent elsewhere. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed! The messages on their talk page can help them! Tails Wx 18:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Suspected hoax content and LLM use by User:Gyan.Know

• Gyan.Know (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While doing some WP:NPP reviewing I came across the article Yaakov Bentolila, created by Gyan.Know (and since deleted under G7). At first glance, this appeared to be a perfectly plausible article. However, when I looked a little closer I realized that none of the citations supported the content, and I could not verify that the subject even existed. I will repeat the text of my AfD nom here:

I can find no evidence that the person described in this article actually exists. The citations to the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post are dead (despite only having been added 5 days ago) and do not exist on the Internet Archive. The third citation to The Independent is about a totally different person with no mention of Yaakov Bentolila. There does seem to be an academic of the same name with articles on the Hebrew and Spanish wikis, but that's clearly a different person from the one described here. I can find no sources pertaining to a Moroccan musician by that name, which is quite strange considering that he was supposedly notable enough to earn obituaries in the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post. On another note, I felt that the writing style of the article was a little "off", so I ran it through an AI writing detector. It came up as 91% likely to be AI generated. I hope this is not a hoax, but all of the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction.

Gyan.Know replied to the AfD, stating I am the creator of the page and I just want to say I thoroughly messed up on this one, and I too would like the page to be Deleted. I asked them how and why they came to create this hoax article. However, they have not responded to my ping, despite actively editing elsewhere. In the meantime, I took a look at their other article creations.

Gyan.Know is a prolific editor, with over 2.5k edits and 44 articles created. Many of their articles deal with highly sensitive subjects such as antisemitism and the Holocaust. Unfortunately, I believe that most if not all of their recent creations contain falsified citations and unreliable AI-generated content. For example, see their most recent article, Occult writers and antisemitism. At the time of creation, it looked like this. There are no inline citations, only general references (in my experience this is typical of ChatGPT output). There are zero results for the first reference, "Occultism, racism, and the ideology of the Thule Gesellschaft", on Google [114]. Likewise, the reference "The angle between two walls: Fiction, occultism and the question of history" appears to be fake, although there is a paper with a somewhat similar name about J.G. Ballard (who as far as I know was not a Nazi occultist). No results, either, for "The image of the Jew in German society and culture" or "Savitri Devi's mystical fascism: A religious perspective", and so on. Gyan.Know has since added inline references, but based on the history of the article I believe they are simply tacking these on to faulty AI-generated content. Likewise for the article Jewish economics - there are no results, for example, for the reference "Jewish Economists and the Making of the American Economic Association" outside of WP [115].

I'm posting this ANI thread to get feedback from others on whether or not my suspicions are correct and if so, what should be done about this editor and the articles they have created. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Unverifiable and suspicious articles in highly sensitive topic areas sounds like an urgent reason to TNT. It's not believeable that this user has special access to a trove of books that aren't listed by Google. small jars tc 17:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

+1, regrettably. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Everything they've created since the 25th appears to have false referencing apart from Legend of Exorcism, I not saying the referencing for that article is correct only that it doesn't share the hallmarks of the other articles. The rest should be TNT'd. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I noted below that that article is also falsely referenced. The subject is real, but the article is completely made up then falsely points to citations about the real subject, just like the biographies. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I just reviewed several of the references provided in United Kingdom and the Holocaust, none of which appeared to directly support the text in the article. This doesn't look good. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the first version of that article is AI generated [116] (it's even complete with a citation to a paper that I have been unable to show the existence of anywhere). Gyan.Know has then googled "United Kingdom and the Holocaust" and added in "citations" at random without looking at what they actually say [117] (try it, most of those "citations" show up in the first page of results). So what we're left with is AI generated content with the first page of google results sprinkled over the top to give it the appearance of being properly researched. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A very similar pattern is in evidence at Piracy in the Indian Ocean. All of their creations may need to be scrutinized. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not just their creations, earlier this month they did a bunch of edits where they "Expanded heavily" various articles, they also all appear to be AI generated (not to mention very unencyclopedic) [118] [119]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. All of their suspicious additions seem to be on or after 11 March 2023. Prior to that, they did mostly small edits, vandalism reverts and the like, at rather long intervals. Maybe they discovered ChatGPT on that date and it all spiraled out of control. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

First article before the "Expanded heavily" spree, and apparently the test bed, was Vadilal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). RAN1 (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

GPTZero says it's likely entirely written by AI EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok I know this is off topic, but what's GPTZero? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A "detection" software similar to TurnItIn. https://gptzero.me/ EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm checking out some of the non-controversial articles. R&B and soul music at least has real books referenced, but since none of them are in-line it's impossible for me to verify if these are falsified citations. The article itself is an odd subject anyway as the intersection of two genres without any real assertion for why these are covered together, and a couple of AI-generated-content detectors is pinging it. Legend of Exorcism is a real subject—but the sources do not AT ALL match the content of the article.

Articles they created BEFORE 2023 seem to (at quick glance) be proper articles. Compare this robust Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gridiron football and NASCAR career of Kyle Busch from 2021. A lot of the ones through 2021 seem to be routine splits for WP:ARTICLESIZE.

I think the move would be to TNT anything created this year for sure. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I was the one who speedied the initially found hoax. I concur that this is a Charlie Foxtrot of the first order; everything this user has done recently needs to be WP:NUKEed from orbit. Nothing is trustworthy at all. I may be generous enough to let them respond to these problems here first, but if someone were to indef them right now, I wouldn't object... --Jayron32 18:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  There's also File:Digital unrealistic potrait.jpg on Commons, it looks like a blatant AI creation especially with a blurred signature in the lower left corner. I'm not familiar enough with Commons to go about getting it deleted there, or knowing what their policy is on AI art. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  That looks a lot like the signature for DALL-E from what I know. However it's different in that it's not YCGRB and it's also vertical rather than horizontal. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Another apparent hoax: Jewish economics. See for example the citation to Baumol, William J. "Jewish Economics." Jewish Quarterly Review 63, no. 3 (1973): 160-174., an article that does not exist. I have not deleted the article yet so that it and other creations by the user can be more widely reviewed. I assume an indef is forthcoming but will wait for a while for response/explanation. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked Gyan.Know from article space and asked them to explain their conduct here. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Other recent hoaxes by Gyan.Know include Isaac Yaso and Akademia Nasionala del Ladino. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Cullen328 Khalil Hachimi Idrissi is another BLP full of entirely fabricated sources, for a person who does not seem to actually exist. All 6 sources are about a journalist who works for Maghreb Arabe Press. I cannot find any evidence that this supposed physicist actually exists, he doesn't seem to have a profile with the African Academy of Sciences, the university he claims to attend, or google scholar, and none of his selected publications seem to actually exist. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  They were going down a list of article requests, I think: Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history/to do lists many of the articles they created just now. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @TenTonParasol You're probably right, Khalil Hachimi Idrissi is requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Morocco/to do. Rather than actually writing an article about the person at Maghreb Arabe Press they've used AI to create a completely fictitious article on a non-existent physicist. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and a) tagged all of their problematic new article creations with {{hoax}} and {{unreliable sources}} and b) rolled back their "heavy expansions" of articles without references in order to minimize the disinformation we provide to readers. I wouldn't oppose mass-deletion of the new creations at this time, but perhaps some people wanted to investigate more. We could also consider some other cleanup routes (for example, most of the Jewish-history related pages could be converted into redirects to related pages), or even leave some of them standing with tags if the subjects are clearly real and notable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The template {{AI-generated}} may be a good fit for these articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I added it and condensed it with the disputed tags, but not with the hoax tags. —Alalch E. 22:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The article that was created for Yaakov Bentolila had all of the appearance of a real article, including very genuine appearing (but non-functional) references with links to The New York Times and The Jerusalem Post. Maybe we all need to raise our alert levels, but the verisimilitude that is achievable with today's AI is sufficient to fool many experienced editors, let alone readers. The fact that this (and other) hoax articles was created by an editor with a few thousand edits should really send a message that it's not enough to assume that experienced editors don't pull these kinds of stunts. Be ready for far worse in the near future. We will be taking the Turing Test on a regular basis going forward. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth looking into creating a bot a bit like EranBot but looking for AI generated articles/content? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please! I think there is open-source AI detection software out there. Maybe @User:The Earwig could weigh in? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

PageTraige developers discussed automatic detection a bit in phab:T330346. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is just a belated harbinger of a much greater doom which has already arrived behind our backs. I bet the real LLM spammers, whoever they are, laugh at cases like these for how badly they cover their tracks. /hj small jars tc 23:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• SPEEDY TNT! Incredibly dangerous to have AI created and fake content about these topics.★Trekker (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Hey @Gyan.Know:, I just want to say, if this is a case of you being very naive and not understanding what trouble these AI creations can be, don't be afraid to admit that, I have myself been in trouble at ANIs before and fellow editors are far more kind and understanding than what one fears when one has f*cked up.★Trekker (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with blanket deletion of any of the user's articles that have not been substantially reworked with references verified by other users. I also concur with the user having been blocked. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• All of his recent new articles have now been deleted, many of them by me. All that's left is to wait for the editor to start explaining what is going on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have/want to say anything in my defence. Like recently I said to some user who informed me about some edit they made on a article created by me, i told them the same thing as this: I refuse to refute against any edit or action take by users who are far more superior than me (i know there isn't supposed to be a superior subordinate thing on WP).

  -

  Thus, if y'all thought it was appropriate to delete all the edits made by me this year, I am not going to complain. Moreover, I am thankful in part because I was feeling I was getting addicted to editing on WP. Checking my watchlist all the time, and if I don't have my phone in my hand ATM, I would just keep thinking about what edit should I do. I feel like this was not good for my health.

  -

  But I would still like to say sorry to everyone who was hurt and/or harmed by anything done by me. My deepest apologies. Now finally, I don't really wish to be unblocked, and you can keep me blocked for a indefinite period of time.

  -

  Also sorry for being a little late. GyanKnow _{contributions?} 11:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Gyan.Know. Thanks for posting here. Can you please let us know if you have ever used AI to write articles, and if so, when you started doing this? There is a lot of cleanup to do and this information would help. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Similar issues with User:BrownDan101?

I see somewhat similar issues with the creations of User:BrownDan101, whose articles have some facts and then mix in a lot of unverifiable or simply wrong statements. Whether this is deliberate or just the result of using AI is unclear, but the end result is similar disruption by posting fake information. I moved to draft Draft:Kaisertown because the intro claim "The neighborhood is named after the Kaisertown Roller Rink, which was built in 1922 and became a popular entertainment venue in the area." is complete bullshit. But I only got really worried after reading Draft:SS Chemnitz (was in the mainspace before I moved it): while there was a SS Chemnitz from 1901, it had different dimensions, different passenger numbers, a different builder, a different company, ... The sources are about other ships or give a 404 error, except for this suorce[120] which gives the story of the real Chemnitz, none of which matches our article. Fram (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

GPTZero pretty much confirms that Draft:Kaisertown is AI generated. The lead describes it occupying an area that is absolute nonsense. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

GPTZero seems to be pretty good at detecting if something is AI generated. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

But we need to be wary of both kinds of error. small jars tc 15:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure we do, but checking it by hand (especially the initial version) shows similar mistakes to other AI articles I've seen. Fake references, emotive style, absurd factual errors that would be very odd for a human to make but easy for an AI that can make plausible sentences but can't evaluate truth. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Matma Rex posted over at VPT that GPTZero pinged basically every Wikipedia article I tried, so follow-up checking by a human is probably going to be necessary. NPP and AfC folks - I don't envy you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:St. Ann's Church (Buffalo, NY) is also at least partially AI generated. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed, fake references. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

...and it looks like it's owned by the Muslim community in Buffalo who bought it last year after it had lain empty for ten years. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

...as is Tino Mancabelli Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sonnenberger (surname) which you PRODded is also absolutely ChatGPT created along with falsified references that don't exist. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Huh. That account has the same pattern of relatively minor, intermittent activity before a sudden change in behavior, this time on 25 March 2023. Has everything they produced on or after that date been AI generated? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Per investigations above, the answer seems to be yes. What needs to be done about these drafts (if anything)? Tagged for deletion as hoaxes? Left to wither away in draftspace? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The drafts aren't causing too much of a problem at the moment as they're not in article space. I would like to see what the editor who created them has to say... it is possible that they're not aware of how problematic ChatGPT is and have made an honest mistake. Whether it is likely is another matter. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

So far, we've been letting them wither away in draftspace pending Wikipedia:Large language models being beaten into shape as a policy, from which a new CSD-G15 might be born. — Trey Maturin™ 16:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool. I've tagged the drafts that weren't already tagged, just so any poor unsuspecting soul who comes upon them will be aware of their perils. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There are currently 81 drafts that transclude {{ai-generated}}. — Trey Maturin™ 16:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin 84 now! Hmm - I wonder if it is worth going through the other contributions by the authors of those drafts and running them through a checker? Skimming the first dozen, I noted two or three cases where editors have produced other drafts or mainspace articles in the same period, and while I'm not wildly confident about my chatbot-spotting radar, they don't all look great. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh hell, yes, I never even thought of that. Yes, that would be a very good idea, please. There are several free AI detection services online if that would help, although I've never used any of them and can't vouch for their accuracy or usability. — Trey Maturin™ 15:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I just ran the other draft created by the author of the first draft on that list through writer.com as a test. It came back as having a 1% chance of being human-generated. Yeah, checking the other creations (and large additions to 'live' articles) by those editors is something we're definitely gonna have to do. Bugger. — Trey Maturin™ 15:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin Gone through them all with the aid of GPTzero and tagged a few more (plus reverted one presumably well-meaning contribution in mainspace). What a waste of everyone's time these are... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

...and then I plugged in one of my own articles, to discover it also gets tagged as AI-generated by GPTzero. No substantial text added since 2020. And now I'm just completely lost (unless this is the bit at the end of Bladerunner, who knows). Andrew Gray (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of my worries with these detectors. The problem is that these AIs have been trained on Wikipedia articles. And why wouldn't they be? We've got millions of high-quality, useful pages of knowledge-filled text. Of course they'd use us for training! But that means the resulting generated articles look plausible whilst being bollocks, and our actual handwritten 100% organic artisanal articles look AI-generated to an AI-generator. This is huge bind and my relatively tiny brain can't think of a way around it. — Trey Maturin™ 16:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

What are the odds that BrownDan101 and ConcreteJungleBM are the same user? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks pretty similar, though hard to tell based on just three edits. But what would be the point? ConcreteJungleBM was created hours before anyone had mentioned BrownDan101 here or noticed that article, so it isn't like they were evading scrutiny. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

As in the above case, I have indefinitely blocked BrownDan101 from article space, and asked that they provide an explanation here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I experimented with AI to create about 5 or 6 Wikipedia pages. I did not know this would be a problem. Reading all of the above comments it seems like it has been a problem and the AI was not as accurate as it seemed. Also me and ConcreteJungleBM aren’t the same person, as I saw that was also a question. My intention was definitely not vandalism or hoax articles. I apologize for any confusion and/or trouble and will refrain from making new articles with AI. BrownDan101 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In the 11 months since you registered this account, BrownDan101, have you become familiar with Wikipedia’s core content policies? If not, would you please do so now? — Trey Maturin™ 19:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I just read them over and definitely understand how the AI articles could fall under original research and how the verifiability in the articles is lacking, even with the references the AI gave. BrownDan101 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I think the obvious remedy here, if we are to WP:AGF from BrownDan101 would be to WP:DRAFTIFY and and WP:PROD all of the articles he has created in the past few days. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course, PROD only works in article space... nuke them WP:IAR? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: This general comment probably belongs in a different venue, but I'd think the obvious solution to AI-generated content is WP:TNT. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is why I’ve advocated for a CSD-G13 “page created by an AI chatbot” or the like, but the push-back was huge: what if there was a useful paragraph that got deleted? what if a newbie felt bitten by having 20 articles about imaginary antelope-beavers deleted? what if an admin accidentally deleted a non-G13 article? and I gave up. Without that, TNT, IAR, ROUGE and dragging each article to ANI will have to suffice, alas. — Trey Maturin™ 20:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I'll take that approach. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been using G3 for the ones from users in this thread. It may not have been intentional in this case, but the fake references output in these articles seems like enough to make it justifiable as a hoax article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems appropriate--LLMs can be used to generate all sorts of content that in limited contexts could be useful (e.g. this comment was written in a browser that applies autocomplete), but the incorporation of fake references crosses a very clear line regardless of the editor's intent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s interesting (and, personally, I think right) but a discussion here a few months ago — apologies, finding a link to it when I’m on my phone is a hiding to nothing — came down against G3, since they’re not “blatant” hoaxes. Indeed, both of the editors in question here have fallen back on the defence that they fell for the hoaxes they themselves created because they were non-blatant. — Trey Maturin™ 20:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting, but I think it comes down to how "blatant" is defined (which is admittedly vague in policy). You might see it as "obvious to the untrained eye", but I'm interpreting blatant to mean "might not be obvious at first glance, but after checking it becomes absolutely certain to be fake". At least, that's how I read it and how I will keep acting on it until I'm told otherwise. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you will (eventually) get loud pushback on that. I think the pushback will be wrong, wrongheaded and non-useful, but I can see it happening. Nevertheless, you have the angels on your side as far as I am concerned, so please carry on. — Trey Maturin™ 17:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#Artificial-Info22 using AI to produce articles - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Should I start going thru the unblock process to get unblocked? BrownDan101 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It would probably benefit you more to wait a couple of days, because it’s a little bit disturbing that it’s taken you 11 months to learn that copy-and-pasting faked nonsense into an encyclopaedia is not ideal and those concerns are still pretty fresh. I’d wait until all your fake articles have been deleted and every other substantive edit you’ve made has been double checked by others, then ask for an unblock. But your mileage may vary and you may be able to convince an admin that you won’t try to fundamentally undermine everything we’re collectively trying to do here again. — Trey Maturin™ 20:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In his defense, based on what dan says here and elsewhere, he wasn't aware of how AI creates articles. He seems to have assumed it legitimately collates information from elsewhere on the internet the way google for example would. So at least he wasn't necessarily aware that he was copy pasting faked nonsense into Wikipedia. Fully agree with the rest of your comment though. It's best to wait until all the previous edits have been looked through and examined, because otherwise the new edits coming in (which we also have to check) will make the job of checking the old ones a lot more complicated. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

These are fake references, friend; every bit of the AI generation is a verifiability issue. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 20:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Given that the user has apologized, said they didn't realize the problems with factual errors and references, and promised not to do it again, do you have any objection to unblocking? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, there is no way under the sun that I am going to unblock this editor from article space without a formal unblock request and a much more detailed discussion of their creation (perhaps inadvertently) of hoax content. It is essential that every editor have a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of their work before adding new articles to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

AI-generated articles with fake references are an existential problem for Wikipedia which cannot be taken lightly. A hard line must be taken now, while things are still (I hope) relatively under control, meaning that editors who have been discovered adding such articles to the encyclopedia need to remain indef blocked until the community is absolutely certain that they understand what they did that was wrong, and why it was more damaging then simple vandalism can ever be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur. XOR'easter (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Another Chat GPT penned article

I killed a draft that looked to have been written by Chat GPT yesterday... Draft:Scottish Mountain Bear This one was daft enough for me to spot it as a hoax from the title. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Is the (miscapitalised) Scottish Mountain Bear any relation to the Pacific Northwest tree octopus? Narky Blert (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Pity the DNA study in Journal of Zoology doesn't exist... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I know we already have a discussion about possibly creating a bot to review new articles, but maybe it is time to discuss a CSD criterion similar to WP:X1WP:X2 that was used during the WP:CXT nightmare? The verifiability issues between AI-generated text and raw machine translations are similar in nature. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean WP:X2. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant, fixed now. Thanks IP199! The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I suppose there's no way of installing some sort of a filter to screen these articles first? I can only see this problem growing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  There probably is but it would probably be quite complicated and also have lots of false negatives and false positive. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Presently, there is no reliable machine test. If there is one that I'm not aware of, I'd love to know; it's in my industry, after all. I'm of the opinion that all offenders need to be blocked on sight; I'm with BMK above on the existential evaluation. This will flood Wikipedia soon, and not just in AfC; small changes across a variety of articles would have escaped notice. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 05:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

If the technology isn't good enough yet, I can only see two responses:

• Spend an inhuman amount of time watching out for suspicious article-creation patterns and manually checking for signs of LLM-usage within articles.
• Change the rules about article creation for everybody in some way that will make the methods used more transparent (e.g., requiring editors to expose their writing process by writing articles in small, incremental edits in the draftspace, rather than uploading an article all at once).

small jars tc 08:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's precisely the opposite problem. The technology is too good. LLMs are aiming to deceive so that text appears to have been written by a human. Any reliable machine test that is made could be incorporated into LLMs (sort of like an oracle machine) to reject output that the test recognises as "machine-written" and regenerate until the text passes the test. — Bilorv (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

To me it seems the obvious solution is not to attempt to detect the human or non-human origin of a given swath of text, but rather to make an efficient machine able to reliably verify that the cited sources (1) exist and (2) support the text content. How far is current technology from this point? (Assuming that all the sources are online or otherwise machine-accessible.)

Of course such a technology would also pose an existential threat to Wikipedia, but at least it would be a different kind of threat. Shells-shells (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A fully automated wiki is no better than a database of caches. When/if AI gets good at truth, it will have value as a client-side alternative to WP, not as part of it. Whether or not it will eventually become redundant, WP currently has unique value as a human-written encyclopedia, and we shouldn't let that be ruined with tools that are both inferior and available elsewhere. Information resources are like paints: WP is one colour, GPT is another, and if you mix them together without thought you'll probably end up with something that is less trustworthy than either were to begin with. small jars tc 12:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Putting asides the question of offline, unreadable, or paywalled sources, this would require tools to understand what the source says; we have policies against copyright violations, after all, and excessive quotations do not a good article make. We're not there. I'm not going to provide a timeline; that would be irresponsible. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 18:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It exists, and it's not very good (announcement, github). DFlhb (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Large language models

In case people were unaware, an attempt to create a policy about AI-generated articles is happening at WP:LLM and editors' thoughts would be very welcome (and perhaps more useful, dare I say it?) at the talk page. There's also links to other on-wiki AI-generation discussions and various article and talk page templates there. — Trey Maturin™ 14:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Chatbot banned in Italy due to date privacy concerns.[121]. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Not unique to AI; just a privacy thing that revolves around OpenAI not having servers in the EU/complying with privacy regs. There are concerns, to be sure, but this isn't one of them. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Any specific application of LLMs is only tolerated, not recommended. Why is it even tolerated?! It's inimical to building a trustworthy encyclopedia. There's no way we should ever say that an act which is an indeffable offense is "tolerated". XOR'easter (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's no good telling me! You need to be telling the people working on WP:LLM! :-) — Trey Maturin™ 14:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Watching a statement of principle get devolved into bikeshedding over terminology is an even less justifiable use of my time than visiting a drama board. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Painful indeed. What do you think of the trim? It was meant to sidestep the endless discussions on wording, and to be simple enough that it can easily be adjusted to be more discouraging towards LLM depending on emerging consensus. DFlhb (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that an RfC (or several) would be beneficial at this point. Right now we have a lot of back-and-forth based on the personal opinions of a few interested editors, and getting community consensus on a few big questions (Do we allow LLM use at all? If so, when must it be attributed?) would help immensely. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes please. Feel free to launch the first ("do we allow?") DFlhb (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a one-to-two year policy-level moratorium (a policy with an expiration date) on any LLM use on Wikipedia, outside of responsible experimentation in userspace, could be met with consensus—as a compromise between editors who hold a view that a blanket ban is justified and useful, and those who have different views. At the end of this period, the time-limited blanket ban (1) could be converted to an indefinite blanket ban, (2) could be prolonged for a definite amount of time, (3) could be replaced with a policy governing LLMs that does something other than impose a blanket ban, (4) or it could be simply let to expire so that there is no policy about LLMs, (4') or it could be let to expire so that there is no policy about LLMs, but maybe some other, non-policy, PAG material is created, and/or some new organized activity/effort such as a project, tool, whatever, is introduced, and/or existing organized activities, such as processes, are modified to better deal with the problem of LLM misuse.—Alalch E. 14:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I can also understand a view that nothing like a policy or an organized effort by editors is useful, that the solution to the problem will have to be technological, and that we have to wait and see, and learn from future incidents like these. Another possible view is that the problem doesn't need any special attention, that LLM drafts can't break out of draftspace, that LLM-originated articles with fake references are easy to detect, that an incident like this where a seemingly average and reasonably trusted editor with 2.5k edits creates many such articles is rare (this is one and only such incident in several months) and essentially easy to deal with (they were all deleted and no one complained), that any ideas like those above are a waste of time, and that we should carry on as usual, and maybe talk as little of LLMs as possible so as not even to, inadvertently, make people aware, who would not have been aware, that using LLMs on Wikipedia is one possible way to spend your time (and cause disruption). —Alalch E. 14:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that, with a strict standard set at WP:LLM that is well-enforced and has teeth (e.g. indef block upon violation), every statement made, every sentence and clause written would be liable for checking. Every reference would need to support statements made. In that case, it's little different from writing an article from scratch, and the end result would be of decent quality. If someone used an LLM which was then not detected by specialists and editors, then wouldn't that meet wiki goals? But this might require a reworking of administrative practice around warnings and hoaxes. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If we can't trust Good Article reviewers to do anything more than check little green checkboxes instead of actually performing an in-depth review of the articles they are claiming to review, how can we trust users of LLMs to check every sentence, clause, and reference? The same people who are likely to use LLMs as a crutch in the first place are also likely to perform these checks perfunctorily, if at all. What teeth would you put into such a standard? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

User warning templates

I've taken the liberty of creating {{uw-ai1}}, {{uw-ai2}} and {{uw-ai3}} to help in the clean-up that this thread has revealed as being required. They're a rewrite of uw-test, which seemed most appropriate. Assistance in creating the template docs and integrating them into our various systems would be very appreciated because I know my own limitations. — Trey Maturin™ 16:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So now this is going to be some ridiculous delete on sight thing regardless of content? Makes me tempted to make an LLM written article with completely accurate information and references. Silverseren^C 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Arguably, if you're willing to put in the effort to verify every statement made with references listed, copy-edit it, adjust for weighting concerns, you're putting in just as much effort as you would be writing it from scratch. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just saving on the writing part itself. Less of an effort for me, but I can understand those who aren't great at writing prose in encyclopedic style. Silverseren^C 17:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

That slippery-slope/strawman argument is beneath you, Silverseren. LLMs may in future be useful to us, but right now they're creating plausible hard-to-detect bollocks in mainspace and we don't have the tools to deal with it beyond dragging the editors in question to the dramaboards. Short-circuiting this with an escalating no-thanks user talk template seems much less work. — Trey Maturin™ 17:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This has still prompted me to set up a ChatGPT account just now. Gonna see how well it does with summarizing existing news articles. Avoids the whole made up references and information thing from the get-go. Silverseren^C 17:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I know this was written to provoke this reply, and loath as I am to say it to someone with your seniority here, but please don't post the results of your experiments to the 'pedia, not least because the potential copyright/plagiarism issues surrounding LLMs are a huge bomb under Wikipedia at the end of a very long fuse. — Trey Maturin™ 17:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the copyvio you're referring to inherent to the LLM being the one that wrote it? Or are you referring to copyvios of the source text I'm giving it? Since I'm checking with a copyvio checker to make sure the text is paraphrased enough to not be a problem like that, as I would for any other article (and any DYK submission too). As we already have systems in place to check for copyvios from basically anywhere on the internet. Silverseren^C 17:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. I fell into the trap you set for me by pointing out this huge future issue (which will end up at SCOTUS and Strasbourg in the end) out because it doesn't apply to your own personal processes right at this second. Well done, I guess. You got me. Thanks. — Trey Maturin™ 17:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about? There are ongoing cases, yes, with one question being whether the LLMs have their own inherent copyright or not for the original formulations of stuff they make. Kinda like how we as editors have a form of copyright for the articles we make here. Though there is the one art case that finished already that determined that the original art isn't copyrightable to the artbot, so outside of any potential copyright held by others, the art is in the public domain. (Which prevents commercialized usage of the art, so that's good at least). But is that what you're talking about? Potential inherent copyright held by the LLMs? Silverseren^C 17:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Silverseren, I don't think there's any point to this. As you can observe above, we're trying to deal with a serious issue here. It is deeply unproductive to suggest that we're making this a "ridiculous delete-on-sight issue" when there is two excellent use cases for this template provided right above your comment. Especially note the almost always in the template. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Re "is that what you're talking about": I can't speak for Trey but that's not my impression of the biggest problem. The "potential inherent copyright" is a potential problem, of course, but not the big copyvio problem. The big problem is that the LLMs cobble together text they pulled from who knows where, and some or all of that source material may be reused in a copyvio way, much like the human editors who copy text from sources but then hide their copying by using a thesaurus. We don't allow close paraphrasing by human editors, but with the LLMs it's much harder to tell what they're closely paraphrasing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ignoring the rant above for a moment, I think these templates look fine. Perhaps connecting the third template a bit more explicitly to already having been warned/doing it repeatedly would be helpful? E.G. in the third template "repeatedly adding AI generated content in defiance of warnings is considered vandalism" rather than just "Adding AI generated content is considered vandalism".----Licks-rocks (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and edited the phrasing in that direction. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack from C. A. Russell

Russell has accused me of nominating Selflang for G4 to make a point because I apparently did not recover well from my (self-reverted) G4 of the redirect Primus sucks because it (indeed) does not apply for that redirect (which, by the way, is at RFD now).

Russell's personal attacks, both as cited above and as shown at the RfD, runs directly contrary to AGF and should be met with the strongest reprehension, especially since it is far from their first time making them. NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User:NotReallySoroka's mention of personal attacks at the RFD are not backed up by facts. What can be found are multiple messages that, ironically, assume bad faith on my part. Additionally, the user raising the complaint about this incident did—again ironically—accuse me there of accusing someone else of something ("you accuse the nom of all those stuff"—their words at the RFP); however, no "first-order" accusation exists, User:NotReallySoroka didn't respond there to a request for clarification about what accusation he or she is referring to and has already been asked to "stick to the discussion as it actually exists" besides.

Since the complainant here has done so while simultaneously raising the issue of working in good faith, I'd like a clear statement from User:NotReallySoroka actually is working in good faith—i.e., that the nomination to delete the Selflang redirect referred to here in this noticeboard entry was coincidental, was not motivated by interactions in the RFD that User:NotReallySoroka refers to, and did not begin with an attempt to look at other pages on the basis that I was involved in their creation while hoping to find one that could be put through a speedy deletion process that would (hopefully) be free of defects unlike the prior failed nomination.

I have not sought User:NotReallySoroka out. The opposite doesn't appear to be true; the interactions that are the subject of this noticeboard entry are as easily avoidable as simply not trying find fodder for conflict. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I am ostensibly "assum[ing] bad faith on [your] part" because I see your eight interrogating questions over at the RfD as badgering - and that's a charitable assessment, especially when coupled with your quasi-formal "(Please answer yes or no.)" stuff. I meant my "all those stuff" comment at your eight questions, as well as your constant badgering of the RfD nom as if they have an agenda behind nominating your redirect. Also, if you can ask me to "stick to the discussion as it actually exists", I would like to invite you to do the same by refraining to overread the RfD and stick to what the nom actually wrote.

Also, you are setting a false equivalency between me being in good faith and your what you think it is inside your head (i.e. the whole "that the nomination to delete... prior failed nomination" rambling). I can act in good faith and still G4 Selflang because the criteria - including the fact that previously-speedied pages cannot be G4ed - are met. "Good faith" on my part does not protect you or your redirects from being speedily deleted.

Moreover, "I have not sought [NRS] out" is simply untrue when you go beyond simply rebuking me, and instead falsely allege me of bad-faith editing, like you did above. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin) I don't see that this rises to the point where it needs administrator intervention. How about both of you just agree to stop interacting with each other, stop talking about each other, avoid editing the same pages, and go find something more productive to do? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

An iban is grossly out of proportion compared to whatever fault I had. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a fuckin' awesome recommendation. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I do believe their behaviour at that MfD was inappropriate and confrontational. The good faith nominator has now withdrawn their request because of the "mess this has become". Hey man im josh (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Spooninpot

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

User's behaviour has escalated to edit-warring, disruptive edits that editorialise about government actions, and personal attacks and taunting on Talk pages. A warning about edit warring was posted on his Talk page but ignored. Examples include:

• This revert summary: "It remains a village this is not a page about the local government it is a page about the community."
• This edit that he insisted was "not a blame" when reverting its removal: "On 1 January 2023, provincial officials caused Petitcodiac to annex all or part of four local service districts to form the local government jurisdiction of Three Rivers, an Village under the legislation."
• This edit: "It held its own municipal status prior to 2023, when it became part of the new Fundy Albert municipality, which is incorporated as a Village under the enabling local government legislation. OMG that was long and wordy."
• This text, immediately after a citation: "Or, Aukpa-que, may be. Some words exist in the Passemaquadi-maliseet dictionary, but did anyone look them up?"
• This text: "Saint-Léolin is a village, and don't you let anyone tell you otherwise."
• In general, user has insisted on forcing a personal viewpoint as to what constitutes a village and has thrown a tantrum that's lasted for two days over numerous pages about New Brunswick municipalities.

I'm not a paragon of good behaviour but this has moved beyond normal editorial disagreements into something I want nothing more to do with. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you post some differences? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by differences. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:DIFF, hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It does, actually. Thanks.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147278618

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147269403

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147146012

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147150687

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147130551

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147126617

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147122945

It's a sample; you can consult the user's Contributions list to see how much of it has been disruptive. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And this example, posted while I was getting the above list to work: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147403322 G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

What becomes evident upon investigation is that the user's investments in the local government aspect of entries about communities has lead to exclusion of community in whole, perhaps by focus on governance template and it's universal application in the category, and that complainant has avoided the matter brought to talk pages and elsewhere and in the past. The category and entries now require considerable revisiting due to legislative changes in the jurisdiction of New Brunswick the entries discuss, a response to which might be another disclaimer about yet to be known secondary information. i.e. old data. Or, to detatch the legal/jurisdictional element from the remainder.

The supposition is that communities (villages, towns, cities, regions, etc.) exist only by virtue of being governed and that that the entries of these community pages by their standardization are official or proprietary to local government.

Here (diff), one can see the modification of the template heading "official name" to "name", and yet the edit calls the place type by an official type not the type of community it remains in the non-legalistic sense.

A consequent question, "do communities need one article for governance/divisions, and another for community that doesn't have to get to specific?"

Like how settlement is often organic, I believe this need to "snap to grid" has longer-term and larger consequences to the continued viability of the articles in question.

User @G. Timothy Walton and @Hwy43 need to address the question and are faced with the leadership role it would seem due to apparent investments. Spooninpot (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In New Brunswick, village is a legal term for a particular type of municipality. The 2023 New Brunswick local governance reform affected more than 80% of existing municipalities and other local governments, with most villages losing their status as independent municipalities and being amalgamated to form larger units, many of which are classified as villages. Existing articles had only their municipal status changed; any information that was already in them remains. @Spooninpot objected to the dissolved pre-reform villages now being described on Wikipedia as communities, or unincorporated communities, or any other synonym. This should be sufficient background to put the above comments in perspective. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And this is today's attempt to strawman the English language into submission:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147571072

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147573011

All because one editor is fixated on one connotation of one word. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And I think an ISP check may show that @Placeographer77 is the same user with a second account. Examples:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147622929

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147621774

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147620560

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147618700

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147618508

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147616757

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147573831

User Placeographer77 has been repeatedly informed in the past, as long as two years ago, about which government legislation applies and has repeatedly refused to acknowledge it. The behaviour, area of interest, and language used in edit descriptions are certainly similar to User Spooninpot. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

And more from Placeographer77, just in the last few minutes:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147625299

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147573831

The devil is in the edit summaries. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Reality is G.Tomothy and Hwy 43 are like accused. Elswise explain "doh" moment Placeographer77 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Promotional account

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

---

User:Nsb001, frequently adding his blog's links to various articles inspite he once warned for doing so. He should be blocked indefinitely from editing. Evid-[122].Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked one week Told user they need to stop adding links to their blog or whatever. I see JBW blocked then unblocked. Any admin should feel free to unblock or modify the block at their discretion. A ping would be nice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Moxy at Talk:United States

In discussions about mentioning the death penalty in the lead of United States, User:Moxy has been engaging in disruptive WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS style behavior to advocate for its inclusion. This began in July 2022 (diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4), where their comments quickly became WP:FORUMy and moralizing in nature, including one that was just "WHAT'S AT STAKE" in all caps with a link to an article of the same name.

The issue was raised again recently, and Moxy has again engaged in forum behavior, arguing about the death penalty itself and WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion, accusing people who disagree with them of being "turned off" by the topic, trying to "sanitize" it, or attempting to "down grade" the article. (diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Normally, I would say that the next step would be to leave a message on their talk page in the hope that this can be resolved, but their most recent reply of "LOL" has convinced me that they are not interested in such a conversation. Moxy has been here for a while, so I'm hoping that they just need a reminder about WP:Talk page guidelines, but it seems we've gotten to the point that conduct issues are going to continue until a warning takes place here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not going through all the diffs, because the first one already--if this is a forum post, then so is the post they responded to. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand how the part after "because" explains the part before it. Levivich (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Undoubtedly some personal opinion there, but nothing unusual for the AP2 space. That said, at a quick skim Moxy appears to be the only editor who has brought up any sources at the current RfC. We definitely shouldn't sanction a link to a source quoting the name of said source. CMD (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The above diffs do sum up what I said with "some" of the sources I quoted. My position is clear....the long standing content should be retained in some form. The removal that started the RFC. Not sure how discussing my inclusion criteria with sources is a problem... I'm guessing too many rebuttals....my bad. I was hoping to see rebuttal sources too. Discussing country specific human rights concerns is something we do with most country articles even Canada . Why American scholars still discuss this is somewhat outlined here. Moxy- 02:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, this looks like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Thebiguglyalien, you might want to review the suggestions at WP:RCD.  — Freoh 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Problematic editing on numerous pages about antipsychotic drugs

User:Materie34 has been busy the last couple of months editing articles about antipsychotic drugs, including haloperidol, ziprasidone, and a bunch of others. These edits are not literate - full of misinformation as well as grammatical, spelling, and word usage errors. There are just too many to undo/revert. For example, an entry by this user on the haloperidol page read:

• Haloperidol possesses through its behaviour as inverse agonist some little differences, for example, triggering a response though it is negative having different negative efficacy, where pure antagonist just bind at a recepter locking it without interacting possessing 0% efficacy at any time.

As a scientist in this field, I can assure a casual reader that the foregoing is gibberish, and I reverted the page on haloperidol to undo the damage. However, there are many others, for example, the current page about ziprasidone reads in part:

• First, it must be setted a disclaimer that this may work just theoretically and caution is advised taking serotonergic substances like mdma together, ziprasidone, with its very strong 5ht2a bindings, its moderate supressing of other serotonergic pathways by acting as a partial agonist and its weak ability to block Sert and Net transporters, somewhat possess a complementary receptorprofile to mdma being a candidate for an antidot. This is because it can block Sert and Net transporters acting in reversal through mdma initializing activity inside a neuron reducing the neuronal release to some extend (this only makes sense with mdma dominating the transporter and with a relatively weak blocker, amisulpride serving in this regard). Also through its inactivation of the 5ht2a receptor and its partial supression of other serotonin receptor subtypes acting as an antagonist/partial agonist it can compete with mdmas agonist activity, as both, antagonists and partial agonists reduce binding.

The foregoing is also gibberish, and there are too many of these for me to correct. Something must be done to stop these entries at the source. Verytas (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not gibberish. The first for example is obviously trying to explain the concept of a reverse agonist. This is likely someone with substantial knowledge of pharmacodynamics, but not English. It will probably be better for them to operate by requesting others to make edits, or at least proofread them. Sennalen (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The concept is more properly called an "inverse agonist", but no matter. The pages prior to editing by Materie34 were fine (and I had nothing to do with writing them), but these edits contain statements that are errors well beyond a language problem. I've been teaching this subject to graduate students in pharmacology for many years and it would be a shame for the Wikipedia entries to be so badly mangled. Verytas (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Materie34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Verytas: We are supposed to discuss issues on article talk pages, and if that fails, on the user's talk. I have to go elsewhere at the moment, but I understand that topics like this might not get much love and I'll have a look and ensure that proper procedures are followed, although I might need a reminder. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I sought initially to contact Materie34 by email, but could not find an email address. It's certainly appropriate to discuss "issues" on article talk pages, but these are not issues for discussion. Materie34 was systematically mangling every article pertaining to antipsychotics, and had just recently started doing this. If one were to refine the language and correct the simple errors of fact, it would be clear that the topics were perfectly well covered prior to the edits by Materie34. Verytas (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We discuss things in public on article talk pages, not via email. It's best to provide a public explanation that others can review now (to see what should be done regarding whether editor conduct is a problem), and that future editors can review to understand why certain text was accepted now. A clear explanation provides information for other editors now and in the future. We assume good faith and act as if other editors merely need a reminder of what sources say. Bear in mind that, for example, I have no knowledge of the topic and would need a clear explanation in order to sanction another editor, and there would need to be plenty of opportunity for that editor to respond. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to be a pharmacologist (I'm certainly not) to see that the first extract above is, in terms of English, complete gibberish. Yes, you can probably work out what it is trying to say, so it's good-faith and not vandalism, but the editor should really be cautioned not to try to add large swathes of content if their English skills are so poor. Having said that, they've only edited three times in the last three weeks, so I don't think there's any urgency here. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

hei here is the Autor. I don't have bad intentions Im just not a native. Im very interessted in antipsychotika and it made fun to edit. Thank you for making me aware of my obviously lacking english skills!😊 If I have a desire to edit in the future, I will drop it in the discuss Page and will not Post it, until its proof read. By the way its much, what if edited but its concentrated in 6-7 articles, so if someone wants to delete the worst edits its not much to do for someone. Again, thank you for making me aware! Materie34 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, you should probably stick to your native language's wikipedia. Im not trying to insult you, but your english is terrible. 71.233.63.157 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

hmm I wouldn't say terrible, it depends on how I feel and whats my state of mind at the moment. Also Im not that bad in reading and understanding so in my megalomania, I thought it would be mostly correct what I wrote😄

But it seems I still have to work on my englisch skills🙂 Materie34 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If an admin would like me so I can copy my edits in here with a quick description where they can be find Materie34 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• would like me to do so

Materie34 (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Materie34, no hard feelings. If you find deficiencies on a page related to pharmacology, I would be happy to help you change them. Meanwhile, I will try to revert the problematic edits sometime this weekend. Verytas (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Vandalized Preview Pop Ups for American cuisine and a Large Number of Related Articles

Moved from Talk:American cuisine

 – FormalDude (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the pop-up preview for this article along with a number of other articles, mostly pertaining to food and/or pertaining to the United States of America or Canada possibly also Korea and Italy seem to have been vandalized with one specific image of what appears to be a fly on feces. I have no idea how those are edited and I have had no luck searching for how to do so. These are the instances I have found from looking at previews of pages that link to the pages for American cuisine and Canadian cuisine look at the first two pages of 500 instances for the American cuisine article and the first 500 instances for the Canadian cuisine article and they show that this problem has a surprisingly-large scale.

A list of the pages I have found thus far that have been vandalized in this manner:

Neapolitan cuisine, Lunch, Music of the United States, List of cuisines, Roman cuisine, Cinema of the United States, Cajun cuisine, Soul food, Technological and industrial history of the United States, Canadian cuisine, Chuckwagon, Cuisine of the Pennsylvania Dutch, Cuisine of the Southwestern United States, List of reptiles of Canada, Cinema of Canada, Cuisine of New England, Greek Canadians, Oath of Citizenship (Canada), Cuisine of Philadelphia, New American cuisine, Cuisine of North Dakota, Culture of Dallas, Lists of populated places in the United States, List of foods of the Southern United States, Cuisine of New Jersey, Tlingit cuisine, Cuisine of Omaha, List of Korean Dishes, Culinary Revolution, Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies, Indian ice cream (Canada), Barbecue in the United States, Cuisine of the Western United States, South Korean cuisine, List of soul foods and dishes, Venetian cuisine, Barbecue in Texas, and Timeline of United States inventions (1946-1991)

I would have worked on fixing this vandalism myself, but I have no idea how to edit an article's preview pop-up and can't find any resources for learning how to do so. Also, the apparent scale of the problem is systemic and, as such, I feel that I must call attention to the problem so that people with more technical know-how than me can try resolve the problem. YIMBYzus (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Copying this here, I see the same vandalism but I'm also not sure what is causing it. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Ch.megacephala wiki.jpg is the image being used, if that helps. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

When you see this type of complaint, it's usually template vandalism, and that was indeed the cause here several hours ago. Check recent changes in the template namespace. After Special:Contributions/Rustyrivet, I suspect we're looking at caching issues somewhere along the line. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I was able to reproduce. Steps to reproduce: 1) make sure Special:Preferences gadgets navigation popups is turned off, 2) make sure Special:Preferences gadgets reference tooltips is turned on, 3) hover mouse over some of the above articles that haven't been purged recently.

The fix: WP:PURGE the articles individually.

The cause: My guess is some template vandalism that got reverted already, but is still lingering in caches. Would be interesting to see what template it was, and possibly block the user. Do these articles have a template in common? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It was this: Special:Diff/1147464621. See the above contributions link for the remainder. —Alalch E. 08:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - For the record I just blocked 86.180.182.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for making the same exact edit on other templates. - Aoidh (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Also blocked an editor who edited a single template in the same manner, so it wouldn't hurt to keep an eye out for similar transclusions. - Aoidh (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Would it be better to protect the affected templates? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't really limited to any specific templates; there have been problems like this all week as people have figured out how to put this sneaky vandalism into the pop-up previews. See here for example. I don't know how to fix this beyond playing whack-a-mole or disabling pop-ups altogether. --Jayron32 16:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Anyone want to try adding the image File:Ch.megacephala_wiki.jpg to MediaWiki talk:Bad image list, with an exception for the article Coprophagia? I think the vandals are transcluding the whole article Coprophagia, so I am not 100% sure this works, but might be worth looking into. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do that, but also realize that it's just whack-a-mole. There's thousands or even millions of images that are currently in commons of likely objectionable (gross, or prurient, or otherwise widely objectionable to many people) that can be used in this kind of vandalism attack. It takes someone literally seconds to find a new one to keep doing this with. I mean, yes, add it to the list for now, but don't think it's going to stop the wider problem. --Jayron32 17:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Jayron32 Perhaps an edit filter to disallow new users transcluding articles in templates? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It does seem like a lot of the preview images are hanging around in cache long after the vandalism is reverted. I figured out how to save on clicking and purge all the pages transcluding a particular template using the ApiSandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ApiSandbox#action=purge&format=json&formatversion=2&generator=embeddedin&geititle=Template%3ATEMPLATENAME&geilimit=max. Just change the template name in the "geititle" field and click "Make request". Note that if you're not an admin you will be only be able to purge up to 50 pages, admins can do 500. the wub "?!" 22:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Editors are whitewashing

I've noticed a lot of racist whitewashing going on all over wikipedia. 97.120.147.168 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Anything more specific than this? — Czello 09:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• IP blocked for one week for WP:LOUTSOCK. They are obviously User:Nottodaymisinformation, who is probably headed for an indefinite block if they continue the way they have at Ruby Ridge and Waco siege. If someone more familiar with the Waco siege article could look at it, there have been some significant changes in the article since Discospinster's edit of March 25 that have been done by the IP and their named account, as well as other IPs and some experienced editors that need some scrutiny.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

NorthDowns and nuclear power

NorthDowns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has an objection to nuclear power on some rather, unusual, grounds, and despite multiple warnings, doesn'tseemto begettingit. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, CIR--I answered them on the talk page; let's see if they'll listen. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Continued personal attack after final warning for talk page abuse

User 2A02:A463:2848:1:4BC:593E:62BB:D398 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), clearly aka Weaky3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gave me thispersonal attack after a previous warning ([123]) for personal attacks ([124], [125], [126]) over a name spelling spelling quibble at Talk:Van Cittert–Zernike theorem and on my user talk.

User seems to show the same pattern of edits and abuse as user Koitus~nlwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was indeffed for similar behaviour on the same matter — see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive340#Koitus~nlwiki. - DVdm (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I indeffed Weaky3 for personal attacks. They may be a sock of Koitus~nlwiki, but it's been a year and I didn't feel comfortable blocking them as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Ok, thx. - DVdm (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are articles like Thermodynamic system so bad? That lead, the many unverified paragraphs--STEM may pay more, but English is fundamental. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) If you think that a STEM qualification is the route to a well-paid career, I have a bridge to sell you. Narky Blert (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Narky Blert, my wife teaches high school English. If she were teaching STEM, she'd make $20 more per year... Drmies (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A comparatively broad scope leads to people adding bits and pieces over the years, with nobody wanting to tackle a top-down reorganization. Some text on technical subjects dates back to the early years of Wikipedia, when sourcing requirements were much looser, and people who knew or thought they knew the subject just brain-dumped about it. Nobody wants to take the time to do the conscientious thing: look up multiple textbooks, find what they each have to say, write a neutral summary of them all, provide footnotes with page numbers at the end of each paragraph, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism in List of films featuring dinosaurs

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

---

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

---

Hello. The mentioned page is vandalised, with several users removing properly sourced content. I gave the most detailed explanation possible here and there's also a discussion here but the user still removes content because of the personal opinion, while not caring about official and third-party sources. Please, help. --Дейноніх (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute does not constitute vandalism. Administrators, please close this ridiculous complaint. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you crazy? Is there no way this vandalism can be stopped? Why is everyone so toxic? Дейноніх (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Self promotion by Orlando Telates

Orlando Telates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I observed this user creating an article about themselves, Orlando Nell, and repeatedly removing an A7 speedy deletion tag from the page, as can be seen here. There are now two other IPs editing that page; all seem to be the same person. I think we need a quick block here. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed by Cullen328. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 05:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but rather to almost certainly use some AI program to try writing a self-promotional autobiography. We need to be tough and unambiguous about this nonsense, and swiftly block any editor who pulls such stunts. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The article has been oversighted. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 06:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Repeated WP:OLINK violations by IP

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

Can an admin please warn or take additional action against this anonymous user, who has repeatedly disrupted multiple articles with repeated violations of our manual of style against overlinking well-known topics, i.e. countries, languages, etc.? Thanks in advance! Jalen Folf (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking is a trivial violation of the Manual of Style, JalenFolf, which is a guideline not a list of mandatory policy dictates. I understand that overlinking irritates you, but at its core, this is a content dispute that simply does not belong at ANI. Continue trying to do your best to communicate with this editor as I see that you are trying to do, and use the wide range of Dispute resolution mechanisms available to you and all editors, instead of escalating this matter to this drama board. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Pbritti

Several days ago, I started a survey over here. I did so because previously, Pbritti had made some major changes with which I strongly disagreed. Asking editors whether they agreed with rolling back to a stable version and implementing big changes via consensus seemed the best approach to the matter. In my opening message, I pinged four editors, three of whom ended up participating. I selected them purely in order to broaden the range of opinions. I did not know how they would vote, and indeed one of the three only partly endorsed my proposal. One of the editors is the main author of the article, one actively edited there recently, another edited a while back and the fourth is among the most active Romanian editors. To be honest, I didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about the pinging: I just notified a few names that came to mind, never expecting any sort of controversy. I fully believe my actions were in line with the spirit and the letter of WP:CANVASS.

Pbritti did not take the survey well. From the first, he began relentless accusations of canvassing. He immediately referred to “blatant canvassing”, dismissed the opinions of the other editors and said I was trying to bulldoze him. He says other editors apparently have not read the article — including the article author! He then says we are editors “who regularly coordinate”. Not only is this evidence-free assertion totally false, on the rare occasions I’ve interacted with the pinged editors, we’ve had vehement disagreements. User:Barumbarumba then pinged the exact same people I did, to which Pbritti responded with another canvassing accusation, placing us both “on notice” for “both the canvassing [and the] failure to engage”. He issued the alleged canvasser a warning, which he’d done for me as well.

Moving on, after I notified a WikiProject, the one I saw as being most relevant to the discussion, he reiterated the canvassing accusation, alleging a consensus to be “impossible”. After I explained the reasoning behind my ping, he rejected that outright, saying I “clearly canvassed twice, first opting to ping only editors you hoped would support you in this discussion… later only raising the discussion on one WikiProject page (the same WikiProject that you drew upon to garner support)“. Yes, that’s right — now my WikiProject notification, a good-faith attempt to remedy any concerns about canvassing, was itself construed as canvassing! Determined to remain above the fray, I responded by notifying another WikiProject, the only other one at the top of the talk page. Pbritti’s response? Not good enough, I need to start a new survey.

The latest episode involves this surreal discussion between Pbritti and admin User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish, who politely told him that my ping was not canvassing. Pbritti, invoking a fictitious “working relationship” between me and the other editors, replied that the ping was “definitionally partisan”. Advised to drop the stick, Pbritti shot back: “You clearly don't understand the discussion, what occurred, and presume things of other editors. Take your own advice on AGF”.

The above diffs speak for themselves. Pbritti has consistently violated WP:AGF: told repeatedly that there was no malicious intent on my part, he insists on a story of conspiracy and coordination, and scorns all my attempts to alleviate his concerns. He’s interacted with five editors during this saga, simply lashing out at all of them or dismissing their views. He also breaches WP:CIVIL with his superior air and prosecutorial tone. His all-or-nothing mentality goes against WP:BATTLEGROUND, while he disregards WP:CONSENSUS. For good measure, his single-mindedness earns WP:STICK and WP:ICANTHEARYOU a mention. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, to be fully transparent, Biruitorul emailed me for advice, which led to my brief interaction with Pbritti. I advised Biruitorul that the correct forum to raise their concern was here rather than off-wiki.

I can see issues on both sides here. It would be good for Biruitorul to have a read of WP:WALLOFTEXT. Not policy, but rather an explanatory essay, but it does sum up what I felt seeing the above text.

With regards to the alleged canvassing, if there was any transgression in what Biruitorul did at the talk page in question, it was relatively minor. You would expect interested editors to have that talk page in their watchlist, but it could be seen as an attempt to WP:VOTESTACK. I am not familiar enough with the subject or editors in question to know whether there was any partisan selection of editors, or whether there is any history of similar behaviour, but per WP:AGF I would be willing to put this down as a mistake. If it genuinely was an attempt to unfairly votestack, it was extremely clumsy, done with full clarity on the talk page where the discussion was made.

With regards to Pbritti's reaction... from what I can see of the interaction, it appears excessive. It comes down to whether this is a WP:CIVIL matter. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

BOOMERANGish As noted by Catfish above, the issues come down to a combination of votestacking, canvassing (I stand behind this, Catfish disagrees), and a question of AGF/civility (towards both me and Biruitorul. As someone who has been repeatedly pinged in an attempt to canvass my participation in other discussions, I'm familiar with the methodology employed by canvassers. Biruitorul's case is no different, with their choice to ping multiple editors uninvolved in this dispute and sometimes with no prior editing on the article—all without notifying me, the person that Biruitorul disagreed with. I directly pointed this out at the very beginning of the discussion (what I'm presuming is a difference in time zones complicated things further by meaning the pinged editors had already votestacked).

Catfish has questioned if my acknowledgement of the canvassing was in keeping with CIVILITY and AGF; I would say yes on the basis that 1.) Biruitorul failed to ping the editor they disagreed with, 2.) pinged other editors with whom they had a working relationship (not fictitious, despite their claims) and later only notified the WikiProject they all shared, 3.) misconstrued the contents/rationale of my edits as either in bad-faith or unexplained, and 4.) is an extremely experienced editor who necessarily has awareness of procedure. I don't see reasons to invoke sanctions here, except to close the votestacked discussion with the expectation of a new one on the talk page or another space. I can provide details and diffs as necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, as to Biruitorul claims towards my discussion with Catfish on my talk page: Catfish came to my page and left a note I found very passive-aggressive (whether they meant it as such besides the point, as an experienced admin knows how to leave a polite message). If they wanted to contribute more fruitfully, a more sound way would have been to place their sentiments in the original talk page discussion and to engage there. When Catfish failed to elaborate on their reasoning and started making presumptions to justify Biruitorul's bad behavior, I replied with a disagreeing but not uncivil message. Catfish and I have no other interactions I'm aware of and they seem like a fine (and notably patient) admin in other matters—I just disagree with their judgement here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Therein lies one of the purposes of WP:AGF as a behavioural guideline. It can be difficult to judge intent from text and there was no negative motivation in my posting at your talk page. Likewise, your reply could be read in several ways, but I wasn't invested enough to find out more and chose to take it in its most positive sense. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

And, as far as interacting on the article talk page, you're right... I don't understand the subject particularly and am not interested enough to get involved. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: I was trying to be polite, but since you provided more detail I'll be more frank: you opaquely accused me of not understanding policy in that first comment to my talk page. I challenged that assessment, and you demonstrated you didn't understand the background to the discussion and why I had made my comments. In retrospect, I should have been more firm with you on my talk page: you were acting as enforcer for another editor without acknowledging that fact. As an admin, you did not AGF on my part and seem to have allowed another editor to take advantage of your position to intimidate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You found my messages intimidating? I really need to work on my writing... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Never said your was intimidating, but "piece of advice" messages tend to be template-less notices or warnings which do convey more than just the "advice" within them. Calling upon admin intervention outside the standard channels is a not uncommon means of strong-arming. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't asked to intervene, I was asked for advice... and I gave it (post here). I did warn them about WP:ADMINSHOP, not because I thought they had that intent, but because contacting an admin off-wiki could be construed in that way. I'm a firm believer in transparency. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: did you mean to link a diff in (post here)? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No, what I meant was to post at ANI as this is the correct way to deal with disputes of this nature. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, to review your actions: you were contacted off-wiki by Biruitorul after they were accused of pings other editors to acquire support, you felt the need to mention ADMINSHOP to Biruitorul in your reply, and then posted a notice on my talk page. First off, if it was merely advice you were asked to give, why did you warn them of ADMINSHOP and post to my talk page? Second, if you're committed to transparency, why did you not mention that private messaging in your notice to me? I have some serious qualms with your actions here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

More evidence towards ADMINSHOP by Biruitorul. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I will not deign to respond to Pbritti’s desperate attempts at deflection, because I have nothing to hide. I asked one administrator what he thought I should do about Pbritti’s behavior; he declined to answer. I asked another, who answered. The idea that this is some massive revelation is preposterous. The problem here is with Pbritti, who violated a host of policies and exhausted all my alternatives. (I really dislike coming here.) This complaint has finally led to him barely mollifying his accusatory tone, but as his latest bad-faith comment shows, he still has much work to do before we can say his editing approach is truly in good faith and respects consensus. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of previous experience at ANI, Biruitorul came here almost exactly two years ago, pinging Super Dromaeosaurus. In 2009, Biruitorul was accused votestacking with "friend" Dahn, another editor pinged in this recent survey. There's even a murder fantasy against a fellow editor in the mix (2007 vintage, don't quit your day job). Clearly, Biruitorul's claim No, we have not “edited together” is an outright lie. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, now we get into the 16-year-old material, because Pbritti is, of course, unable to substantiate his original claim, namely that the five of us are editors “who regularly coordinate”. We have not “edited together” (still unclear what that means), we do not “regularly coordinate” — outright, unproven, unprovable lies. This is still more desperate deflection by an editor constitutionally incapable of assuming good faith and being civil, His behavior on this board, now verging on harassment, is becoming downright disturbing. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I just proved my initial claim: you contacted editors who you felt would support you because you are familiar with them. I just demonstrated is that you lied in saying you had never edited with these people–if you can't parse out "edited together", I can't help you–as well as lying in claiming you weren't aware that they all shared a WikiProject. You've edited alongside these people in the same subject area for over a decade and established a familiarity with them in discussions. Not only that, but you've done the exact same thing this week as you've done before in calling on supportive editors to back you in discussions. As for harrassment [...] downright disturbing, you not getting indeffed for that threat all those years ago is perhaps the most damning thing I've seen against the early years of the project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Apart of the fact that getting into 2007 and 2009 discussions is pretty strange and pointless, I was pinged on the discussion regarding KIENGIR because I interacted heavily with him, I both agreed and disagreed with this person many times. I deem the notification of his report to me very appropriate. Pbritti's intepretation of such past report as evidence of canvassing is purely based on distrust. By the way. I'm pretty sure that what Biruitorul means by not knowing who is in that WikiProject, is that he does not know the list of members by memory, and that he did not select members based on it. Which is really not that mindblowing. Super Ψ Dro 00:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Rather than address his inability to assume good faith and behave with civility, with every comment he posts here, Pbritti displays a failure to grasp why he ended up here in the first place. Shifting from his imagined roles as prosecutor and police investigator, he now plays the psychologist, pretending to be able to read my mind. Of course, he could just accept my repeated explanations, but that would involve assuming good faith, something he is simply unable to do. He continues to claim the editors I pinged and I have “edited together”, which is a lie — no such thing ever happened.

Further enjoying his assumed role as psychologist, he says I lied when I said I didn’t know all the editors in question shared a WikiProject. Not only did I not lie, I still, as of this very hour, have no idea who is in that WikiProject. The only reason I announced it was in order to involve more people. Which I already said, but again, listening to me and accepting my explanations would involve an assumption of good faith, impossible for Pbritti.

What Pbritti fails to mention about a discussion from two years ago (!) is that I pinged ten involved editors. This is what pinging is for: notifying without going to the trouble of messaging. There’s nothing sinister about it, no matter how hard he tries.

This latest reply evinces further harassment on the part of Pbritti. Not content with diverting discussions with baseless claims, he now performs meticulous research deep into the past and repeatedly claims to read my mind in ways directly contradictory to my own statements. This goes beyond mere lack of good faith, and the community should take note. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You've been an editor for over a decade, format your replies properly, please. You lied, we’re caught in the lie, then split hairs about knowing who's in a WikiProject (of course I don't mean the actual roll, I mean the subject area). You try to bludgeon other editors you don't agree with with votestacking or ANI (contrary to your claims, you come here quite a bit). I've said my bit. Anyone else can ask me a question here or on my talk. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet again, Pbritti is wildly distorting the record. He asserts that I “come here quite a bit”. As anyone can check, since August 2016, I came here three times in 2021 and that’s it. It’s a last resort, but it had to be done due to Pbritti’s relentless lack of good faith, incivility, aversion to editing by consensus and battleground mentality.

He accuses me of lying, something I repeatedly demonstrated is itself false, but cannot bring himself to admit due to his lack of good faith.

He bizarrely takes issue with my notification of a WikiProject, but of course fails to note that I a) eventually notified another WikiProject and b) invited other editors to notify any other WikiProjects they could think of.

He once again (for probably the 20th time) brings up bad-faith allegations of vote-stacking, despite my repeated statements to the contrary: a glaring lack of good faith.

But this report isn’t about me, it’s about him. And I think this hostile series of responses, completely devoid of introspection or humility, more than demonstrate the editor’s serious shortcomings. — Biruitorul ^Talk 23:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As we can see from this reply, Pbritti continues the same problematic behavior that brought him to the attention of this forum. He now reveals that his accusation of canvassing is based on previous unrelated interactions, something for which I bear zero responsibility. He ignores my repeated disavowals of canvassing, a blatant breach of WP:AGF. He complains that I failed to ping him, but does not note that it took him all of two hours and eleven minutes to vote, and that it was clear from the page history that he was closely watching the page. He reiterates the fictitious, malicious and unproven allegation that I had a “working relationship” with the pinged editors. He randomly mentions we all shared a WikiProject, something I had no idea about. He closes with an absurd demand for a new discussion, something entirely unwarranted, merely because he has been unable to make a convincing case to anyone.

Pbritti once again demonstrates bad faith and incivility (by continuing to claim canvassing despite a lack of evidence and explicit statements to the contrary), a battleground mentality and rejection of consensus (by showing no willingness to edit collaboratively), and an inability to drop the stick and listen to what others are saying. These are not the qualities of a model editor. — Biruitorul ^Talk 15:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You pinged editors that were part of the same WikiProject–which a simple check of the interaction tool shows many of which you edited with regularly–and failed to notify me. You screwed up and vote-stacked. You shouldn't have done that, but it isn't a big deal. I'm disappointed in your actions, and I'm also disappointed that you called on Catfish to act as muscle in a private manner. Catfish should have acknowledged that in their initial message to my talk page, but I think mentioning it here is adequate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Once again, rather than Pbritti acknowledging his serious conduct issues, we see deflation based on imagined misconduct. No, I was not aware the editors in question belonged to the same WikiProject; I selected them for other, more intelligent reasons, as outlined above. No, we have not “edited together” (whatever that means), that is an outright lie. No, there was no vote-stacking but a simple attempt to broaden the discussion; unfortunately, Pbritti appears constitutionally incapable of assuming good faith. No, I did not call on anyone to “act as muscle”; I asked for advice. AGF, CIVIL, CONSENSUS, BATTLEGROUND, STICK, ICANTHEARYOU: the violations are stacking up as we speak. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• No action. Pbritti is right to have concerns about manually selecting four editors from the same project (intentionally or not—there's subconscious bias!) and summoning them to a talk section in order to invite them to the reporter's non-neutrally worded complaint. Of the four pinged editors, three have edited the article, but have never seen it fit to themselves make changes along the same lines as the reporter's disputant. They have contributed to an implicit consensus behind Biruitorul's preferred, stable, version. This is not guaranteed to mean something, but it's about a probability of their preferences. There's also a thing called familiarity bias. This is not "real canvassing", but it's also why we have WP:3O—and RfC, which are based around not being able to manually select participants to a discussion, and introducing fresh pairs of eyes, which is better. Biruitorul's notifications were not truly WP:INAPPNOTEs, but when the "Survey" was met with disagreement, it was necessary to accept that there is a better alternative. Pbritti was a bit wrong to allege canvassing so strongly, in the exact way that they did. Biruitorul then got sidetracked in trying to counter the canvassing allegations, instead of concentrating on resolving the content dispute by switching to an established process. It was highly predictable that notifying a single project to which all of the pinged editors belong, would not be met with agreement from Pbritti. Overall, Biruitorul is more in the wrong: This editor made a misstep, which was correctable, but was unable to find a way out without outside help, got sidetracked, and came to ANI to post a serious wall of text that isn't proportionate to the severity of the problem, and doesn't move things forward. There's no urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem, and I suggest that this ANI discussion be closed with no further action. Maybe close Biruitorul's "survey" as too strongly contested of a method to be able to lead to consensus. Maybe editors should try DRN. Maybe an RfC should be started. The editors should probably figure it out themselves. —Alalch E. 16:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I can accept Alalch E.'s position here. Since they and Catfish think I was wrong in calling the initial survey pings "canvassing", I'll defer to their assessment and apologize for describing Biruitorul's contributions that way. I maintain it was vote-stacking, but will defer to the judgements of both Alalch E. and Catfish that it did not rise to the level of canvassing. I also agree that this could have been at RfC, but I wanted the initial discussion closed or at least an agreement to put it on ice before unilaterally taking it there (I've been begrudgingly dragged to RfC before and it's not pleasant). ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for you input Alalch... it would be a little premature to close this right now, I feel. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Per Alalch above, no action save for a ceremonial {{trout}} for Biruitorul, for making a mountain out of a molehill they started to dig in the first place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User talk:JalenFolf and User:Mako001

I made an edit to the Sable (heraldry) article to remove a subsection with redundant information that was given undo weight. The information was already found in the infobox to the right of the page, and remained there with my edits. User talk:JalenFolf reverted my edit and falsely accused me of removing information and templates from the article, of disruptive editing, refused to start a discussion on the talk page, and made three reverts to my edits. I asked JalenFolf to explain his accusations, but he refused and demanded I answer his questions instead.

User:Mako001 then arrived to accuse me of edit warring and threatened me with a ban after making two edits. JalenFolf made three reverts but got no warning or threat. Mako001 also accused me of being disingenuous in my edits. I asked him to explain, but he did not. He then accused me of not attempting to resolve the issues raised. This is not true, as I did ask JalenFolf to explain himself and start a discussion on the sable talk page.

I believe Mako001 may be friends with JalenFolf, it would explain his sudden appearance on a niche article like sable and why he refused to act against JalenFolf. It also explains why he didn't bother to investigate or start a dialogue with me, but chose to take the side of JalenFolf without question. Even going so far as to make baseless claims against me as JalenFolf did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giltsbeach (talk • contribs) 07:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think Giltsbeach perhaps needs to step back at this point and start to actually listen to what people are telling them, instead of reading 1/3 of it and launching their next "shot" based on that. I don't intend to defend myself here, since I think that this is likely to end with a WP:BOOMERANG or CU block anyway. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You accused me of "disingenous editing" because I moved information from a stub of a subsection to an infobox. An infobox that every other heraldic tincture article uses, mind you. You threatened me with a ban, but not the other user who refused to engage in dialogue with me. I don't think you'll be happy until I step back off a cliff. Giltsbeach (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate JalenFolf admitting his mistake. Mako001, on the other hand, refuses to admit he made a mistake and refuses to apologize. He made false accusations that I deleted content, that I didn't attempt to address JalenFlof's concerns, and that I never left an edit summary. None of it was true, though. He also made disparaging remarks about me. And he threatened me with a ban as soon as he entered the chat. He didn't even try to talk to me or ask what was up. He straight up threatened me and said he didn't have to actually wait for me to break any rules to ban me. This isn't appropriate behavior. This is straight up bullying. And for what? All I did was move information around on the article page. Anyone that looks at the article before and after my edits would have quickly seen that all the information was still there. This shouldn't have escalated this far. Giltsbeach (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Giltsbeach: I don't see why you chose to escalate the issue here when I have already clearly pinged you here in the start of a Talk page discussion. Your edits clearly show an unexplained removal of a sourced section, not a template, which has been explained here after the fact that it had violated WP:WEIGHT. Had you used the edit summary to explain this, this drama post would not be happening.

As for the claims against you regarding edit warring, it's only a violation of WP:3RR if a user goes beyond three reverts without claiming WP:3RRNO, which I cannot claim here as the edits are not vandalism. You have clearly tried to remove the same section four times without clear explanation, the first of which being the initial edit, which also is not a violation of 3RR. Mako is correct; you really do need to step back and read your messages very carefully instead of rushing to accuse others of wrongdoing. Consider improving your editing based on what other editors tell you instead of attacking others over it. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No information was removed form the article either. Both accusations are wrong. Giltsbeach (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I just had another look at your attempt, and you're actually right; the removal of section plus addition of single sentence in replacement is the equivalent of no gain, no loss. However, in respect of 3RR, it would probably be best to allow a neutral editor to review the situation and pick a side instead of the both of us continuing the back and forth war. Thank you for replying on the article's Talk page. I will respect your reasoning and back down from the issue at hand. My sincerest apologies for unintentionally allowing this situation to escalate here. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into it. I appreciate it. Giltsbeach (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear

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

Three days ago, Kansas Bear (talk · contribs) made a comment on an article talk page during a content dispute that included personal attacks and aspersions against me (Diff). The following day, I followed this up on their talk page and attempted to better explain myself, thinking that their outburst was due to a misunderstanding (Diff). However, the explanation I received was I responded in the manner in which you spoke, so do not act like I did not. (Diff) The discussion ended shortly thereafter (Permanent Link). The aspersions remain on the article talk page and Kansas Bear has shown no indication of remorse or awareness of wrongdoing on their part. It's concerning that an active editor of nearly 17 years feels comfortable making such remarks on article talk pages. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not see any aspersions or personal attacks against you in the diff you posted.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. If that's the diff you intended to post, Golden, then there's nothing to see there. —  Salvio ^giuliano 13:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Oh, well since we are stating what we have observed, I noticed Qizilbash arrived to support you on Timurid Empire talk page, it is a pity they can not tell the difference between culture(Persianate) and ethnicity(Persian). Undoubtedly they will be here post-haste for your RfC. (emphasis not mine) & I am sure. Since we both know who will arrive. (Referencing the user Qizilbash from first quote). These are clear accusations of off-wiki coordination. Per WP:PA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Per WP:ASPERSIONS: "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page." These accusations were made on an article talk page and remained there, even after their problematic nature was pointed out. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether these accusations lack evidence - when Kansas Bear gets here, I would expect him to provide some.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call those "clear" accusations, myself. They're pretty murky. Ravenswing 19:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Come on. Do we really need someone to spell it out and say "X is working with Y" for it to be a problem? By the way, neither the user Qizilbash nor the RfC on the Timurid Empire talk page had anything to do with what was being discussed on the Talk:Imadaddin Nasimi, where the personal attack was posted, nor were either of them mentioned prior to Kansas's comment. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Canyounottalktome123

• Canyounottalktome123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been persistent issues with this editor for some time. This editor clearly has seen talkpage posts and edit summaries because they use words like "announced" on transactions in edit summary but still doesn't seem to have an understanding of what constitutes an official announcement despite multiple edit summaries on reverts and multiple talkpage posts. The most recent example seems to be right after this edit which I reverted here and reiterated the rule, this editor changed the number for an NFL player here despite no official announcement from the team or the player that he has changed his number. While it's not a violation of username policies, the editor's username appears to show an unwillingness to discuss anything with a name that includes the phrase "can you not talk to me".--Rockchalk717 16:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The Swan Princess vandal

There has been a very long push on The Swan Princess to add a fan comparison to the article. See edits from [127] current /64 range that they've been using for a while, and [128], [129], [130] for some examples of prior edits. Multiple articles have been put on semi-protection for an extended time ([131], [132], [133]) and several IP's are still blocked ([134], [135]). They've returned and are pushing the same material the same /64 range they have used in the past. Past 3RR, they have made a single post on the talk page, but not responding since then, just reverting. From the past history, The Swan Princess needs to get semi-protected for an extended period of time (and probably The Swan Princess (film series) and The Princess and the Frog which they tend to push as well, especially if only one protected. A block on the /64 would also be helpful. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Blocked I've blocked the /64 range x 3 years and protected the page x 3 years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User: NickCT

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

Any help with the repeated insults and other uncivil comments from NickCT would be appreciated. On various occasions, I've asked him to either stop or to strike the comment, and to focus on the topic being discussed. After one comment, he suggested I come here to report it. So, how do you deal with an editor who continually makes comments like Sometimes smart people say dumb things (which is why I figure you could be smart despite this conversation.)[136] and And there I was thinking that if anyone would be good at identifying a loser, it would be you.[137]? Stoarm (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@NickCT I trust we don't need to drag this out. Put a lid on the snark. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

BLPs at AfD

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

Moonraker has been voting at AfD regarding BLPs. They have been making nonsense arguments and personal attacks in order to keep nn BLPs. Here is a selection of their arguments:

[138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151]

• Substituting your opinions for policy and guidelines is always a problem, but when it spreads BLPs, it is DE.
• Using sources must exist arguments rather than providing sources to keep BLPs is a violation of policy at WP:BLP.
• Personal comments and attacks should not be tolerated ever, especially at AfD where discussions often get heated.
• Their personal attacks have been raised recently by an admin on their talk page [152], but their response clearly indicates they will continue.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).

I believe Moonraker participation in BLP AfDs is DE and counterproductive, and their personal attacks/comments about others need to be addressed.  // Timothy :: talk  21:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Larrymoney21

Larrymoney21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, in spite of multiple warnings. The only edits are self-promotion, including vandalizing Template:Article templates/Music album and recreating the same page after deletion. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You can add sockpuppetry to the list of offenses. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Larrymoney21. -- Whpq (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

TheFinalBabylon

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

My good faith is all lost on them when shortly after I reverted their changes again on Babylon's Fall, they dropped this one hell of a bombshell edit summary accusing me of being a troll and a vandal, citing April Fools Day. Before this, after I've made changes to that page complying with WP:VGMOS, they've reverted me in 4 separate edits without providing any reason. OceanHok reverted. When I try to discuss the edits on the article talk page, and calling out their unexplained reverts, TFB doubled down. I make mistakes then and sometimes still now, but they should be indeffed for these uncalled for attacks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) edited 23:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

My edits have remained on the Babylon's Fall wikipedia page without any problems for the last six weeks. During that time, the page has been viewed by thousands of people. Late yesterday and today, on APRIL FOOLS day, you have been vandalizing / deleting all of my edits which have been around since the last six weeks without any problems (again, thousands have viewed that page during those six weeks and have never had a problem). I have looked into your history and I have noticed that you keep deleting other people's works in an unfair way. See the message someone left on your talk page for an example. TheFinalBabylon (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

ALSO, edits removing photos was undone since I had added the pictures under Fair use rules (under the highest resolution allowed under fair use, something which I explained in some of my more recent edits). Six weeks ago I uploaded the pictures at a higher resolution but a bot corrected those uploads by placing the pictures under fair use and lowered the resolution so it would be under fair use, but still very clear enough to see. Those pictures have been on that page for SIX WEEKS without incident and with THOUSANDS of people viewing the page (see the page views for details) for the last six weeks and no one had a problem. Other edits I did recently were to the three quests and I added the two major events from the now deleted Special events section (which did have a story, especially the Festival of the Sun event which contained the closing epilogue story. If you had actually played the game you would have known this) . However, I did NOT get a chance to add back in the important characters section (which you deleted) where I briefly explained the back stories to each important character (which related back to the overall plot) despite you removing that section despite it being up for SIX WEEKS on the Babylons' Fall page. TheFinalBabylon (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheFinalBabylon, why haven't you discussed any of your proposed changes at Talk:Babylon's Fall with the editors who object? Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This complaint is in regards to theinstantmatrix . My Wikipedia user name is TheFinalBabyon and my edits have remained on the Babylon's Fall wikipedia page without any problems for the last six weeks. During that time, the page has been viewed by thousands of people. Late yesterday and today, on APRIL FOOLS day, theinstantmatrix has been vandalizing / deleting all of my edits which have been around since the last six weeks without any problems (again, thousands of people have viewed that page during those six weeks and have never had a problem). I have looked into theinstantmatrix history and I have noticed that they keep deleting other people's works in an unfair way. See the message someone left on theinstantmatrix talk page for an example. TheFinalBabylon (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Diffs of recent edit warring by TheFinalBabylon: [153], [154], [], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161].  // Timothy :: talk  22:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

TheFinalBabylon edit history [162] shows problems with CIR and LISTEN. eg edits and edit summaries [163], [164], [165], [166]

PA in edit summary need to be addressed: [167]

Edits are largely OR and SYNTH: eg (see edit summaries also) [168], [169], [170], [171], [172]