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

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)
• I've noticed his edits and deletions many many times, and I'm glad someone brings this up. He's sneakily getting rid of pages without getting called out. I would endorse at least a short ban for the editor, and at least complete prevention from redirecting/deletion for at least the foreseeable future.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's a bit disingenuous and I don't believe we should stop assuming good faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 5 April 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 already 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: [1] 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)

• Comment: I think Onel5969 does understand that the community majorly disagrees with their actions. So, we could give them a warning about it, but I think they get the idea from this discussion that they should know what to expect if it is brought up again, so the warning probably isn't even needed. Huggums537 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• I endorse any sanctions.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:12, 5 April 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)

I sympathize that patrollers deal with a lot of unsourced stubs, and it's difficult if it's in a domain which one might not be familiar with. Still, we have WP:BEFORE, and it must be followed; alternatively, get consensus to reform the system.—Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not commenting on this specific article / AfD, but on the general comments by some.

• 1: you may only draftify very poor articles once (if even that), after that it is AfD
• 2: if you bring a very poor article to AfD, but the subject is notable, then woo to you, you didn't follow the rules

Can anyone who uses argument 2 please stop using argument 1? What you are actually saying is

• 1: you may draftify very poor articles only once (if even that), after that you should tag them or improve them but otherwise just leave them in the mainspace.

It may or may not be the majority position, but at least it would be more honest and useful than this "gotcha" you are creating here with urging people to use AfD for article which need extreme cleanup, and then lambast them for using AfD because "AfD is not cleanup". Fram (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a "gotcha" at all. If an article needs extreme clean-up then either clean it up or tag it as needing it. The answer is not to nominate for deletion articles about subjects that don't qualify under our deletion policy. This is yet another problem caused by the introduction of the totally anti-wiki idea of draft space. The whole point of a wiki is that articles are improved and developed in main space where they can easily be seen and found. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that you get utter garbage which has to be kept "where it can be easily seen and found". The point of a wiki is not "I can put whatever drivel I want in the mainspace as long as the subject is notable", the point is "I do the best I can in a reasonable amount of time, and others will improve it even further". For something like Draft:Unnamed Girl, what would you have done? I am not able to reverse engineer some Japanese search terms to determine if there might be the start of something here or not, but it seemed most likely that there was nothing there, based also on other things this user created. By draftifying, they got 6 months to improve it, while at the same time we prevented this from being shown to our readers, for whom it was totally uninformative. Or take Draft:Papua New Guineans in New Zealand, probably a notable subject, but as with other creations of the same editor, the article and the sources given didn't match (or the sources weren't even about New Zealand[2]). Why would we knowingly keep an article with almost all incorrect information in the mainspace? But bring it to AfD, and the response of at least some would be "AfD is not cleanup". Perhaps, but mainspace is also not a dumping ground for any and all shit someone can produce (or have produced by AI). Fram (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If I may stick my nose in ...you're both right. Creating a fenced area to put problem articles removes them from our usual collaborative processes; they don't, for example, show up in maintenance categories or when searching from a list of requested/needed articles. But the draft namespace in association with the AfC process does provide a way forward for COI articles and other topics with possibilities where it would be inappropriate for the unimproved article to be in mainspace, but there isn't the urgency of copyvio or unreferenced BLP. It was even a good idea as a catchall successor to the article incubator and in response to the confirmed right becoming required for article creation. The problems are (a) the institution of 6-months-and-it's-gone; interacting with (b) the professionalisation of NPP and AfC so that a very small group act as gatekeepers, raising to almost a certainty that they will be passing judgement on articles on topics they know next to nothing about—it magnifies their conscious and unconscious biases; and with (c) ratcheting up of standards, partly because the reviewers are dealing with so many badly written articles, they get jaded (they could usefully recalibrate by looking at "random article" from time to time, neither the PAGs nor community standards require a new article to spring like Athena from the head of Zeus, in good English, with footnotes and no bare links, and making a valid claim of notability in the first sentence while avoiding promotional language, especially when "valid" means "this particular reviewer will instantly recognise its validity) and partly because those who are willing to go through the training and install the widget are likely to be self-selected defenders of the wiki from dross. If Onel5969 or any other NPPer uses AfD as a way to get an article cleaned up—or just to get eyes on it from people who know the topic—after draftifying it, let alone after repeatedly draftifying it, they're admitting that it may be notable and their main objection is to the execution. Unfortunately, we lose a lot of encyclopaedic coverage that way. It's extremely hard for a new editor, an editor with less than stellar English (and increasingly that includes native speakers unfamiliar with the formal registers we expect, as well as our older problem that some new editors are unfamiliar with any encyclopaedias except this one) or an editor writing on anything even slightly off the beaten path to get through the process of brushing up their article and getting it accepted, even if they figure out how and attempt it. (Lower on this page is a section on a new editor who's been recreating and resubmitting an article. I won't ping them because I suspect they're also a victim of the shite mobile software. They're temporarily blocked, but I've just filled out and re-mainspaced Kyuso. It's a town and sub-county in Kenya, and was on needed article lists. Wikipedia should cover the sub-counties in Kenya. It's part of our mission, and we need more coverage of Africa, and we need new editors willing to write such articles (whether they're from Kenya or from Alpha Centauri is not my business.) If I hadn't done my usual eccentric and inexpert thing and bypassed the whole AfC "wait and get rejected because the standard is wayyyy higher than AfD" thing. Credit where credit is due; I have a suspicion it was actually Onel5969 who told me to go ahead and re-mainspace any article I was willing to stand behind, after a particularly painful attempt to get a rewrite/expansion of an article by an indeffed creator, bristling with reliable references, past a reviewer's sniff test. Then 6 months later, poof goes another little bit of our coverage. (Also ... AfD as cleanup, whether or not one views it as heinous, assumes the AfD will attract editors capable of judging the situation. Unfortunately, AfD's are increasingly sparsely attended. We now lose a trickle of articles because nobody turned up who knew the topic area and how to find sources. Not helped by the increasingly common practice of not notifying even the article creator. Not everybody reads their watchlist daily. But then of course some mobile users won't even see an AfD template on their talkpage.) Back when experienced editors were encouraged—begged—to review new pages, it was much less likely that a few people's tastes and blind spots would be magnified in this way. Back when AfC was thought of primarily a way to guide new editors to refine their drafts until they were ready (not likely to be AfD'd and deleted), AfC and draftification worked well to save articles and help retain new editors who wanted to broaden our coverage. But now drafticication is used as a badge of shame or a dustbin, and the bin almost inexorably auto-empties. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autovia C-13 as an example of what I think is wrong with Wikipedia's deletion procedures. I note that Onel5969 started the AfD to forestall an edit war and gave a reasonable good faith rationale for doing so. Other editors objected, one of whom supplied some sources to look at, which other editors agreed gave an indication of notability. All fine in and of itself - here's my problem - not one of those editors improved the article - making the AfD something of a pyrrhic victory as it didn't ultimately help improve the encyclopedia. Now, I don't mind people supplying sources but not improving an article where they don't understand the subject material - in this case, the majority of not all the suitable sources are in Spanish. And indeed, one neutral participant at the AfD said "I do not know Catalan my ability to find sources to demonstrate that notability is limited." - which is fine. But if you don't improve the article - who will? Therefore, I have to take Onel's actions as a good faith attempt to clean up an article nobody was clearly ever interested in improving. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

But if you don't improve the article - who will?: Per the policy WP:NOTCOMPULSORY: Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish People can and do volunteer their time to participate in an AfD and identify a notable topic, without choosing to volunteer more time to improve the page. —Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I know the policy, and to cite it here kind of misses the point I was getting at, which was aimed towards the readers. If somebody reads a Wikipedia article, that in their view is rubbish, they probably aren't going to think "oh well, it's a work in a progress, somebody will fix it eventually, maybe, perhaps"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no excusing the fact that there is no indication in that AfD nomintation that WP:BEFORE was done, ignoring WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. AfD is not an alternative to bypass WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION on content. —Bagumba (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether WP:BEFORE is mandatory or not was one of the questions at the now defunct RFC on AfD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

My problem with this view is that someone was concerned enough about the lack of sourcing in the article to put it through AfD. As part of the process other editors found sources. They could have added those sources to the article but didn't. But the editor who AfDed it in the first place now has access to these sources and if they were so concerned about the state of the article could add the sources to the article themselves. Of course, they are no more compelled to add them than the editors who found the sources. And there may be circumstances - especially when dealing with foreign language or offline sources - when it may not be reasonable for the nominator to add the sources. But if editors are concerned enough about the state of an article to nominate for AfD, I'd think that in most cases they would be happy to add the sources that are found in the course of the AfD. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NEXISTS is policy. I will also point out that say I did add those sources - all I will get in reward is another 3-4 AFDs of various roads (and in fact, Onel still has some AFDs open from his last batch). Given that, I am not especially motivated to do any substantial content work at this point. I don't get paid for this. --Rschen7754 00:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The crux of this all from a PAG perspective is WP:ARTN. So long as an article doesn't qualify for CSD the guideline is clear that it remains regardless of how poorly written, though potentially in consolidated form. Conversely articles that are highly polished and informative should nonetheless be deleted unless the content is appropriate elsewhere. As a practical matter if poorly written article unlikely to ever be improved were a WP:DELREASON we would extend the tally for AFD well into the millions. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And yet continually publishing unsourced or poorly sourced articles is disruptive to other editors, who have to try and clear up the mess. Something editors get routinely blocked for (at least twice on this board since this thread started). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Well there's no obligation for anyone to cleanup anything, however it does obtrude in a way that interferes with the collaborative nature of the project, especially when done at scale. Views on the type and quantity of actions needed to constitute actionable disruption have shifted over the years and both timing and social relationships influence day-to-day enforcement.

As I write this the indexed backlog for just those articles that are entirely without sources goes back 16 years, and would be longer if routine tagging had started earlier. It's still quite underinclusive, and the underreferenced tracking categories are even more so.

How that set of facts should influence our appraisals is a source of friction. Some may focus more on equitable treatment and assess in terms of par for the course, others may focus more on the law of holes. There's quite a range of views in practice and not just in a single dimension. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:TBANs can be proposed for any frequent abusers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 5 April 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". [3] This morning, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) unblocked, describing the block as "a blatant case of admin overreach against an ideological opponent". [4] This unblock has been criticised by Courcelles (talk · contribs) [5]. 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 [6]. 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 [7] 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 [8] 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 [9]. 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[10]. 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)

As Dbachmann's non-response response at ArbCom did not address an understanding of why it was a bad unblock, and what he would do instead in similar circumstances, as well as how he "became aware" of the block he reversed, and as he has not resigned the tools, It is my hope that ArbCom will remove his tools sooner than later. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

IP edits

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

After their last few comments (particularly [11] and [12], 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

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)

  Support In light of the images evidence presented. That's enough to justify revocation of editing privileges. --Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 2 April 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)
• Reopened. Original close reason was: "Consensus for this option is unlikely to form. The general feeling is that abuse of sysop tools and a failure of WP:ADMINACCT is not enough to justify an indefinite block, and the evidence presented, mostly five years or older, isn't enough either. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)"

Apologies to Isabelle Belato, but new information has come to light that I think warrants reopening this discussion. Under the Images section below, there's evidence that Dbachmann has fabricated sources to support "scientific" racism in violation of WP:OR. This is about far more than a one-off case of ADMINACCT failure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the new evidence (below in #Images, referenced above by BsZ). — Trey Maturin™ 12:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Strong evidence of behavior wholly incompatible with Wikipedia. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the sum of the evidence, especially the diagrams. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above and new evidence; pretty clear long-running subtle (or not-so-subtle) POV-pushing of fringe theories; this is unacceptable. If AndrewNguyen was blocked for this, and DBachmann also had the abuse-of-tools thing, then I don't see any reason to hold admins to a lower standard than regular editors. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 19:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per BsZ and Iseult. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support unless he promptly comes here to renounce the images and what they represent. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  23:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Devil's advocate but, while the unblock, comments, and graphic have been concerning and I think a race tban is definitely in line and maybe a desysop, I don't see any disruption outside the race topic to warrant a full indef. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 02:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support and also support referring to WMF for their ban. --Rschen7754 02:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support screams WP:CIR and WP:NORACISTS, especially considering this is an admin we’re talking about, who are supposed to be the best and brightest Wikipedia has to offer. Dronebogus (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The reasons given are for a desysop (which I support), not for an indef. Let's not turn into a careless lynch mob. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  @North8000: You've voted on this proposal twice. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I'm surprised to see that I hadn't !voted on this before, possibly because it was closed before I had the chance to, or because I was counting on ArbCom dealing with Dbachmann promptly with a desysop, which does not seem likely now. In any event, the additional information about falsified images apparently intended to promote scientific racism is more than sufficient to justify a CBAN for Dbachmann. It's a shame that the images will continue to be used on other language wikipedias. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning support in light of the diagram, although I feel a desysop alone would be significantly more appropriate. I'm not too familiar with Dbachmann or his history regarding racism, but the diagram should warrant at least some consequence. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  DeCausa has pointed out that desysoping from ANI is not (currently) possible, so why is a block not more appropriate? Dronebogus (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per diagrams. This is a savvy and therefore dangerous user who has used their familiarity with Wikipedia's systems to spread misinformation undetected. I think a TBAN is not sufficient as there is evidence that this type of editing extends beyond even Wikipedia to Commons and other projects. It cannot continue. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBan per WP:NORACISTS. Racism or any other kind of bigotry is inherently incompatible with the goals of this project. Any unblock should have to be approved by the community. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

Barkeep didn't say the concerns didn't rise to the level of action, and he said he was glad the community was considering it. He said he withdrew it from the motion at ArbCom because he'd gotten community input that it wasn't appropriate there. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thanks for the message. We should be concerned with ongoing disruption, only. This was started by outrage over an unblock and then there was a frenzied approach to overturn, block, punish and ban. I believe that this belongs at Arbcom and it should not be in this limited-participation-forum. There are very few actual Wikipedians that come into this forum, and frankly based on the multiple knee-jerk proposals the folks here are not qualified to deal with this. Arbcom should live up to their charter. They have declined to take important cases several times: like Pontius Pilate they turn cases over to the mob. As someone who was adjudicated by this unfair process, and had my own case dismissed by Arbcom, I am sympathetic to others who get skewered and sanctioned here. Lightburst (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst, this page has 8500 watchers. ArbCom case request page has about 1500, and the decisions there are made by a handful of people. The number of people who've watchlisted the proposed decision page for a current major case is 41. Valereee (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: It is very messy here with knee jerk proposals and it is dependent on whomever happens by looking for drama. It is orderly at Arbcom, and arbitrators with conflict recuse, not so here. Most good editors never come here for any reason. I always check the RFA candidates and many of them do not participate here. I am not telling you anything new, and nothing I am saying will change anything about this process. As I said before, is there an organization anywhere in the world that allows volunteers to skewer other volunteers? Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 2 April 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)

  The disruption was caused by the block itself, which ArbCom is choosing to address or not to address at their discretion as it is within their jurisdiction. I'll be disappointed if

  The disruption was not the behavior otherwise, which was extremely small potatoes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  That is, I'll be disappointed if he ends up with his admin status intact. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:58, 2 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) Struck in light of the below section ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  20:49, 2 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)

  I posted this about 3 hours before David Eppstein brought the racist diagrams to light. That's more than enough recent, on-wiki evidence for me. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  20:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  It still hasn't been substantiated that there's anything racist about the diagram, as much as some editors are trying to read into the color scheme. Sennalen (talk) 04:37, 4 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)

  I don't really care how this is closed, to be honest. It's not going to do much if it's passed other than make people feel good about having done something. If people really want to do something, they should look at the evidence and either clear his name of these serious charges or support indef. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, UTBC! Valereee (talk) 13:14, 2 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)

  I think you're reading much more into Dbachmann's statement than is actually there. What they are done with is dealing with the issues that have been brought up leading to a desysop inquiry and this TBAN discussion - in other words, he has basically told the community to take a hike in regards to its concerns. They have not said anything to lead me to believe that they're removing themselves from editing in the subject area of race. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with BMK. I read it as being done with responding to the concerns, not editing Wikipedia. AFAIK, he's not "retired." And as I see his response as being grossly and totally inadequate, I hope ArbCom will remove his "hat." Be that as it may, there will be enough talk page watchers who would report any further problems coming from his direction. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, I also read his comment exactly the way BMK did. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Beyond My Ken and Floquenbeam. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The evidence is at best five years old but I don't see any evidence that his views have changed since then. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. His comments and graphic show an intent to push a POV in the race area. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 02:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum. --Rschen7754 02:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support even if good faith an admin should absolutely not be making slapdash contributions to an area they seem either biased or confused about. Dronebogus (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if it weren't old, the evidence presented so far doesn't substantiate the existence of a problem apart from the use of admin tools, which is better dealt with by desysoping. Sennalen (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Unlike the desysop (which I support) I haven't seen a case made for this;we don't want to be a careless lynch mob. As an aside, this is a very mild remedy and so not a huge deal either way. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Based on the image below. Though I think the old links are sufficient by themselves, also. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, sure a lot of the evidence is old, but the recent action shows that things haven't changed. Unless dbachmann disavows what he said before, there's no way he should be editing about race (or IMO anywhere on wiki as per Usedtobecool). Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:40, 5 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 [13] [14] [15]? 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)

It's currently used on ~a dozen other wikis, some on multiple articles. Valereee (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that 2018 one is clearly fabricated by a proponent of "scientific" racism. Definitely agree with removing it. And does anyone still *really* think this is someone we should be keeping on this project? If this was a newbie, we'd see a quick and uncontroversial indef. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I personally think that the indef proposal was closed too early and Usedtobecool's comment sums my viewpoint on that matter up quite well:

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". [16] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he's effectively faked content on Wikipedia to support racism. Faking content in an encyclopedia (whatever the motive) has to be about the worst offence there is. I'm going to be bold and reopen the indef proposal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely OR. I go back and forth on whether this figure is OK or if it is misleading. The science itself seems fine to me, but representing populations (the different groups at the top of the image) alongside all populations for a species merged (Everything brown with distinct text) gives the wrong impression to the layreader. This means it looks like the figure says that the modern groups are equivalent to different species, which is a racist dog-whistle. Whether that's because DBachmann didn't notice, doesn't understand the papers he cites, or did it for scientific racism reasons, that's for people who can read minds.

You probably can't simply overlay admixture events (brown lines to brightly-coloured lines) on top of each other from separate papers as the underlying tree will change (plus, those genes may not be flowing from the same population or at the same time, which will change your interpretation). Plus calling it a phylogeny when most people would use that term to refer to species trees is really unhelpful.

Disclaimer: Still fairly new to working in population genetics, so if someone thinks what I've said is wrong, I would appreciate it. Thanks all. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's an MS Paint approach to science; whether due to ineptitude or to racism, it isn't acceptable. The other images that David Eppstein mentioned are less overt, but I am thinking that they are also unencyclopedic synthesis. Starting with a figure based on one journal article and then modifying it is the essence of OR: Why pick those particular modifications? Why include them all at the same level of confidence? Merely verifying that the figure is not misleading becomes a whole research project. (Some of the modifications are not cited at all.) XOR'easter (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. People who wish to work in these areas should be much more careful. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: "Whether that's because DBachmann didn't notice, doesn't understand the papers he cites, or did it for scientific racism reasons, that's for people who can read minds." Or for people who can read the rest of his contributions to the subject, including off Wikipedia. There's no mind-reading needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If you have more information about off-Wiki activity that suggests one or the other, you are far better placed to make that judgement than me. I've only seen the figures. I'd rather not get involved with this topic area - only wished to provide some clarification as to how those papers have been distorted (intentionally or otherwise). NeverRainsButPours (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, appreciate your help, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. Get this shit outta here. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  20:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Homo sapiens lineage.svg is off en.wiki. I haven't gotten around to examining the use of the other three or checking if there are any more in that vein, and I probably won't have time for that today; anyone who would like to beat me to the task is welcome. XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• The topologies depicted in most of these are not inaccurate, and the first one in particular does generally reflect scientific views as I understand them. However, it is not supported by the source provided, and there is clearly a lot of original research going on with the other images as well. If there's a POV agenda here it's definitely subtle; what I find more concerning is that an admin felt it appropriate to create figures on human evolution not explicitly supported by multiple sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

But is it wise to combine three valid topologies to morph through species->poplulation->Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup in the same tree, then say: The six major divisions of modern humans are given as... when the paper says/does no such thing? fiveby(zero) 03:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: You know way more about anthropology than I do. What are we looking at? Is it the same level of concerning as the fringe viewpoints expressed here [17][18] or is it more mainstream-like (even if it might have other issues like synth/OR). I think the former is more relevant to the currently reopened indef proposal if it's a fair representation of these actions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

OR/SYNTH aside, as far as I can tell these particular images are in line with the current mainstream. (Not a palaeoanthropologist!) In light of Dbachmann's comments elsewhere, I can see why the choice to depict human populations with clear open space between them rings alarm bells. And perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it does seem odd that the Khoi-San are the only human population depicted as not 'reuniting' with the rest of the species in recent centuries. But if you compare it to e.g. this image from a textbook by Chris Stringer, he uses the same convention for continental populations. Being charitable, I think the intention is to show (temporary, apart from the Khoi San) reproductive isolation, not speciation, and the whole idea of these 'blobby' diagrams is to convey that human evolution is more messy and interconnected than a conventional cladogram.

That said, when I said to ArbCom that "I've definitely raised an eyebrow or two at DBachmann's contributions before", I was actually thinking specifically of his images. File:IE_expansion.png is still quite notorious amongst prehistorians, for example, even though we stopped using it on enwiki years ago. If there are more images that we're still using on enwiki, I think a close review for OR/synth problems would be a good idea. He has been doing this for nearly twenty years. – Joe (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

File:IE_expansion.png is in-use on over a dozen enwiki articles (and over 500 across all WMF sites) at this time. DMacks (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

In article space: Bronze Age Europe, Genetic history of Europe, Haplogroup R1b, History of Europe, History of Hinduism, History of Russia, Indo-Aryan migrations, Indo-European migrations, Indo-Iranians, Latins (Italic tribe), Neolithic Europe, Peopling of India, Pre-modern human migration, Sanskrit, Western Steppe Herders, and Who We Are and How We Got Here. XOR'easter (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh! Well, it shouldn't be. – Joe (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you know of a place online where subject-area experts complained about it? Blog post, Twitter thread, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I'm thinking of offline conversations. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. To my layman's eyes, the difference between Stringer's diagram and Db's is that Stringer's shows the 4 continental populations all being within a purple circle called "modern H. sapiens", making clear that all continental populations are H. sapiens, whereas Db's diagram does not, suggesting (to my layman's eyes) that H. sapiens split or branches off from H. sapiens into subspecies or separate species, called "non-African" and so on. Also, the admixture lines (if I'm using the right word) in Db's suggests (again, to my layman's eyes) that "non-Africans" mixed with African genes, but not the other way around (a horizontal line runs from yellow to the other colors, but it looks one-way to me; orange/red/purple/green lines do not run to the yellow). I could be totally misreading of course. Levivich (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Could be. I'm not sure what the change of colour from Homo sapiens purple is supposed to mean. Or what the recent admixture events depicted by the 'arrows' are supposed to be. It's probably telling that neither design convention appear on Stringer's various versions of this diagram, which DBachmann was clearly imitating. I think the general picture---that since our recent common ancestor 300k years ago, most human genetic diversity is in Africa, and this has deep regional structure---is okay. As for the added details, as above it's hard to distinguish incompetence and malice. Either way I think any diagram that relies on synthesis of multiple sources with heavy commentary isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There isn't always a difference between malice and ignorance. In general, I'd categorize racism as malicious ignorance. Db's Nov 2018 comment about the "major races" being subspecies provides some explanation for the Jan 2018 diagram. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

To me, the lack of a labelled X-axis for both figures means the blobbiness of the branches is meaningless. I'm guessing it represents some measure of population size, but without a scale or even a qualitative statement regarding the meaning, it's not very helpful. isaacl (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• I’ve nominated that first image for deletion. You can easily find the relevant discussion by following the link at the top of this section. Dronebogus (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There is reason to believe that there may be OR in these images. The rush to judgement however is not based on an interest in encyclopedic content, but a desire to brand, discredit, and ban a user who has become the object of a personalized vendetta. The attempts to project racist beliefs onto Dbachmann are based on willful misreadings of irrelevant diffs. Article content should not be allowed to become collateral damage here. These images should be discussed with disinterested deliberation on relevant article talk pages and WP:NORUSH. Sennalen (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering the policy aspect, WP:IMAGEOR seems to say that an image depiciting a claim that is otherwise sourced as text is not OR. It does not say anything about whether multiple claims from different sources can be depicted in the same image. I would think so, as long as the combination is just compiling facts and information. It would be possible to create an image that synthesizes information from different sources. Image or not, SYNTH is not presumed. That means, SYNTH requires that there be a new, third claim that is not in any of the sources, and if there is such a claim, it should be possible to say what it is. Sennalen (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm looking for anything the image seems to claim that isn't sourced. The closest I've come is the appearance of an introgression from H. heidelbergensis to L0. The literature says there are believed to be two archaic introgressions otherwise unnamed/uncharacterized. On the image, one has no label. The other doesn't have a vertically oriented label like the Neanderthal introgression, so Dbachmann probably intended both the archaic introgressions to be unlabeled, but the appearance of the H. heidelbergensis text below that is confusing at least.

The best reason for removal I can come up with right now is that according to the caption text the image is out of date with respect to more recent research that doesn't place H. heidelbergensis as the most recent common ancestor of Neandethals and H. sapiens. I would support removing this image on that basis. Sennalen (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No, there's definitely OR (synthesis) in these images; NeverRainsButPours has explained why above. And that's no need to 'project' racism when someone says that an African people don't belong to the same species as the rest of us. That statement is indefensible. – Joe (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What he said is that there are understandable reasons for not classifying people as subspecies, despite differences that would be considered enough for any other species. Even if Dbachmann had said what is claimed, it is projecting the speaker's racism to decide that human subspecies would not deserve equal rights and dignity. Every who makes that assumption is telling on themselves. Sennalen (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The only people who promote the idea of “races” being subspecies are racists. As billedmammal mentioned above, humans are nearly devoid of genetic diversity compared with other animals. Dronebogus (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It's right to be suspicious of anyone who is highly invested in any persuasive definition related to race. Sennalen (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Commons has all kinds of stuff that should not be used in an enclyclopedia. And in EN-Wikipedia OR rules are not applied as rigorously as they are for text. I think that the defacto standard in EN-Wiki is that if the veracity of the content looks suspect, (only) then it gets removed if not fully supported. This diagram should not be used in Wikpedia. MO they should not be an admin, but let's not ascribe nasty motives to a simply bad-to-use diagram or turn into a lynch mob over it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Commons has lots of stuff that shouldn’t be on an encyclopedia because it’s used by other projects that are not encyclopedias. Dronebogus (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Desysop Proposal

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

---

Since Dbachmann has responded with what I don't believe is a reasonable explanation and Arbcom seems conflicted on what to do now, the Community should make our wishes clear and formalize what I believe is already our consensus with the request to Arbcom. Please discuss and weigh in on the following proposal:

Given the conduct and accountability issues raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, it has been determined that (a) Dbachmann's behavior is inconsistent with the level of trust required for advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. As such, the community formally requests that the Arbitration Committee remove the account's advanced permissions, either under Level II desysop procedures or any other allowed process.

– The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• endosre with a breathless sigh, as expressed above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Unsure. On the one hand, their only response to the controversy they have generated seems to be "I said what I said" and they have not really elaborated on why they unblocked, or what they have perhaps learned from the lengthy discussion of it. On the other hand, they have also said in each of their posts, that they would accede to the decision to reverse their unblock, and have no intention of warring further on the matter. I'm torn between not really engaging with the concerns about the misuse of the admin tools on the one hand, and the clear statements that say they aren't going to cause further problems. I'm really down the middle on this, the mis-applied unblock was fairly egregious, but I also am not sure that there is likely to be a repeat of the problems. Waiting to hear other perspectives before I make a decision. --Jayron32 17:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Sure, what the hell. Support. I definitely don't think they should be an admin, so the only concern is "this isn't how we usually do things". And frankly, perhaps this would function as an anti-dithering gambit at ArbCom. I admire the attempt to bootstrap a new community-based desysop process, and this isn't half bad. A nearly-unanimous community opinion that someone should be desysopped - i.e. they've lost the community's trust - should result in an ArbCom motion to desysop, with the option of a new RFA. I'd like to see how this plays out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that this isn't how things typically go (when they go at all...), but of course a lot of how we "usually do things" began when somebody just started doing it and the community went along because it made sense. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse severely incompetent use of powerful tools. Tarnishes the office. Dronebogus (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I'm sure ArbCom will get there eventually, but it's like herding cats trying to keep track of their multiple discussions. It doesn't help either that there are four "inactive" ArbCom members and two more that appear to edit very sporadically. Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's almost funny how utterly unfit Dbachmann is to to be making any sort of administrative decisions on anything whatsoever, and the ADMINACCT violations are so large they can be seen from space. His attitude is entirely incompatible with the expectations of administrators - you aren't allowed to go around doing whatever you want and ignoring the positions of others, including other administrators. To those who claim there's no evidence there will be further disruption - there has been zero indication Dbachmann won't pull a similar stunt in the future, seeing as he's apparently learned nothing from the massive blowback. Ignoring the concerns of the community, Arbcom, and other administrators simply isn't acceptable conduct for any administrator. Since Dbachmann won't save a bit of dignity and resign, we have no choice but to bring about desysop by force. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support For all of the discussed reasons and rationales. Too much to recap, and IMO this is slam dunk obviously needed. North8000 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Unblocking of AndewNguyen should have been the correct eventual outcome, but only following substantive discussion. By unblocking unilaterally and not communicating adequately, Dbachmann has shown they are unable or willing to properly act in the role of administrator. Sennalen (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with thanks to Wordsmith for posting this proposal. Dbachmann's various actions have not been consistent with what we expect of our administrators. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Succinct, and to the point. Wikipedia can manage well enough without an admin so utterly at odds with the standards required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. --JBL (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. If part of ArbCom's decision comes down to whether an admin has lost the confidence of the community, then why not specifically tell them and make it easier for them? I like this idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comment on the RFAR; it seems extremely clear that Dbachmann was using administrative tools to advance a particular point-of-view on a topic on which they were deeply involved (see the bit in their original explanation about the overbearing ideological "mainstream"), and it's clear from their more recent comment that they're completely unremorseful about this and believe it would have been appropriate when they were last active as an administrator in 2011. As I said there, this sort of behavior has never been appropriate for an administrator - in fact, as mentioned above, he was warned about it in 2008; long ago, certainly, but it shows that this isn't a matter of norms having changed and an older user being unaware of that fact. --Aquillion (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The usual RfA standard is "not a jerk, has a clue." Levivich (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - although I think this is moot since looking at the arb case, there is now a majority of arbs supporting this, so I suspect it'll be actioned shortly. I've been encouraging Dbachmann to communicate here so he can dig himself out of this hole, and they don't seem to be interested in doing so. WP:ADMINACCT is one of the most important policies for administrators to follow - people (or at least a sufficient subset of them) tend to be reasonable about articles being deleted or editors blocked if you can explain it in ways they understand. Having an attack of ANI flu is not acceptable. Sure, it sucks to have what appears to be a lynch mob on ANI calling for your head - but in my view that's what you sign up for when you become an admin, unless you do really uncontroversial stuff, and somebody's got to do the difficult work and be prepared to have shit thrown at them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Admins are not martyrs, and if he wasn't an admin, he'd have been indef'd a week ago. His sysop bit is protecting him; it's a shield not a liability. Levivich (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Levivich. See also WP:SUPERMARIO. Bishonen | tålk 12:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC).

• Support per Dbachmann's indication that he no longer understands the rules of the project. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose simply because this frenzied approach to discipline is not the way to achieve justice. Arbcom should live up to their charter. This forum is exactly how mobs operate: constantly throwing up charges until one sticks. We should close all of these open threads and make Arbcom live up to their charter. This is not a place where this case can get a fair hearing. If someone is about to be Desysopped it should be done through a fair and impartial process, in a place were evidence is presented and arbitrators evaluate... now, if only Wikipedia had a process that could accommodate that process. JMHO. Lightburst (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I respect that view, and of course the possibility for pitchfork mobs has to be recognized. My suggestion if a process like this were to move forward is that the consensus here would have to be very strong and essentially undeniable, above what might be considered consensus at an XFD or maybe even an RfA. I only did this because it seems to be an accurate distillation of what the community already has consensus on above and at WP:RFAR, they just didn't have the wording to summarize it. Nearly everyone in these discussions believe that Dbachmann should not continue to be a sysop. The role of the Arbitration Committee is another solid argument from you, and sure this is borderline. WP:ARBPOL says the scope of the committee includes serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve and requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools. I see this proposal as the community stating that they are in agreement on how to resolve the user conduct issue, and are making the request for tool removal with one voice (like an RfC proposal) rather than dozens of individual statements in the RFAr. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  If we're not supposed to petition ArbCom like this, how exactly are we supposed to "make ArbCom live up to its charter"? (enphasis mine) Thoughts and prayers? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: This forum should not exist. It is messy, and unfair. Individual editors can undo closure like above, or erase people's comments and control the process here like Levivich did when I was taken before this mob. The fact that discussion extends past even one day is an indication that this is not an urgent issue requiring immediate action to protect the project. My thoughts are that no volunteer in any organization should ever be forced to stand in the center and be stoned by other volunteers. It is haphazard, and emotional. Try this proposal...no? Then try this proposal. I realize that I am only be repeating myself and I am in the minority. But we should strive to be better and to treat volunteers better. Perhaps if we had think of each other as real people. Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If the discussion lasts less than a day, it's too knee-jerk and unfair. If the discussion lasts more than a day, it's not urgent. Thru inescapable logic, we deduce that only discussions lasting exactly 24.00 hours should be permitted here. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Flippant comes easy for you but I hope that you can understand the sentiment I am conveying. The top of this forum states: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Is this that? Lightburst (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Flippant takes longer than you might think. But anyway, an issue doesn't have to be an urgent incident AND a chronic intractable behavioral problem. It can be just one. It could theoretically be done at AN instead, but I assume you would still object. I'm not sure that objecting to the very idea of AN/ANI is a good reason to oppose a particular proposed task, any more than being opposed to the very idea of RFA is a good reason to oppose a particular candidate. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I truly believe this matter belongs at Arbcom. The rest was just me proselytizing which muddied up my position. We elect Arbcom members for just such a case. But as to your comparison I do not equate this forum to RFA, nobody gets blocked for losing. But they do if they dare to oppose a candidate. Happened most recently in the Aoidh RFA when Synotia got blocked for opposing. even if it does not look like it, I like you Floquenbeam. You helped me previously when I needed help. I only noticed recently that you were snarky about me in this RFA. I believe we sort of hugged it out on your talk page. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

But @Lightburst, that block was lifted 26 minutes later by the blocking admin after several people objected. Doesn't it seems like a better example of the system working than of it not working? Valereee (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

erase people's comments and control the process here like Levivich OK, I don't think I erased anybody's comments, and as for controlling the process here... remember that time I reported you for COI and you got autopatrolled? I'm not very effective at controlling processes here. Levivich (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever this was, is one reason this forum is bunk. Your COI charges were also bunk. And I have the autopatrolled right because I create content and do not need to be patrolled - that is how it works. As long as you can control the processes: by erasing other's contributions, diminishing and discrediting those who do not agree with you, it will be an unfair process. Would it surprise you to know that you have 3,161 to this forum and 1,185 to AN? And only 17.2% of your edits are in main space? My own main space participation is too low at 33.4%. So I have to take my leave now. Also I am supposed to WP:AVOIDYOU lest I be accused of PAs. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose if ArbCom is conflicted on what to do, then I have no meaningful viewpoint to offer either way. If ArbCom ever becomes unconflicted on this issue, any viewpoint I may offer would not matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  But Paul, isn’t this a “neutral” rationale, rather than an “oppose” rationale? Unless you’re saying that no one could have a meaningful viewpoint? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  That wasn't my intent, people are free to state their point of view or belief. I oppose that we take a position as a group on this matter. If ArbCom wants our opinion, they'll ask us.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich above at 11:51. If ArbCom are too busy debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (it's 16, by the way) then the community must act. — Trey Maturin™ 14:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I'm tempted to support this because I (mostly) agree with the sentiment. I'm also tempted to oppose it because I very much agree with Lightburst about the dangers of mob rule, and because I don't think it's appropriate to be telling arbcom what to do. But, every time I get close to writing that, I realize how silly it is. Of course it's appropriate for people to express their opinions, and a petition to a higher authority is a time-honored way of doing that. Arbcom has even availed itself of that process when it felt the need.

A few days ago, Special:Diff/1146923962 made me worry that the community might try to implement a WP:TBAN which was effectively a desysop. That would have been a mistake, because only arbcom has the authority to do that. Had it been attempted, things might have gotten ugly. But the wording of this proposal is explicitly just making a request that arbcom do something, which is perfectly legitimate.

I've long felt that we should have a community recall process for admins. There have been a few proposals in the past, none of which have gotten very far. Perhaps what's happening here now could be used as the start of a new proposal. Policy making on enwiki has always been codification of existing practice. Now we have an example of the community ostensibly making a decision to desysop somebody. All that remains is to declare that we're OK with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m okay with it. We really do need a community recall process for urgent and fairly uncontroversial “rogue admin” cases. Dronebogus (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith this is good example of when the community should be able to desysop. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

7 and 2-half days discussing this matter, plus another 24 hours of this particular sub-discussion, then to WP:BN with the results and a further 48 hours of discussion there and then a -sysop from a 'crat (or not)... it's not particularly tidy, but it does seem to be a process of sorts. There are certainly worse ones in our various nooks and crannies. Pending getting community buy-in on an actual process (currently likely to happen sometime before the heat death of the universe) this doesn't seem that bad, considering. — Trey Maturin™ 16:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The best method we currently have for deciding such things is Arbcom. Certainly not ANI! If one thinks that someone should be desysopped, then one should request Arbcon to open a case. Even if such a proposal were to gain consensus at ANI, Arbcom should still handle the case with its normal processes, so I'm not sure what effect it would (or should) have. Certainly it should not effect Arbcom's decision, which should only be based on the evidence, and not on the opinion of ANI! Paul August ☎ 16:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Paul, I think the main effect it could/should have on ArbCom's decision is that it would be a clear message that the admin has lost the trust of the community. That is information that we currently have no way of telling ArbCom, and information that I think ArbCom should have when making a decision to desysop. This is not an end run around ArbCom, it is a way of telling ArbCom that the community doesn't want someone to be an admin anymore. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  The opinion of the community should definitely be of interest to ArbCom and I can see nothing bad coming out of them recognising it. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  The point here being that ArbCom appear unable to decide whether to take the pending case, or to decide by motion, or to use Level 2, or to reject the above, or to do nothing, or to do something. Whilst they debate what they can do when faced with an apparently racist administrator who has said that they will not engage in any process that deals with their wheelwarring and/or apparent racism, which is apparently nothing, then it falls back to the community to act. — Trey Maturin™ 17:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support There are no policies or guidelines preventing us from making a formal request of ArbCom. I 100% support this as DBachmann has shown themselves to be out of touch with current norms expected of admins and no indication they plan to change or try to understand the isssue. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support at minimum; this is a petition to Arbcom, which derives its authority from community consent. If I may quote Alan Paton: “The Judge does not make the law. It is people that make the law. Therefore if a law is unjust, and if the Judge judges according to the law, that is justice, even if it is not just.” Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Pointless is this thread. ANI can't desysop, but meanwhile ArbCom, pretty obviously, is meandering however tortuously but inevitably to a desysop. There's no urgency. Despite some rather artificial wringing of hands elsewhere in this thread, there is no realistic threat of Dbachmann suddenly re-emerging to wreak havoc which needs countering now. (and even in the unlikely event that happens there would be a host of admins jumping to indef within nano seconds). Everyone just needs to stand down and let Arbcom take its course. DeCausa (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose While I do personally support a desysop (and a CBan), we should follow the same process as we usually do. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support As it seems unlikely that a resignation is forthcoming, I urge ArbCom to desysop as he has lost the trust of the community. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support – The community has no confidence in the ability of Dbachmann to serve as an administrator in 2023, and calls on ArbCom to take action, either by case or by motion. The community has elected the ArbCom, and sometimes the community may remind the ArbCom to do its duty. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Support While I'm against a topic ban for what I feel are significant procedural reasons, I have little question that Dbachmann's use of the administrative tools are not consistent with the standards expected of an administrator, nor is there any reason he needs the tools. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, but only through the proper procedures. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Dbachmann has certainly lost the trust of the community, and this petition to ArbCom seems an appropriate way to convey that to the body that can take action. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• This appears to be moot, and has been since 14:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC) when the 7th vote for the desysop motion was cast. Can we wrap this up or nah? nableezy - 17:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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 [19] 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 [20] 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.[21]

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'. [22] 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 [23][24] 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 [25] 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 [26]. 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. [27] 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 ([28][29][30]), 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 [31], [32] and [33]. 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 [34] 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)

Just because Wikipedia does not buy into the creeds of the Yazidis, it does not mean that Wikipedia is anti-Yazidis. Similarly, just because Wikipedia does not buy into the creeds of Judaism, it does not mean that Wikipedia is anti-Judaism. It is simply religiously neutral. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

At [35] he accuses me of hounding him for two years, as a reply to [36]. I wasn't hounding him, my approach to his edits for the past two years has mainly been to get the popcorn. See https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=jaredscribe&users=tgeorgescu&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki . Every interaction time larger than 30 days is irrelevant, and when we have had edit wars, those are roughly two years old. Also, accusations such as due to your use of the Egyptian and later imperial Roman calendar system and astrology are nonsensical and ridiculous. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 3 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: [37]. "Non-solar religion" does not appear on Google. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

My own coinage is a {{humor}} response to the charge of "lunatic charlatan" POV-pushers, which is found on your user page. Of course I've never put the term "solarian religion" into a mainspace article. I was not aware that User pages are required to meet encyclopedic standards of verifiability and reliable sourcing. Jaredscribe (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I've improved many articles on the various Lunisolar calendars of Asian civilizations. I don't see why that is a problem. We have articles on Babylonian calendar, Hindul calendar, Hebrew calendar, and I've contributed to them. Is that POV-pushing?

Nevertheless, I just now removed the offensive material from my user page. Now instead it reads "western christianity" and "post-christian rationalism". Is that satisfactory? I hope not insulting any Europeans by the term. If I've offended anyone, I'm very sorry. Jaredscribe (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support A 31h block and two article-specific blocks, along with a talk page with many admin run-ins already. We've blocked others for much less agitation, and I really didn't appreciate him questioning my competency for merely issuing him a warning. If anything, at least block them from Middle East and Tesla/EL-related articles and creating new attack essays, along with a requirement to keep any talkpage responses edited, short, and concise. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support I was going to propose a namespace-ban from Wikipedia space, but after seeing "Lessons Learned through a hostile AfD" on his talk page it seems likely that would just move the disruption elsewhere. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Jaredscribe has always struck me as the type of editor who, despite being highly motivated to build a free encyclopedia and working towards this goal in good faith, neither understands the methodology by which we work here nor is willing to learn about it and eventually follow it.
  In their view, Wikipedia editors should take a scholarly approach, directly representing the attributed views of primary and/or non-secular (e.g., religious Jewish) sources to 'correct' and 'balance' the mainstream academic view, which they regard as systemically biased by enlightenment ideology. See, e.g., here, where they define this type of "deliberate ignorance" promoted by "previous generations of European and Anglo-American scholars" as "anti-Jewish systemic bias". While there are many possible interpretations of WP:NOR (I myself believe that scholarly experts who edit WP should be allowed some more editorial discretion than is typically held safe, especially in the evaluation of secondary sources), Jaredscribe's perspective here is fundamentally at odds with the core goal of representing mainstream academic views untainted by editorial selection and interpretation of non-academic sources. Yes, following existing policy will reproduce the systemic bias inherent in mainstream academic views, but the alternative of allowing direct representation of non-academic (primary) sources without any restriction is a pandora box by which, once opened, any perceived systemic bias will become a valid excuse to contradict expert academic knowledge and to push non-mainstream or fringe views.
  Any editor who like Jaredscribe prefers to start from primary sources and has an axe to grind with mainstream academia is a liability to the project. I understand Kashmiri's hesitancy to straightly go to the 'nuclear option' of an indef, but as others have pointed out, no single-page block or topic ban will solve the basic IDHT issue. Editors have been trying to educate Jaredscribe for two years yet their attitude remains the same. It seems beyond doubt to me that this attitude makes them a net-negative, in the sense that many articles (I'm thinking, for example, about the articles related to Aristotelianism that they've edited "in the living tradition of aristotelian scholasticism", i.e. from an explicitly neo-Aristotelian POV) are likely affected in ways that only someone thoroughly familiar with the academic secondary literature will be able to recognize, let alone correct.
  What should be done to prevent this? Short from an indefinite block, which I would support if no other action is taken, perhaps we could devise some editing restriction disallowing Jaredscribe any and all usage on Wikipedia of primary sources, broadly construed? Would that solve the existing problems? If so, this would give them the chance to learn how to edit starting from a review of secondary sources, as ideally we should all be doing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I really can't see how it can be justifiable to continue to permit someone to edit articles at all if it is necessary to impose such a broad-brush restriction to prevent them doing damage. And no, I don't see it solving the existing problems: there are far too many of them, and a 'no primary sources ban' (which would be a nightmare to monitor, and easy to argue around: see the way secondary sources were used in the 'Tesla Master Plan' article were cited simply to restate, without analysis, content from the primary sources the article was regurgitating) would do nothing to resolve JaredScribe's endless attempts to reinvent policy to suit his own distinctly oddball agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  And if things weren't bad enough already, JaredScribe has resumed editing the recently-deleted 'Tesla Master Plan' article (now at User:Jaredscribe/Tesla Master Plan, by misusing a cited source in the lede (or whatever the first section is supposed to be, the article was never properly structured). The source cited ([38] from 2016) states Not content with producing sleek electric cars (which to be fair, was only ever a stepping stone to greater things), Musk wants to fundamentally change how we live our lives. But the road to Musk’s techno-utopia may be rocky.". JaredScribe uses this to write Observers have noted in addition that it is a plan for a "techno-utopia" that would "fundamentally change the way we live our lives". Using a source which goes into considerable detail elaborating on the writers thoughts about the social and technological obstacles facing Musk in this cherry-picking manner - picking out words to suit his own promotional agenda from a much more nuanced and sceptical article - is utterly unacceptable. Even after all the criticism his Article received at the AfD he is carrying on writing exactly the same promotional bullshit, without even the slightest gesture towards neutrality. Whether this is due to an inability to understand what others have repeatedly told him, or a refusal to take note of it even after understanding, doesn't really matter at this point. He is clearly and unambiguously a net liability to the project, and self-evidently incapable of acting otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have updated that to make my intentions clear:

  This article has been previously been rejected in an AfD as a POV-fork of Tesla, Inc. It is maintained here as a private study in the math, engineering, and environmental ethics (personal interests of mine which not well covered in the other article). It is not intended as an Encyclopedia-quality article per se or as a replacement or equivalent to that or to History of Tesla, Inc.

  Also tagged it:

  {{original research}}

  ~Because of its heavy use of primary sources. I don't dispute that it was "unfinished" and probably unfit to remain as published. I only dispute the charge that I was in some form of bad faith for making it - promo, CoI, bullshit and everything else you have continually alleged of me - profoundly disrupting my life.

  Jaredscribe (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have twenty or more other user pages that contain my study notes, curriculums, opinions, original researches, and to-do lists on all sorts of topics I'm interested in. None of them are intended for publications. I use wikipedia as a study tool and a research aid. Thats why I made this article. :(

  I like to make stub articles. Most drafts I just abandon, hoping that someone else who is interested will pick it up. :(

  If you all decide to kick me off, please allow me my user subpages so that I can remain as a WP:WikiHobbit, which is how I spent decades here. I only starting to contribute during COVID-19, and I had too much time and relatively isolated. Please have compassion me.

  If you permanetly kick me off :(, please allow me to remain on Wikisource, where I've also made many contributions, where your concerns about my Original Research will not be a barrier to my participation. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTWEBHOST. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  For secondary sources on Aristotle, I recommend Mortimer Adler, W.D. Ross and Richard McKeon.

  I made the article on Octavius Freire Owen, who in the 1800s is AFAIK the first to translate Aristotle into English. (although verify)

  I would like to read more about what she says about Aristotle and Plato, so I made a draft: Draft:Rachael Wiseman

  It seems you have not even evaluated my contributions in that area before assuming they are all bad. Of course, they could all be improved. Most articles had major ommissions when I arrived, and they still do. Jaredscribe (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Adler, Ross, McKeon, and Owen were (none of them is still alive) all neo-Aristotelian philosophers whose primary scholarly interest lies in their own philosophical views which explored how Aristotelian philosophy might still be relevant in the modern world. In other words, with respect to the subject of Aristotelianism they are all primary sources: as Aristotelian philosophers they expounded original views just as much as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Averroes, Maimonides, or Thomas Aquinas, and they are among the prime/original sources for Aristotelianism in the 19th/20th century. Apart from Ross' critical editions of some works by Aristotle which are still widely used, none of the four scholars you name are widely cited in the modern literature on Aristotle himself or on the pre-modern Aristotelian tradition. As secondary sources, they are fringe at best (it's probably more equitable to not consider them as secondary at all, but rather as historical primary sources).

  On the other hand of course, their original views do align with your own neo-Aristotelian world view, and so the fact that you recommend them here substantiates my point that you are most likely editing from an explicitly neo-Aristotelian POV, relying almost exclusively on primary sources. You have a valid point that I did not closely evaluate your contributions in the area, but the fact is that their OR-ish nature on principle makes them inappropriate for Wikipedia. The true problem here is that you are not willing to acknowledge that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has problems, but they're not these: 1 2. That's some parallel universe wikipedia with an authoritarian Borg government enforced by uniformly ignorant managing editors, with a knighthood of upperclassmen wielding swords of reversion against heroic truthspeaking scholars. It's quite the fresh take. I got a little chuckle from If you skip AfC but haven't yet done the diligence and research... mark the article as {{stub}} and {{unreferenced}} when you publish to mainspace, so that others will be encouraged to do the work... Even then, don't assume that editors will do their jobs... (here), but it all feels a bit hopeless. Jaredscribe seems to have a lot of big ideas, about educational reform, calendrical reform, peace in East Asia, and the pursuit and dissemination of free knowledge, all of which sound good to me, up to the details. But his own words cast him as an iconoclast in this alien environment he feels behooved to Fix. I think it's laudable in a human being to be staunchly non-conformist and adhere to their own values and processes, but like, not so much on this website. I don't know that Jaredscribe is necessarily WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, but it seems like it will take a lot of effort on his part to conform to our policies and culture rather than trying to change them so they resonate more closely with his own ideals, and maybe a different venue would better suit his skills and energies. Folly Mox (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Tgeorgescu concludes his authoritative essay on the WP:Academic bias and CHOPSY-supremacism he enforces against "lunatic charlatans" with these words:

  What Wikipedia is can be summed up in these memorable words: "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

  While CHOPSY can be valuable in excluding pseudo-science and historical denialisms, it also against persons of Asian descent or philosophical orientation.

  To call it white-supremacism misses the ideological grounding of the bias, because it has a diversity and inclusion program. If you're a talented Asian, African, Jew, or Arab, they will accept you, but they will also expect you to assimilate.

  I'm hardly the first or only person in academia to attempt a critique of this phenomenon. I don't see why it should be excluded from something that purports to be an WP:Encyclopedia, which is what I'm here to make. An encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge (and you can double-check my contributions to those last two linked articles to ensure that they meet standards)

  Jaredscribe (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  In case I wasn't clear: it is about the culture of Wikipedia, as in being a Wikipedian, not about WASP culture. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  It may be helpful to note that, doubtlessly like a lot of other editors around here, I personally do not at all agree with the 'Borg' metaphor, and that in general I find both tgeorgescu's essays WP:CHOPSY and WP:Academic bias overbearing, simplistic, and likely to do more damage than good. The fact that Jaredscribe got so hung up on them (what with the 'anti-Borg' attitude) is probably due to a mistaken perception of them as closer to being policy than to being a limited number of editors' interpretation of policy.

  This is something I see a lot, where aggressive essays like that make it harder to teach new editors how we work here, because of the defenses they naturally build up against a simplistic and authoritarian version of it. I believe a 'nudging' approach may be much more effective here. Of course we're all bound to have different opinions on that, but I think that the way the 'Borg' metaphor was received here may be a good example of why the essays' overall approach might need some polishing at the very least. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  What you don't understand: we're not UN Security Council, negotiating the fate of whole countries. We are writing an encyclopedia. Its not racial or even ethnic bias - its Graeco-Roman imperialism with a diversity and inclusion program. Nope, we are not running an empire, we are writing a summary of world's knowledge. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Apaugasma: The wording can of course be tweaked, but my reasoning is very simple: Wikipedia cannot not stand for something. I gave my two cents of what it stands for, even if that's merely a rough idea. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Tgeorgescu for admitting that you too are explicitly, deliberately pushing a POV.

  And doing it with great zeal all over the encyclopedia.

  Jaredscribe (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Making "propaganda" for science, art, and culture, as rendered by very reliable WP:RS isn't brainwashing or even POV-pushing, but merely education, which is the core task of an encyclopedia.

Here I do make the allowance that: brainwashing is education which the speaker disagrees with. E.g. Boko Haram with Western education. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Reassess to 18 month partial block from project namespaces as lower bound per confrontational pseudolegal bloviating and tedious timesinky not-getting-it. All the undiscussed PAG changes, userspace POV forks of guidance pages, the whole RGW tenor, the forum shopping.... You don't show up to a shared space and rearrange it to suit your liking over the protestations of others. I really think it would be healthier for Jaredscribe to contribute to a different knowledge project than have his spirit broken to the point where he's able to contribute here with neither disruption nor resentment, although that breakage may come naturally as the decades pile on. Folly Mox (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Alt suggest 18-month block, or other long temporary block. The evidence is clear. I think an indef can get the job done, but ideally blocks should be preventative. I think that if they're holding this much grudge or force against the general community, they should get some sort of block, but I'm leaning towards the idea that they could use this time to reflect. I would only suggest reining in an indef if after 18 months (or another long period of reflection time), and they still act authoritatively towards the community in an WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE manner. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I affirm the WP:5P and whatever I can do to conform my content and conduct to those principles, I will. My only dispute is a relatively minor one with WP:CHOPSY and how its presented and enforced here (which in many ways does not reflect academic consensus, IMHO, although it should) -

  In that dispute I recognize the value of WP:Academic bias on most subjects. I've updated my user page and diatribes to reflect that. Those were unfinished works-in-progress not meant to be widely read. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support changing the rules (or extremely well established guidelines) to suit your own ends is not acceptable, and tldr-fu when you don’t get your way is just disruptive and annoying. Dronebogus (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Additional evidence of WP:NOTHERE/WP:GREATWRONGS/WP:BATTLEGROUND problems: he links to the now deleted Iran democracy article from his hyper-political twitter (https://twitter.com/jaredscribe) which gives off WP:CANVAS vibes, and also has a lengthy user page simply called “diatribes” which has the same hostile “stick it to the man” tone as his unsolicited edits to established essays. Dronebogus (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  From my social media accounts I've also linked to lots of wikipedia articles about holidays, current events, and topics of interest, most not edited by me. Wikipedia is widely cited on the web as a quickreference for all kinds of things that happen in the world. I'm not the first to cite it. The Mahsa Amini protests are such a current event. I'm not ashamed of using my social media to elevate the voices of those women and Iranian dissidents who want to see a better world. As the closing admin in the now-deleted article noted - it is likely that more scholarly sources will come available in the coming years and this article can be revisited with substantial new sourcing.

  All the material in it was well cited and sourced, and now should be copied into various other articles on the various dissident groups who are working for a peaceful regime change through referendum and constituent assembly, and a new constitutional framework for Iran.

  Although that is not my only interest in the subject of Iranian history; I'm just getting started. See my substantial addition and improvement to the lede here: Persian_alphabet. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BRD is an acceptable process for improving explanatory essays on policy. Where my WP:BOLD proposals (which are encouraged by Wikipedia) have gone to discussion, they have often resulted in productive compromises and improvements. Only in the last weeks has my essay writing been rejected, and I haven't attempted to reinsert it, but remained on the talk page, which is the current status. If you object to my essay contributions, please mention it there and lets collaborate on figuring out how to make the WP:Encyclopedia better than it already is. That is my #1 mission. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think Jaredscribe has offered some creative and interesting critiques of how Status quo stonewalling can prevent improvement of the encyclopedia. Their critique of the CIR essay makes valid points: the essay subtly privileges established content, and the essay is geared to undermine and delegitimise bold contributions from new editors. I don't think that's the intention or only purpose of the essay, but it's built to do that, and Jaredscribe's critique is quite clever and certainly apt. If there's no consensus to change the essay, I'd like to see what Jaredscribe can come up with as counterpoint.
  We know that Wikipedia has problems. This is well documented and frankly irrefutable. If we care about the encyclopedia and want it to be the best it can be, we need to tolerate some critique from people like Jaredscribe who are showing us some of the mechanisms that keep underrepresented POVs from being adequately represented here. These critics won't always have perfect behaviour, but we should not seize on these imperfections as a means for throwing people out of the community when they bring up uncomfortable truths about the encyclopedia.
  Jaredscribe has already said that they will take some time off to reflect. Let's encourage them to do that. I don't think a ban is necessary. @Jaredscribe:, the note about editing your responses is valid. You're using too many words and creating large walls of text. (But that's actually pretty common behaviour! (sigh)) Larataguera (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Larataguera is exactly right:

  the essay subtly privileges established content, and the essay is geared to undermine and delegitimise bold contributions from new editors. I don't think that's the intention or only purpose of the essay, but it's built to do that Jaredscribe (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  You don’t get to massively, unilaterally overhaul a good and well-established essay because you personally disagree with some of it. You can discuss changes or write a rebuttal. Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I feel pity for him, not hate. His whole idea that he knows better than anyone else how Wikipedia should function prevents him from learning how Wikipedia actually works. I don't deny that Wikipedia has problems, but despite his redressing systemic bias jargon, he does not have the solution to those problems. In the end, the calendar is just a convenient, or should I say conventional, way of measuring time, not a religious worship service. I don't care which calendar we follow as long as we understand each other about time. And while having admiration for some scholars is good, turning it into a personality cult is bad. And yup, antisemitism is bad, but he failed to convince anyone that WP:CHOPSY is anti-Jewish (there are Jewish full professors working for CHOPSY, even as Bible scholars). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support With regret. I have been following this one from afar for a bit, and originally intended to weigh in on the side of some sort of lesser sanction than a block. The unearned sense of superiority struck me as bad, but something that could be worked with. When I saw the diffs that Andythegrump so adroitly called "pseudolegalistic horseshit" below, my mind was changed. It is had to imagine someone misunderstanding both the substance and process of Wikipedia so badly. Combine that with the fact that learning calls for humility, and I see nothing good from this editor anywhere in the near future. Dumuzid (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Anyone who makes wide-sweeping suggestions about what should be of prime importance on the main page of the encyclopedia with references to "post-christian academic scientism"[39] and makes multiple "demands" [40][41][42] of other users to "stand down and renounce", before making personal attacks [43], assuming bad faith in other users (that they are not "able to have civil discourse" [44]), is absolutely WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They are here, as demonstrated, to right the great wrongs of "academic scientism" (AKA, our WP:BESTSOURCES) and remove or extinguish their ideological enemies (get them to "stand down" and "renounce"[45] or "Wake up and use start using your brain"[46]) or in whichever other available method, let them have their way. This is an extremely obvious indef that is being obscured by lots of window dressing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Dumuzid stated here about me that he tends to be a lot more proactive than I am. I have realized fairly early that Jaredscribe is up to no good in respect to Wikipedia, and I have reported him to WP:ANI at that time. But my complaint was simply dismissed as "complaining that he is wrong on the internet" (or something to that extent). I think that when editors are clearly opposed to WP:BESTSOURCES/academic scientism, and make their resentment of it clear enough, they should get indeffed without much ado. Since either their ideology or their personality are opposed to Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Although 'scientism' doubtlessly is a pejorative term and as such somewhat vague, it's also to some extent a real position in philosophy of science. Our article states that "the positivist perspective has been associated with 'scientism'", and it's probably fair to assume that people who use the term 'scientism' are generally talking about positivism, in a disapproving manner. But within contemporary philosophy of science, positivism is a distinctly minority position, in some aspects even leaning to fringe. In that sense I think it's rather unfortunate to state that editors who oppose scientism/positivism should be indeffed. Editors whose personal views lean towards positivism are very vocal here on Wikipedia, but ironically enough they are themselves taking a minority/fringe position, and it would be detrimental if such a minority/fringe position would become 'official' Wikipedia POV.

  I agree that we could and should do more to clarify that in any subject covered by academia, Wikipedia is all about exclusively following academic views. In fact, in my opinion this should be a part of core policy rather than an informal practice laid out in a number of (often snarky) essays. Such a policy would make things much clearer for editors like Jaredscribe, and it would allow us to remove them much sooner from the project where needed. But the principle that we follow academic sources only should not be confused with philosophical positions like scientism or anti-scientism. Part of the problem with the current informal/essay approach is precisely that it is too much infused (confused?) with this type of philosophical position. We need something that allows us to be more clear-cut and strict about our actual practice and less philosophically cavalier. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that Comte's positivism has much support from Wikipedians. But if you mean WP:RS-positivism, that's quite another matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  There are several forms of positivism, Comte's one being of the more fringe-leaning type I hinted at above. But what is something like "WP:RS-positivism" if not precisely the confusion of WP principles with hardline philosophical stances I was talking about? There need be nothing 'positivistic' about following RS, and acting as if it does alienates (new) editors with different, at least equally mainstream philosophical views. We need to agree on a methodology for writing an encyclopedia, not on a worldview. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Upholding WP:BESTSOURCES is not pushing a worldview. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support I learnt about this a few days ago and then reverted Jaredthescribe on Wikipedia_talk:Competence_is_acquired (where their takes were mostly reasonable, but the wording was weird). Since then I've somewhat followed this thread but stayed away. This diff has convinced me an indef is the only way. A new editor who made that comment would be blocked at first edit. (Whether that is more about treating newcomers more kindly or treating "prolific editors" more fairly, I cannot say) The rope must end somewhere, so indef and move on with our lives please. Soni (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose an indefinite block or community ban. Jared has posted incompetent nonsense, and has been blocked for it for a week. Let's see whether, when he comes off block, he has learned not to post about matters about which he is ignorant. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon I will note that the block was not about incompetent nonsense but personal attacks, specifically this one.

  Whether or not the "incompetent nonsense" deserves a longer/separate block, is for the community to decide. Soni (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was sloppy in my comment. I knew that the block was for personal attacks. But I think that discussing an indef at this point would be kicking a defenseless person. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support If you review the posts Jaredscribe has made in response to the complaints raised in this thread, and also read through all of the discussions linked herein that led to this report being made, the result is exhausting. These aren't quirky takes on certain topics, they're complete and utter time sinks. Their response to the block does not indicate that anything will change once the block expires. I don't think Jaredscribe's communication style is compatible with the consensus and collaboration-based nature of Wikipedia. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Jaredscribe was made aware (by several editors) that he has been engaging in WP:SYNTH, was asked to stop, but he continues to engage in WP:SYNTH. That resonates with the same kind of WP:IDHT that others are complaining about here. A quick look at his talk page shows these and other things have been a long-term problem. WP:AGF can only go so far, and here it has been exhausted. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Urgent admin action needed

Seen [47] and [48], I think that urgent admin action is needed. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

an appeal to brute force does not constitute a sound argument. Let alone an academically acceptable argument.

Answer the charges, or else stand down and renounce.

Jaredscribe (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What is this even? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

'Charges'? ROFL. Go peddle you ridiculous pseudolegalistic horseshit somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Once again, ridicule and verbal abuse do not constitute a sound argument.

@AndyTheGrump has already been conclusively refuted at the Village Pump on the issue of competence generally and CIR essay in particular:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Competence_is_Desired_and_Acquired Jaredscribe (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's give the bovines and equines a break here. Aardvark-shit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop thinking with your ass. Wake up and use start using your brain.

What you mean to say is "nonsense", or "worthless".

If thats what you mean , then say it. whereupon we will be able to have civil discourse for the first time yet.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Jaredscribe (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What I mean is aardvark-shit. Bullshit, Capybara-shit. Dingo-shit. Emu-shit. Fennec-fox-shit. Gnu-shit... You get the picture? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wombat shit is cube-shaped EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Are wombats philosophers I wonder? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

He is asking for help in answering this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force § DEMANDS of ACADEMIC-bias POV-pushers at WP:CHOPSY

Jaredscribe (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Jaredscribe Sorry, you don't get to "DEMAND" anything around here. I'd remove that nonsense before someone (possibly me) decides to block you instead. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not demanding from the admins or from the wikipedia community as a whole, I only demanding from @Tgeorgescu.

And there is some consensus for my demand that the

CHOPSY POV-pushing now be subjected to the same scrutiny that my "neo-Aristotelian" POV is being subjected. As mentioned by @Apaugasma and @Larataguera

above.

He has demanded removals of allegedly offensive content from the WikiProject:CSB and from my user page - my novel coinage of Solarian religion to refer to the Gregorian calendar currently in use. I have complied and removed the offensive term in both places.

It is just and equitable for me to expect in return that he remove the pejorative lunatic charlatan from his user page and the userbox deprecated on the grounds of WP:Civility and WP:NPOV

Thank for please carefully considering the matter deliberatively, before you decide.

Jaredscribe (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

How about replacing it with 'Moon-obsessed pseudoscholar' instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, I did not ask you to retract those terms. I have merely stated that those terms are WP:1DAY. AFAIK, the terms could even be true, but since they are not mentioned in any WP:RS, the point is moot. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I allege WP:1DAY of lunatic charlatan. Although polemical diatribes may be useful in political and social debates, they are generally not reliable sources for anything other than the person making them.

And since you are purporting to represent CHOPSY, you ought to hold yourself to higher standard than the average editor. Make your critique more precise, so that it is answerable. Ridicule is not answerable in the spirit of scholarly discourse. Jaredscribe (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The terms "lunatic charlatans" have been expressed by Jimmy Wales, speaking in the name of the Wikipedia Community. There are many mainstream media which have reported it. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What the crap is a chopsy…? Dronebogus (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:CHOPSY. It's an essay, though a very reasonable POV. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that I blocked Jaredscribe for a week for personal attacks [49] --Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:NCdave

User is currently POV-pushing while affected by a COI [50] at CO2 Coalition [51]. 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)

The "number of temporary blocks" happened 14+ years ago. Mentioned diffs are of talk-page/noticeboard posts, and if they're too long can be ignored without need to bring up the bludgeoning essay. WP:COI says twice that an external relationship "can trigger" COI, not "does trigger", determining for disclosed unpaid group membership might reasonably be brought to WP:COIN but instead the accusation went to WP:FTN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Re COI: The user referred to the CO2 Coalition as "our organization" on the CO2 Coalition talk page. On the FTN they identify as "a member and unpaid volunteer" (one of 107 members apparently) and refer to the organisation as a "very worthy charity".

Re FRINGE: The reason that @Hob Gadling has taken the issue to FTN instead of COIN is probably that they were more concerned with the user's pushing of fringe theories than their COI. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes NCDave disclosed being a member. Yes Hob Gadling said "whitewash" as well as "WP:COI" when starting the WP:FTN thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the Accusation went to FTN and then here because, the primary problem is that they were for edits that reflect their organisation's viewpoints on the page for their organisation, and said organisation happens to fall under WP:Fringe's purvieuw, so that's coincidentally the first noticeboard that picked it up. It should probably have been brought to COIN as well but I don't necessarily see how the noticeboard involved makes a difference here. as for the 14 year gap in their activity, yeah, there was one. I brought up their long list of warnings and blocks from before the ban because it looked a lot like the user was starting to return to the behaviour they initially got their temporary bans for.

That being said, NCDave seems to have ceased editing after people started talking about ANI, so I would not be opposed to closing this discussion for now with a note that it can be resumed if the problematic behaviour resumes. We're not here to punish, after all. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm on the same page as @Orangemike and behind the idea of an indefinite broadly construed TBAN on climate change, first appealable after six months. Ideally, I'd like to see editors learn from their mistakes on the site. A TBAN with a 6 month appeal is best when it comes to editors like this, as it's preventative while not punitive through the enablement of the 6-month appeal. While many of us know this, I find it important to mention a TBAN enables NCdave to edit on other areas of the encyclopedia constructively, such as maybe on movies, technology, computer science, tipflation, and taxes. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:28, 3 April 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)

To me at least, this diff by the IP is near-blatant racism against Chinese people, alleging that all of them are CCP supporters. This should be grounds for some sort of sanction, likely a block. I am not invested in the situation enough to offer a further opinion on sockpuppetry, but I would encourage anyone who does find the necessary evidence and necessity to open up an SPI. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:13, 3 April 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)

  No, please could we close it with a specific advisory directed at the relevant editors? This is a teachable moment.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I support either outcomes here. I myself would only remove talk page comments that are unambiguously vandalism or disruptive, and I don't see how the comments that were being removed here fit that category at all. AP 499D25 (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Y'all need to do it like this: User talk:CEvansMCO#Draft:Brett Stewart (musician) —Alalch E. 23:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  4,138 bytes...sigh. Tails Wx 12:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Meet you in the middle at 3.3k? —Alalch E. 13:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Joking aside, I agree with S Marshall. Support closing with a balanced specific advisory. —Alalch E. 13:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  How about something along these lines?

  In order to strengthen Wikipedia's third pillar, we advise Blaze Wolf to try to welcome newcomers to Wikipedia. In particular, he should revert only when necessary, refrain from edit warring in talk pages, and answer clarifying questions about his application of Wikipedia's policies. Additionally, we advise 47.232.88.19 (talk) to contribute more to discussion than a simple poll by suggesting specific changes based in Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

   — Freoh 02:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I used to welcome newcomers before I ever warned them. I stopped after I read something (I don't recall where) that said that welcoming didn't really do much to increase editor retention or something. So I stopped because I didn't see much of a point. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I personally don't think a specific targeted/logged warning is necessary here. Most of the issues mentioned above (edit warring etc) don't really seem relevant to this circumstance. Regarding the Welcoming issue, it may or may not increase editor retention in the statistics, but can be a nice thing to do and takes up very little time especially with Twinkle. I think if I could give you a message to take to heart, it would be that most people (and by extension, most new Wikipedians) are genuinely trying to do the right thing and be a good person. Wikipedia is a Byzantine nightmare of complex policies, guidelines and other conventions that us veterans know but aren't even written down anywhere. If you see somebody who is technically breaking the rules but looks like they might be doing it because they don't understand the rules and are doing the best they can, it can be more helpful to leave them a personalized note explaining what they did wrong and how to do it right than dropping templates or ALLCAPS links to our (very long and dense) policies and telling them to read it. It costs nothing to be nice. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Also, holy run-on-sentence, Batman! The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:07, 6 April 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 [52]. 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 [53].

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 [54] (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 [55] (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) [56] [57]. 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)

  That's actually the signature of Bing Image Creator, which is indeed powered by DALL-E. PopoDameron ⁠talk 03:49, 4 April 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)

  I just want to humbly apologize that I won't be of any help to you guys now. It's just that after getting blocked I have lost all spark for editing on WP and and I don't want to get myself further involved. Again, I would say sorry for my any potentially harmful actions. GyanKnow _{contributions?} 11:29, 2 April 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[58] 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)

• On his talk page, BrownDan101 has helpfully pointed out that he also used AI in one other page, namely Alfred University Football, which has since moved around quite a bit, and is now seemingly located at Alfred Saxons.----Licks-rocks (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be the change(s) he made to the page; if he used AI for that, I don't know what the value was. The edit is fine. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I went into the page logs, and that is not entirely accurate. I was mistaken about the new location: He did indeed create the page at one point, but it was then moved and subsequently draftified for lack of verifiability. It's just that unlike with the above articles, nobody realised what they were looking at. Dan seems to have then gone to the new redirect target, where he performed the edit you described (which is why I assumed that it was still the same article). --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• BrownDan101 has made a formal unblock request. He seems to understand what he did wrong, explained that he didn't realize that the AI was making up fictional references, and promised never to do it again. I'm inclined to accept as his apology seems to be sincere, but I'd like to see some feedback here first. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'd support an unblock. The unblock request (and their comments leading up to it) seem sincere and remorseful. They make me feel comfortable that this user would not use LLM on Wikipedia going forward. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Also support an unblock. Possible to assume this was a good faith error on his part, and he will not repeat his mistakes. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

After reading through his comments at his talk page, I support an unblock of BrownDan101. Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I have unblocked BrownDan101. Cullen328 (talk) 15:44, 5 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.[59]. 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)

Heh, therein lies the rub. That, and proactively warning people against it is highly likely to backfire by giving people ideas. But the post facto cleanup, I think, will one day be unsustainable, hence my suggestion of a block-on-discovery thing as damage limitation. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 14:17, 2 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)

  Discussion about these templates is continuing at the dedicated central warning template talk: Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#New series: uw-ai —Alalch E. 14:28, 4 April 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)

Spooninpot is definitely a sock of Placeographer77, the latter of which has just been blocked by Materialscientist. Look no further than these two “snap to grid” diffs.

[60] by Spooninpot above in this very ANI; and

[61] by Placeographer.

@G. Timothy Walton: if the outcome of this ANI results in a block that doesn’t match the block of Placeographer77, I suggest you start a case at WP:SPI. Hwy43 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hwy43: Thanks. I'll give it a few days and act if I have to. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You guys talking to yourselves again? Spooninpot (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, here we go again. Latest behaviour of Placeographer77's sockpuppet, including one where he retitles a section on someone else's Talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1148088237
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1148089748
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1148096777

Hopefully this is finally enough rope. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

They are actually the sock puppet of Placeography76. But as the long arm of the law I wouldn’t expect you to know that.

NB Villages about Awkward Villages offends you, long arm? Spooninpot (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And the hubris continues.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1148432532

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1148429514

The second diff shows the typical level of expertise of the editor behind the sockpuppet, some garbled timeline where legislation that took effect in 2018 wasn't passed until months after the article was created in 2022. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The baiting editor doesn’t appear to realize that the article was actually created in 2023. It was a redirect to 2023 New Brunswick local governance reform so that readers that heard of the then-proposed municipality could learn something in the meantime. Hwy43 (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Waltononly just learned about difs. Warring continues Spooninpot (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

oh, where can I draw more complaints where contributors are turned terrorists? Spooninpot (talk) 05:05, 6 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)

Look, I agree that personalising a dispute is not helpful, in that it makes it harder to achieve a satisfactory resolution and I can't tell you that you are wrong to view those comments as suboptimal. However, in practice, a bit of, let's call it, rough and tumble is tolerated when editors are discussing content issues. It's probably a matter of law in books vs law in action, but, generally speaking, unless there is a clear pattern of incivility or clear personal attacks, no action is going to be taken and, in this case, you haven't alleged there is a pattern of incivility and those comments do not rise to the level of clear personal attacks. —  Salvio ^giuliano 10:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: Right. So, if similar comments keep coming up, then it would be actionable? Did I understand that correctly? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Golden, if there is a pattern of incivility, then the editor in question may be sanctioned. I say "if" and "may" because experience has shown that what is tolerated when it comes to incivility and what is sanctioned is difficult to predict accurately, because it's very situation-dependent. It's no coincidence that Arbcom has had to deal with multiple cases concerning civility... —  Salvio ^giuliano 10:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood. It appears that Kansas Bear won’t be arriving anytime soon to present any evidence as Ermenrich had expected (unsurprising), so I’ll consider this matter closed for now. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• "unsurprising"
• "bad day

Unnecessary snide remarks made, even following me to my talk page to say one. And Golden wants to speak of civility?

As for the "observed", Golden themselves used that term to cover their comment of "Why is the MOS:ETHNICITY guideline not being applied to poets of other ethnicities from the same region?".

• "I am simply stating what I have observed." --Golden

I responded by in the same reference, "I have observed...". I neither stated Qizilbas was in contact with nor was told by Golden to vote in a particular manner. However, I find that Qizilbas' arriving to an article they have never edited, to vote on the article talk page quite intriguing(aside from the fact they have clearly never read the article!). Thus my follow up comment, "Undoubtedly they will be here post-haste for your RfC.". Meh.

Also, Golden has a problem of reading what other editors are saying, picking and choosing, as illustrated here, what was said.

• "Why is the MOS:ETHNICITY guideline not being applied to poets of other ethnicities from the same region?" --Golden

I gave a link of Alihd23's spamming "Persian" edits(See here). Golden was not satisfied stating, "Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist."

And there you have the real reason why this is at AN/I. To remove an editor that is removing "Azerbaijani" ethnicity from the Lead of articles. Golden admits that the term did not exist in history at-that-time. Just to give everyone a better idea of the article in question:

• 1."Seyid Ali Imadaddin Nasimi (Azerbaijani: Seyid Əli İmadəddin Nəsimi, سئید علی عمادالدّین نسیمی; c. 1369/70 – 1418/19), commonly known as Nasimi[a] (Nəsimi, نسیمی), was a 14th and 15th century Hurufi poet. He is regarded as one of the greatest Turkic poets of his time and one of the most prominent figures in Azerbaijani literature."

• 2."Seyid Ali Imadaddin Nasimi (Azerbaijani: Seyid Əli İmadəddin Nəsimi, سئید علی عمادالدّین نسیمی; c. 1369/70 – 1418/19), commonly known as Nasimi[a] (Nəsimi, نسیمی), was a 14th and 15th century Azerbaijani Hurufi poet. He is regarded as one of the greatest Turkic poets of his time and one of the most prominent figures in Azerbaijani literature."

The second example is what Golden wanted. An anachronistic term(attested even by Golden), used at the beginning of this article(language) and in the first sentence(ethnicity) and in the second sentence(language). This I believe is a case of wanting to right great wrongs. Golden's outburst of "Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist.", shocked me. The simple removal of Azerbaijani(ethnicity) from the first sentence makes Golden thinks other editors are here to make the Azeri people "not exist"?

As for Golden's comment, "Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist.", I am not sure what should be done. To me this indicates an inability to edit neutrally in the area of AA2 and well as bad faith on their part. Considering I have already notified another editor of Alihd23's POV pushing, I find their comment unacceptable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• As for the "observed", Golden themselves used that term to cover their comment

Right, and here's how I used it: I am simply stating what I have observed. [...] However, I have noticed that many major poets from the Middle East have their ethnicity mentioned in the lead of their articles. This practice seems to be removed only for Azerbaijani poets (if you have recent evidence to the contrary, please feel free to share it).

And here's how you responded to that: 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. I have observed you complain about edits towards what you label Azerbaijani poets insisting that since they wrote their majority of their works in Azerbaijani that you should be allowed to violate MOS:Ethnicity. I guess majority works only applies to the Azerbaijani language? But not about an empire that wrote the majority of its works in Persian. Got it. The fact that you still think tones of these comments are the same shows that you are having a hard time understanding what's civil and what's not.

• I neither stated Qizilbas was in contact with nor was told by Golden to vote in a particular manner. However, I find that Qizilbas' arriving to an article they have never edited, to vote on the article talk page quite intriguing(aside from the fact they have clearly never read the article!).

Right, but why did you bring it up to me in an article that had nothing to do with our topic of discussion? Surely you can see how that would have been interpreted.

• Also, Golden has a problem of reading what other editors are saying, picking and choosing, as illustrated here, what was said. I gave a link of Alihd23's spamming "Persian" edits(See here). Golden was not satisfied stating, "Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist."

Seriously? Are you really going to misrepresent what I said? My statement about the term's non-existence was in response to another question of yours: I would ask why Azerbaijani is being liberally used over multiple articles, when clearly it is NOT a nationality(during this time period).

To which I responded with: Your question would be better directed to scholars such as Gerhard Doerfer, Canan Balan, and Kathleen Burrill, who all use the terms "Azerbaijani" or "Azeri" to refer to the poet. Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist. You can't even try to claim that my response was to your linking of reverts of Alihd23 because I clearly indicated what I was responding to.

Every single scholarly source in the article refers to the poet as 'Azerbaijani'/'Azeri' or a similar derivative. To think that saying the poet is Azerbaijani is an attempt to 'right great wrongs' is beyond me. I guess the nine scholars cited in the article were also trying to right great wrongs? (What each source says) This follows the precedent set by other poet articles from the Middle East area, where the poet is introduced by their nationality. I simply followed this precedent. And I found it odd that this guideline was only applied to Azeri poets (out of all the other poets from the region), which is why I asked you whether there was an actual explanation for this. However, you interpreted my question as a challenge to your neutrality and responded with a threat (Continue to make insinuations about my neutrality, and you will not like where it ends up). I even agreed to keep ethnicities out of the lead after a proposal by HistoryofIran to do the same for all poets (Diff).

Kansas Bear seems to have difficulty with communication. They tend to assume bad faith too quickly and are unwilling to let go of that assumption even when the other user shows a willingness to cooperate and clear up misunderstandings. The above comment, along with the ones I've posted before, provides evidence of this. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Kansas Bear seems to have difficulty with communication."

Another snide remark?

You chose to make that comment personal, just like you chose to ignore my recent edits to remove other ethnicities from the Lead of articles. Your personalized comment of "Azeris not existing at that time" is unacceptable and I do not appreciate that comment directed at me.

• "They tend to assume bad faith too quickly and are unwilling to let go of that assumption even when the other user shows a willingness to cooperate and clear up misunderstandings."

After the insinuation of removing Azerbaijani ethnicities exclusively, yeah my good faith is pretty much gone.

• "I even agreed to keep ethnicities out of the lead after a proposal by HistoryofIran to do the same for all poets"

Then why bother me on my talk page? I had left the conversation, which is still ongoing on the article talk page and you still arrived at my talk page. To instigate something you could run to AN/I with? Perhaps you should think about that. You were upset because Azerbaijani was removed once from the 3 times it is mentioned in the first two sentences of the article. And it spiraled out from there. Which is reflected by your "Azeris not exist at that time", comment.

Also, the current discussion on that particular article talk page appears to refute your comment about renown Azerbaijani(Iskander323's comment) and whether they were known as Azerbaijanis(LouisAragon's comment).

FYI, my nationality comment directly deals with MOS:Ethnicity, nothing to do with whether a group of individuals existed or not. You spoke of Azerbaijanis/Azeris and how you felt they are not represented. That is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• You chose to make that comment personal, just like you chose to ignore my recent edits to remove other ethnicities from the Lead of articles. Your personalized comment of "Azeris not existing at that time" is unacceptable and I do not appreciate that comment directed at me.

What? You mean the edits you made an hour ago? They were not there when the discussion at Talk:Imadaddin Nasimi started, so my observation about MOS:Ethnicity not being applied to other poets was correct at the time.

• Then why bother me on my talk page?

Because you made a comment on an article talk page that could easily be interpreted as an allegation of off-wiki contacts. I also realized that you thought I was challenging your neutrality with my comment. So, I reached out to clarify and said this: Nowhere in my comment on that thread did I question your neutrality. My question about the lack of application of MOS:Ethnicity to other poet articles was a genuine one, directed not just to you or your contributions, but as a general question for which I thought there would be a reasonable explanation. I then commented about your random remarks about Qizilbash and Timurid Empire RfC to tell you: I would urge you to take any concerns you have about those issues to the relevant noticeboards rather than bringing them up during content discussions on Wiki articles I had no intention of bringing you to any noticeboard because I hoped that you would realize your comments were unnecessarily rude. However, after your last comment on your talk page (Diff), I felt I had no other option.

• You were upset because Azerbaijani was removed once from the 3 times it is mentioned in the first two sentences of the article

Bolding your claim doesn't make it any less absurd. I wasn't upset; I was confused, as I've stated numerous times. I hadn't seen any removal of ethnicity from other poet articles. When I expressed this confusion, you responded with a threat. [see last quote in my previous comment]

• Also, the current discussion on that particular article talk page appears to refute your comment about renown Azerbaijani

Did you miss the next comment where Iskander323 agreed that the academic consensus and a good compromise would be to use 'Azeri Turkic' (an alternative of 'Azerbaijani') (Diff), to which I agreed? (Diff)

• You spoke of Azerbaijanis/Azeris and how you felt they are not represented.

Nope, you're putting words in my mouth again. I genuinely believe that you're having difficulty understanding what I'm saying. It's not helpful for us to continue going back and forth without properly comprehending each other's points. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Golden has been editing for ~ 3 years on Wikipedia, with a very keen interest in WP:AA2. In these three years, they have been blocked twice for socking,[62] found to be votestacking in this highly contentious topic area,[63] has denied wrongdoings in the face of CU results,[64] and has been topic banned twice from this topic area.[65]-[66] As we speak, they are still in fact topic banned from all conflicts related to AA2. As recent as 18 March 2023, they were placed under yet another sanction, as they were put under "indefinite probation" within the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area.[67] If we divide 3 years by 5, that means every 0.6 part of a year, they have been sanctioned due to illicit editing. That's simply astonishing.

A wise man once told: "It is very easy to make good edits on obscure subjects. It is also very easy to make bad ones, to make deliberately bad ones, to knowingly insert content ranging from distortions to blatant lies to make the articles follow an agenda. And it is easy for that faulty content to remain there because of the obscurity and specialization of the subject." User:Golden is making both sort of edits: his editorial pattern is bad not because of his history of socking (picking out one example), but because of his editing aims revealed through his content additions. Hence here we are, with said user trying to shift the blame on user:Kansas Bear, a veteran user with 17 years of clean editing.[68]

I might add that this is not the first time that Golden has tried to accuse others of incivility in passive-aggresive fashion. As recent as 6-7 March 2023, without me having even mentioned them by name, they hounded me to my talk page on Commons to accuse me of "bad faith" accusations despite me not even mentioning them by name.[69] Looking at the compelling evidence put to light in the past and at the present, I believe they are not here to build this encyclopedia. Its time to stop playing around with AGF ropes that said user cut off themselves a long time ago. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Bolding your claim doesn't make it any less absurd. I wasn't upset; I was confused, as I've stated numerous times. "

You almost make it sound as if you don't have a long-standing track record of disruptive editing within this topic area. You are very well aware that the term "Azerbaijanis/Azeris" constitutes a very contentious label prior to the 20th/19th century, to the point that its basically an anachronism at least as far as ethnicity is concerned.[70] Also FYI; a user who "doesn't care/doesnt get upset" simply doesn't get topic banned and blocked numerous times within a short period of time. It just doesn't add up. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

Given "yet" another attempt at wasting the time of the community, and a long track record of disruptive editing, I propose an indefinite block for user:Golden. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support the dispute itself is rather petty, but an editor who has already been blocked for socking twice, and casually violated a topic ban over something so petty, should not be editing in the first place. Dronebogus (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: The sockings are from two years ago. Nothing in this thread is a violation of my topic ban, which has a much smaller scope than the general AA2 topic-bans: conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed. There's no conflict here. In fact the recent AA3 Arbcom Case found that Since their most recent sanctions, neither Grandmaster not Golden have engaged in additional misconduct. The report above describes a personal attack. Anyone can agree that, at the very least, the reported comments were 'suboptimal', to quote Salvio giuliano. It is ridiculous to try to get someone indefinitely blocked for reporting a personal attack against them. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 05:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t like that you’re dancing around the edges of your topic ban, over such a minor dispute. Dronebogus (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ve struck my vote after clarification, but I still would recommend Golden avoid the topic ENTIRELY for the same reason people convicted of making opium shouldn’t be growing poppies. Dronebogus (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to violate a topic ban per se in order to be violating WP:TENDENTIOUS. But that's the whole point; as outlined above, Golden's editorial pattern shows that they've been trying to manouvre their way around rules and sanctions basically ever since setting foot on Wikipedia. When confronted (and sanctioned), they appear to try deny and belittle any sort of wrongdoing. That's what contributes to making an editorial pattern "WP:NOTHERE", and what has resulted in said cat and mouse game, various on-and-off sanctions, and the involvement of various drama boards and admins for some three years straight. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, here are two recent topic ban violations on behalf of user:Golden, in addition to the material that has been outlined above. This diff from 25 March 2023 shows user:Golden removing/reverting the Kurdish transliteration from the Kalbajar District article, a district heavily involved in the ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. On the same day they removed a similar transliteration from the Lachin District article, another district heavily involved in the ongoing conflict. Their topic ban clearly states "conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed". Pinging Tamzin, Guerillero, SilkTork, Barkeep49 and Callanecc who appear to have been the primary admins at the AA3 case. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

For users inexperienced with this region: Kurds have had a prominent presence in Lachin and Kalbajar and its surroundings for a long period of time, and have been victims of the ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. See also (Battle of Kalbajar, Kurdistan uezd, Kurds in Azerbaijan). The Kalbajar District article literally contains sections (Kalbajar District#Armenian occupation, Kalbajar District#Return to Azerbaijan) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. WP:BANEX therefore clearly doesn't cut it. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As a sitting Arb if you or someone else wants my opinion in that capacity I'm found at WP:ARCA and I generally leave ANI to those who aren't on the committee. That said, From my quick read of this situation it feels like this is potentially an WP:AE situation and so perhaps Tamzin or Callanecc will take action here. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The admin who topic banned me, Tamzin, specifically stated in my ANI report that Golden is still able to edit both of those articles (Flag of Azerbaijan and Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan), with the exception of a few sentences in either that deal with military conflicts. Indeed Golden can edit most articles about Azerbaijan. Reverting the addition of Kurdish transliteration in the lead paragraph does not deal with military conflicts or any other type of conflict. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 06:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Flag of Azerbaijan" and "Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan" have nothing to do with the Nagorno-Karabakh/Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. In fact, these articles don't contain a single word about it. Lachin and Kalbajar however, as demonstrated above, appear prominently in articles related to the conflict, and the respective articles even contain sections about the conflict. Once again, the Kurdish transliteration that was removed does not pass WP:BANEX either, as the Kurds have had a prominent presence in Lachin and Kalbajar and its surroundings for a long period of time, and have been victims of the ongoing conflict. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't see any evidence to support a block. In fact, it seems that Golden is the aggrieved party here by virtue of the personal attacks which remain on the article's talk page. Daniel222potato (talk) 06:24, 3 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:

[71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]

• 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 [85], 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)

• Comments like "Keep. The nominator's extreme enthusiasm for deleting articles on Canadian ambassadors is not constructive.", "*Keep, as sources are easy to find. This extreme enthusiasm for deleting all and any articles on Canadian ambassadors is sheer deletionism." and "NB, Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence notes that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." are inappropriate aspersions that contribute nothing to the conversation, especially when repeated across multiple discussions that were closed as "delete" because no sources were found. A formal warning would be appropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  What is it about deletionists that makes them so thirsty to get their way by sanctioning anyone who disagrees with them (see past frequent attempts to drag ARS here) instead of, you know, winning arguments on their merits? Especially when in these cases the deletionists really are winning the arguments on their merits? People can disagree with you, and repeat their disagreement in the same places that you repeat the arguments they disagree with; it's not any form of malfeasance to do that. It doesn't make it malfeasance for the consensus to go against them. It just makes theirs a minority opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's inappropriate for you (an admin) to take shots at other editors with loaded terms in a discussion involving Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Everyone is welcome to an opinion/position and they can express their opinion, but everyone is required by policy to express their opinions without violating Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It does not matter whether an editor is on the majority or minority side, it's unacceptable.  // Timothy :: talk  08:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  It is completely appropriate for me here to express my opinion that all opinions should be welcome in AfDs, even repetitive ones that you disagree with or happen to think are too thin on substance, just as it is completely appropriate for Moonraker to repeat those opinions in the AfDs in question. AfDs need to be based on free and open debate, not a system where one set of participants causes another set to become fearful of participating due to threats of sanctions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Let me be perfectly clear: I think that editors who make personal attacks in any discussion should be fearful of participating due to threats of sanctions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Let me be perfectly clear: I think trying to shut down people who disagree with you by accusing their neutral comments of being personal attacks is reprehensible. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  There is broad consensus that use of labels such as 'deletionist' and 'inclusionist' (almost always used as a pejorative and/or to discredit opposing arguments) are part of a battleground mentality that is particularly disruptive at AFD – see recent RFCs, including ArbCom. Your use here is unhelpful at best. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  All I can see in the outcome of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing is that these labels are sometimes used, and that sometimes their use can entrench people into sides with battleground behavior. The labels "Democrat" and "Republican" are sometimes used in US politics, and sometimes their use is associated with battleground behavior, also. Nevertheless, we don't hesitate to label US politicians in that way, even in cases where they hold nonpartisan office. I didn't see anything in the case that these labels are pejorative, used to discredit, disruptive outside the context of AfDs (as we are here), or in any way a personal attack. So maybe you could supply a better citation for your supposed "broad consensus"? Or at least stop engaging in the exact same "I don't like how you're saying things so I'm going to push for you to stop saying them" behavior that I am complaining about? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• I read through about half the AfDs and I don't understand why there's a discussion here. A number of Canadian ambassadors were successfully deleted and Moonraker objected. In several I see no personal commentary of any kind, let alone a personal attack. Mackensen (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  So calling me an obsessive editor isn't a personal attack? LibStar (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  First, that's not one of the AfDs I looked at. If that's one you consider significant you should have highlighted it, with a diff. Second, no, not really? He's characterizing your conduct with respect to ambassador AfDs. This is the full comment, within a larger comment: If I had time, I could make a solidly referenced article here, but like other content-creators I am too busy to do it in a hurry, simply because an obsessive editor is determined to cull ambassadors If you opened an ANI discussion because someone called you an obsessive editor, you're dangerously close to proving his point. Mackensen (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Erm, Libstar didn't open this discussion... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  "He's characterizing your conduct with respect to ambassador AfDs" which is a bright-line violation of our WP:NPA and WP:FOC policies. –dlthewave ☎ 12:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Moonraker should be reminded that AFD is not a battleground and advised to refrain from commenting on the motives/competence of the nominator (or any other contributors to these discussions). Such comments are disruptive and others have been topic banned from deletion discussions for the same. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment: Everyone needs to cool down and move on. AfD is an argumentative place where feelings run high. It's quite natural that deletionists and keep-everythingists will clash and criticise one another's approaches. It's necessary that things are repeated, because each discussion must stand on its own (there is no guarantee that whoever closes the discussion on one Canadian ambassador will have read all the others). We need to be super cautious of letting ANI intervene in AfD discussions: it's really important that people feel able to state their honest view about an article without the chilling effect of fearing being dragged off here and dumped under a load of angry admins armed with block-buttons. The important life-skill at AfD is to learn to state your case and walk away. Elemimele (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  • This is well put. Jahaza (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Amen to that. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the incivility, I'm concerned that someone with autopatrol is claiming obviously non-independent sources count towards GNG. A university's recap of a speech the university invited the subject to give and a primary account from an org she invited to visit her delegation are not acceptable for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Participants at AfD regularly debate what sources count for what, and what GNG's demands for depth, reliability, and independence really mean. That is exactly what AfDs are for. In the case in question, my own feeling is that the independence of these two sources is not problematic, and that their reliability and depth of coverage are dubious but defensible; but that is a matter of opinion. The fact that this opinion might differ from yours, or from the opinions expressed in the AfD, is a matter for discussion at the AfD and for the closer to weigh; it is not ANI-worthy misbehavior, and not cause for concern. If we had an ANI discussion every time someone cited GNG inaccurately in an AfD, or every time two participants disagreed on what GNG actually meant or how it applied to specific sources, we'd be so swamped with these petty dramas as to never have time for the real blowups. The impression given by your comment above that you think only opinions conforming to your orthodoxy should be allowed expressed in an AfD, and that we should consider anything else to be problematic, is a bigger cause for concern, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of source discussion at GNG-based AfDs is over whether the coverage is significant enough, which is the only really subjective aspect of GNG. For a source to count towards GNG, it must be fully independent of its subject, even if it meets the SIGCOV and reliability aspects. How else can you read significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? A university inviting someone to give a talk and then posting a recap of it is no different from a sports event organizer covering its own results, and the latter is pretty unanimously dismissed as non-independent in sports AfDs (because obviously the org will write about all the events it runs, regardless of external attention; it has a vested interest in promoting its own activities in a positive light and in maintaining favorable relations with participants). This isn't some "orthodoxy". JoelleJay (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's just like, your opinion. Sharing these opinions is what AfD is for. But shutting down contrary opinions is NOT what ANI is for. I could argue specifics about why you are wrong (sources can be used for different information and the independence of a source depends on what information it is used for, so a source by an institution that does not employ the subject is independent for the biography of the subject even though it is not independent for the fact that the subject gave a talk there) but that's not the point. I'd rather express my opinion freely on an AfD and end up on the non-consensus side than get my way at AfD by silencing contrary opinions, and I'm extremely disappointed in your seeming disagreement with that view. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

A couple thousand sportsperson and entertainer AfDs (and the AfD in question!) disagree totally with that interpretation. The motivation to publish material on a subject cannot be entangled with the publisher's coverage of itself, and that property is inherent in the publisher's coverage of its own activities, especially when there is a financial or professional tie (such as a paid speaking engagement). Just like a writeup on the winners of an award written by the awarding body is not independent because of course the awarder is incentivized to hype its awardees with positive material. JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, at no point here have I argued that such opinions can't be expressed at AfD, or that Moonraker should be sanctioned for making them, or even that Moonraker should be sanctioned for incivility, so I don't know where this "silencing contrary opinions" thing is coming from. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It's coming from you piling on to a complaint here at ANI about someone expressing their opinion at AfDs saying that "I'm concerned" about their doing so. What effect do you think such statements could possibly have other than silencing? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can agree it wasn't a relevant or appropriate comment to make in this context. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Participants at AfD regularly debate what sources count for what That's not quite what he did, so your repeated complaints about "deletionists" subjecting others to their own standards are incomprehensible. Saying things like "extreme enthusiasm for deleting articles on Canadian ambassadors" and "sources are easy to find", especially without an accompanying source-based input, is pure noise and disruption, especially for BLPs. Avilich (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It is no more disruptive than half of the participants at all other AfDs. Statements like this, made without adequate and visible justification, are commonplace, and easily and routinely ignored by closers. They are not the level of problem that justifies an ANI discussion of the behavior of the person making them. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the ideal course of action is to allow free speech and for closers to simply ignore useless comments. However, here the discussion was relisted once, and here twice, in both cases without any explanation, solely due to the unhelpful comments of Moonraker and company. Whether you choose to blame the latter or the relisters, it's clear that at least 3 weeks (3 relists) of editor time have been wasted for no good reason. Avilich (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

BLP discussions are not an area Wikipedia should tolerate this kind of behavior. David Eppstien's attitude towards BLP AfDs will only lead to more low quality participation at AfD, providing a bad example for others. This problem stems from another issue, the refusal of some editors to accept recent changes at NSPORTs.

Childish boilplate prostests are annoying and misleading, but can be ignored when an AfD is about a film or building, but they have no place anywhere in BLP discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  23:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Accusing @David Eppstein of providing a "bad example for others" in relation to AFDs of BLPs is beyond hasty. He's a valuable AFD contributor who's done a tremendous amount of work on BLPs both sourcing BLPs that should be kept and arguing for the deletion of non-notable figures. Jahaza (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User:InvadingInvader

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

• InvadingInvader has made multiple false accusations of defamation, libel, and slander (see [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]), despite having been informed multiple times by multiple editors that the accusations by InvadingInvader are false (see [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98]) and despite having been warned by multiple editors that InvadingInvader is violating WP:No legal threats (see [99], [100], [101]).
• InvadingInvader has made multiple false accusations of WP:Disruptive editing on an article (see [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]), despite having been informed that, by the terms of the definition of disruptive editing in the said Wikipedia policy, it is in fact InvadingInvader who is violating WP:Disruptive editing (see [110], [111], [112]).
• InvadingInvader has made multiple false accusations of WP:Canvassing (see [113], [114], [115]) despite having been informed twice by another editor that the accusations by InvadingInvader are false (see [116], [117]).
• InvadingInvader has made a verbatim threat to escalate (see [118]) in violation of WP:Disruptive editing.
• InvadingInvader has made a personal attack with an expletive (see [119]) in violation of WP:INCIVIL.
• InvadingInvader has made a threat of reporting for WP:Disruptive editing (see [120]) and a threat of blocks and sanctions (see [121]), despite InvadingInvader never filing any reports in any relevant noticeboards, clearly indicating that these threats are intimidation by InvadingInvader.
• InvadingInvader has a history of edit warring in violation of WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Edit warring to impose the preferred version of InvadingInvader in violation of various Wikipedia policies, having even been blocked indefinitely on a prior occasion for this behavior (see [122]).
• InvadingInvader has violated WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Edit warring, WP:BRD, WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO, among other Wikipedia policies, to impose a version of an article that is in violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:WEIGHT, among other Wikipedia policies, often by removing an enormous amount of content that is supported by citations of reliable sources (see [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153]), despite having been reverted multiple times by multiple editors (see [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168]) and despite having been informed multiple times of the said Wikipedia policies by multiple editors (see [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190]).
• InvadingInvader has relentlessly persisted in these behaviors despite multiple warnings by multiple editors, as seen from all of the evidence above.--PoliticalPoint (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I started looking at a sample of the diffs above and found that many of them were greatly exaggerated. I gave up looking when I got to InvadingInvader has made a personal attack with an expletive. Where is the expletive in that? Do you really consider "crap" to be an expletive? I can't see anything else there that could possibly be considered so. I would advise you to withdraw this complaint and simply discuss things in an adult and civil manner at Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have also checked a random sample of these diffs, and my initial impression is that these are minor skirmishes in the ongoing conflict about US politics. InvadingInvader is sometimes shown to be snippy and cross, but if there's one specific smoking-gun diff that warrants sysop intervention, then I haven't seen it yet. I think that PP might be able to make an arguable case that II's persistent but low-level snippiness might be dragging down the level of discourse in the topic area -- but I wouldn't buy that. I would see II's comments as characteristic of someone working in the trenches of a fraught and difficult topic area and surrounded by people with a very different view of NPOV from him. PP, would I be right in suspecting that you might want Wikipedia's articles about American politics to be less critical about a certain orange man with small hands?—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  It would be helpful to have top 3 most egregious offenses that you believe InvadingInvader have committed. This wall of diffs is very difficult to sort through. Carpimaps (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Both InvadingInvader and PoliticalPoint come to this article with apparent [opposing] POVs (or, at least, with an intention to "fix" the POV they perceive in the article), and they're the two most active editors on the article, so it's inevitable there will be conflict. I've taken issue with some edits by both of them, but both have made constructive edits, too. The challenge for anyone else is simply keeping up without making this single article a full-time job. InvadingInvader in particular has made more edits to both the article and to the talk page just in the last month than anyone else has in the history of the article (by some margin, too). On the talk page, which has been edited by 53 users over time, InvadingInvader has added 35.4% of all text, and all of it in the last month. None of this is against the rules, obviously, and I don't think there's really anything to be done at ANI, but it's also not ideal because it makes it harder for uninvolved people to get involved (meaning those that do get involved are the people who feel so strongly that they're ready for some high-activity arguing... and that might not be for the best). It's hard to know what's best in those situations. I suspect it might just be a matter of time. Right now, there are more people editing the article aligned with InvadingInvader than PoliticalPoint. While I don't agree with all their edits, they're also not turning it into something egregiously POV (as far as I've seen -- again, it's hard to keep up), so I'm inclined to wait and evaluate it when it settles. In the meantime, PoliticalPoint while I think you've done the right thing in providing diffs, you've diluted your argument by including a bunch that aren't very problematic. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• PoliticalPoint, I would strongly recommened that you withdraw this complaint. Without commenting on the merits of the content disputes, what these 105 diffs (ugh!) indicate to me is a significant exaggeration or misrepresentation of many of the alleged offenses. Others appear to be minor or unsanctionable.

You said InvadingInvader (II) "made a personal attack with an expletive", but unless I missed something, the harshest thing they said in the only you diff you provided was "I'm only asking you to discuss the content and cut the crap when it comes to me."[191] And their edit summary appropriately includes "Discuss content, not people." So, can you please explain where the personal attack and expletive are. Because I think this one complaint on its own will potentially destroy the credibility of the rest of them.

You said II "is violating WP:No legal threats". Can you please show us specifically in the policy where any of those three comments are violations?

You said II "has made multiple false accusations of WP:Canvassing, but they actually qualified their comments with "seems like" canvassing or "potential" canvassing, and explained why.

You said II "made a verbatim threat to escalate" but in the one diff you provided, they made a statement about editors in general (including themself) who deal with what they believe to be disrputive editing and how they "feel compelled or forced" to escalate. What's the problem with that? If it's a bogus claim, the reviewing editors will make that clear.

You said II ""made a threat of reporting" and "a threat of blocks and sanctions", and that because he didn't do so they were "clearly indicating that these threats are intimidation". But the one diff shows that they didn't make any threat; they merely advised that they actually had taken a neutrality issue to the BLP Noticeboard, and even provided the link to the discussion. The other diff shows that they were talking generally about perceived bad behavior that "the Wikipedia community shows a great dislike for and something that frequently leads to sanctions and blocks". My biggest concern with this particular claim is your characterization of their comments "clearly" being "intimidation"? That's a strong accusation and it isn't clear to me at all.

Finally, you talk about II's "history of edit warring" and how they've "even been blocked indefinitely on a prior occasion for this behavior". The record shows that in II's almost five year editing history, that is their only block (for edit-warring with a bot) and that they were unblocked 21 hours later.

Overall, what I see here is a bunch of minor infractions from, like you, a passionate editor who edits topics that are inherently difficult and polarizing, and who's clearly trying to protect and improve this encylopedia. If you are not going to withdraw this complaint, then I would concur with Carpimaps on his suggestion that you provide just a few of the most egregious offenses you feel II has committed; no more than five. Stoarm (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• This is a major and unnecessary exaggeration of any flaws with my personal character. The most alarming example of this is the treatment of "crap" as WP:INCIVIL. It's an extremely frivolous complaint to think that crap is any egregious violation of this. Furthermore, in such quote I didn't call you crap directly. Such diffs cited ask for you to start discussing content rather than pointing out every flaw with my own character. Akin to the content dispute on the talk page, please explain to me precisely how I am violating ALL of these policies. I fully agree with @Phil Bridger; I would ask you to discuss these matters at the talk page for the legislation, and participate in such discussion as well more frequently than just reverting and saying "This violates WP:POLICY X" and nothing more. On the talk page under the thread Recent edits (2), you made one comment like this, and failed to discuss further when multiple editors responded. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm also questioning whether PP's behavior towards me would constitute as WP:HOUNDING. I'm not confident in definitely saying it, but it's very compelling for me to put forward per WP:BOOMERANG. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This is yet another false accusation by InvadingInvader. All editors here should take note of the fact that InvadingInvader is persisting in exactly the same behavior that forms the basis for part of the complaint here. Without a doubt, InvadingInvader cannot substantiate this latest false accusation, as is always the case. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Read again what II said. They're questioning it, and not confident in definitely saying it. Please, don't dig a deeper hole for yourself. Stoarm (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You can't run around Wikipedia left and right claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is spitting out false accusations or promoting fringe theories without attracting sanctions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Phil Bridger that the diffs need to be culled here because looking through a few of them and I don't see an issue worth discussing here. I would recommend either highlighting a handful of egregious examples (if they exist) or withdrawing this altotether. - Nemov (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: It was Carpimaps who suggested culling the diffs. Phil Bridger advised withdrawing the complaint. Stoarm (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not suggest culling the diffs, but agree that if any new complaint is made it should come with enough diffs to substantiate it, but not with the many innocuous diffs that we see here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have known II from their work on WP:YEARS project and they frequently use assertive language when it comes to discussions, which I know can make someone offended, but they are not that aggressive as believed to be. This seems to be a content dispute that can be solved by dropping this complaint and taking this somewhere else or at least provide few diffs that you believe are worth looking. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Gish galloping will not get you far at WP:ANI. I agree that the complaint should be withdrawn, and if it's truly necessary to file a complaint, then at least consolidate to those which are certainly brightline offenses. If there are none, then there's nothing to discuss. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing me to that term. I hadn't heard of that technique, but that's precisely what we have here. It has now been over 72 hours since PoliticalPoint posted this complaint, yet they still haven't been back to either reply (or withdraw it) even though the general feedback by the several editors who've commented is clear and unanimous. Further, PP had edited other pages today at two different times. I think that after presenting a 105-diff, Gish-galloping complaint, the fact that they haven't returned here to even acknowledge the replies is quite problematic. This discussion should have been their first stop when they began editing again.

Proposal - If we don't here from PP soon with a reasonable response, I would propose that an appropriate sanction be given for wasting our time. Perhaps they should've been sanctioned anyway for bringing such a lengthy and hostile complaint without even coming close to backing up their claims. Stoarm (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Just... let it be archived? PP opened a complaint, it didn't get traction, they got feedback why it didn't get traction, and they've declined to try again. There's already a separate section about PP here, which likewise failed to find traction. A proposal that asks for people to spend more time and energy about this to punish someone for "wasting our time" seems a bit ironic, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Normally, I'd totally agree with you... close it down and toss it on the trash heap. But this complaint is clearly outside the norm and involves an enormous amount of hefty allegations against another editor's character. As it stands now, this is the equivalent of a Wikipedia hit-and-run. No explanation, no apology, no withdrawal, and not even an acknowledgement from PP of what's been said to them. Editors get sanctioned for far less all the time. If nothing is done about this, it sends the message that any disgruntled editor can lodge an avalanche of major, unsupported allegations against someone and nothing will happen to them. Stoarm (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

... and if we turn this into a reverse witch hunt, then it sets up a chilling effect for future ANI complaints: gosh, what if the ANI regulars find that my charges don't hold water, are they going to sanction me for being wrong? What we sanction boomerangs for at ANI generally is their own past bad behavior, not for nothing beyond filing a meritless complaint. PP absolutely deserves a heavy trout slap and a stern admonishion about wasting our time, and that's that. Ravenswing 16:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It would depend on the types and amount of charges you're making, and the evidence you're providing. Or lack thereof. "Reverse witch hunt"? That implies that PP's intent was a witch hunt. Per WaltCip, this is obviously not about simply being wrong (Gish gallop: a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.) What if this complaint had been about you? Put yourself in InvadingInvader's shoes. And please note that I did not specify a sanction; I merely said "an appropriate sanction". A trout slap and admonition* is, at least, something. Stoarm (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I have been accused of things in the past that were baseless. Nothing came from it and there's no need to dwell on it further. We only have so much time as editors to work on this project. Wasting time on petty dispute isn't an efficient way to spend valuable editing time. Nemov (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that there should be a formal warning towards PP for this. If PP learns his/her/their lesson, put it behind them. PP has done this kind of thing before on the talk page for the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, where PP continued this behavior on adding/reverting/rollbacking, creating a talk thread with allegations on something violating WP:FRINGE, having everybody respond and disagree to them, and refuse to participate in the discussion, most recently on such talk page in the thread "Recent edits (2)" where they referred to edits made by some other editors as "a blitzkrieg". While this shouldn't be ignored forever, I think that this should serve as a warning to PP that if they continue the Gish Galloping and the refusal to participate in discussions constructively, he/she/they will be subject to sanctions. Nemov, however, does make a good point in not a need to dwell on this further, and this becoming a waste of time, and so I agree that this thread should really only be further elaborated on and expanded if this type of behavior happens again. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

All of the statements that form the complaint are more than adequately substantiated by the differences. You should actually read the differences before submitting a false claim regarding the complaint. Now, InvadingInvader has made yet another false accusation, which has been responded to above. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed dozens of the diffs. That's plenty. You don't expect anyone to look at all 100+ of them, do you? What false claim are you alleging we submitted? Stoarm (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

nothing here. This really is the Gish gallop to end all Gish gallops. If I don’t know otherwise, I would have thought it was written and compiled by a chatbot! I clicked a random sampling of 20 diffs, and emphatically do not think they’re actionable, or at all saying what OP is alleging here (eg “crap” as an “expletive”). My overall summary is that OP doesn’t like II disagreeing with them, or giving them advice on their conduct. From the diffs, I would actually say OP is the one who is guilty of WP:NOTHERE. But overall I don’t think anything should be done here. I would say: close this with a heavy WP:TROUT. With the unsolicited advice that OP should be more careful not to waste our time. The next time they bring something like this to ANI, a wp:BOOMERANG is inevitable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This really is the Gish gallop to end all Gish gallops. That may be the best line I've ever read on a noticeboard. With that, I'll exit this discussion. Stoarm (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You submit a proposal on the basis of a false claim, then choose to leave the discussion immediately after you receive a response. By your own reasoning, you should be sanctioned. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed your reply because it was inappropriately posted out of chronological order. (It has been properly relocated.) See above. I'm glad you've chosen to return. So, this is your response to what's been said to you by all these editors? Please explain the "false claim" the editors here are making and why you believe all of us are wrong. Stoarm (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

When an editor has been warned multiple times by multiple editors, as clearly evidenced from the differences, that the said editor has made multiple false accusations and has violated various Wikipedia policies, then it is that editor who is guilty of WP:NOTHERE. You should read the differences that pertain to the multiple warnings by multiple editors before submitting a false accusation in that regard. Now, InvadingInvader has made yet another false accusation, which has been responded to above. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Does anything in the foregoing discussion genuinely give you the impression that there is anyone who agrees with your characterization of events? I strongly suggest that your best course of action here is to accept your trout slap, back away, and to file no more meritless and timewasting complaints. Continuing to argue "I'm right and you're all wrong" will wind up in changing the mind of some editors who don't (quite) think your behavior is sanction-worthy. Ravenswing 19:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

PoliticalPoint, I strongly encourage you to take Ravenswing's advice above. The only possible outcome of prolonging this conversation is earning sanctions for yourself. The choice is obviously yours, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Trouterang PoliticalPoint and close I try to be ginger with these posts but obviously that doesn't work around PP. If you or a loved one have been bludgeoned with the fantastically vague Now, InvadingInvader has made yet another false accusation, which has been responded to above without explanation, I believe you will find that accusation to be this comment, by II, in which they very gently probe the discussion for anyone who would back up their suspicions that PP's actions constitute hounding. They deliberately avoid levying a solid accusation of such against PP and yet PP spent their next three posts in this thread either pointing to that comment of II as if it's a smoking gun, or doing so after stating how horrible they are in a post with no diffs or no new information. PP has been asked very reasonably to condense their litany of an OP into a shortlist of either their few most egregious/actionable points, or bright-line offenses. PP has, by the insubstantial nature of their last 4 responses here, refused to do so. Instead they've turned to accusing their dissenters of submitting a false claim regarding the complaint and saying they should be sanctioned. I believe this has officially become a waste of time. I do apologize for the grit and sass but this thread has become too silly. GabberFlasted (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• I echo GabberFlasted's comments and I'd point out that PoliticalPoint has been given advice before [192] on civility. I would recommend that PP learn from this episode. The consequences of not getting the point will end in a topic ban from politics or worse. Nemov (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion by 145.255.0.0/21

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

---

I'm reporting a user from the IP range:

• 46.191.232.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

for block evading the IP range 145.255.0.0/21 which they previously used to disrupt articles like the following:

• Television in Latvia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cartoon Network (Scandinavian TV channel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For example, compare these two diffs: diff 1 on article 1, diff 2 on article 1 and diff 1 on article 2, diff 2 on article 2.

Please look into this.

AP 499D25 (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: the latest involved IP from this range, 46.191.232.243, has been blocked for two weeks by ToBeFree for disruptive editing. Turns out a rangeblock wasn't needed, as there is very little, if any, IP hopping going on here. I'll update this or make another report again if they evade this block. AP 499D25 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Long Term Edit Warring on Vikram Sampath

let me give a brief overview of the situation.

• [193] . Dympies made this comment on the talk page arguing that because he has read some news article regarding the controversy surrounding the subject. The person no longer deserves to be called a Historian and should be changed to "Biographer". Interestingly he mentions two article in which he claims that anyone who reads those two article will agree that sampath doesnt deserve to be called a historian. Even those two articles although critical of sampath mentions him as historian.
• After having a long discussion with him where I tried to explained to him that it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to make judgement calls on a person and we will have to use the term that is most widely used by reliable sources.
• Even a cursory glance on the discussion on the talk page will give a clear picture that even after I patiently gave dozens of sources, tried to explain to him about the various policies ranging from reliable sources, WP:BLP, and WP:MOS. Dympies and Extorc continued to edit war over a this ridiculous argument that the subject can not be classified as a historian because "They" feel the subject doesn't deserve it.
• Franky this whole incident has been annoying as hell because first they have completely refused to understand any logical argument or wiki policies and secondly they think they can brute force their way through such a major change without any proper consensus.
• The discussion on the talk page - [194] and the article edit history will give a more clear picture.

Razer(talk) 12:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• You are a case of WP:1AM here and you are whitewashing a pro-Hindutva writer who aims to promote a non-existing "Hindu genocide" and falsely claims "80 million Hindus killed".[195] But I am not alone with reverting you. 2 other established editors like Extorc,[196] Shahinshah121,[197] have also reverted you. See WP:BOOMERANG. Dympies (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I will briefly repeat what I have tried to explain you in the talk page. If the reliable sources widely state sampath as a "Historian", We will have to go by that term. You can use the article body for the controversy or other allegations but you cant change the lead from historian to biographer because you feel like it. There is no consensus on talk page. Razer(talk) 18:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Repeated bad faith accusations by Dympies

While I have avoided any personal attacks and for more than a month now tried to maintain the discussion on wiki policies and guidlines. Dympies has been going around making bad faith accusation against me for whitewashing and promoting an "Agenda" not only on ANI on an Admin's Talk page - [198] and other noticeboards - [199] and as for Extorc , his harassment of a new editor mixmon can be seen by the ANI thread opened by him [200]. Razer(talk) 13:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm missing something, but how is that second diff any kind of accusation against you specifically? GabberFlasted (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

struck off that diff as it is indeed about something else and not against me specifically. Razer(talk) 15:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Abuse of cosmetic edits to get ECP

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

---

Mixmon on 27 March made about 289 edits, nearly all of which were cosmetic,[201][202][203][204] in order to get ECP.

This WP:GAMING is a clear abuse of editing privileges to gain ECP. >>> Extorc.talk 19:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Is that against the rules? I was follwing suggested edits section on homepage and its Quick Start #2 mentions that - "To make a difference, you only need to make one or two small corrections. You do not need to work on the entire article. You also don't need to have any special knowledge about the topic." Mixmon (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Having a look at [205] and Mixmon's talk page. This clearly appears to be a bad faith request related to the content dispute discussion going on Vikram Sampath's talk page. WP:BOOMERANG might apply. Razer(talk) 19:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with all of this. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  20:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

A cosmetic edit makes no change to the display of the content. Those diffs are not cosmetic; even minor punctuation fixes, including dashes, change the display of the content. Schazjmd (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no rule again constructive editing, despite that it might seem at first. WP:GAMING would be making an edit and removing it over and over again. This is not gaming. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be just gnome edits. I don't see any issue. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Propose formal warning per WP:BOOMERANG

Extorc is warned by the community not to report users with whom they are having a content dispute with to ANI on unrelated matters. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  02:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Or, you could both bury the hatchet like grown ups would.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Mistakes happen. Sometimes a trouting really is the most appropriate solution. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fair. Editorkamran also had some interesting things to say on my my talk page that may be relevant here as well, so I'll withdraw the proposal. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  12:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think at least a trouting in in order for Extorc for harassing and making bad faith accusation on mixmon ( Who is a fairly new editor ) not only on ANI but also on his talk page and various other forums. Razer(talk) 12:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I am fairly aware of history of Mixmon and I find your accusations to be baseless. Accusation of "harassing" are serious and they cannot be posted without supporting diffs. Which "various other forums" are you even talking about? If anyone is "harassing and making bad faith accusation" at this stage, then that is only you. Editorkamran (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

[206] , [207] . Are comments like - " Your own history on this page shows you have been attempting to push a POV here. Can you describe why you are pretending to be an arbitrator all of now " not in bad faith and are attempts to discourage a user from participating in talk page discussion  ? Razer(talk) 13:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

So no "various other forums" exist. The quote you presented can be observed in the context that this edit summary clearly shows Mixmon pretending to be acting as uninvolved party despite he made his first edit ever on this talk page,[208] while their 2nd page was a spillover of same dispute. I don't think it is any attempt to "discourage a user from participating" but an attempt to urge the user to be more honest about their contribution. Editorkamran (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no Idea about your moral or ethical standards but threatening a user whose account is barely three months old and made a constructive comment on article talk page with - [209] "You are too late to the discussion" , " Your edits are disruptive " and then hounding him on his talk page - [210] by making allegation of pushing a POV and finally opening a frivolous ANI thread against him count as harassment to me.

You might wonder what kind of comment did Mixmon made to deserve such hounding, Well you will find that he made a simple comment - [211] stating - " Why is an edit war going on here when there is clearly no consensus on proposed changes "? I guess it's been happening for several weeks now." and suggested that the issue should be taken to DRN

Razer(talk) 14:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"three months old" account with talk page full of warnings for various offenses such as copyright violation, outing, canvassing?[212]

"such hounding"? Show where WP:WIKIHOUNDING actually took place against Mixmon? Editorkamran (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I'm going around in circles now; I will let others to offer their views here Razer(talk) 14:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Mmk9890 and their various sockpuppets

• Mmk9890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have a concern regarding a user that has been disrupting articles across the Ancient Egypt topic space. This report will probably require a CU-check and I suspect that at this point it rises to the level of an LTA.

This user first came to my attention at the article Wepwawetemsaf initially under the IP: 2a00:23c8:ab80:8001:85ca:64c7:5d2:e5f1 in August 2022. I wasn't involved in that particular incident at the article, though it was brought to my attention later via my watchlist resulting in this post. That was in response to User:Crybabywaaa (the IPs first sock puppet) posting this. Take note of the word ego. Now direct your attention to User talk:A. Parrot#Why should I take it to a talk page and note the editors second reply. The editor has a few noticeable habits, complaining about egos and bullies and invoking the wrath of the Egyptian pantheon. The user returned to the Wepwawetemsaf article on February 22, 2023 under a new IP. Their edits there are relevant to the sockpuppeting, but it's their edit history that I want to draw attention to as they had edited a single article prior to that one: The Contendings of Horus and Set. Specifically I want to draw attention to this and this edit to a user talk page. These display that second editing habit (actually, come to think of it, coherence is another issue). This leaves the present incident which has prompted this thread: there has been a new edit war at Horus instigated by the IP editor that left the remarks on A. Parrot's talk page and whose identification with the IP and Crybabywaaa is established via their talk page messages to Iry-Hor. This really leaves the need to tie Mmk9890 and the IP together and the key word here is 'bully' (shame and dishonour are also hints). Compare the edit summary left at 00:30 April 3, 2023 on Horus with the first talk page message left on A. Parrot's talk page at 00:35 April 3, 2023. The manner of writing between these users and IPs is much the same. That is, these are all the same individual.

For editors to know where to look through additional evidence: edit history of Wepwawetemsaf, comments left on user talk pages (A. Parrot, Iry-Hor, LoneStar and any others), edit history at Horus, talk page and edit history of The Contendings of Horus and Set. The main evidence is the manner of writing and the overlaps. I don't have time for more, hopefully enough for a start.

I'm pinging a few other editors that have had a history with the user and might be able to tie more threads here: A. Parrot, Iry-Hor, and Sirfurboy. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much to add; Mr rnddude has apparently seen more of this sockpuppeteer's behavior than I have. But I was pretty convinced that this is a sockpuppeteer and was trying to figure out what to do about it. Mr rnddude's admirably thorough summary has saved me the effort. A. Parrot (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: Mmk9890 has been blocked for two weeks for edit-warring and incivility by Daniel Case following an AIV and AN/EW request to intervene. The unblock request on their talk page is written in the same style employed by Crybabywaaa (I mean they quite literally do an impression of a crybaby saying 'waaa') and the incivil 'being judged' post beneath it is reminiscent of the invocations of divine wrath placed on the talk page of the Contendings of Horus and Set. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets can generally be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. See the collapsed box "how to open a case". I would do it for you but I have not seen all of the above, and would basically just have to copy and paste from your evidence. Mmk9890  Looks like a duck to me, and maybe an administrator will do the honours, but for a proper investigation, perhaps with checkuser evidence, you need SPI. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Well unfortunately some editors do not want to be constructive, only disruptive, and there is clearly nothing can be done to reason the user behind all these socks (I agree with the diagnostic that all are one and the same person).Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of SPI this morning – Sirfurboy is correct that that's the most appropriate forum – but with the account now indeffed I'm not sure if an SPI is necessary, or if I should leave it unless or until a new sockpuppet appears. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Zzuuzz and Tamzin are already on the case. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh hello. If one wants a name in the future, start here, and say that I said so. No comment on the IPs of course. Mostly they can probably just go to AIV. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Bilateral relations troll roundup

So I've been away for a week or so (been busy playing a lot of GTA V), so I had to catch up. Here are some unblocked IPs of who Jayron32 called the "bilateral relations troll" (with the previous discussion about that person here). Keep in mind that some (if not most) of those are stale.

• 176.220.121.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 176.220.109.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 176.220.219.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 5.176.178.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 5.176.186.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Seems like the first three and last two are each parts of large ranges. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Might consider these ranges:

• 176.220.216.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 176.220.120.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 94.235.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 5.176.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Archer1234, I'm on it. I note that one of the ranges was blocked by Maxim; it was marked as a CU block. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up with these. I hope this quiets down soon... --Jayron32 17:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You are right. The 94.xxx range was also previously CU blocked.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

They've now appeared on 72.229.242.36, an IP I already dealt with on a separate occasion in March. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Not the same person. That IP appears to be User:Creepershark77. The other IPs don't have the same editing pattern as this one does. --Jayron32 10:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. In any case, I just found yet another IP with a behavioral pattern matching the rest: 176.220.206.32. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Nyxaros

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Reversion_of_whole_edits there was a discussion of User:Nyxaros's edits, and there was a wide consensus to start a conversation about them here. User:Nyxaros has a consistent history of ignoring consensus and making personal attacks against editors. They simply does not at all appear willing to be part of a community here, and just wants to do their own thing. Examples of their problematic behavior include: after making an edit against the consensus at Don't Worry Darling [213] and getting reverted, instead of participating in discussion, they instead chose to leave passive aggressive edit summaries.[214][215] Other times they left uncivil edit summaries include: "that's sad for you", calling another a "disruptive editor", "Had the audacity to send a message without even knowing how to write an article. Nice.", called another editor smartass. Leaving a message saying Next time, see if the user you're pinging has any previous relevance or knowledge of the topic in question. Otherwise, you are wasting both parties' time." They have stated "I don't see the problem with a little bit aggressive replies from me on my talk page months or years ago to statements that attack me, such as Saying that "rotten" is not "negative" is stupid, and if you think that, you should be topic banned from film articles." Pinging GlatorNator, Tintor2, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, ProtoDrake, soetermans, and JOE who have all also expressed concerns about their behavior. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: "That's sad for you" is in response to the user that stated that what I think is "stupid" and if I think that I should be "topic banned" from film articles. I've already talked about that on WikiProject Video game articles discussion where you continued to prolong this issue about my talk page history insted of talking about the problems of Ada Wong page. "That's sad for you" is the only recent reply among the ones you name it as "uncivil" as others happened long ago. I have already admitted that I was wrong for "Had the audacity to send a message without even knowing how to write an article." from two years ago was bad on my part. Instead of improving the article, you are bringing messages from the past and wasting everyone's time. It seems my talk page history is more important for you than improving any article. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I have not dealt with Nyxaros besides the Video Game Wikiproject talk page, but there is clearly a WP:NOTHERE issue. Even as Nyxaros is claiming they did nothing wrong, they are still being insulting to other editors in real time. Example is "get over it" as a response to another editor's comment on their actions. Their talk page shows they consistently deleted legitimate issues brought up by other editors sans response. Being unable to take criticism from others is detrimental to building an encyclopedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: "Get over it" is not an "insult". I linked WP:GETOVERIT and WP:STICK. If you think these two pages are "insult"ing, you can discuss about them elsewhere. "Legitimate issues" that you are claiming have been all resolved. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Right before that, you had also linked "mind your own business". Wikipedia is a community, not a solo endeavor. If numerous people found your actions deleterious enough to discuss, maybe start soul searching instead of lashing out at people for butting into "your" business. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: As I mentioned, in addition to WP:GETOVERIT and WP:STICK, if you also think WP:BUTTOUT ("mind your own business") is insulting, you should discuss it on another talk page. ภץאคгöร 11:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Responding to the ping, I'm a relative outsider here, having not had direct interaction with Nyxaros. I have seen the stuff presented above, and been observing the WikiProject discussion. My opinion is that their editorial tone displays a stubborn refusal to take part in reasonable discussions and a passive-aggressive stance that is potentially damaging to editors and to the website. A bit that stood out was in a reply, where their edit summary was "really sad", which seems like a red flag to me given the discussion's context. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Yes, I genuinely think it is really sad that instead of improving the aforementioned article, editors presented so-called "uncivil" edit summaries from me years ago and try to make it relevant to now and that page. I don't know why finding such a situation sad (or upsetting, or frustrating) is considered a red flag. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The point being raised here is to do with conciliatory and civil attitude and tone. Which, given recent comments, is something you lack in both historic and contemporary interactions. I may have feelings of irritation over some thing or feel a close connection to pages, but I try not to use frequent quote marks and edit summaries that take on the tone of personal attacks. Looking at this and other responses, I feel that some kind of block is necessary for all sides. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block per above. Nyxaros' failure to respect WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as well as their refusal to respect consensus, is definitely within WP:NOTHERE territory. Every interaction I've had with this editor has been unpleasant, to say the least. Will point out that when I was in a dispute with Nyxaros at The Suicide Squad (film) in 2021 (discussion here), in which they faced unanimous opposition but continued to edit war anyway, I wasn't the only one who thought their behavior was ANI-worthy.) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at your incident has shown me more problematic behavior they have committed in the past: They edited an essay to better suit their argument in an unrelated discussion.[216][217] That may not be against any rules, but is definitely a red flag. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I do not remember you and I still do not understand what you want to achieve by claiming that I have a "serious problem" and my alleged "refusal to respect consensus" or "consistent uncivility" from long ago. The Suicide Squad (film) talk and Wikipedia:Review aggregators talk issues have been resolved in the Arbitrary break section almost two years ago. "If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing, then no matter which side you were on, you should walk away." "Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia." ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support of indef block. It's kind of hard to believe that they've been here for so long, acting as they've done. Take for instance this. Removing a standard notice about adding an incorrect image, calling Grapesoda22 a "disruptive editor". No discussion, no AGF. Or a reply like this: "This message and the edit summary is not a pleasant read, especially in terms of grammar..." Completely undeservedly rude behaviour. At the discussion at WT:VG they sounded like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with the most baffling remark "Yes, they happened on my talk page in the past", as if somehow that would mean it's acceptable behaviour to be an uncivil troll. I'd urge admins to take a look at their talk page history, as it's filled with these interactions. Competence is required and they utterly fail to be a competent civil editor. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: You have called me "uncivil troll" and "troll-ish", while taking quotes (some of them out of context) such as "This message and the edit summary is not a pleasant read, especially in terms of grammar." and calling them "undeservedly rude". Replies from months ago is not helping to this discussion, but your behaviour and stance against me is definitely rude. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Your point-by-point reply to everyone commenting is again WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I call a spade a WP:SPADE, I call an uncivil troll an uncivil troll (as in troll (slang). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: You repeat what you wrote more than me, which makes it look like WP:NOSPADE, and you are still required to be reasonably civil. Calling someone "troll" over and over doesn't help to resolve this discussion as everyone can clearly understand your thoughts. ภץאคгöร 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• For the record, I didn't write anything "uncivil" to anyone recently. On the contrary, I received responses that say I don't know what I am doing for 11 years, I am supposed to get their "consent" for my edits (expecting me to solve the problems I identified), I have a "serious problem", I am "uncivil troll" and my "normal behaviour" includes "troll-ish" actions. They opened Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games section to talk about the past and accuse me instead of talking about the problems and the edits on the Ada Wong page which has had intensive IP activity lately. Blame is attributed to me (as in my responses 2 years ago, which started with "Had the audacity..." and I already I was wrong at that time), but they see the right to make an uncivil attack on the person they accuse. Trying to reopen discussions that have been closed for a long time by linking them here, instead of constructively criticizing and discussing the Ada Wong article and my edit summaries, they found it appropriate to attack me in the style of "you had this wrong, you are troll" and in some cases, to misrepresent the past resolved situations. If they had taken steps to help the article, the issues would probably have been resolved by now. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't clear, but the issue is with you and your attitude towards your fellow editors. But I guess you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT?. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Their replies to this thread really exemplify their problems. If several established editors, most of whom have little to no interactions with me in the past, raise concerns about my edits, and no editor has defended me, I would want to have a discussion about what I seemed to be doing wrong, which is not what they're doing here. They seem to not understand the difference between calling out problematic behavior (something that we're encouraged to do) and personal attacks. Their comments that even having this discussion is a waste of time that should be spent editing articles shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Despite responding to every comment in this discussion, they have not addressed their behavior on their talk page, which has raised many concerns. I definitely feel that they need to be indefinitely blocked untill they're able to demonstrate that they realize the problems with their behavior. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not want to vote on whether we should ban him or not, but I would like to say that my experience interacting with this editor has also been unpleasant. He often uses edit summary to make snarky comments about other editors, which is highly inappropriate. This edit summary in particularly shows how hypocritical he is when he also left comments like these [218] and [219]. I also want to point out that there is another discussion about this editor's behaviour in the past as well. OceanHok (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Of course everyone should call out problematic behaviour, but is it really relevant to now? All you're doing is trying to revive long-dead debates ("problems", "edit summaries") that do not reflect the reality of now by taking some of them out of context. My edit summaries, "uncivil" or not, has nothing to do with now. So I don't quite understand the purpose of your repetitive comments just to argue and punish me, and don't see the point of getting an editor banned for past activities especially if most people actually forgave and forgot. A month ago an admin called me "stupid" and at the end, we were somewhat able to find common ground on the article and improved it instead of talking about rude behaviour and heating the argument for days. I didn't care much about it then and definitely don't now because both parties moved on because everyone makes mistakes. For this reason, I remind that I think it would be more ideal to spend the effort spent in this discussion on the page in question in order to improve the encyclopedia. That's just my opinion. ภץאคгöร 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

PS. I do not know anyone here, and I collaborated with a very few editors here and there. I don't expect anyone to make a defense and I don't know why a defense should be made or how editing summaries can be defended as they are often open to interpretation for everyone. ภץאคгöร 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like your comments being scrutinized, maybe change your attitude, huh? The point of looking up your old comments is to show it's a consistent pattern, not just an incident or two. I also just noticed, Nyxaros was blocked twice in 2019. "...for repeated violations of WP:CIVIL" (WP:CIVIL) - no suprise there I suppose. In June last year, Tintor2 tried talking to you. Your response: not taking the time to properly reply, but reverting to an earlier revision and leaving "You are not using quotes and being "repetitive", not me" as an edit summary. If that's also too old for your taste, your snarky (or "troll-ish", if you will) edit summary "that's sad for you" reacting to NinjaRobotPirate was a little over three weeks ago.

At no point have you taken responsibility for your words and actions, not then and not now. Instead of talking this through, or heaven forbid, you apologising to another, you're suggesting we go improve Wikipedia instead. But you seem to forget (ignore?) that fundamentally, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As your many instances of arguments and warnings show, working together is something you seem incapable of. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I didn't write anything about not liking my comments "being scrutinized" anywhere. Another misleading thing about my comments. NinjaRobotPirate's incident was already explained above (and on the WikiProject Video games section before), which is the one with "stupid". I clearly do not get your point (and do not actually care at this point as this discussion became a strange loop and a vicious circle than anything else) even though I explain the incident clearly you still try to come up with your own version of things for the long-dead edit summary incidents as someone who was not even involved in them. ภץאคгöร 11:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess one of the problems is that while you don't rememeber us, sadly we remember you and your behaviours, and how your edit summaries, while "open to interpretation for everyone", offended most people. I can forgive and forget if you are actually a changed person, but that is not the case (obviously). Through these discussions, we realize now that these are not singular incidents. You have always been rude and uncollaborative, both in the past and present, ultimately suggesting that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. OceanHok (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: "We" is not "most people", is it? You are taking your time to write paragraphs here, saying same things and trying to create different interpretations even though I explain them and most people just do not care enough to join this discussion as they have better things to do. There is literally not single evidence of showing my "rude and uncollaborative" behaviour now. I'm going to write it hopefully one last time that the last issue that is somewhat related to this discussion happened almost a month ago when an admin called me "stupid" and wrote that I should be "topic banned from film articles" becuse I wrote "rotten" doesn't mean "negative", and I replied "That's sad for you", which I thought was really upsetting and sad. Instead of arguing, both parties edited the page and moved on. Simple as that. (One minor point, by the way: it's unrealistic to expect anyone in any condition, anywhere in life, to magically "change" for anything all of a sudden.) ภץאคгöร 11:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree it's unrealistic to change all of a sudden. But it's been years. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

My stance was originally more neutral, but if you're seemingly implying that you can't change your ways, when the complaints here are about you being uncivil and unpleasant on a collaborative project, well, that's harder to overlook. Do you really find it so difficult to just be nice to other people? Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

New socks of User:Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123

Socks of Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 (talk · contribs) like to target the article Old East Slavic and now it looks like they are now making new accounts to restore previous edits and using the same troll-ish edit summaries. Probably the socks need to be blocked and there needs to be temporary page protection. Mellk (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Mellk, I've done a bit of spring cleaning of the old WP:SOCK drawer. Feel free to let me know if it turns out I've missed any pairs. —  Salvio ^giuliano 20:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not sure if removing that clear honeypot from their list of editable pages is beneficial, though. Perhaps we shouldn't force them to be less obvious about their sockpuppetry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

True. It seems they have decided to stop making new accounts for the time being anyway so it looks like there is nothing else that needs to be done. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Page protection request for CGTN Spanish

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

---

Since March 26, 2023, the page has been getting spam links added by either a spambot or an LTA. It was protected before, but the protection time may need to be increased. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

May also need to protect these page as well:

Radio in Paris

Georges Fontenis

Union communiste libertaire

Porro (surname)

Mass media in France

Talk:Turin

Talk:Campodarsego

Here are these sockpuppet I just manage to caught:

Ici et Maintenant ! hic et nunc ! Une radio lcomme Radio Gamma 5, 94FM Campodarsego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ici & Maintenant ! hic et nunc ! Une radio comme Radio Gamma 5, 94FM Campodarsego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kaseng55 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Kaseng55: In the future, it'd be best to submit protection requests at WP:RPP/I. You could also add to the existing sockpuppet investigation case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piermark. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

CGTN Spanish, seemingly the main focus of their spam, has been protected. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Possible IP LTA’s

14.138.48.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 14.138.50.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 1.219.65.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 202.14.90.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Take a look at their contributions. Must be some LTA’s…

These IPs have been giving warning letters to some random users. Kaseng55 (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kaseng55 this is highly likely to be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gweilo60. The sockmaster is probably pissed at their RMs being closed contrary to their expectations. – robertsky (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing / edit warring on Korea articles, possible block evasion

Pages affected:

• Geomungo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Haegeum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Durumagi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hanbok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wonsam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved in the disruption:

• 182.225.106.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.197.207.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 211.109.6.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 185.225.191.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User involved on the other side of the disruption:

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

Coming across this multiple article dispute between User:John Yunshire and the IP editors listed above, I warned the latest involved IP (124.197.207.30) about edit warring (link), and also left a message on John Yunshire's talk page suggesting to follow WP:DR or perhaps report problematic users to an admin noticeboard when in a dispute, instead of constantly reverting their edits back (diff). There has been no response or further reverts by the IP(s) since I warned the latest involved one, but User:John Yunshire has replied back to me on my talk page saying that the IP editor is a "disruptive blocked IP hopper", and that they are giving them "no recognition" (diff). The edit summaries of the latest reverts claim "Block evasion, disruptive editing" (example).

I did some further looking into this, and the only IP that has been blocked in the past or has a currently active block, is 185.225.191.153, which is rangeblocked as 185.225.191.0/24 as a "Colocation Webhost". That IP was last involved in 29 November 2022 on only one of the five listed affected articles above, Wonsam, besides another one that isn't listed or related here. The edit from it looks very different to the other IPs too. Maybe John Yunshire can chip in on who exactly these IPs are block evading / any disruption on other wikis that led them to revert the IPs' edits here. The IP editors can also comment too if they have anything to say about this.

The disruption here is happening at a rate of one revert every 2 days, up to a rate of two reverts per day, but also this has been going on for several months now, unnoticed. On the article Haegeum, the exact same edit has been reverted back and forth at least eight times, over the span of a month or so.

There has not been any discussion on user or article talk pages, well besides my warnings/notices about edit warring of course.

I think that either the involved users (the IPs at the least) need to be blocked from editing for quite some time, or the affected articles should all be semi-protected for a few months or more. This disruption looks like it isn't going to stop without any action being taken here, given that looking at the edit histories of the articles, things may seem calm for a week or two, and then suddenly ceasefire is no more.

AP 499D25 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I apologize I acted too emotionally. I haven't been active as registered user so far, And these 3 IPs were all me in that I had to move around several places frequently.

I will have time of self-reflection, and won't cause edit war for a while. I promise I won't be active in wikipedia as IP user anymore, and will active as registered user. And I ask you to modify the articles neutrally to prevent further edit war. 124.197.207.130 (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the response and clarification.

As Valereee mentioned below, it is highly advisable not to edit war with other editors. When you get into a dispute with another editor, you start a discussion on the article's talk page or on the other user's talk page about your edits, why you think they are correct / should be restored etc. If that doesn't work out / isn't appropriate for that instance, then choose one of the next options on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

If you are more familiar with Korean than English, then also see ko:위키백과:편집_분쟁, which is the Korean version of the Wikipedia policy page about edit warring and how to resolve disputes.

So can you confirm that the edits by the 4th IP above (185.225.191.153—for example, this edit) weren't by you?

AP 499D25 (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That was not me. The 4th IP user is not me. There is a record that the user edited Mari Boya but I haven't heard about him and certainly have no memory that I edited that article as well. 124.197.207.130 (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

So I'm thinking what actually happened here, is John Yunshire has been mislead by the previous blocked IPs and users on the articles and mistakenly assumed that you are a vandal / are block evading them.

If John Yunshire could jump in this discussion and acknowledge what has happened here, that would be great.

I think we all make mistakes from time to time, it's the acknowledging of them that determines a good outcome in the end.

I mean, I myself have run into an instance where one edit I made was mistaken as vandalism and reverted erroneously too, it was an edit where I removed a lot of sections, words, and sources that were duplicated / copied and pasted over accidentally by a different editor. The step I took after that was to leave a message on the user talk page of the editor who reverted me to check over my edit again, and indeed they recognised the mistake and restored my edit. A little bit of communication with the other editor can come a long way!

AP 499D25 (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If these are IP hoppers, blocking won't do much good. Maybe semi the articles?

(ec), ah. Well, yes, IP. It would be better if you'd register an account. FWIW, "won't cause edit war for a while" is not good enough, you need to never edit war. The best-practices progression when you're reverted is to immediately go to the talk page, open a section, and ping the other editor to discuss. Valereee (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Valereee Very difficult to confirm (as I don't read any of the languages involved) but there is at least a good chance that the IPs edit is actually accurate. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't try to drag me into content! :D Valereee (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

User:FowH is WP:NOTHERE

FowH (talk · contribs) has not a single good edit and their edits are purely disruptive. See for example their edits on Ivan Aivazovsky where they simply remove all content they do not like without explanation to push a POV.[220][221]. They have been warned multiple times already for the same behavior. See for example other unexplained content removals such as [222] and this[223] which removed 60,000 bytes simply because they did not like the content. I think they have received enough warnings and need an indefinite block. Mellk (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, it's blatantly false that he "has not a single good edit". Just looking through he Ivan Aivazovsky page, this edit is perfectly fine as is the first one you called "POV".

Honestly it looks as if you both should be blocked, because you do quite the opposite; whereas he is pushing to remove mentions of Russia from famous Ukranians, you're not stranger to Russifying Ukranian history: just from today you did it here, and here, and here, AND here, and that's just a few diffs I looked at.

Propose sanctions for both FowH and BOOMERANG sanction for User:Mellk

2601:18F:1080:48F0:25FB:1FF3:C9E4:AA65 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not a good edit because it does not follow the consensus established at WP:KIEV. There is also nothing "good" about blanking an entire section that is well sourced without giving a reason and proceeding to do this again when reverted. Also if you are familiar with what a "boomerang" is, then you should be familiar with what a revert is. But it is always a good sign when a random IP shows up here. Mellk (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the general picture, but I do think in that particular case Kyiv would be accurate as it seems to be describing a modern-day event (an exhibition honouring Aivazovsky in Ukraine not long ago), but you know what they say about broken clocks being right twice a day...

The fact that the overwhelming majority of his contributions are being reverted by other editors and even by bots that consider them vandalism (and blanking a page because you don't like its content possibly falls into the category) is quite telling. A random IP popping up with ludicrous claims points in the same direction. A block or at the very least an indefinite TBAN could be in order. Ostalgia (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You are right, my mistake. Mellk (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

A ridiculous suggestion, especially given that the links you provided either don't support what you are saying or are cases of Mellk undoing non-constructive edits. How did you find this discussion, given that you're an IP? — Czello 08:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You really cant be complaining considering you have a thing for refusing to take part in consensus building discussions. Bigshlomo (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't make silly comments please, clearly you are here simply because you hold a grudge. Mellk (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m here because I wanted to thank FowH for his edits. Your edits in the Ukrainian art genre have not reflected any efforts to build a Wikipedia, rather to Russify Ukrainian culture. I agree with the IP address.

Propose sanctions for @Mellk Bigshlomo (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Bit strange to thank someone for disrupting the project, maybe it also helps us to determine whether you are WP:HERE (with 13 mainspace edits)? you're not stranger to... you have a thing for... it is all starting to sound the same... Mellk (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Your scare tactics on newer users by threatening administrative action (and insinuating you have some kind of power) isn’t going to work here. Bigshlomo (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You have had this account for over 7 months now with only 13 mainspace edits such as [224]. You say a user's disruption is good here. WP:CIR looks to be the issue. I am not going to waste any more of my time on your attempt to derail this, a block is simply needed. Mellk (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Also strike your comment please if you are not going to provide diffs for bogus claims. Mellk (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is free to look at your behavior on Malevych’s talk page Bigshlomo (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Then strike your comment if you are not going to provide WP:DIFFS. Or do you think "everyone is free to look" really works? Mellk (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP user’s diffs work fine. I’m adding on :) Bigshlomo (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Also they were alerted about contentious topics earlier. And instead of responding to any warnings or notices they decide to continue their disruptive editing.[225] Mellk (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Without a single talk page response (either on their own talk or article talk) and sheerly disruptive edits like this, I can only conclude that this is a case of nationalist editing and an attempt to right great wrongs. If they're going to refuse to communicate, then an indef is the only option. — Czello 08:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing else has changed except edit summaries referring to "Russian bots"[226] and nationalistic drivel[227][228]. So I do not see any other option aside from an indefinite block. Mellk (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Mir Harven - WP:NOTHERE

This user seems to have nearly two full decades of sporadic, but long-term uncivil behavior just on English Wikipedia, with no apparent change at all. Since they post sporadically and on few places, it's easy to pinpoint all the places they've been targetting. I'll be going to focus on the most recent incidents:

• Talk:Croatian language:
  • #Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023: suggests another user to "educate" themselves, for which they proceed to link a well known ultraconservative and nationalist organization website, Hrvatsko kulturno vijeće (HKV), whose president is no more no less the screenwriter of Jasenovac – istina, Hrvoje Hitrec, and which is also the publisher and online host of Hrvatski tjednik (a neofascist-leaning weekly newspaper). Here in particular, in accordance with HKV's far-right rhetoric, they call SIL International "simply a group of uniformed zealots", apparently for granting Chakavian its own ISO code.
  • The section right above contains a whole lot of link spam to WP:OR YouTube videos and 'sources' that were used for those videos. Archives from 2010 and before contain more and worse examples of this. And checking their contributions log, spamming talk pages is virtually all they've been doing on English Wikipedia, since the articles they've been edit-warring on for so long got protected.
• Talk:Serbo-Croatian:
  • #Political Context is Unclear: links a pro-Herzeg-Bosnia forum for a "more reliable" overview of the topic... and complains that "Wikipedia warriors made ‘Polish writer’ Isaac Bashevis Singer Jewish again" in an attempt to 'prove' unreliability of Wikipedia. Interesting pattern...
• Warnings, sanctions, blocks...
  • User talk:Mir Harven: speaks for itself; just search these keywords: "Serbian sickos, psychos, trolls, moron" when politely warned not to do that.
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive69#Mir Harven from 2010.
  • the rest of appearances on Administrators' noticeboard.
  • their block log.
  • not sure what initiated deletion of these diffs but it is worth looking into them.

Clearly, a WP:NOTHERE WP:SPA. –Vipz (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Come August 8th, it'll be exactly two decades of this. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Cukrakalnis and Marcelus' history of incivility/bickering towards each other

Note: I have talked about this in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Marcelus, but I believe that it is better to bring this matter of conduct between Cukrakalnis and Marcelus to ANI as it is less so about WP:ARBEE but more about editor conduct.

I have recently been aware that two editors- Cukrakalnis and Marcelus- have a long history of bickering, arguing and personal attacks at each other. The two editors seem mainly to disagree largely on their views on Lithuania-Poland relations and they seem to use personal attacks during their disagreements.

If you look at Cukrakalnis' talk page archive here (User talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2023/March#Category:Non-German infantry divisions of the Waffen-SS), you can see that both editors are making personal attacks towards each other instead of constructively discussing their disagreement.

Here are the potential personal attacks the two editors stated:

P.S. Marcelus, stop stalking everything that I do. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That's your third attempt on pushing a WP:FRINGE theory; you are literally destroying a clear existing disctinction between voluntary and conscript Waffen-SS foreign units. You fail to see the difference between "foreign" and "non-German"; and no 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) wasn't Ukrainian division, as you changed in the description, but a German division that consisted of mostly Ukrainian soldiers. That's a big difference, you are ignoring or are unable to see. Marcelus (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

By this point, it just seems like you're trying to just sabotage whatever I do and just oppose me doing something just because I am doing it. Get a life. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

However, as mentioned before, this is not new; these two editors have stated personal attacks against each other in the past too (see User talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2023/February#ZZ), (User talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2021/November#Kołyszko) for examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct by these two editors).

Furthermore, what is concerning is that especially, Marcelus seems to be unaware of the impact his actions could have on Cukrakalnis and seems to justify his incivility judging from this diff left on my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShadow_of_the_Starlit_Sky&diff=next&oldid=1147194057&diffmode=source). However, Cukrakalnis seems to at least somewhat understand the impact of his actions judging from this message on his talk page (User talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2023/March#Regarding your statement about Marcelus' personal attacks). This doesn't make Cukrakalnis' actions any less problematic, though; he still has engaged in prolonged incivil discussions with Marcelus.

I do not wish the two editors to be indef banned, though; both contribute very well to the mainspace and has made tons of constructive contributions. Thus, I believe that a 2 way IBAN for at least a month is the best course to take so both editors can continue contributing to the mainspace.

-- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain to me where this unusual interest in my person comes from? You created your account less than a month ago, and just a few days later you spoke out on WP:AE against me ([229]). You claim to be uninvolved, but refer to my "past conflicts regarding Polonization of Lithuanian names". It also looks like you tried to create an account pretending to be an ArbCom member, User:Arbitration Committee SPI Clerk (link to your t/p). Why does a new user have such a strong interest in the ArbCom?

To answer your allegations: this is at least the third discussion about the same thing in the last few weeks. I don't know what's the point of starting a new thread on Noticeboard about the same thing and bringing up issues from almost two years ago.

I don't see anything in my statement on the @Cukrakalnis t/p that violates WP:PERSONAL; as I said on your t/p I could have written it a bit differently, but I think I was right to protest the changes made by Cukrakalnis in categories. Which, by the way, was confirmed by the CfD result (link).

I don't know what purpose IBAN would serve in this case, I was somehow not particularly affected by Cukrakalnis' words. Marcelus (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus,

I don't have the time to type up an entire essay about this, so please refer to this user subpage; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shadow_of_the_Starlit_Sky/Why_the_heck_am_I_editing_pages_about_Lithuania%3F_Well,_here%27s_my_answer. Naturally, after finding several pages about Lithuania that I am considering to edit, I have looked at the edit histories of these pages and looked through the user and talk pages of several editors as well as a couple of talk page archives. I looked through the archives and found that you and Cukrakalnis has been through several disputes in the past (that may have contained personal attacks) so I decided to address it at ANI through a third party perspective.

And as for my interest in the ArbCom, it all came down to my first discovery of the long term abuse page prior to joining Wikipedia. One day I wondered why Wikipedia wasn't breaking down if "everyone could edit it". That led me to falling in a research rabbit hole regarding Wikipedia governance and policies and eventually the LTA page.

And furthermore regarding User:Arbitration Committee SPI Clerk, I initially created the account to prevent impersonation of the ArbCom but I realized that creating the account caused some disruption following a conversation with several administrators. I have apologized to said admins and promised not to do this again.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

-- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 17:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's not a problem for you, could you please link the IP number or username under which you edited earlier? Also can you elaborate what was the idea behind creating "the account to prevent impersonation of the ArbCom", how was that suppose to work exactly? Marcelus (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not wish to reveal the IP address I edited under due to security and privacy reasons. I have not edited under any other account on Wikipedia, though, either (except for User:Shadow of the Starlit Sock- an alt I keep so it can be used when my main account is hacked or compromised). I have edited other wikis that use MediaWiki such as AoPS Wiki and SciOly Wiki, though, albeit very infrequently. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 19:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem Marcelus (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shadow of the Starlit Sky I have tried to address this almost a year ago in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#User:Marcelus repeatedly breaking WP:NPA and doubling-down on it, but nothing came out of it :

Marcelus has repeatedly belittled me, thus breaking WP:NPA. His words clearly fulfill WP:IUC, which says (d) belittling a fellow editor is against Wiki rules.

I would like to ask for a one-way WP:IBAN, whereby Marcelus is banned from interacting with me due to his chronic and intractable hostile disposition towards me.

There is a pattern of Marcelus denying that he has been uncivil/engaged in personal attacks towards me as he has said such things: I didn't insult you once, but I stand by what I said you have deficiencies in the critical apparatus... 16 July 2022. He has not changed his attitude of denying that he has ever insulted me, as can be seen in Marcelus' answer just above mine. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to shift gears a moment and ask you, @Shadow of the Starlit Sky:, why you are reporting this. Reporting this kind of behavior between two other editors strikes me as a bit odd without evidence of disruption. I share Marcelus' raised eyebrow about your interest into the wikipersonal (is that a word here yet? I'm using it) lives of these editors. If you had diffs of disruption, or edit warring, or any evidence of this spat disrupting WP at all I could understand but your links are exclusively to Cukrakalnis' talk page (and yours, where Marcelus asked for clarification about you talking about their interactions with Cukrakalnis).

TL;DR : Why pick up this torch? GabberFlasted (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

What’s the point reporting this @Shadow of the Starlit Sky?

And are you shadowing this fellow? --> User:StarryNightSky11 <-- Nothing against you StarryNightSky11, I’m not suggesting them are you, you just popped up into my attention here because of the similar names.

Something weird is going on here with that few weeks-old account (Shadow account) and his interests in reporting people - these two individuals in particular (Cukrakalnis and Marcelus). Notice that they perfectly know Wikipedia jargon already and their way around here. I don’t have time to study it but admin folks, please approach this report with caution. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't going to broach this topic without giving them a chance to respond but since it's out there now, I highly concur with GCB above me. A new account jumping into ArbCom discussions is odd. A new account making an alt account to pre-emptively doppelganger an ArbCom clerk is (!?). A new account starting to police behavior of other editors on their own talk pages like this is starting to get really weird, especially when the reminders start feeling like lectures. Either something is going on here, or SotSS really just hopped the rails of usual new editor development. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella, I had no idea about that other Shadow account until yesterday when I found them at WP:AIV reporting several sockpuppet accounts who were vandalizing a bunch of pages about swine flu (while I was reporting a couple of vandals myself while doing my usual anti vandalism work). All similarities in usernames are entirely coincidental.

And on my knowledge of Wikimedia jargon, please see my response to Marcelus; I think that would address that point. (TL;DR: I basically wondered why Wikipedia wasn't falling down if anyone could edit it and fell into a research rabbit hole regarding Wikimedia policies and governance and even found the LTA page.

Last but not least, please refer to me using she/her pronouns in the future.

-- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 17:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat - very odd report. Without even going into the weird alt issue, a quick look at this account's profile and contributions gives the impression of someone trying to "speedrun" Wikipedia from regular editor to admin (there are even progress bars!). Plenty of noticeboard interventions on topics they were not involved in immediately stand out. There's also a lot of policing on a variety of topics, which in theory isn't bad, but in doing so OP also seems to exercise very poor judgment at times: this is OP remvoing as "pov-pushing" a sourced claim of an antisemitic organisation passing off non-Jewish people as Jews in an attempt to promote a conspiracy theory regarding the coronavirus pandemic. This is just unacceptable, and assuming good faith one can only surmise that OP is completely ignorant of issues pertaining to the topic of antisemitism. It feels like they need to step back a bit, get off other people's backs and find an area where they can contribute meaningfully and knowledgeably. Ostalgia (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Some kind of WP:BOOMERANG is in order here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to speak up for the OP, not excusing their actions but we don't know the experiences they may have in life that cause them to respond certain ways. We should expect a certain level of ignorance of how Wikipedia operates from new editors. Some editors might be a little too aggressive and might move into areas of the encyclopedia and community before they really are able to comprehend their function but this is a good learning experience. While Wikipedia is not obliged to accommodate every nuance within every editors life experiences and how that correlates to their editing here, especially when it comes to disruptive editing, I believe we should give them the benefit of a doubt that what they say are the reasons are in fact their true reasons and there is nothing nefarious or malicious intended. I believe a strongly worded response followed by some guidance to be a far better recourse than any kind of sanction at this point. Any further disruption would, of course, make my suggestion moot. --ARoseWolf 16:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia, please don't assume bad faith. Like @ARoseWolf said, I am a new editor and may not be entirely knowledgeable of how Wikipedia works (although I know a bit of policy- please see my response to Marcelus for the answer to that question).

@ARoseWolf, thank you for your words. I am not engaging in anything nefarious or bad faith; I only wish to seek a resolution to a long term dispute as a third party.

If I do anything wrong, please feel free to let me know. Like I said, I am new to Wikipedia and not particularly experienced.

Regards,

-- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 17:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Daceyvillain - Eastern Suburbs (Sydney)

Daceyvillain has being unnecessarily destructive editing and removing factual and well cited information from the Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) page. From the start the page has acknowledged that the Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) as a whole is Watsons Bay to La Perouse with 5 LGAs. It then goes into detail about how the northern part of the Eastern Suburbs which are east of the CBD within the Waverley and Woollahra Council neighbourhoods vary from the south-eastern suburbs within City of Randwick and eastern parts of Bayside Council. They have different roads, federal divisions and are different socio-econimically and demographically. The official Australian Bureau of Statistics also acknowledge the different regions of the Eastern Suburbs and cuts it into Eastern Suburbs - North and Eastern Suburbs - South. Daceyvillain from the start hasn't liked any reference nor acknowledgement to this distinction regardless of references and citation as he believe the eastern suburbs is just one simple neighbourhoods/region from Watsons Bay to La Perouse with no demographic distinction whatsoever. He's now edited the page removing the well cited and factual 'Sub-Regions' section altogether. He's been pushing his own agenda and opinion from the start ignoring facts in front of him which he doesn't agree with. The Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) page reached an accurate and reliable compromise of information with the edit made on 15:21, 4 April 2023. This edit acknowledged the region as a whole is Watsons Bay to La Perouse but then went into detail about governance, sub-regions and neighbourhoods. All this information has now been removed by Daceyvillain as from the very start his biased opinion of the Eastern Suburbs not having any sub-regions nor distinction between areas is all he cares about pushing onto the page. Can this be mediated properly by an unbiased editor and this editor stopped from his agenda pushing tirade. If you check the Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) talk page and previous edits You'd see the mess that has unfolded. 2405:6E00:289:B4FC:64B2:E702:CFE6:10EC (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

There have been multiple edits by various anon IPs to articles relating to Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Most of these IPs have surfaced since the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South-Eastern Sydney. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Also this IP claims not to be the same person as other IPs with very similar edits. 2405:6E00:289:B4FC:64B2:E702:CFE6:10EC (talk · contribs) has refused to create an account to avoid such a confusion despite multiple requests. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

A series of anonymous IPs (which we assume are the same person) have been pushing their own original research relating to the Eastern Suburbs for the past several weeks and months. Their goal seems to be to divide the Eastern Suburbs into sub-regions in order to separate "different classes" of people. In general, there are ongoing elements of racism and classism to their edits.

Their edits have included personal attacks, revert wars, and a general refusal to accept government documents and maps which contradict their own opinion. In particular, government documents and maps generally treat the Eastern Suburbs as a large, contiguous region and do not break it into sub-regions.

Some relevant pages:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South-eastern_Sydney (note: this page was removed due to it being original research)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South-eastern_Sydney (note: as the article was removed, the talk page is no longer visible, but there was a large debate there)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Suburbs_(Sydney)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eastern_Suburbs_(Sydney)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daceyvillain (note: various personal attacks on me)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LibStar (note: several earlier discussions about this topic have been archived)

Thank you. I apologise for this distraction. Daceyvillain (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is a non-exhaustive list of the IPs involved. From the IP location, the ISP (Vodafone), the pages edited, and the edits made, it is very likely most or all of these users are actually the same person

Mobile phone roaming IP

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:8849:1A0D:D5:A799 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:64B2:E702:CFE6:10EC (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:94EB:B228:CA4B:181F (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:A0C7:A899:D26E:935C (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:9D3D:6AF2:9631:CAC1 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:E463:57CB:20B0:9AF3 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:9FF:2DA8:7A47:8746 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:8517:E35F:71FC:1A99 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:CC94:9985:72C3:641A (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:2512:DF8B:6D5E:6F17 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:146E:8AE7:956C:80EE (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:491:CA5E:F8B2:32C6:E05F:5101 (Vodafone)

Fixed IP

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.49.228.129 (corporate, The Good Guys) Daceyvillain (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

To me it looks like the one person behind the IP range Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:0:0:0:0/64 and the static address Special:Contributions/203.49.228.129 has been indulging in violations of WP:No original research in various Sydney-related articles for a while now, trying to redefine the neighborhoods. This person is adding excessive detail with only scattered support in primary sources, and nothing from WP:SECONDARY sources. I'm seeing WP:NOTHERE because the person is not trying to summarize published sources for our readers; rather, they are trying to impose changes in definitions. I would topic ban this person from anything related to Greater Sydney. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with topic ban suggested above and the personal attacks still continue after this ANI was lodged. [230] LibStar (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

despite already reporting here the anon IP has decided to report Darcyvillian as a vandal with this edit and this. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

And more forum shopping by anon IP here. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

And now a different anon IP contacts me claiming to be different. [231]. Perhaps a topic ban and/or semi protection of articles in question. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• The indigenous WP:BOOMERANG should redound on the OP who should be blocked as Special:Contributions/49.255.185.235, Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/203.49.228.129 for starters. Violations of WP:MULTIPLE are tolerated even less than WP:Tendentious editing. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, I think that Special:Contributions/203.49.228.129 and Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:0:0:0:0/64 (the whole range) are the same person

  But I think that Special:Contributions/49.255.185.235 could be a different person.

  Either that or someone is talking to themselves at User_talk:49.255.185.235

  ... it would be much simpler if everyone would just register an account. Daceyvillain (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If Special:Contributions/49.255.185.235 is a different person, then it should be noted they are also using multiple IPs: Special:Contributions/49.255.223.3 and Special:Contributions/49.255.252.131. I think these three 49.255 IPs are the same person. There's also Special:Contributions/49.186.36.122 who made a personal attack on you: "Daceyvillain is a sad ignorant fascist". That IP also made reverts to re-inforce the OP's viewpoint. Something must be done to stop this disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

and now yet another IP makes personal attacks again [232]. We definitely need some admin intervention here. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This is really dumb and I am sorry for the distraction. I’m sure everyone has better things to do. Daceyvillain (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Annoyingly, part of my comment was not saved. The two 49.186.x.x IPs write with the same voice and are both coming from Optus (but from Optus in Victoria, which is weird). Probably the same person. Daceyvillain (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

IP vandalism 74.51.195.74

This IP address has been making disruptive edits (that have been reverted since) at a series of songs/albums articles: Special:Contributions/74.51.195.74. Ippantekina (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks too stale to block for now, but I've reverted their edits and left a warning. If disruption resumes go ahead and try a final vandalism warning and then report to WP:AIV; if they start to hop instead you can use {{uw-multipleIPs}}. Other than that nothing to be done at that moment. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal threat

Similarly, this user is also casting aspersions.[233] Editorkamran (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that the reporter has been engaged in an edit war at G. D. Bakshi (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It actually goes back further than these 5 edits for Editorkamran, but these 5 were all since April March 28th, with 4 of them being since April 3rd. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I am reverting a WP:NOTHERE editor who is only there to censor content with misleading edit summaries. Your defense for this editor is unconvincing.

"April 28th"? Let see if your prediction becomes true! Editorkamran (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Another 11 instances where you re-added text about "He has promoted fake news and misinformation on a number of occasions" to the lead, while removing or relocating other relevant information: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

While I do believe their comment should be interpreted as a legal threat, I also strongly believe you to be edit warring and POV pushing. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If you believe there is a case of "edit warring" or "POV pushing" then you are welcome to dispute the content in question. Until then, you can spend your energy in doing better things. Editorkamran (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I am calling attention to the issue by replying with said information to this ANI, that was the entire point of my comment. See WP:BOOMERANG. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure that with these comments are you not even helping with the original comment but acting contrary to the purpose of this noticeboard? Editorkamran (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Shushruth s for legal threats. I have also blocked Editorkamran for two weeks for edit warring, editing without consensus in the contentious India-Pakistan topic area, and WP:BLP violations including use of poor quality sources. Editorkamran, your POV pushing behavior at G. D. Bakshi is unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Block review

@Cullen328: Poor block on Editorkamran. You seem to be having a very poor understanding of every single aspect of this entire incident. The edit warring you are talking about is nothing but reversions of disruptive random vandals who are only attempting to get rid of important information about their far-right ideologue anyhow. It makes no sense for you to demand others to build consensus with them and also tolerate their vandalism at the same time. Can you show me a single discussion that claims the provided sources to be unreliable?[234][235] They are as reliable as it gets. Many editors including me have been restoring this content for ages so you cannot claim that there was no consensus for these edits. You can't just join in a content dispute, misrepresent the quality of sources and edit through protection after blocking another editor who happens to be right. In such circumstances, you are supposed to start a discussion yourself and keep your admin buttons at bay. Kindly undo your block. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996. You contend that it is perfectly acceptable to take a biography of a living person who served at high levels in the Indian Army for 36 years, and add a second sentence to the lead section so that it reads: Major General Gagan Deep Bakshi SM, VSM or G. D. Bakshi (born 1950) is a retired Indian Army officer. He has promoted fake news and misinformation on a number of occasions. Do you truly believe those two sentences accurately and neutrally summarize this man's life and career? Well, I disagree and that does not mean that I like this man or the government that he served and now supports politically. This version of the lead section is a clear violation of the exceptionally important policies WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and accordingly I stand by my block and my removal of that content. As always, I appreciate a review of my actions by uninvolved editors. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Your response fails to address even a single concern I raised.

Where is any BLP violation when the content has been perfectly supported by the reliable sources that you smeared as "low quality sources"?[236]

You haven't answered my question. Can you show me a single discussion that claims the provided sources to be unreliable? On the contrary, the discussions exist to prove their reliability as already told to you here.

When the content is supported by the reliable sources in question, how can you impose your belief that its a BLP violation after smearing the reliable sources as poor quality sources?

You are supposed to revert this edit by now when you have 0 explanation for your actions other than saying "I stand by my block and my removal of that content," when you have failed to prove how the sources are actually unreliable or there was no consensus for these edits. This is not expected from an admin per WP:ADMINCOND. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The content from the lede that Cullen328 removed was clearly and unambiguously a violation of WP:BLP policy and of WP:NPOV. The lede of a biography (any biography, of anyone, living or not) is not a tabloid attack piece. There are many ways of indicating, in a neutral manner, that the individual's views are controversial, without using such language. I suggest you find some. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Take a look at many articles like Jack Posobiec, Robert W. Malone, Marjorie Taylor Greene and many others. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That utterly non-neutral two sentence lead section is based on highly biased, polemical sources who despise Bakshi, and zero attempt has been made to present the other side of the story. That's a policy violation. Let's hear from uninvolved editors now. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, the block is unwarranted and what you are discussing is purely a content dispute. From "low quality sources" you have now changed your stance to "highly biased, polemical sources who despise Bakshi"? That is nothing more than yet another poor attempt by you to justify your unwarranted block. How the block was warranted for imposing these subjective views by you or editing through page protection? The Print and Alt News are reliable sources and you cannot smear them without achieving consensus on WP:RSN first since there have been many discussions concluding them as reliable sources on RSN. See RSN threads here (for Alt News), here (Alt News), here (the Print), here (the Print). Admins like C.Fred, Materialscientist have been also reverting the vandalistic attempts to remove this content. Are you going to block them as well? Whether the content needs to be on lead or not is purely a content dispute, but it has been backed with good quality reliable sources contrary to your every single claim that it was based on low quality sources and there was no consensus when many editors have restored the reliably sourced content. Blocking an editor after another admin put full protection over your subjective views is beyond the pale.

@El C, Bishonen, Deepfriedokra, and RegentsPark: Can you take a look at this uncomfortable mockery of good quality reliable sources like Alt News and The Print to justify an unwarranted block of a productive editor? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not gonna say this was a bad block overall because Editorkamran certainly was edit warring at least, but I'm not really convinced by Cullen's side of this story either. The Print appears to be a reliable source at least at first glance: they publish their editorial policy on their website and it seems reasonable, and in our article on it we don't note anything that would be disqualifying. Is one reliable source enough to source "promoted fake news and misinformation on a number of occasions" in the lead of a BLP? Probably not, but it's also not egregious enough to block over by itself. Loki (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I contend that largely basing the lead section of a BLP on two highly biased, polemical sources that discuss a recent small part of this person's long career in a one-sided way, failing to provide any balance as required by WP:NPOV, and edit warring to restore the content when it is challenged is a policy violation that justifies a two week block, and removal of the content. I did not block for just one reason "by itself", but for several reasons that I described in the section above, including the edit warring that you acknowledge. Cullen328 (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's a small part of this person's career and whether balance is required or even could be provided are all part of the content dispute, though. Loki (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, is it your conclusion that the two sentence version of the lead is not a BLP violation? Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not unambiguously, no. Loki (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Whether it's a BLP violation hinges on the quality of the sources, the accuracy with which we summarize them, whether they're representative and WP:DUE, and so on. These are serious enough questions that it probably should have been reverted to the last stable version and hashed out on talk; but I don't think it is sufficiently obvious of a problem to warrant immediately blocking the editor. More generally - we usually warn before blocking for edit-wars precisely because the purpose of our policies is to encourage users to talk things out; blocks are preventative, not punitive, and the page was already protected, so there was nothing so pressing as to require an immediate two-week block. There's no reason to think that if you warned Editorkamran bout edit-warning and pointed them to WP:BLPRESTORE, they wouldn't have backed down, or at least moved the discussion to talk where it belonged. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Aquillion, the editor was warned about edit warring on 31 January 2023 and warned about disruptive editing on 1 February 2023. They have been advised that India-Pakistan is a contentious topic area in 2020 and again on 7 January 2023. Cullen328 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• 1 February (a retaliatory warning) and concerns same article the one from 31 January which is Subhas Chandra Bose, but not this article about G. D. Bakshi. Even on talk page, only Editorkamran participated but not the another editor.[237] This has nothing to do with the block you made today. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  The edit warring warning from January 31, 2023, was issued by an uninvolved editor (DaxServer). It's relevant because it shows that others have considered their behaviour to be edit warring and that they have been warned about it already. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: There was no revert after warning, and neitherCullen328 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC) there was a clear violation of 3RR. Many editors have restored the content against the vandalism occurring on this article. To be more specific, the last revert by Editorkamran was the reversion of vandalism like this, and it shouldn't be construed as "edit warring". Alt News was also used on the same edit for supporting the information and it is also a reliable source.[238] The Print and Alt News, two high-quality sources supported the information in question. See the WP:RSN threads I have provided just now in my comment above. Cullen328's negative comments on these reliable sources can be best described as smears. The block is unwarranted and Cullen328's explanations even from an editorial point of view, are completely baseless. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I await more input from uninvolved editors. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the polemical headline run by one of the sources: Maj. Gen. GD Bakshi, shrillest warmonger in the media, hits new low with gaali on Republic TV: As the retired Army officer Friday let loose a volley of insults at another Republic Bharat panellist — probably a first on TV — here's a profile of G.D. Bakshi from March 2019. and here is some of their polemical reporting: Nowadays, whenever the media needs a defence expert to cry war on Prime Time television, Bakshi is inevitably the man for the job. You can find him wagging a self-righteous finger on your television every other night, his gruff voice reaching a breaking point as his temper rises and his nostril flares. And on and on it goes. That's not news reporting; it is vitriol. The other source accuses Bakshi of making false statements about one specific incident in his long career. Where is Bakshi's side of the story? The incident described in that source is not even discussed in the body of the article. Undue and non-neutral. Cullen328 (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

A heading alone is not enough to deem the source as polemical and anybody with an understanding of this subject will agree it is not polemical. For background, do you even know that Republic Bharat is a black-listed/depreciated source on Wikipedia? See WP:REPUBLICTV. What type of reporting do you expect from their panel which frequently involves GD Bakshi? Which source accuses "Bakshi of making false statements about one specific incident"? Both reliable sources[239][240] have mentioned his disinformation about multiple subjects. Alt News mentions his false claims about Mehbooba Mufti and 2014 Budgam firing, while The Print also mentions his false claims about history. I would ask you to provide WP:RS which provides "Bakshi's side of the story". Do you know any? If you don't then it is completely valid to have only what The Print and Alt News reported. Abhishek0831996 (talk)

This was a valid block to prevent disruption at a WP:Contentious topic by an editor that was aware of sanctions in this topic. Even minor disruptions in such topics warrant a short block if the disruption is ongoing. There may have been potential to solve the issue diplomatically, but Editorkamran seems to be disproving that with their argumentative behavior on their talk page. The only question is whether Cullen was WP:INVOLVED, and past discussions have convinced me that there's no agreed upon definition of involved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I had never heard of this person before the ANI report and made only a single edit to the article to remove a single sentence that I still believe to be a violation of BLP and NPOV. By what definition can I be considered involved? Cullen328 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: The unwarranted block came after full protection was already imposed. How a block based on misleading reasonings could "prevent disruption" that never actually happened? Reverting vandalism to restore reliably sourced content with many other editors is not disruption. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Bad block. I was wondering why a block was needed after full protection was imposed but then I found more errors with the block. To turn high quality reliable sources into poor quality sources overnight only to signify your inaccurate block is a disservice to Wikipedia. I urge Cullen328 to spend some time on WP:ARBIPA topics to understand them before making deeply subjective statements. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  If editors behavior goes far enough to cause an article to need protection, then a block is appropriate.  // Timothy :: talk  13:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not after page protection and not for reverting disruptive edits. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think that going straight to a two-week block was probably inappropriate when there was no effort to discuss this on talk (either on the page for the article or on Editorkamran's talk page.) Edit-warring to restore potentially BLP-violating material is definitely serious, but looking at the edit history, nobody had even mentioned BLP prior to the block; usually you'd give someone at least one warning. The text does have sources, so the debate becomes whether the sources were sufficient and adequately summarized, which doesn't seem to be something clearly one-sided. I'll also point out that @Ymblanter: (who ought to be pinged since this concerns an article they protected) protected the page on the version with the text that Cullen328 finds so objectionable; if it is, as Cullen328 asserts, it was so clearly a BLP violation that it deserves an immediate two-week block with no discussion or warning whatsoever, then wouldn't it make sense to talk to Ymblanter first? Per WP:PREFER, any BLP violations are supposed to be removed when the protection is placed; there actually isn't an exception in PREFER that allows a later admin to step in and remove them if they disagree with the version the original admin chose to protect (well, sort of; it says editors can request such a change, but my reading is that this requires that it be uncontroversial, like all edit requests for protected pages.) Obviously common sense applies; the policy is written under the assumption that the protecting admin would remove any obvious BLP violations, and if a blatant and unambiguous one was just overlooked it should be removed. But it makes sense to notify / ask the protecting admin first, because if they intentionally reached the determination that something was not a BLP violation, and another admin disagrees and changes the protected version as a result, that seems to me to be a problem. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that I did not removed the text does not mean anything and should not be brought as an argument in this dispute. The text was sourced and at first glance appears legitimate, but I am not an expert in the topic area, and I can imagine that users who know the specifics better than I do can see obvious BLP violations where I do not. Ymblanter (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Since when ThePrint.in and AltNews.in have become unreliable? No evidence has been provided even after the block. The block is totally inappropriate and so is the unilateral revert based on misunderstanding of our policies. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Everyone who disagrees with my removal of content, a single sentence, that I sincerely believe to be a BLP violation should be trying to build consensus for policy compliant language at Talk:G. D. Bakshi, but it is crickets over there. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you show consensus for removing the reliably sourced sentence that is staying there for months? You have unilaterally removed it from a fully protected page by inappropriately terming reliable sources as unreliable. It makes no sense for you to ask others to discuss first when you are providing totally inappropriate justifications for your removal of reliably sourced sentence. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, I sincerely believe that the sentence in question in a two sentence lead is a BLP violation and a NPOV violation. Nothing said in this discussion so far has dissuaded me from that conclusion. And now, I need to get some sleep. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Enough arguments have been already made against your ideas above and you haven't disputed any of these arguments other than repeating yourself what you "sincerely believe". Why do you still insist that you are correct? Your actions only confirm that you removed content against which you had invalid objection and you blocked another editor who had restored the reliably sourced sentence recently. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone is missing the fact that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the important points of the article. That sentence that was removed is not supported by the content of the article. The article content makes no mention of him pushing fake news or misinformation. For such a thing to exist in the lead, such an important and controversial statement, it should be heavily detailed and referenced in the article content. The fact that it is not means it has zero place in the lead. All BLP issues aside. Canterbury Tail talk 07:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not relevant. The real concern is over a totally inappropriate block and lack of acknowledgement by Cullen328 himself over errors he has committed despite explanations from several editors. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It's absolutely relevant. It's apparently so important to include in the lead that it was re-added 16 times, but it was never mentioned elsewhere in the article. What's in the lead, especially when controversial, is meant to be supporting by what's in the rest of the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This issue was not raised on talk page or provided in blocking reason. Why it needs to be raised in-relation to the block? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block, for a clear violation of BLP. If there's some aspect of the disputed content that should be included, it should be done the proper way - in the body of the article, according to WP:DUE. And what is included should be decided by consensus, not by edit warring (and not by badgering either). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: With due respect, how a block can become good when it is falsifying credibility of reliable sources such as The Print and Alt News? When the so-called "clear violation of BLP" was even discussed? Was Editorkamran alone with restoring it? You should reinvestigate the incident. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• I repeat, with a bit of extra emphasis. "If there's some aspect of the disputed content that should be included, it should be done the proper way - in the body of the article, according to WP:DUE. And what is included should be decided by consensus, not by edit warring (and not by badgering either)". Badgering everyone who doesn't agree with you won't help your cause. You've had your say, so you should shut up and let others have theirs. (Oh, and please don't ping me any further - I'm aware of this thread and I'll see responses). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block; that sentence was a clear violation of BLP by insinuating that the subject's comments in the media - however dubious they may be - were a defining aspect of the biography of someone who was an army officer for 37 years. And edit-warring to put it back in is really not good - and certainly blockworthy. And I'm going to go further than that - I strongly suspect that those editors want that sentence there because then it appears in the Google search infobox for that person (as it does at the moment). That material belongs in the "controversies" section and I would support blocking anyone else who tries to restore it in that location. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Furthermore, as far as I can see, whilst he is obviously a controversial figure, both sources for the "fake news" claim appear to reference a single incident from 2014 where the subject was found to have made false claims. So as well as BLP issues, it's clearly UNDUE for the lead paragraph as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: But The Print has provided examples of misinformation spread by Bakshi with regards to history under the same section about "The PhD in military history or purveyor of ‘fake news’". Examples: 1) "Bakshi then goes on to explain that after studying the Transfer of Power Archives in London, he was shocked to learn that a letter signed by the Viceroy of India..." 2) "INA, which he once told Republic World, “was really responsible for forcing the British to leave”. 3) "Of 60,000 INA soldiers, 26,000 were martyred. They may have lost the battles of Imphal and Kohima but they won the war for independence..." Anyone who has little understanding of Subhas Chandra Bose will know these claims by Bakshi are nothing but outright misinformation. Such claims by Bakshi were specifically fact-checked and debunked here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. Those sources that were being used at the time weren't enough to place that statement into the lead. I am not saying that the subject hasn't spread fake news, but unless that's one of the things for which they are notable, it should be in the controversies section. You will generally find that where such statements do appear in the lead, it is generally where a subjects primary notability is based upon such controversies. Someone mentioned Jack Posobiec, Robert W. Malone and Marjorie Taylor Greene above. Pobosiec and Greene's notability are based on their conspiracy theorism (in Greene's case even before she was elected), and Malone wasn't even notable until he started spreading fake information about Covid. Have a look at the levels of sourcing in those articles that is needed to overcome the BLP bar and then decide whether it was reached in this case - I would say it clearly wasn't. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The content was never contested. I mentioned The Print, because it was used on the article. It, together with Alt News supported the content since The Print mentioned not only fake news example about 2014 incidents but also the examples about GD Bakshi where he spread misinformation about the Indian independence movement as well. Those who are informed about movement are also aware that it is one of the prominent Hindutva project to always discredit the most prominent freedom fighters of India[241] and falsify history on channels such as WP:REPUBLICTV as one of its prominent medium to enforce their fake version of history. There are many more examples of fake news being promoted by the subject.[242][243] A case could have been made if the dispute was ever raised on talk page, that's why the actual point here is whether the block was required. Was it? I don't think it was, especially when the full page protection already enforced. The talk page had to be the next venue, not blocking. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If the content was not contested the blocked editor would not have had to replace it into the article sixteen times. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The content was contested, repeatedly - it was removed, with explanatory edit summaries. As far as I can work out from the article's history, the content was added in January, removed the next day, and has been subject to back and forth removals and reinstatements multiple times by various editors. Some of the removals used misleading edit summaries - I can understand why those might have been knee-jerk reverted by an uninvolved patroller - but at least one of the removals was by an autopatrolled editor in very good standing, with an appropriate explanatory edit summary. It should not have been reinstated after that without discussion. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

All of those reverts (by Editorkamran) were reverts against disruptive editors who were removing content they don't like. That's no "contest". If there was any sense here then we would be never having WP:ECP. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No, they weren't. That removal was less than a month after the sentence was added, and was made by an enormously experienced editor. The subsequent revert was inappropriate; discussion should have taken place before any reinstatement. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry - it wasn't Editorkamran who reverted that edit. Nevertheless, the content had been contested - discussion was needed. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block (though I may be considered involved since I brought forth the issue of OP's editing). It's fine if you want to debate how long the block should have been for, but I don't think it's reasonable to debate whether there should have been a block. There was clear POV pushing and edit warring. The text: "He has promoted fake news and misinformation on a number of occasions." was re-added to the lead, the summary of an article, 16 times by Editorkamran. They clearly felt it important to include there, but, as Canterbury Tail pointed out, there's no mention of this in the rest of the article. Controversial statements have no place in the lead if not detailed or expanded on somewhere else in the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  ...and, if they've been contested, controversial statements have no place anywhere in the article without consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, good addition, thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Editorkamran has submitted an unblock request, which I am discussing with them; I've made some comments over at their talk page, which I won't repeat here, but in short I find that the block was within the realm of administrator's discretion, that the content they were edit warring over had no consensus and should have been discussed long ago (and that Abhishek0831996's reinstatement of it here was inappropriate), and that its inclusion, as written in the lead, was likely a BLP violation. They're going to need to accept some of those things before an unblock can be considered, and I will not be unblocking without Cullen328's explicit agreement. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Good block, edit warring over a clear BLP violation.  // Timothy :: talk  13:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying this person does not promote misinformation according to the sources? Where this "clear BLP violation" even discussed? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• None of this looks ideal. Another example of a shortage of experienced, good-faith editors watching a page that sees a consistent stream of socks, anonymous edits, and SPAs. I see an editor that got used to frequent disruption on the page, where new users don't articulate good reasons for their edits, and reverting because it's yet another new user here to make the exact same edit with an absent or misleading edit summary. We haven't historically done a good job of dealing with brigading or with the users who try to stand in front of it. We wind up blocking all of them, which is of course success for the side with meaningless accounts.
  On the content: No, of course we shouldn't have a claim like that in the lead when it hasn't even been added to the body. But people don't know the lead is only supposed to summarize material in the body until someone tells them. And of course we need consensus to restore controversial claims about living people once someone has made a good faith policy-based objection. The thing is, nobody did that. Nobody brought this issue up at all on the talk page and nobody explained anything about the lead or policy to Editorkamran before blocking (apart from edit warring templates). Editorkamran didn't originally add the material, but did revert a bunch of drive-by, poorly justified removals that make no policy-based claims. Nobody mentioned BLP, and nobody mentioned NPOV (except for someone else when they restored the content). In other words, nobody who has removed this content articulated any policy-based reason for doing so until Cullen post-block, but we're assuming Editorkamran was just willfully violating policy. I see multiple experienced users reverting the kinds of edits Editorkamran reverted, and only one experienced user removing the claim (but it wasn't Editorkamran restoring it in that case). They did receive a couple edit warring templates, though, so shouldn't be surprised at the block, but as I said ... none of this is ideal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with a lot of this. I am reminded of User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned - I think that Abhishek0831996 acted poorly in reinstating the content without discussion back in February, and that their hostile note to the person they reverted was unnecessary and counterproductive. Abhishek0831996, a relatively experienced editor, set a poor example, and Editorkamran, a comparatively inexperienced editor, was following that example, and wound up blocked. I would be prepared to petition Cullen328 for them to be unblocked early, if I could convince myself that they recognise that edit warring is bad even when you think you're in the right. If the talk page had been used before now, we would probably have some neutrally written content about all this in an appropriate part of the article by now, and nobody would be blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Saintstephen000

Hi Team, I recently edited a few articles, such as Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and M. P. Birla Foundation Higher Secondary School, where I removed huge chunks of unsourced content. I had also given an edit summary so other editors wouldn't get confused. But User:Saintstephen000 is continuously reverting my edit, unable to give a proper explanation. I even engaged in discussion on this issue in his talk page, but he was unable to give a clear-cut explanation why he was so inclined to keep unsourced content. Imagine what an ordinary viewer of Wikipedia would think: they would start trusting that content as facts, whereas it could be blatantly false. Credibility will only exist where we have reliable sources. Unfortunately, SaintStephen000 is unable to understand this simple fact. Thanks--2405:201:800B:6079:258E:2FDE:63A0:4E6F (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Admin would please look into this issue. @Cullen328: and @Girth Summit:. Thanks--2405:201:800B:6079:E5AB:7616:46D1:576C (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Additionally this edit summary appears to suggest the account is A) a COI promotion account and B) a role account. Not convinced on that, but the wording is odd though maybe just a mistype or error. Canterbury Tail talk 07:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why I was pinged here, but looking at the OP's contribs, I see a bit of a pattern. They are removing large swathes of text from lots of articles about Indian educational institutions. I haven't reviewed all of them closely to see whether all of the text is unsourced, but I suppose it's not surprising that they're getting some pushback at some of those articles. I also observe a few contributions that have edit summaries that made me raise an eyebrow - are unregistered IP editors able to use AWB, as their edit summaries suggest? Girth Summit _(blether) 08:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I also think that the OP ought to log into their account when they make comments here at ANI. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that some are quite happy with unsourced content. The average viewer would get incorrect information from Wikipedia, and this encyclopaedia would gradually decline. You can't imagine editors randomly adding alumni of colleges, universities, or schools without being able to provide reliable sources as to whether that person has graduated from the institution or not. The credibility of Wikipedia will hit hard, and people won't trust such content unless we provide reliable sources or at least remove that information.--2405:201:800B:6079:FC9C:87C7:4039:40A8 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please log into your account to edit project pages like ANI. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

New username following New Jersey IP block

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

---

• Special:Contributions/50.201.37.163
• 50.201.32.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:89:C602:29B0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• XMartinez17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Directly after New Jersey IP Special:Contributions/50.201.37.163 was blocked for disruption, New Jersey IP 2601:89:C602:29B0:44AC:4E7E:3873:67E1 appeared to restore the IP's edits. After that, newly registered XMartinez17 showed up at User talk:2601:89:C602:29B0:44AC:4E7E:3873:67E1 to complain about my reversions, saying "Who are you to revert my edits that I put my blood, sweat and tears on??" This shows that new user XMartinez17 identifies as the New Jersey IP ranges listed above. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked XMartinez17 for block evasion. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on Special:Contributions/50.201.37.162 to detect any further block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Article hijacked?

A editor seems hijacked Surrogate advertising article (see this [244]) and did undo my edits without telling genuine summary. I told him you should not do this but I don't think he'll listen this. If ther some problem in writing he should tag it for CE, its not ok to remove properly sourced material. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Rock Stone Gold Castle's writing is borderline incoherent. Some recent examples: Also by Vimal pan masala product 'Vimal' allegedly advertise its lots of products those have harmful things such as tobacco. 1, umpire, match referee suppose to panalise teams which bowl overtime but only one time the umpire gave panalty to a team following this rule in 12 happened so far 2, but they not use to tell audience through ads that you could lose money, suffere financial losses 3. All their contributions look like this. I think a WP:CIR boomerang might be appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say we're well over the borderline here. EEng 14:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I've just moved Draft:Vimal Gutkha to draft because not only is it of a poor standard of writing, but there actually is zero information about the actual product apart from a controversy about their advertising. And as for this, whether it's notable or not, it's not understandable. I think Rock Stone Gold Castle should probably consider contributing to a Wikipedia in a language in which they are fluent. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If you found any grammatical mistakes, you should tag it by 'clean up', ce tag. There are lots of editors, they can edit it. Sometimes mistakes happen but you should understand that, not everyone's 1st language is US English. You should not discourage other editors. You moved I written article to draft space, but you should ping me about it. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rock Stone Gold Castle: Sorry, no. It is not reasonable for you to create unintelligible gibberish and to then expect others to try to figure out what you meant and make it intelligible. It would be far better for you to edit a Wikipedia written in a language in which you are proficient. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Further, it is not hijacking to remove unintelligible text and otherwise bring the article in line with the expectation of the English Wikipedia. I think you owe the other editors (such as MrOllie) editors apologies for your accusation and thanks for the improvements they have made. The question of your continuing on Wikipedia hinges on your net effect on it and the time of other volunteers. And that hinges in part on your ability to collaborate with those users. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rock Stone Gold Castle: No, that's not how it works. I see that you've submitted Draft:Vimal Gutkha again despite the fact that it's got at least ten spelling and grammar errors in the first section alone. You cannot keep introducing errors into the encyclopedia and expect others to tidy up behind the fact that your language skills are not adequate to do this. Also, this appears to be a removal of sourced material for no good reason; the fact that the material is historical is irrelevant - we document the history of competitions. What's going on there? Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please use civil language, don't accuse others for errors. We are humans, errors can happen, no one is perfect in this world. If you found some grammatical mistakes, you can help WP to fix them, otherwise no one is forcing you to do it. You are removing properly sourced material just because of 3,4 errors? You should tag it for ce, should give a chance to me to do its clean-up. Your talking like your perfect and never done any mistake ever. I am also editing in good faith. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No-one is saying you're not editing in good faith, but there is a difference between a few minor errors and an article which is very difficult to comprehend because of the level of errors in it (we're not just talking 3 or 4 errors here - as I said, there are ten or more in just the first section of that draft article). In the second case, you should be correcting the majority of those problems before introducing that material into Wikipedia. Meanwhile you appear to be removing properly sourced material from articles like the IPL example I pointed out above... Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not hijacking to remove bad content and clear violations of WP:NOTADVERTISING. And that's before we get to the fact that this user also ignored my polite request to revert their nomination of 2023 Indian Premier League for a GA when it met almost 0 of the GA criteria (Talk:2023 Indian Premier League#GA nominated), and they did the same for the 2019 IPL article. And I've had to fix spellings at least 5 times in the last few days after they edited. And they're trying to keep lots of unencylopedic fandom on the 2023 IPL page. It's getting frustrating, as this user appears to be a case of WP:NOTLISTENING. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, A editor seems hijacked Surrogate advertising article and did undo my edits without telling genuine summary is just incorrect. There is a clear and correct edit summary given: Broken english and inappopriate listing of brands, both of which are correct, valid reasons. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Sidebar I find what I see here incongruous with an an editor with accepted GA notification's on their talk page and more than eight thousand edits. Is something amiss?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I see several failed GA nominations, apparently due to repeated failure to understand the criteria. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  vielen dank -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User talk:RuddyKurniawan11

RuddyKurniawan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been creating large numbers of articles, mainly BLPs with large amounts of unsourced materials and WP:BLP problems. Some of it has been removed but much remains. See the talk page contents for information [245]. I didn't have enough fingers to count the number of articles deleted and drafted.  // Timothy :: talk  20:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

According to XTools, they've created 42 mainspace articles, 19 of them deleted which accounts for 45.2% of their articles being deleted. I guess I ran out of fingers and tails to count the number of articles deleted and drafted as well! And do legs count? Anyway, not only that, they've been pretty active on Wikidata and Commons, so something to note. Tails Wx 02:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Noting that messages on the talk page appear to be not comprehended - as the behaviour recurs despite a block: -

The level of english replies raises the question of competency [246] (i has revised and please don't deleted my articles again) and other edit summaries...

The level of disruption (as mentioned at the block) raises the question of the amount of time required to review and put into quarantine in draft mode as queried by tails above

The uploads to commons require check of obvious copyvios,https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RuddyKurniawan11 and require taking down

The wikidata edits seem innocuous https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RuddyKurniawan11

The regular starting of new stubs of dubious status, and the responses to challenges requires a careful reading as to the competency issue JarrahTree 06:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

thanks to understanding to my friend to clarificated to me

RuddyKurniawan11 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Skydance Animation Unsourced material added by one IP

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

---

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

Look at these, [247], [248], [249], [250], and [251]. These are unsourced and forgot to find citations. CastJared (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

125.235.238.149‎‎: possible CIR and meatbot issues

125.235.238.149‎‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This IP mass added auto-archiving to 59 talk pages, probably in violation of WP:MEATBOT since they do not appear to have consensus. Myself, @David notMD and Doniago: have asked them to stop. It is hard to tell from their replies because their English is not great, but I think they intend to continue.

The archiving settings they were using are not the standard archiving settings recommended at Help:Archiving a talk page#Sequentially numbered archives, and can potentially archive every section on a talk page because they are setting minthreadsleft=0. In recent edits they may have fixed this, I see a couple diffs where they stopped doing this.

They are also setting algo=old(365d).

Attempts to communicate with them are difficult because their English is not great. I cannot understand some of their replies.

• Wikipedia:Teahouse#Talk page archived
• User talk:125.235.238.149

Does this need admin intervention? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the archiving edits by this IP, many of its other edits have been to add "Preceding unsigned comment added by..." to years-old Talk page comments that were not signed at the time. This is a negligibly useful activity - albeit not as harmful as disrupting archiving - and represents more evidence that this IP is not here to improve the encyclopedia. David notMD (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding {{unsigned}} to unsigned comments seems useful to me, as long as it's accurate. That's not disruptive, unlike the issues with their archiving. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD Please don’t add "Preceding unsigned comment added by…" including new archive formatting in one more time, I just clear an consensus to wait an new edit with made going to new everything is done to stop archive formatting. That’s an not small case. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

What is your native language? Are you using Google Translate? I honestly cannot understand most of what you write. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes, I using some words in discussion was closed in 7 minutes in Teahouse but actually, the languages is Vietnamese is an translation from English and now can be added to the English language and this is an encyclopedia not in Vietnamese, this is an English Wikipedia. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please write your own English-language text directly, without using translation software, if you can write English at all. A beginner's mistakes are easier for native speakers to understand than the mistakes made by something like Google Translate. You may want to return to editing the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia instead of the English-language one. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ban appeal of User:Shoot for the Stars

The following is the ban appeal request of Shoot for the Stars. I am bringing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am writing to request an appeal of my ban that was imposed in August of 2021. I was 18 years old and had been uploading low-quality photos. This behavior ultimately led to my ban from Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was frequently advised to stop, but I chose to ignore the warnings and continued my actions, which resulted in my block. In addition, another incident that resulted in my ban involved something I did back in 2019, when I was only 16 years old. At that time, I frequently added fake Beatles covers to articles despite editors' instructions that I do not do so. I disregarded their warnings and persisted in my irresponsible behavior. After I was banned, instead of taking time off to do other things, I was deceitful and frequently engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, originally using the accounts user:TheCleanestBestPleasure and user:Beatlesfan210. I also utilized a wide range of various IP addresses. In September 2022, I was not aware that I had engaged in sockpuppetry and believed that I was able to request a standard offer (SO) in good faith. I now understand that my actions were inappropriate and have since learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also want to mentioned that I was diagnosed with OCD and have been struggling with urges related to staying away from certain websites, including Wikipedia. While I recognize that this does not excuse my behavior, it does help explain why I have kept coming back to the site.

I want to emphasize that I did not have any malicious intent and did not intend to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. I am a passionate supporter of Wikipedia and deeply regret any harm that my actions may have caused to the community. Since my account was banned, I have taken steps to educate myself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I have stayed away from the site for over six months. I am eager to return to the community and make meaningful contributions. Since my ban, I have gone to therapy since October 2022, which has helped me to better manage my OCD and behavior. And for over six months, I have been editing at Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, making positive contributions like creating new articles, working with the community on stuff like article deletions, and uploading pictures with the right licenses. My vocabulary has also improved tremendously since starting college, and I feel that it could benefit my contributions to Wikipedia, especially with my new interest in law and crime articles. I realize that my past behavior was unacceptable and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, I am deeply remorseful for my actions and am committed to making positive contributions to the community. I want to prove that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a responsible and productive manner.

• Comment having looked at UTRS 71442 and their semi badgering there and in parallel communications, I have some concerns about their urges to edit may still be an issue given the relatively slow pace in which the project can operate. Not enough to oppose, but definite hesitation. Star Mississippi 12:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

EW at Fatlip: COI/blocked/disruptive editing from 2600:1700:4009:8cb0: and elsewhere

Hi, all. I am in what I think must be seen as a slow-motion edit war at Fatlip (a performer in which I otherwise have no particular interest). On 26 April 2021‎ I made a spelling correction, thereby adding the article to my watchlist. Since then I've seen 1 to 3 individuals, mostly as different IPs, attempt to repeatedly add uncited or poorly sourced info, mostly by blindly reverting all previous changes in a single edit. The changes they've reverted have included styling corrections, citation tweaks, table revisions for WP:ACCESS, as well as content changes (some removal, some rewriting, some addition of citations) by myself and others. Their edits mostly try to restore the status as it was in 2021, that is, with no apparent regard for specific changes in between.

On 9 June 2021‎, a user named User:TorporProductions appeared and made the same edit made by IP editor User:2600:1012:B0E1:2854:2C56:2373:E20A:A4A4 (preceded by User:2600:1700:BBD0:7F80:F52F:D7DE:CC16:8F8D and User:2600:1700:BBD0:7F80:995B:744F:4561:A260) on 5 June 2021‎, primarily to add an album called Torpor with "with a scheduled release date in 2022" (one weak source cited).

Before User:TorporProductions was blocked for username violations, I explained (rather lengthily) the reasons for my reversions, even though they wrote in a mail to me, "I am the producer of the new album". After their block, multiple IPs (I actually suspect an occasional second individual, a friend/colleague in New York or maybe Virginia) have been making essentially the same blind edits. They've begun using edit summaries, unfortunately to accuse me of "editing it out based on a personal vendetta", "unjustly edit[ing] ... due to a false sense of pride", and "sabotaging this page for quite some time now".

One of the stupid things is, they seem to be steadfastly fighting to get the "Torpor" album included on the page, at least based on their latest edit summary, when, in fact, it was already on the page (and correctly formatted, and sourced by me) in the version they reverted. They don't seem to even read the whole page or understand the individual edits. They are in full argumentation mode, it seems, and have forgotten what they are arguing about.

I'm wondering if some kind of protection for the Fatlip page might be appropriate, or even some sort of range block on the relevant IPs. (See, please, the page history). They're sometimes in NY, Reston VA, Los Angeles, and most recently in Dallas TX (2600:1700:4009:8cb0:). I also posted several such IP addresses at Torpor's talk, although I have no reason to expect that they've seen that communication. If I'm edit warring and you need to block me, that's understandable. But I feel that I am dealing with repeated failure of WP:V (the least of the problems), disruptive editing, COI, block evasion, and NPA. I'm not sure how else to react; single notices at the ever-changing IP Talk pages seem to be inadequate. And on that point, I don't know where to notify the user; I guess the last IP they used on Fatlip. Should I notify User:TorporProductions?

Thanks for your time,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Page protected x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll help for a while. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)