Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptive editing by Hawkers994

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

once again your lies are exposed, a user who joined 1 day ago with only 2 edits made a no edit summary [47] for absolutely no reason and when i corrected it here you are lying for the 3rd time in this discussion.Hawkers994 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Your editing attitude is no different than this only 2 edits user... Maybe it's impossible for you to understand the rules of Wikipedia... Freetrashbox (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Looking through the diffs here, I see a mixture of failing to assume good faith and other bad behavior from both Freetrashbox and Hawkers994 (to pick a trivial example on each side: Hawkers994's first response here is to claim consensus with a link to a discussion that does not demonstrate any clear consensus or directive, meanwhile, Freetrashbox's most recent accusations of Hawkers994 not sourcing edits at Buuhoodle are clearly an example of reverting an IP vandal, with the situation of Buuhoodle in Somaliland confirmed by a cursory glance at the article's references list). Somaliland and Somalia related articles are contentious topics per WP:ARBHORN, which means that editors are expected to be on their best behavior and administrators are authorized to enforce that. Neither of you seems to have been notified of this in the past; now you are aware. Further instances of tendentious editing in Horn of Africa or other contentious topics can be reported to WP:AE, which is a separate, more formal process than ANI, and will likely result in a prompter response. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments and advice. But unfortunately, I am not convinced. As you can see from Buuhoodle's article, the town is not currently under Somaliland rule. Buuhoodle citizens did not participate in the Buuhoodle mayoral election. (Where else in the world would you find such a strange town?) I am not arguing that Buuhoodle is not Somaliland because of that, but it is not a simple matter of deciding that Buuhoodle is Somaliland. In short, there is not a bit of difference between IP users who say Buhoodle is Somalia and Hawkers994 who say Buhoodle is Somaliland, in that both are writing biased opinions without providing sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

But then here you are [48] [49] [50] making a no edit summary. You are no different than these random IP address yourself who are biased.

References

Af420

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

At Rumi, Af420 initially made several attempts [51] [52] [53] to remove Rumi's birth place being the present-day Tajikistan city of Vakhsh, which is cited by WP:RS (one of them being by the Oxford University), replacing it with Balkh, conveniently a city related to his country of origin (Afghanistan). After being warned of getting reported, he stopped removing sourced info, but still went ahead and added Balkh [54], cited by random, non-academic sources such as rumibalkhi.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wrong indeed. The first diff [55], for example, was literally their first comment towards me, in response my previous comment; rv, sorry, but you need WP:RS for this, not random (news)websites. Two of the three cited sources are news articles written by non-academic, non-historians. The third is just a random site (that is the rumibalkhi one) - see WP:SPS. If you’re gonna accuse me of stonewalling and not assuming WP:GF, please at least this properly read into the issue. This user keeps accusing me of stuff and refusing to continue the discussion which barely even started, yet I am apparently the one stonewalling and not assuming good faith. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420's latest (attempt at provoking) comment after their revert and this report [56]. Still think I am the one WP:STONEWALLING? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Request closure

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

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

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

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

————————————————————

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

————————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support indeffing user:Af420. Said "user" is displaying some serious WP:CIR-ish behavior. And I don't think any of it should be WP:AGF'd. The fact that he digged to HistoryofIran's edits dating back to 2013 (!), i.e. a decade ago, i.e. years prior to him even registering on Wikipedia, and tried to use it against him when confronted with a bunch of awful edits made by himself, is quite telling and reveals the intent of said "user". The fact that the says he doesn't want to take part in further discussion is the cherry on top of the cake. I don't think the community benefits in any way by having such a user. Much less so when taking an actual look at the edits he made that resulted him in being brought to ANI. Said user has barely made 600 edits over 6 years[57] and is now trying to convince us that his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits "were actually correct". How is user:Af420 editorial pattern a net worth to this project I wonder? Take a look at the thousands of disruptive accounts that have made a few edits here and there and have wasted the time of the community and that of veteran users, and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can something please be done? This has been up for over a month. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

User making major changes to rail articles without discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popping in to say that I noticed this discussion because I still had Micga's Talk page on my watchlist from when I wrote this: [58]. Looking at their recent contributions, they seem to have taken this one to heart, which is good, but they're still doing something similar, that is, making large numbers of small edits to a single article, burying a much more substantial edit in the middle. Combined with the lack of edit summaries, this makes it quite difficult for editors watching articles to notice that larger edits have occurred. As an example, here's an unsourced edit that was dropped in the middle of 20 different edits done over the space of an hour and a half to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe: [59]. Depending on other editors' watchlist settings, they'll either have their watchlists blown up by all these edits, or just see this presumably unobjectionable one: [60]. I don't mean to allege bad faith or to say that making multiple edits to an article is inherently disruptive. But in the context of this ANI discussion it seemed worth pointing out. -- asilvering (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Micga did not address the concerns here and has simply continued with the same kind of editing. In post-Soviet states now they made unsourced changes and moved around text without explanation,[61] which I reverted, then they restored the changes adding a couple refs in an edit[62] which do not fully support the changes and then proceeded to make a bunch of changes, again without using the edit summary, which are unsupported and hard to follow. Where is "Pax Russica" in this edit mentioned in the sources? I could not find this. If there is a history of this kind of editing, then action should be taken here, because it is clear this kind of editing will just continue. The edits on anti-Russian sentiment look particularly problematic. I am counting 127 edits on that article since 24 February, with major changes without any discussion and the edit summary used only for one of those edits. How is someone supposed to follow these changes? It is not possible and so probably no one will bother to check. Mellk (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

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

After I made this comment I see that Micga made almost 40 edits to Russian world, not one of them using the edit summary, which again involve making unsupported changes. In this edit they re-use the same refs as before (as in [63]) to write different statements unsupported by the sources (which looks like WP:FICTREFS). I see that Johnuniq pinged Micga here asking for a response but they decided to continue with those edits instead despite the concerns raised. Mellk (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also none of the sources you cited mention autocephaly[64], so it looks like WP:FICTREFS. Mellk (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I also observe that no one has, at any point during this or the previous ANI incident, mentioned anything positive about Micga's edits. Regarding the ones since the last warning, I don't edit in this area so I can't immediately recognize if any of these edits [65] are howlers, but they are certainly unattributed changes. These others [66] include some changes to the wording that don't seem likely to be controversial, but the edits to that first paragraph appear to change the meaning, and I can't check that URL to see if they agree with the source - it just times out. -- asilvering (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly, and this is in my view a clear case of WP:IDHT. The solution is an indef, which can be lifted if Micga agrees to address concerns of other editors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone interested in taking this further may like to see more thoughts here. For context, that followed these comments. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Full context, as it includes three talk pages:

1. I asked Micga about original research in the section they wrote on Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#Russophobia_types. No response at all initially, Micga replied after being notified by Johnuniq.
2. Johnuniq and I told Micga that their reply doesn't address sourcing concerns sufficiently.
3. Micga didn't respond. Continued to edit with the same liberal approach to referencing.

Johnuniq suggested that I should keep writing to Micga to "fully test" lack of engagement. I don't feel comfortable to do so as Micga is already aware about sourcing concerns and limitations of their response. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve just delivered in Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#Russophobia_types an extended, detailed set of citations.Micga (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• As this thread does not seem to have disabused Micga of the notion that they can carry on regardless but there doesn't seem to be an appetite for an indefinite full block, I have indefinitely partial blocked them from the mainspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Need Japanese-speaking and maybe admin help

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

---

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

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

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

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

29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[67] is an example of what Dekimasu is saying about overlapping accounts. The article was reported at WP:PNT a year ago by the same user (@Eiríkr Útlendi:), and nobody responded. Other examples of how there just isn't enough bandwidth to allow this stuff at [68] and the CTX subpage here Elinruby (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Proposed remedies

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

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

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

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

• Support (Non-administrator comment) - anything to stem the tide. I would also be in favor of explicitly forbidding machine translation and ChatGPT for this user to make it clear what the problem is here, and encourage reviewers to go a little deeper with this user's contributions, even if at first blush they seem ok-ish. I don't really know how that process works, but it seems like we're hoping AfC will catch the problems. They are catching quite a few based on the user talk page, but considering the potential nightmare we are contemplating... But we should definitely implement this proposal at least. Elinruby (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. (Non-administrator comment) So glad to see this here. I left a message on this user's Talk page about the Simple English translations here: [69], suggesting AfC, to no reply. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I don't speak Japanese, but I know Eiríkr Útlendi from en.Wiktionary and trust his assessment that this is a serious problem, especially backed up as it is by a few other Japanese-speaking editors above. Frankly, given how hard it might be to enforce a ban on machine translation (how do you prove the user machine-translated and didn't just ineptly human-translate?), and given that the user has apparently said they'd stop doing this only to then switch accounts and continue, I wonder if a block would be better, in terms of preventing harm / the creation of copious incorrect and/or copyvio content that needs cleanup. -sche (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • -sche, WP:BEANS applies here, but at least for Japanese, machine translation produces characteristic errors that differ from the kinds of errors that humans tend to make. I can immediately think of a couple of grammatical structures that a person with low-intermediate Japanese ability could easily understand and translate properly, but that machine translation will reliably translate incorrectly. While this isn't 100% definitive on its own, there is a supplementary method, which is to ask the editor how they came up with a particular translation in the event of an apparent error. People who rely on machine translation typically cannot explain their thinking about translating from the source text at all, for the obvious reason that they did not actually think about it in the first place. That said, you may be right about the block, but Dekimasu is offering them a chance for course correction, which I agree is worth trying. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Support. Due to all the issues outlined above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional remedy proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support this and the above remedies. I commented on the SPI about this editor recently. My position was that their use of multiple accounts in isolation wasn't enough to justify sanctions, but that there are broader conduct issues that should be addressed at another venue such as ANI. I share the concerns raised above about machine translation and use of AI, and I don't find Immanuelle's statement about "the standard I hold myself to now" convincing considering that they were adding factually incorrect AI-generated content to articles as recently as this Monday (see the example above about Draft:Confucian Shinto). There have been other instances of poor behaviour. For example, after Onel5969 draftified some of Immanuelle's articles, they indiscriminately reverted dozens of Onel's draftifications in what appears to be retaliation [70]. Frankly, I'm not convinced that specific restrictions on machine translation and AI usage are enforceable, and I question whether this user's approach to editing is broadly compatible with the project. However, I support these restrictions as a start. Also support WP:TNT deletion of machine-translated articles that have not been improved by others. Spicy (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Yes, this is really the crux of the matter: a certain level of background knowledge is necessary in order to evaluate the output of machine translations and other LLM output. Several editors have raised concerns about whether Immanuelle's additions in these areas are a net plus for the project, since they have often been shown to contain avoidable errors. This is an indication that the level of critical analysis of the machine output is insufficient, but to this point the concerns have not been assuaged or addressed sufficiently. That leads us to this discussion. I hope I have not thrown us off course through the struck comment a few days ago, but we do need a close here. Dekimasuよ! 11:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support this remedy and I also strongly agree with the suggestions above to WP:TNT all rough machine translated articles. Per the precedent at WP:CXT, Raw or lightly edited machine translations have long been considered by the English Wikipedia community to be worse than nothing. This principle goes back to at least 2003. I propose we reactivate WP:CSD#X2 to handle machine translations. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I oppose making machine translation in general a sufficient cause for deletion because of one editor who does not know their limitations. I was involved in sifting the last list of machine translated articles, and there were many many ok articles on it and quite a few that were really very good. I don't want to bludgeon this thread on why I oppose that specific proposal but I would be glad to discuss how we can prevent another Immanuelle in a venue of anyone's choice. Meanwhile, I do not think that this editor can be relied on to fix their mess and I fully support mass-TNT of all of their articles, the sooner the better. The proposed sanctions give the editor a second chance, which I respect, but they do not yet seem to understand. Possibly a mentor is in order; I am not certain how that works. Also, we should probably be more aggressive about AfDing from WP:PNT Elinruby (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ideally we could tweak the criteria to be something like "poorly translated" or "raw or lightly edited machine translation" where it isn't just a simple fix to tidy it up. I was also around for the Content Translation tool drama and I recall killing dozens or hundreds of them. Machine translation can be a useful tool when used as a starting point by somebody who knows what they're doing, but by that point they're indistinguishable from a regular article and the criteria would not apply. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I really want to support this idea - I think these kinds of articles waste a lot of AfD time and often end up simply being "laundered" by well-meaning editors who clean up grammar without checking the sources to see if the statements are correct in the first place. Not to mention that it's common for AfDs to end with "topic is notable, AfD isn't cleanup", so taking them to AfD isn't likely to succeed. But I worry about speedy deletion being used for this, especially if NPP start tagging articles under these criteria, since I think it could really discourage new editors who could otherwise become productive contributors. Getting one of your first articles sent to AfD or redraftified is already pretty demoralizing, and having them suddenly and quickly deleted would be much worse. There is surely some kind of approach that will balance these concerns. A translations noticeboard? In short, I think it needs an approach that isn't as instantaneous and isolating for the offending editor, but isn't as intensive or notability-focused as AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Machine translation can be a very useful tool as a start point when translating ban article, but to complete the process successfully requires an understanding of language that isn't shown here. Badly translated articles, whether done by machine or by an editor, are "worse than nothing". The issue is not how it's done, but the result. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd support bad machine translation as a criterion, with the caveat that some means of identifying it should be discussed. There is no question that bad machine translation does exist, and I have seen plenty that I could not decipher without consulting the original. I myself tagged quite a few CTX articles as "kill this with fire" or the like. I've also seen some tagged as rough translations that were merely very technical.

A translations noticeboard is a good idea, although we'd have to work out some details like how does an article get approved for tag removal. It might attract some badly-needed new translators. Afaik there is currently nobody working with Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, Arabic, Urdu, Hindi, Chinese, Korean or Japanese, let alone anything more unusual like Finnish or Serbian. It is true that many translated articles are poorly referenced and therefore so are the translations. But if the translation is good, bad sparse references no longer make it a "bad translation". As someone that's seen this a lot in French/Spanish, I am not averse to a protocol mandating the "refimprove" tag once the translation work is done, where applicable. But this is getting away from Immanuelle. Maybe we should start a separate thread for the larger procedural discussion, as I would like to keep an eye out for AI creations as well and am not sure how, for example. Getting back to Immanuelle, the reaction this is getting from them reminds me of the creator of all those French Foreign Legion articles that we're still dealing with years later -- a profound failure to see the problem. Elinruby (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:SEALIONING at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the notice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I am learning towards thinking Bigdan201 needs an topic ban from the gender and sexuality topic area under the contentious topics procedure. Courcelles (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Did not want to be the first to say it, but Support topic ban from the gender and sexuality {contentious topics)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• I think a topic ban is actually too weak, IMO this [71] appears to indicate that they see themselves as a soldier and this as a war. That would be clear WP:NOTHERE and should result in separation from the project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That makes sense, and I've acknowledged that controversial topics can't be a pro/anti split, but follow the RS. I was referring mainly to the deliberation/discussion here. For reference, my posts led to this edit [72], which has been ironed out to [73]. I would tweak the wording further, but now I'm not allowed. I'm trying to say that the thread closures, and this ban, are a disproportionate response. Xcalibur (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Formal vote on topic ban and block

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

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

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

The community has spoken, with a topic ban: [74][75] and then, hours later, you posted this thread [76]. A decision was already made, so while your earlier actions may have been justified, this is veering into BATTLEGROUND territory. Also, while I caught it quickly (since I was lurking), you did not notify me of this escalation, as you should have. Overall, this motion should be closed for being excessive & redundant. Xcalibur (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Support an indef block. — Matuko (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. Had Bigdan201 been more civil and receptive (as they claim they are trying to be) during the course of this ANI it might not have come to this... but their statements of I see that a fair discussion is not to be had here., I guess this is what passes for fairness?, ...other editors are too riled up for me to work productively there., and indirectly suggesting that editors who prosecuted them were jumping to conclusions all point to Bigdan201 not accepting that other editors may reasonably disagree with them. It's just too much deflection and blaming, and stubbornness is notoriously a behavior that doesn't shift easily. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit, this is a fair critique. I did in fact get too stubborn and defensive (although partly that was in response to a couple editors grossly misinterpreting my posts). I can accept disagreement, and I can accept a topic ban fairly applied for excessive brainstorming on a talk page. Friendly reminder to all that WP:NOPOLLS and WP:NOPUNISH are relevant here. Xcalibur (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Syriac563

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

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

Aramaic: changed sourced info [77]

Turoyo language: changed sourced info [78]

Arameans: removed sourced info [79]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shmayo, so, you aren't disputing the fact that they do exist? You're just saying they are part of a broader community which is not discussed in the Arameans article, right? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 20:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this would be an interesting discussion at Talk:Arameans, but my concerns are about more Syriac563's unconstructive edits and behaviour. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll want to hat this small discussion, then? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to stop you guys. I just hope the admins are aware of my reasoning behind the report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Who are you referring to here? This modern group definitely exist, where a portion of the people belonging to the Syriac Orthodox Church identify themselves as Aramean/Aramean-Syriac/Syriac-Aramean in English. Correct, the article "Arameans" concerns the ancient people, for all the reasons I listed above. Shmayo (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Shmayo, thank you. I just wanted clarificaiton on that because I didn't understand what the issue was with that article. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 08:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least to me, the difference is that this article plainly repeats and endorses claims that one side in the ArbCom case is describing as violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS. Doing that directly involves the authors in the case; I don't see how they could possibly avoid being added as parties now. I don't think we can decide for ourselves whether they actually deserve sanctions (that would require resolving the case itself) but given the extreme severity of the negative claims leveled against editors here - they are accusing people of intentional distortions of the Holocaust! Based, essentially, on a single source! - I do think that people who took such a step ought to become involved in the case itself, including the possibility of serious sanctions if it goes against them. People need to be more cautious about potential WP:ASPERSIONS, at least at the level of severity shown here; being added to a case sucks, yes, but it's important that it works the way it does to discourage people from throwing oil on troubled fires, so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that their intention would be to demonstrate an intense campaign seeking to censor discourse critical of Wikipedia's coverage in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland and that linking to your edit history would be evidence of that. For what its worth I also think that they're correct, your edit history is WILD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"which presents itself as speaking for the Wikipedia community" The Signpost?! Hahahahaha. Levivich (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It's simply wrong to suggest that there was a deadline-driven rush to publish over the concerns of several editors. To the contrary, this Signpost issue had been scheduled to be published on March 5 (as always, one day after the writing deadline on March 4, the day the review was posted to the draft page) [80]. But the pre-publication discussion went on for several more days, achieving what is very likely an all-time record size - no other Signpost draft in living memory has received this much effort to address feedback. Yes, in the end some of the people who weighed in still strongly disagree with the reviewer's conclusions, but that's in no way because of a "rush to publish." Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  It seems this is confusing two different meanings of "independent". Yes, of course the Signpost is bound by community policies, and as always these are being enforced by the community. But in the comment that Rosguill quoted from, Smallbones didn't mean "independent" in the sense of being exempt from policy - in fact, in the very same comment he explicitly acknowledged that community members are free to take it to ArbCom or wherever you think is best in case they think there was a policy violation.

  If you want a "real-life" analogy (with the caveat that wikis are not countries), the New York Times might be considered an independent newspaper in the sense that when it reports about a study that finds evidence that a company has violated safety laws, that company is not entitled to reviewing the NYT's article before publication, or to vetoing its publication until it agrees with that article's content (unless the company also owns the New York Times, say, in which case we would no longer consider it an independent source on this topic). But of course that does not mean that the NYT is exempt from libel laws, for example. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Some points:

1. What you call "attacks on two Wikipedians" is actually peer-reviewed literature.[81]
2. The Signpost's charter is to inform the community about such things, and that it did.
3. The author did not opine on the impending ArbCom case, and even if he did that would be acceptable, as long as the paper also gave suitable space for dissent - and it did.
4. The editors also made considerable efforts to accommodate suggestions and criticism, despite attacks against themselves.[82]
5. TBH, editors seemed to make unusual effort to refute the essay's claims (and by extension the review), even delving into such questions as "how does one define the Holocaust", which are entirely outside the scope of the publication and everyone's expertise.
6. On the matter of BLP violations, surely you will agree that one of those Wikipedians' repeated assertions that the authors were dishonest and "lying", and that Icewhiz "co-authored" their paper, are blatant BLP violations against them? It's beyond me why we let accusations like that pass, while fighting to no end to defend some Wikipedians' feelings and reputations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, I don't see how a. and b. are diametrically opposed conclusions. A campaign to misrepresent and whitewash violence against Palestinians on Wikipedia would be bad. But it can certainly exist at the same time as a campaign to misrepresent the Holocaust in Poland. Actually a paper using or building on G&K's methodology to study misinformation about Palestinian history on Wikipedia sounds like a great project! Maybe it would help shed light on some of the same structural issues with Wikipedia as G&K's paper. Groceryheist (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't apologise. Your inability to grasp the simplest arguments is now confirmed. I mentioned the misprision above, and now you repeat it by misunderstandinh my analogy. I spoke of a method producing diametrically opposed results analysing editing in one field, the I/P conflict. You skew this by taking diametrically opposed as an opposition between some putative abuse by one side in the I/P area, and the asserted abuse of one side in the Polish/Jewish WW2 articles. Frankly, that misapprehension, or failure to grasp a simple point about methodology, starkly underlines why you are not capable of understanding what your interlocutors are arguing. Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

^ As a discussion about WP:NPA progresses, the probability that someone will make a PA worse than the one being discussed approaches 1. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's the stupidest thing that I have ever heard. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Comment. Sure thing, this Signpost article does not look to me as a critical and fair review of the publication by G&K. It uncritically repeats the "central claim" by G&K that WP has promoted antisemitic tropes, such as Żydokomuna, "money-hungry Jews" controlling Poland and Jews bearing responsibility for their own persecution (Four distortions dominate Wikipedia’s coverage of Polish–Jewish wartime history: ... antisemitic tropes insinuating that most Jews supported Communism and conspired with Communists to betray Poles (Żydokomuna or Judeo–Bolshevism), that money-hungry Jews controlled or still control Poland, and that Jews bear responsibility for their own persecution., G&K say). Well, I do believe that G&K has resorted to tricks (such as looking at the old versions of pages and edits by banned users) to prove this point, and they failed to prove it. Simply looking at corresponding WP pages, I do not see any antisemitic tropes promoted by WP. But whatever. If they want to paint the project and other participants that way, this is probably the right of the author. I have seen a lot worse in modern-day Russian press. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If WP promotes such antisemitic tropes (there are three of them), then it must be obvious for an educated reader of pages listed by G&K, no significant expertise should be required. Do you see it? I do not. Yes, there are tropes, but they are clearly described as such on our pages. We are looking for a black cat in a dark room, but the cat is not there. Hence, based on our page Black cat analogy, this is not science, but theology. Or maybe witch hunt. Or maybe a self-criticism session. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leave it be: You don't like the piece? Then rebut it. As mentioned above, the Signpost welcomes contributions, and if the article is as flawed as all of that, you should have no issue with getting the chance to set the record straight. But keep on pushing in this respect, and the boomerang's coming hard and fast. Ravenswing 04:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave it as it is Anyone can leave opinions as they would like as long as it is not veering into personal attacks, hate, or harassment. This has not crossed the line. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave unchanged per Coffeeandcrumbs, who sums up my arguments well enough that I don't need to repeat them in their entirety. --Jayron32 12:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Require better notice - The Signpost is anomalous compared to most other cases, because one editor has a huge presence advantage over every other editor - a rebuttal in the comments wouldn't ensure as many eyeballs. Individuals noting that the affected editors (and, for the sake of clarity, I think the review had substantial issues, some but not all related to them. There were also reasonable judgements about said editors) could rebut it by writing their own signpost article. On which - when did the signpost article reach a fair level of content fixation? Did that leave enough time for a reasonable editor to write a rebutting article for the same release? I'd advise Signpost articles about other (active & unblocked) editors have a last submission day 3 days earlier than normal, to allow sufficient time for rebuttal. While it may not have breached BLP, it does make accusations in non-neutral language that should have a full chance to respond - and those responding need an equivalent chance to do so to OP. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave as-is Censorship is the last refuge of the coward. If one does not agree with it, then feel free to go there and give a rebuttal. ValarianB (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave as-is per ValarianB. The horse is indeed out of the barn, and certainly I don't believe the Signpost ever purports to be the singular collective voice of Wikipedia. That said though, this thread as a whole should be considered a fair warning against jumping headlong into a highly controversial area without at least providing the opportunity for rebuttal or comment. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I would suggest that the two editors who published this and are not already named in the Holocaust in Poland arbitration case now need to be added to it, since they have put their names to insinuations against other editors on-wiki (and in Wikipedia's voice). Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  That has been suggested already above (see User:Nigel Ish comment) and I yes, absolutely. ArbCom needs to receive a formal request to include two editors who published this to be added as party into the arbitration case. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I would suggest that the editors who criticised G&K's article also be added to the arbitration case, since they have put their names to the "Intentional Distortion", so that the ArbCom case becomes a total mayehm: the final Armageddon. A fair criterion for inclusion: if you express your views on the case, you're party to the case. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• This. Some people are saying that it would be (axiomatically) censorship to take it down, and that isn't necessarily true. WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS apply to the signpost just like everything else on Wikipedia; and if it has violated those, then the authors need to be sanctioned. I'm not sure whether it has, and I'm skeptical that the community can decide whether it has given that that would require analyzing the underlying debate. Therefore, the appropriate remedy is to toss this into the ArbCom case, rather than to try to take down the piece in question - if that case does determine that the article is so inaccurate as to violate those policies, then uncritically repeating it may be sanctionable. Additionally, many people in this discussion have raised concerns about people potentially influencing an ongoing ArbCom case - there is no policy against that, but it is true that if you involve yourself heavily in an ongoing case (especially by repeating and endorsing claims that have gotten other people added as parties already), then you risk becoming a party yourself. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:ASPERSIONS means that An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence. How exactly does that apply to reading a peer-reviewed academic paper and then stating that one finds its arguments persuasive overall?

  Also, since it seems that you are accusing (at least) Groceryheist of violating WP:CIVIL, please provide concrete evidence - which of his statements in particular are in violation of that policy?

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leave it up - I get why the parties here and elsewhere are upset about this piece. I myself have been maligned by journalists in the past, and I hated it. I wanted every single false thing they'd said to be retracted and a correction published. But, with time, I realized that I was upset and didn't see the thing for what it was: an opinionated thing, published by one person. There's a reason WP:RSOPINION is treated differently. This review piece on The Signpost is probably wrong in a lot of ways, I could count a few. But it is one editor's opinion. Not the voice of the SignPost, not the voice of Wikipedia, etc. In the future, I would tell the SignPost to be more careful about things like this, but I absolutely do not think we should take it down now that it's already out there. I don't think BLP applies here since no parties are named, and no one is accused of committing any crimes, etc. I do see some places where antisemitism may be showing in the piece,I do see some places where there are inaccuracies in the piece, and I would tell the author they should probably correct this. But I do not think we, as a community, should intervene here. I agree with Nosebagbear that the SignPost should welcome rebuttals in the next issue, and in the future, the same issue as things like this. (edited 20:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC) to reflect that i was wrong about any antisemitism, that was actually in a comment in reply to the piece, not the piece itself. I've pointed out some inaccuracies I saw in the piece in a discussion with the author on my talk. Anyone is welcome to discuss there as always.) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Add the authors as a party to the ArbCom case. The core question here is whether the piece violates WP:CIVIL, especially via WP:ASPERSIONS. These are not things we can actually decide ourselves without deciding the case at hand; but since the article seems to fairly directly accuse specific, named editors of intentionally distorting the Holocaust, it seems fair to say that that the authors' conduct is something that ArbCom should examine as part of the larger case - clearly the authors have made themselves parties by publishing it. Taking it down would be meaningless at this point; the important thing is to stick to the precedent that editors need to be careful when making or repeating such serious accusations against each other, and that doing so right at the start of an active ArbCom case about that very question is naturally going to put your words and conduct under analysis there. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm, yes, especially if it is "evidence". Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  These are not things we can actually decide ourselves without deciding the case at hand - it seems that you are overlooking the without evidence in WP:ASPERSIONS. Discussing a prima facie RS (a peer-reviewed academic paper - published in an academic journal that had seen no prior reliability concerns as far as I'm aware - which makes its case with an extensive collection of evidence contained within 317 footnotes), and stating that one finds its conclusion persuasive overall, is not making claims "without evidence". Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've seen enough crap in peer-reviewed papers that I'd be reluctant to make accusations on the basis of a single one of them, no matter how many footnotes it contained. Even if we grant that (a) the people who hang out at ANI can make a meaningful judgment about the case at hand, and (b) that judgment validates the paper's claims, WP:ASPERSIONS makes repeated invocations of appropriate forums. The policy linked there says that these include User Talk pages, topical WikiProjects, and various noticeboards, but it doesn't say a thing about the Signpost. XOR'easter (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've seen enough crap in peer-reviewed papers that I'd be reluctant to make accusations on the basis of a single one of them, no matter how many footnotes it contained – I'd go a step farther and say that this should be reflected in our rules on reliable sources for contentious claims. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• The evidence must be appropriate for the accusation being made. Accusing someone of intentionally distorting the Holocaust is about as serious of an accusation as you can make on Wikipedia, and requires a similarly high bar; I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that a single recent academic paper is insufficient, when the veracity of that paper is currently in dispute at ArbCom. Neither do I believe that the Wikipedia Signpost is necessarily an appropriate forum for airing grievances against individual editors - it has no hope of directly producing any sort of reparative outcome or enforcement, so it effectively serves only to damage their reputations. Consider the possibility of if ArbCom finds completely in favor of the accused editors - determining that the paper's core accusations are completely groundless. That is at least a possible outcome of the case. Would it be appropriate to publish an article in the signpost afterwards, bemoaning the outcome and continuing to directly accuse them? Absolutely not; that would be fairly severe misconduct. By putting the accusations on blast, and supporting them, when that question is still in dispute, the authors have therefore clearly tied their fates to the outcome and should be added as parties. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The article does not directly accuse specific, named editors of intentionally distorting the Holocaust. Rather, it seems to me that the article is a sympathetic review of an essay that directly accuses specific, named editors of intentionally distorting the Holocaust. I agree that there may be an element of impropriety (rather than breach of policy) in publishing a review such as this while the ArbCom case is still pending. But the best way to address this concern is for the Signpost to publish an article of comparable length that presents the "distortionists'" (so to speak) point of view on the issue. On the other hand, I don't see the value in adding new parties to the case. The parties in the case should be editors who participated in the editing, talk page discussions and AE/ArbCom disputes that led to the alleged distortion; unlike Groceryheist, they have first-hand knowledge and direct involvement in the case. What's the point of adding people to the case who have only expressed an opinion on the case? If I say "G&K are totally right", am I casting aspersions on VM and the others? And if I say "G&K are just copy-pasting Icewhiz's slanders", am I accusing Klein of being a meatpuppet of a banned user? Such an expansive reading of the notion of "party to the case" would make no sense, other than to silence our internal debate. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you please not refer to other editors as "distortionists", even if you hedge your bets against accusations of WP:NPA by putting it in quotes? In fact, I'm gonna ask you to strike that. Volunteer Marek 19:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

How would you suggest we call the group identified by G&K? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Add the authors as a party to the ArbCom case. I am going to try to say this in a way that takes no stance on whether the authors' statements were wholly justified, partially justified, or completely unjustified. If the Signpost item had instead come out as a few wall-of-text posts at a noticeboard, I think we would consider the editors who made those posts to be "involved parties". If someone wrote an essay based on their interpretation of the dispute and tried to get it adopted as a guideline while the dispute was still ongoing, we'd regard them as an "involved party". In the past, ArbCom has considered writing a Signpost item part of a dispute. It's participation in a somewhat unusual venue, but it's still participation. Even if it isn't an attempt to speak "in Wikipedia's voice", it is staking out a position in a historical record of sorts, before that episode of history has reached a breathing point. Wikipedia is not an experiment in deliberately unregulated, unmoderated, zero-consequence speech. XOR'easter (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  What is it you folks think adding someone to an arbcom case is going to accomplish exactly? Who at ANI is going to do this? You guys sound like... a mob. "He said Jehova too!! Add him to the arbcom case!!!", they yelled in bold unison. I wonder if some of you realize that anyone can already be added to an arbcom case. I wonder how many of you have actually read the paper or clicked on any diffs. I wonder if those calling for adding the "authors" of the signpost piece realize there is only one author. Levivich (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well said. Whole thing is more than a little bit ridiculous. Lulfas (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Having a statement about the role of the Signpost in Principles and/or a Finding of Fact that people involved with this situation exercised poor judgement could be useful since it isn't the first time the Signpost's failure to regulate itself has resulted in issues with Arbcom (at least this time it wasn't an actual Arbitrator causing the issue directly). I don't think anyone really believes it will result in actual sanctions based on what we see here, at most an admonishment. The point of adding parties is that if there are future problems like this, it is easier to show a pattern and lead to a more decisive outcome the second time. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would be embarrassed to be calling for Arbcom to criticize Signpost because Signpost published a review with which I disagree. There is not one sentence in that review that is a PA, aspersion, BLP violation, or otherwise violates any Wikipedia policy or guideline. The review is a review of a peer-reviewed paper in the section where we review peer-reviewed papers. Everybody involved is a freaking PhD. Professionals giving their professional opinions. Wikipedia's response: take them to arbcom!! Levivich (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Close down the bloody Signpost and everyone do something more productive. SN54129 14:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree per WP:ILIKEIT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Untrue. The argument is not whether I (or your good self) like it or not, but that this so-called organ of record is an embarrassment, with a well-founded reputation for BLP vios and general of our two most important resources. Cheers! SN54129 16:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that this would have benefited from more editorial oversight, and it seems like many people here think the same thing: whose job was that again? If there is anyone who should be given hell for this (i.e. added as a party to an arbitration case, yelled at here, sanctioned, or the like) it is me. I am the editor-in-chief, and I allowed this to be published in its current state. jp×g 15:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, you weren't around at the time. --Andreas JN466 15:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I had given this some thought, and even if it had been solely your decision to publish this, I don't think the editor-in-chief should be held responsible for individual controversial essays, even if they violate conduct policies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

    I agree, the editor-in-chief who was absent should not be held responsible for individual who decided to publish it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• User:Groceryheist, in the interest of transparency and for the avoidance of doubt:
  • Did you discuss this review with any WMF staff or WMF consultant prior to posting it on Wikipedia?
  • Were you compensated for writing it?

--Andreas JN466 15:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The answer to both is "no". Groceryheist (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to have those questions asked and answered. Andreas JN466 19:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? François Robere (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, curious why these two questions came up. What are you implying? dwadieff ✉ 11:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

A number of people have commented on Groceryheist's low edit count and wondered how he came to write this Recent Research review (note that it was not his first).

In addition, Groceryheist has worked as a contractor for the WMF in the past (see also the CV he links on his user page). HaeB collaborated with him at the time as a WMF staff member. So there is enough WMF linkage for conspiracy theories to arise and in my opinion it's best in such a case to address that head-on and get it out of the way.

Groceryheist has now assured us the WMF was not involved.

As HaeB explained earlier today, he offered Groceryheist the opportunity to write the review because Groceryheist had commented on the essay, he was familiar with Groceryheist' academic work on Wikipedia and he'd given him a review slot before. That seems like a satisfactory explanation to me. Andreas JN466 14:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Where did you see a conspiracy theory arise? dwadieff ✉ 17:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories can be found at the Unmentionable Place, whose accursèd name we dare not speak. Folly Mox (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It really seems like no straw is being left unclutched at here. But yes, Andreas' summary is correct. (I'd also like to point out just in case that it's been almost four years since I have been working at the WMF; and that I had been a volunteer Wikipedian for over seven years when I joined WMF in 2011.)

It occurred to me that I have so far failed to remind people about the way the Signpost's "Recent research" section (doubling as the research newsletter) has been operating for over a decade now. By now we have covered almost 1800 research publications for the community, and around 90 Wikimedians have contributed a bylined review like Nate here. (The majority of papers don't make it to a full writeup, but are instead featured with a short note under "Other recent publications".) We continuously look for new research publications to cover (generally posted first on Twitter). Once a month I post a public invitation/reminder like this in the Signpost newsroom to contribute to the upcoming (or a later) issue by reading one of the many interesting papers on our todo list. (The list for the upcoming March issue is being drafted here btw.) That doesn't mean that anyone can contribute anything without quality control - reviews are to be submitted in draft form so they can be review-reviewed by me and the Signpost EiC. And I have at time reached out to potential reviewers proactively for particular sensitive or important papers. But I don't recall ever having prevented a Wikipedian in good standing from calling dibs on a particular paper on the list. We also used to send a targeted outreach invitation every month to previous reviewers and on the Wikiresearch mailing list, but have failed to do so more recently for lack of time. (However, last month we had several volunteer expressing their interest to help out with various clerical tasks on the editorial side, who are starting to help out now, so we may soon be able to restart that kind of more systematic reviewer outreach.)

I do recall a few times where I had to defend a somewhat opinionated review (including on one or two occasions, ironically, by Piotrus, who as an accomplished academic himself with various peer-reviewed publications about Wikipedia is also a longtime valued contributor to "Recent research", including in the current issue). And we have covered lots of papers that heavily criticize Wikipedia, also sometimes naming names and focusing on sensitive topic areas. But never any reaction like this. There could be several possible reasons for this, for example that we failed especially badly here at doing our usual work, or that there are certain topic areas on Wikipedia where things are very particular. I wish ArbCom success.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

(←) Speaking only for myself...

• Yes, the individuals on ArbCom read the Signpost. Half of us are subscribed directly and the other half probably sees the watchlist notification when the SP is delivered to the first half. (I have read the Signpost for the better part of the past decade at least.)
• ArbCom decides who are parties to a case, not anyone or any group at AN(I). Voting on it here means precisely nil.
  • Corollary: The way to request someone be added as a party is to file a case request at WP:A/R/C, add a statement at an existing case request, or submit evidence in a case that implicates that editor.
• The Signpost, and indeed the wider community discussing current cases and related material is nothing new. I'm sure my fellow arbs follow many different pages potentially discussing a particular case. While I'm sure this causes some bias in one way or another, I'm also quite sure the set of people on ArbCom are good at knowing what commentary is reasonable and what isn't and making judgements about a case accordingly. The size of ArbCom separately makes it difficult to screw up a case solely based on the chatter that the community freely engages in.
• If you are certain the Signpost article itself is so damning as you believe it to be regarding its authors, WP:MFD is over there.
  • Of what I read in the article itself and the authors' statements here and elsewhere, I do not think that effort will be successful. But it is an available path.
• If you believe the things the authors have said is sufficient to earn them a spot in the case, feel free to request it as indicated above.
  • I do not expect they will be added as parties, but I am neither a drafter presently nor do I speak for the whole here.

I might suggest this discussion be closed accordingly. Lots of smoke and not a lot of light in it. IznoPublic (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with almost all that @Izno: says above, and second his suggestion that this discussion be closed.
• It probably won't be closed. Discussions on this matter have gone on for a very long time with an almost endless number of words. I remember a previous discussion about 3 years ago on The Signpost's discussion(?) page which was accompanied by a similar amount of xxxx in my email inbox. Do everybody a favor and close this.
• Feel free to add me into any ArbCom case if other Signposters are added. I'll be happy to politely and concisely tell everybody what I really think.
• It's clear this won't go anywhere - so why not just close it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leave it up and thank the author for their hard work The article was basically a recqap of the subject article and a small section on rebuttals to it. 95% of what was in there is a recap of what others said and clearly attributed as such. A confusing 5% wasn't and perhaps the author could tweak that a bit. It's a major story regarding Wikipedia and it would be unthinkable to not cover it just because there is an arbcom case. My 2 quibbles with it are the "5%" and that the article should have more clearly identified what it was which was "a recap of the subject article and a small section on rebuttals to it." . It's not an editorial, but it's also not overall coverage of the topic. North8000 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Aggressive behavior of User:Hotwiki towards other editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hotwiki also display ownership on other pages such Twice singles discography insisting that The Feels is not a single of Formula of Love: O+T=＜3 over the objections of other editors. Hotwiki needs to respect consensus when it does not go their way. See [83] and [84]. Lightoil (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lightoil: The issue with Twice was discussed in the talk page of Twice singles discography. The evidence is there and I responded in a very civil way. You could have expressed your opinion in that talk page and you didn't. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Also this was written in my talk page "You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly. Your talk page shows it all". How is that not a personal attack? I did discuss to User:FrostFleece in a civil way, about posting a reference, which he/she failed to do so. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@WayKurat: yes, I do revert unreferenced edits immediately as those articles are in my watchlist. Is there a problem with that? Seeing your edit history, you do the same, though most of your reverts are unexplained which are seen in your contributions page[85]. User:FrostFleece made changes to at least five Wikipedia articles without posting a reference, and I checked the user's edit history, the user did not post any reference to all of his/her edits.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Expounding that statement:

1. "You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly." - I simply described your frequent threats to block me from editing as seen on my talk page.
2. "Your talk page shows it all." - describing your disposition when dealing with other editors.

Taking offense is not the same as a personal attack and I am sorry if those statements did offend you, but let it be known I have never meant it in any way a form as an attack on you.

It's simple. Provide and present references that proves the GMA content are in 4K and 5.1 sound. Please stop relying on that godforsaken article that does not back your claim at all.

I admit, it is tough finding a source that specifically details the show or channel specifications, but that information is readily available publicly since GMA Network is broadcasted across the country. I have no place to lie about it here on Wikipedia.

Please also do your due diligence instead of keeping on harassing editors for a reference you so much crave about.

Do your part too, @Hotwiki. FrostFleece (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Yes, I revert edits, but the edits I revert are mostly obvious vandalism. FrostFleece already provided an explanation on why they did the revisions, and still you acted aggressive towards them. I also didn't saw any personal attacks against you on their reply.

Also, have you watched GMA Network's over-the-air broadcasts or even watch their shows on YouTube? The signal is obviously not in HD, let alone, in 4k. It's only on 16:9 480p. The source that you keep on bringing up only mentions that GMA is capable of producing shows in 4k. Only a few stations in Metro Manila airs content in HD. -WayKurat (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

GMA Network only started broadcasting their shows in widescreen in broadcast television, this year, but their shows have been filmed with wide-screen ratio since 2014 and this is evident from online videos (YouTube/Netflix/Viu) that they uploaded throughout the years. Recent shows like I Left My Heart in Sorsogon, First Lady and First Lady are indeed filmed with 4K cameras, as 4K resolution is a standard requirement for content being streamed in Netflix[86] and GMA shows are available for streaming in Netflix. Shows being streamed in Netflix also uses 5.1 surround sound, not stereo. A 2019 article from GMA Network which was posted in Saksi, Eat Bulaga and several articles backed up the 4k claim. So please, provide a reliable source when you make an edit and claim that GMA doesn't use 4k cameras and 5.1 stereo for their shows. Thank you. TheHotwiki (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say they are not using 4k capable cameras. I'm telling you that they are NOT broadcasting in 4k and in 5.1 surround sound. Just because some of their shows are on Netflix does not mean that ALL of their shows are recorded on what format you are claiming. Heck, Eat Bulaga, Saksi and 24 Oras are not even in Netflix. You are just assuming them. I'm throwing the question back to you. Do you have a primary source that says that all of their shows are being shown over-the-air in 4k 5.1 surround sound? -WayKurat (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is your source @WayKurat:? If we are gonna drastically change audio format and picture format for 5 shows, we should able to back up that with a reliable source which @FrostFleece: failed to do so.TheHotwiki (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop asking me and other editors on our sources. It's obvious that you only based your assumptions on that GMA article and you won't let anyone remove it unless they provide their "sources". That's the problem on your editing behavior, you remove or revert back the edits of other editors if they edit your work but when questioned on this, you keep on asking "where is your source?". This is borderline WP:OWN. -WayKurat (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Changing content without adding a reliable source is a valid reason to revert someone's edit. Now since you and @FrostFleece: failed to provide a reference, how about you both just let it go? TheHotwiki (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the attitude, @Hotwiki, after all these replies.

We are going around in circles and instead of trying to help finding common ground, you are simply telling us to let it go? Do you mean let it go and let you keep your edits? Sure, but please provide correct sources too if you are all about the references.

@WayKurat and I have provided and explained in sheer detail but you choose to stick with your logic and fail to see our point. We are not wasting our time and efforts here for no reason. So please, don't tell us to just "let it go." Would you like it if I were to tell you the same?

I invite you to please reread our counter-arguments once more and you are very much welcome to do so. This would be my final response until someone steps in to help resolve this issue. Adios for now and all the best for this discussion. FrostFleece (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not just gonna let this slide one bit this time. This attitude of yours has been going on for years now. Look what have you done to the 24 Oras and Saksi articles. For comparison, look at this version of the Saksi article from 2017 and from today. You removed most of the content there that the show's history section now has gaps in it, compared to TV Patrol's article. And the references used in the "anchors" section are just clips from YouTube when the anchor appeared in that newscast. Maybe you should stop owning articles and let other editors edit them. -WayKurat (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You are over-generalizing these information! I have a phone right now that can also shoot in 4K but that doesn't mean everything I shoot is 4K. Your NETFLIX logic is flawed.

We are not contesting the fact that GMA can shoot 4K format right now. The problem is that not all shows are released in 4K and 5.1. The keyword here is released. Just because Netflix requires 4K cameras, it doesn't mean all GMA shows are released in 4K. If you go to Netflix right now, you'll be surprised to see that the specifications for shows like I Left My Heart in Sorsogon is still in 1080p, and in Stereo! (linked here) Technically, no 4K or 5.1 release yet, unless you provide hardcore references.

Yes, GMA Network does have 4K cameras (see article here) and can produce in 5.1 surround sound format (see Voltes V Legacy cinematic version plans here,) but you are assuming that for all shows. FrostFleece (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Hotwiki: You too need references. In the absence of any reliable source showing what format the program is in (which is different from what format the producer is capable of making) we should not specify any format. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: There is a reference for the 4k resolution claim which was already added to this article Saksi. Looking at the access date of the reference, its been in the article since 2021. As for surround sound, FrostFleece (talk · contribs) just posted a link above that shows of GMA Network utilizes 5.1 surround sound.TheHotwiki (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is precisely a link that shows that the producer is capable of making programs in this format, not that any particular show utilises this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Here's 3 more articles that says the network in discussion uses 4K cameras.[87][88][89] The first link is for the network's Public Affairs department. The second link specifically mentioned a 2020 drama series. These articles are from 2020. I just don't understand the need to cherry pick which shows are using "4k resolution camera/4k picture format", when these articles exists. Meanwhile there are still no reference, that certain shows are only in lower resolution.TheHotwiki (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter what sources might say about the network's capabilities when they don't say that these capabilities are being used for particular programs. And we don't need a reference to simply leave out the format when there is no such source. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It's more likely that these shows aren't broadcasting in 4k at all, but mainly in 1080i or 1080p. Hotwiki, you would easily be able to find out what format a show broadcasts through a technical tool which would show its true format, and the only regular 4k broadcasts are usually special events, not a Filipino lunchtime variety show being broadcast every weekday (and often to an audience that has absolutely no need for 4k). Also, just because it's being recorded on 4k equipment doesn't mean it goes out in 4k; more likely it's being downscaled to a regular 1080i/p system for graphics and network output like we do in the United States for sports broadcasts). Netflix doesn't have a 4k requirement, and you need sourcing to show it, which just doesn't exist. So it's time to stop, now. Nate • (chatter) 20:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• User:Hotwiki is showing their WP:OWN tendencies again. I just re-added the content they removed from the Saksi article that were removed in 2020 but they keep on removing them because according to them, it's unreferenced and "trivial". The removed content were mostly the show's history between 2002 and 2011 and if you read the overview section before I re-added the history section, it's missing a significant chunk of the newscast's history. This thread also mentions a couple of instances when Hotwiki violated WP:OWN. Can someone please review the article first and issue warnings to Hotwiki for edit warring? -WayKurat (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Chiming in again after some statements.

  @WayKurat, I'm afraid I have to back @Hotwiki on this one upon review of the diffs but I think there are some information worth reviewing. I agree that some parts are way too trivial but I believe can be rewritten to be deemed an acceptable entry. The article has a talk page and I invite all of us concerned to discuss further from there.

  But still, @Hotwiki, though I appreciate and respect your contributions and your incredibly proactive editing, we need to always have a healthy discussion instead of swooping in with the reverts and dealing with us and other editors in an unfriendly manner. What's the use of citation needed or other tags and discussion pages if you always take matters on your hands? It's good to be bold to delete some information, as said in the article, but not overly bold that discourages other contributors from providing insights. FrostFleece (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  @WayKurat: you are using this opportunity as a way to revert back a version of Saksi (an article that used to have plenty of unreferenced claims and trivial stuff), that has been removed years ago. How is "graphics change" important to the article? Trivial uncited information like Catchphrases is unnecessary. Myself removing uncited and trivial content IS NOT me owning the article as if its my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)

  An IP user with 6 edits, reverted an old version from 2020 in this article, Saksi.[90] No one is still adding sources to the reverted back uncited claims. Could the administrators look into this? The article is now (once again) full of uncited and trivial claims because @WayKurat: claimed that the article used to be a mess when the uncited and trivial claims were removed, yet for years it was removed just fine. TheHotwiki (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe you should try looking into the TV Patrol article. It contains uncited and trivial claims similar on what you have removed in the Saksi article. Instead of helping out in finding sources in the History/Overview section, you just removed a lot of content, some of them were written way back in 2007, skipping the show's history from 2004 to 2011. You also added that "Interim anchors" section, which only uses video clips from GMA News' official YouTube channel as primary source. The videos are not even about the subject being cited, it's just news clips when the interim anchor delivers the news. How can you call that a proper source? Also, with comments like this to other editors, no wonder no one bothers to revert your edits. -WayKurat (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  In other news, I discovered something. @Hotwiki, you have plenty of edits on the page of The Wall Philippines but you haven't questioned once regarding the audio format of the show nor asked for references. You did not even try to change it. Why, @Hotwiki?

  I was surprised that the show was stated in its actual audio format, although yes, it is "unreferenced" as you would love to put it; though, I am not debating the credibility of the parameter but instead the seemingly bias approach towards other articles and editors. Although you might say you have missed it, sure; but I highly doubt it since you are pretty much eagle-eyed and active on GMA-related articles. FrostFleece (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Iheartbrownbananas

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

---

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

The new user Iheartbrownbananas has been making the same continuous disruptive edits since they created their account on February 4, 2023 even after being reverted almost every single time and with talk page warnings to stop. They continue to leave their edit summary blank after being shown how to use it and does not respond to any editor. If an admin could step in to either temporary block until they start responding or perm block if they don't stop. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

As most of us will be unfamiliar with this issue, could you share some diffs and explain why they're bad? --Golbez (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if you look at their contributions, almost all of them are reverted and they do alot of the same things like

• this edit on Dan Akryod - they rowspan in columns that are not allowed after being told repeatedly to stop. They change the standard notes from "Also writer and producer" >>> "Writer & producer" after being told it's not an improvement.
• this edit on Hugh Jackman - again with rowspans, and replacing "Also producer" with "And producer"
• this edit on Matthew McConaughey filmography takes out rowscopes and replaces with rowspans which has been told it's against MOS:DTAB.
• edits on Peter O'Toole lots of rowspans, changing the standard "Television film" to "TV movie"
• edits on Alan Rickman again removing rowscopes and adding rowspans.

Are these edits vicious? No, but any communication trying to correct this editor goes unanswered and with no change to their behavior. LADY LOTUS • TALK 22:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

there is this new edit on List of Brendan Fraser performances that I reverted. They immediately undid my revert which I followed up with another explanation of why it was reverted again. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of what should be done about the named user, I suspect that Special:contributions/2600:1700:4488:80:0:0:0:0/64 is the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've indeffed the named user and blocked their IP range for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Nybygger reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Disruptive, promotional editing. Posted multiple votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCIV.NET; most recently put back an edit of theirs that was deleted! [91] [92] [93] [94] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:COIN yet? Lizthegrey (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Denver IP range making trouble

• 2601:282:8100:3BB0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using Denver IPs has been editing disruptively, making BLP violations,[95] adding excessive plot description,[96] and edit-warring over a ridiculously vague quote at the George Romero film director bio,[97] previously adding an unreferenced elopement.[98]

Note that this /64 range falls inside the range Special:Contributions/2601:280:0:0:0:0:0:0/26 partially blocked by Tamzin for disruption at the film page Talk:2000 Mules. Neighboring /64 ranges such as Special:Contributions/2601:282:8100:BC00:0:0:0:0/64 show the same editing style, for instance large plot additions with only "m" as the edit summary.[99] The person I'm reporting may be the same as the 2000 Mules zealot; the one is interested in dystopian films, the other is concerned about false voter allegations in the US 2020 presidential election. Both of those interests come together in thrice-blocked Special:Contributions/2601:282:8100:5AA0:0:0:0:0/64. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know who you are or what your beef is, however, several of us are part of a film club and co-opt that likes to occasionally contribute from our Colorado theater group space, which doesn’t make us a disruptive user or even the disruptive user you are implying. Hence, AGF.

We can’t police people everyone who uses this cinema cafe IP as the computers are public- allowing everyone access from our audiences, local artists, customers and even the homeless in our town. Otherwise if you think this is a sock puppetry issue, then it looks like you’ve been around long enough that you should know by now that you need to open a proper SPI instead of playing an inquisitioner here- starting with the premise that someone is guilty until proven innocent. Everyone sounds like everyone online long enough if you’ve been doing this for too long.

As for the contributions themselves, it’s not “defamation” if it’s true and well documented as Savini and Romero’s scandals have been in the book cited by author Lee Karr and the several witnesses interviewed including fx guru Greg Nicotero in said book. Otherwise should we also WP:CENSOR the Bill Cosby article or even the Donald Trump page for facts about their documented crimes and abuse? Give the readers the information and let them decide instead of WP:GAMING as you are.

The rest of your whining falls into the realm of speculation, hyperbole and matters of personal taste about what constitutes a long plot or meaningful contributions. For instance, Cronenberg and Romero are deeply “philosophical” storytellers so that’s an essential part of their art and contributions. To exclude that is to deny essential notable information for the reader. That’s why I politely warned you to get consensus from all editors if you don’t like a particular contribution, and have a friendly debate on the talk page, rather than running to what feels like your version of what you hope is the Wikipedia KGB to enforce your personal agenda.

As I pointed out above, it looks like you’ve been around long enough to know better- i.e.that with such light weight controversy over the meager contributions themselves in the first place, it comes off as passive-aggressively engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS for vanilla contributions you maybe don’t like for personal reasons or matters of subjective taste. 2601:282:8100:3BB0:F58C:915C:AD9B:26CC (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging 331dot and Doug Weller who blocked nearby range Special:Contributions/2601:282:8100:5AA0:0:0:0:0/64 which was interested in dystopian film articles[100][101] just like our new Denver friend, as well as the more problematic disruption related to 2000 Mules and the US presidential election in 2020. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a whole bunch of personal attacks for someone under scrutiny, 2601 IP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin do you want to add this to your partial block? I don’t want to try on my iPad. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That /26 is quite a large range, so I wouldn't assume anyone on it is the same person as the 2000 Mules editor (Ethiopique) unless there's clear behavioral connections—and that should be filed at SPI. I would treat any concerns about this specific person as being about a new editor, absent such evidence, and have no opinion at this time as to whether this conduct merits sanctions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Disrupting editing of filmographies, films, actors

• Special:Contributions/2A00:F29:280:BD93:0:0:0:0/64 (edits since Feb 26)

Persistent addition of unsourced claims focused primarily on adding films to filmography tables for future projects that have not yet begun filming, but also changing release dates, adding cast members, changing budget/gross. WP:FILMOGRAPHY says Do not add future projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source.

Diffs and talk page links

Examples of unsourced/poorly sourced additions: adding future projects to filmography tables: [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] changing budget/gross: [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] changing release date: [119] changing release date and cast members: [120] changing release date, budget and gross (for an unreleased film?) [121] malformed edits: [122] unexplained reference removal: [123] Talk pages are littered with warnings: User talk:2A00:F29:280:BD93:B44D:F0A7:46E:4D06 User talk:2A00:F29:280:BD93:F46F:3F6C:2D86:1205 User talk:2A00:F29:280:BD93:1D4B:15C0:A9EC:AFD0 User talk:2A00:F29:280:BD93:3440:541B:D660:915E User talk:2A00:F29:280:BD93:6C05:15AA:6115:EEB6

Note: this appears to be the same editor who was on this range:

• Special:Contributions/2A00:F29:2B0:2D1:0:0:0:0/64 (edits from Feb 3 to Feb 25, 2023)

Select examples: [124] [125] [126] [127]

I think they need a timeout.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

They have resumed their chronic disruptive editing at:

• 2A00:F29:280:BD93:3440:541B:D660:915E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• unsourced change to the date of a film's release: [128] and [129]

• 2A00:F29:2B0:5D6C:4C6B:972C:AA6E:D98D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Unsourced change to a film's gross receipts that breaks existing ref URLs [130]

Both 2A00:F29:280:BD93:0:0:0:0/64 and 2A00:F29:2B0:5D6C::/64 need blocks, or you might consider widening the block to 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

More unsourced edits [131] [132] [133] from:

• 2A00:F29:280:BD93:7C73:22C7:463:3B9D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 12:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Harassment by 73.24.189.66: Repeated User Talk posts after being explicitly asked to stop

Can someone please have a word with User:73.24.189.66? They have repeatedly placed messages on my User Talk page after I have explicitly asked them to stop, once in an edit summary and once in an explicit post on their User Talk page (with an explicit link to WP:USERTALKSTOP so they understand that this an acceptable practice). Another editor also warned them against this practice yet they have continued. This has gone beyond boisterous disagreement to harassment and it needs to stop. ElKevbo (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Posting on the User Talk page was directed by @ElKevbo himself for all edits related questions.I apologize if it constitutes harassment, as it's certainly not my intention. The objection to his Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia should be better channeled elsewhere. 73.24.189.66 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The passage in question and I apologize again that I didn't know how to report this:

== Conflict of Interests ==

Please stop spam editing the Wiki page of University of Delaware. It's a clear violation of conflict of interest, and you should know better.

This is an encyclopedia, not a personal webpage; we adhere to a neutral point of view. It is an important context for other editors to see, when they inevitably get directed here. Whether you are sabotaging other universities' reputation to boost your own employer, nobody can tell It's a terrible look on how University of Delaware operates regardless. 73.24.189.66 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If you really believe that a user is violating WP:COI then the place to report it is WP:COIN. But please look at the content of the edits first to see if they are really spam. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the reporting resource. I was directed by @ElKevbo himself to post on his Talk Page initially, as any one can see on his User Page.

The objection was to the aforementioned editor repeatedly deleting important information in other universities' Wikipedia articles despite multiple pleas for reasoning in the Talk page, while keeping the exact same information (NSF Research Funding & Ranking) on his own employer's page at University of Delaware. He claimed that he's unable to edit the page of University of Delaware but the evidence is contrary. While I do not believe it's his intention to sabotage peer institutions, his stubbornness in hiding such relevant information from the readers while highlighting it at his employer institution is damning. 73.24.189.66 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

According to your own link, ElKevbo has not edited the University of Delaware page at all in the last 9 months, and they have edited it just twice in the last 2 years, both times to make minor stylistic corrections. Can you explain how this is "spam editing" that required you to give them a COI warning today? CodeTalker (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The harassment is continuing here in this noticeboard ("his stubbornness in hiding such relevant information from the readers while highlighting it at his employer institution") and elsewhere. Please bring it to an end. ElKevbo (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The harassment continues as they have now explicitly removed critical information from my current employer's article and my undergraduate alma mater. This is clearly targeted harassment as they have only edited four articles and they're clearly making these specific edits to attempt to get a rise out of me. ElKevbo (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Fenetrejones

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

This editor has made 4,077 edits, and does not appear to understand categorization.

• With this edit on October 7, 2020, they added an unsourced category, which was reverted here by User:Elizium23 with the edit summary "WP:CATV unsourced". A warning was left on Fenetrejones' talk page here.
• November 30, 2020 - warning about categorization by User:Binksternet.
• January 5, 2021 - Comment by User:Beyond My Ken: "Please note that there is a requirement that any category added to an article must have evidence supporting that category in the article. It is not sufficient to cite outside sources, you must have confirmation in the article. You've been adding cats without support. Please stop."
• On February 10, 2021, there was a dialogue with User:Binksternet about adding unsourced categories at User talk:Fenetrejones#Categories must be definitive.
• On July 3, 2022, another lengthy discussion by User:Praxidicae and User:25stargeneral about unsourced category additions at User talk:Fenetrejones#Categories.

I could fill this page with diffs of warnings and explanations I have left recently for this editor about categorization--both about adding unsourced categories, and about overcategorizing articles--but this editor does not appear to "get it"...and being Catholic from Kentucky must also mean you are Catholic from the United States. I hate seeing BLPs get messed up. The assistance of others would be appreciated. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried several times to explain categorization to Fenetrejones after they kept messing with the biographies of Nazi leaders Hans Fritzsche and Wilhelm Keitel, classifying them as religious based on a description of them talking to a chaplain right before they were executed. See the discussion at User talk:Fenetrejones#Categories must be definitive. Fenetrejones is guided by their own rules, frequently violating WP:No original research. I don't see any good way forward from here, with stubbornness combined with WP:CIR problems. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I stopped original research a while back. Fenetrejones (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Some of these edits are old and I have learned from those like the Mugabe one. Fenetrejones (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

can you at least provides diffs that aren't almost a year old? Slywriter (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Today - The category "Catholic from Rhode Island" was already on the article, so they added the category "American Roman Catholics" too.
• March 7, 2023 - This person is a Baptist and is in a Baptist category, so they added a category for being a Protestant too. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Cause that category includes many notable people Fenetrejones (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Fenetrejones:Probably the "Baptist" category populates the "Protestant" category, so adding it is redundant. Ditto with Catholic from Rhode Island. Populates American Roman Catholics. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  okay thank you Fenetrejones (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying "ok thank you", but nothing changes. With this edit On March 7, 2022, I specifically told you:

Please read WP:CATSPECIFIC: "Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." This means if you add the category "food from Chicago", you would not add the category "food from Illinois" , because that would not be the most specific category. The policy also says, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.

But then you kept doing it. Just yesterday, you must have done it 50 times: [134][135][136].

The same is true for adding unsourced categories. On March 7, 2023, at Ralph Abraham (politician), you added the category "Protestants from Louisiana", even though there was nothing in the article about his religious affiliation. On your talk page I asked you why you added this unsourced category, and you responded: "there was a category that said 'Baptists from Louisiana' already there".

And that's why I'm here, because editors keep telling you stuff, but you're not listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Topic-ban from categorization. This user clearly doesn't understand how the categorization system works, and is not learning despite a lot of input.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Support topic ban from categories. I don't think improvement will happen. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from categories.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Tbf69 mass merging Userboxen and other issues

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

---

Tbf69 (talk · contribs) (a relatively new and inexperienced editor) seems to have created his own pseudo-guideline at WP:MERGEUBX and then just started going ham. A ton of userboxen, even ones that are in other peoples' userspaces, are being blanked and redirected with no discussion. In other situations, he's just changing the appearances of other people's boxes such as here, after he's already been told not to do. One of his changes to Template:User male, transcluded on 2300 pages, was reverted and the user was told to seek consensus before making edits to commonly used templates here, but then he went ahead and reinstated his own change. He's also tried starting many RfCs about policy issues he fails to understand, such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (conflicts and protests). User talkpage is full of people asking him to slow down and discuss things before jumping in to areas he doesn't understand. He seems either unable or unwilling to do so, but either way it needs to be stopped and cleaned up.

I've tried undoing some of his edits, starting with the merging of the "male" templates, but there are a lot more to sort out and it's getting very late for me so help would be appreciated. I haven't issued a block yet with the hope that he'll pause and discuss here, but if he resumes then I have no objections to anyone else doing so. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Possibly a good start would be to take that pseudo-guideline to MfD; it'd be a good jumping-off point to getting it into this fellow's head how thoroughly obnoxious blanking and redirecting other editors' userboxes is. Ravenswing 08:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to try and defend my position:

• I don't see any guidance or policies which state that performing a WP:BLAR on userboxes isn't allowed. I understand that it's controversial, so I've limited it to duplicates. WP:MUBX isn't a guideline, and the tag at the top clearly states it hasn't been "thoroughly vetted...".
• User talk:Tbf69#Template change was about the documentation, which I reinstated on the userbox template, see Special:Diff/1144117121.
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (conflicts and protests) is an RfC on creating a policy which I see as already being policy de facto on Wikipedia.
• I've started 4 RfCs in total. The other 3 did see some level of clear support from other editors (see: 1, 2, 3), so they can't all be ridiculous ideas.
• I was criticized over making bold moves to pages, and told to slow down at my user talk page. I then took that advice, and learnt how to use RM, successfully proposing a move at Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present).

- Tbf69 🛈 🗩 09:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You should leave other people's userspace alone. What you did there is at best rude. —Kusma (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:USERTALKSTOP specifically says "In general, one should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages". This specifically refers to other editors user pages and user talk pages, not subpages which are userbox templates. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 09:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

But those subpages/userbox are in the userspace, no? – robertsky (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This kind of wikilawyering response just reinforces that HJ Mitchell's block was a sound one. Ravenswing 17:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've indef'd Tbf69. Their talk page history and this thread show a clear consensus that their edits are disruptive and yet they appear determined to carry on regardless. I feel this is a case of competence is required. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Good block. It's an injustice to Tbf69 but letting him carry on would be a greater injustice to the Wikipedians his well-intentioned but bloody idiotic decisions were affecting. Remove the time sinks.—S Marshall T/C 10:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, blocking is meant to protect the encyclopedia from disruption, not to mete out justice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  So, where we are now is that the user has asked to be unblocked, saying he now understands that disrupting userboxes was inappropriate. It's good that he sees that, but if it was just the userboxes, HJ Mitchell would not have blocked and I doubt if other admins would have either. The problem is this pattern of doing things that use up extraordinary amounts of other editors' time. Volunteer time is Wikipedia's only limiting resource, so what that means is that this editor is amazingly expensive.

  Tbf69 has started four (4) RfCs, and RfC is likely our most time-consuming community processes. Three of those RfCs were obvious snow fails. And then he's started very unwisely screwing around with templates. Tbf69 is clearly learning, but he's learning by breaking stuff. We can tolerate that in editors who're focused on content because reverting them is easy. We can't tolerate that in editors who're focused on policy or templates or other back-end areas. Any unblock must come with a condition restricting this editor to editing mainspace articles and their talk pages only. No community processes such as AfD, no templates, no files, no RfCs, nothing else at all.—S Marshall T/C 13:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Seems like a good idea. —Alalch E. 17:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Good block I'm astounded by the wkilawyering over something as unconstructive and as inappropriate and as wasteful of time an energy as mucking about with userboxes. One does not need a rule to prohibit every possible unconstructive and inappropriate and wasteful of time an energy act. A simple, "please don't do that" should have been sufficient at best. (now I gotta go check mine)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Good block. Good grief! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Seems like a solution in search of a problem, like, whether or not there's duplicate userboxes out there is not at all a big deal. Let people decorate as they like. I'd say though IF this user sincerely pledges to fully drop the subject matter and never touching anything like it again, an unblock could happen. Zaathras (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  I find it hard to believe that the user is intentionally being disruptive, so while this is a good block, I do also agree that an unblock (possibly with restrictions) would be the right choice if the user does make such a pledge. – Popo Dameron talk 16:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, I just saw [137] and [138] coming a few hours after this warning [139], and I'm now finding it a bit harder to continue to assume good faith. – Popo Dameron talk 17:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's hard for them to accept that they are indefinitely blocked. They behave like it has been some mistake that will soon be remedied, and in the meantime they'll keep demonstrating how useful they are by soliciting proxying. Seen it a million times. Not indicative of bad faith. The editor just doesn't fully understand the situation. Being indeffed can be hard to absorb, and people need some time for their thoughts and feelings to settle; it can take months. —Alalch E. 17:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've removed talk page access following the continued attempts to use their talk page to canvass and circumvent their block. I've also declined the second (!) unblock request posted today as inadequately addressing the concerns raised here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's a shame, but it was good call. Their talk page comments were yet further evidence that they don't understand why their actions were disruptive (even if they didn't intend them to be) and therefore that the block (IMO) is serving a necessary preventative purpose. I'd suggest a UTRS appeal after a period of self-reflection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Having first encountered Tbf69's self-evident inability to take note of other people's legitimate concerns, in relation to the Prime (drink) article, where Tbf69 seemed to think that unilaterally moving the article [140] in the middle of discussions about notability and sourcing, while justifying the move by making entirely unsupported assertions about the subject matter, I am entirely unsurprised about the block. This isn't an issue with userboxes, it is all-round cluelessness and stubbornness, as can readily be seen from their talk page. An indef per WP:CIR seemed only a matter of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Above noted. Not knowing what one is doing can be harder than flat out vandalism to deal with. The vandal knows they were making unacceptable edits. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking of which, UTRS appeal #70651 (deeper sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Anticommunist POV-pushing on Finnish Civil War topics

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

---

Vapsussota1918 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is engaged in disruptively labelling the Red Guards as traitors and terrorists and manipulating numbers without sources. They've also made one BLP violation. No diffs because it would just duplicate their contributions list. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I was just thinking about taking this here based on their earlier edits to Finnish Civil War (1, 2, 3), a talk page filled with warnings, and lack of any engagement with said warning. I'll just note that name is a misspelling of "vapaussota", a (relatively archaic) Finnish language name for the 1918 Finnish Civil War, which the Red Guard were one side of. The way I see this, even the most charitable read of the situation is that the user is a single-purpose account with a competence issue. Ljleppan (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Noting that the BLP-violations have continued since this thread was started: Special:Diff/1144211694. Ljleppan (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Jewish categories sprayed over too many bios

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

---

• 46.116.69.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

An Israeli IP editor has been adding Jewish categories to a wide range of biographies including many with scant connection to Judaism. I reverted this editor several times[141][142][143] but they are still going at it. The editor says that having any Jewish ancestor means the person is Jewish.[144]

The word "Jewish" can mean any or all of three things: Jewish blood line, Jewish cultural belonging, and Jewish religious belief. To me it looks like Wikipedia's stance is that only those who embrace Jewish culture or religion should be categorized as Jewish. Those who acknowledge their Jewish bloodline but nothing more would be categorized as having "Jewish descent". Our Israeli friend is using a larger definition. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

See: Jew-tagging. Curbon7 (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

As the author of that piece says, "Jew-tagging" can be done by anti-semites or by people who wish to boost the profile of Jews. Wikipedia should join in with neither. If I thought that more than a negligible number of readers even look at categories I would get worked up about this. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO its just the wikipedia version of "Naming the Jew" (the idea that every unique mention of a Jewish person must also include a mention of their Jewishness... E.g. "The rapper Drake, who is Jewish, just bought two Bugattis for his pet parrot") which is a prime pastime of both anti-semites and Jewish mothers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That article raises some good points. I've noticed that there seems to be an obsession with ethnic background by some editors, and I also have noticed that ethnic background is sometimes not sufficiently established for categorization. Coretheapple (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

an obsession with ethnic background by some editors Indeed. An endemic issue on Wikipedia. Trying to deal with it is a monumental time sink. The only real solution would be to eliminate such categorisation entirely per WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTANETHNORELIGIOUSDATABASEGOSTARTYOUROWNSOMEWHEREELSE, though I can't see the community going with that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Probably not an issue if the IP had consistently selected their targets correctly. But a number of them information about their religion like "their mother was Jewish" (Joe Nussbaum, Andrew Bujalski), "born to a Jewish family" (David Frankel), "secular Jew" (Jesse Moss), "family was Jewish" (Claudia Weill), and so on. That's not really good enough for BLPs. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the point.

Perhaps we should split the plain "Jewish" and "Jews" categories into three segments to separate ethnic heritage, cultural belonging, and religious practice. That would be a lot of work. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Give the obsessives more things to argue endlessly over? What could possibly go wrong... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I fear WP:WikiProject Subcategorizing Jews may be misinterpreted. Levivich (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem highlighted in the Kosner article is that religion is noted inconsistently. I've sometimes seen ethnicity mentioned at the very top of articles. "John Doe is a Jewish-American attorney..." Coretheapple (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm personally horrified that Wikipedia has these types of cats and lists. Cats about nationality are objective, cats about ethnicity / religion are subjective / transitory. As far as suggestions for breaking cats down further, I suggest using an astrology sign.  // Timothy :: talk  20:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Cats about nationality are not always objective, and are hotly disputed for some subjects. All identity cats are. Levivich (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is an LTA sock, which I've now CU blocked. I can't name the master, but all of the edits can be reverted per WP:BANREVERT.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me it isn't User:Bus stop... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Racist WP:PA

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

---

"you fucking retarded shitskin gypsy serb" directed at another user. --Griboski (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. For now. It can be reduced or extended without consulting me. By the way Griboski you should have mentioned this section to them. Done it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the context of their user page? It's coming up as Albanian for "hang me karin". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

No idea about that. Sorry, forgot to notify them. My feeling is indef is proper here but of course it's up to the admins, because the shitskin is a reference to dark skin and the Gypsy = Serb thing is Nazi racial theory stuff. They don't appear to edit much but clearly not here to build an encyclopedia anyway.--Griboski (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

+1. Racist PAs should = indef every time. It's not like when someone presses the undo button too many times. Levivich (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather it appears to mean "suck my ..." (http s://forrestgump.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/swear-in-albanian/). Karin definitely corresponds to the last word in the phrase. —Alalch E. 17:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the interpretations. I have extended the block to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

And deleted the user page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the quick mop work. Levivich (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Ola Tønningsberg

I informed this editor on their talk page about WP:GS/RUSUKR, which means any editor who is not extended-confirmed cannot make edits to articles with content related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. This editor is autoconfirmed only. A few days ago they made the article Draft:Chechen volunteers on the side of Ukraine which was then moved to draftspace. For whatever reason they made a duplicate article Chechen volunteers on the side of Ukraine afterwards. They also made other edits in this area. I gave them one more warning about the GS on their talk page and their next edit was on that article. Mellk (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Michael Pocalyko

We need IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATOR ATTENTION on this article. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 20:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editors have been blocked and the article has been semi-protected. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Rorschach making questionable copyedits

Rorschach has been making several copyedits that might need a closer look. I noticed this one where there are a few good changes like commas and that -> who, but also changes like are -> arse and some that just insert gibberish. Normally I would just revert and leave a message on the editor's talk page, but they've made several edits like this mixed in with a lot of good copyedits, and I think closer examination is necessary here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s oddly like Rorschach is testing us. — Trey Maturin™ 20:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

{{uw-rorschachtest1}}: Hello, I'm Levivich. An edit that you recently made appears differently to each person who reads it... Levivich (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for a week for vandalism, and asked them to explain what's going on. Cullen328 (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

So, I guess we're aren't locked in here with him, after all. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Joaziela on Taras Shevchenko

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

This editor is edit-warring on Taras Shevchenko, having made nine reverts within 24 hours, and Krajina, with two reverts so far. They also have a clear civility problem, using edit summaries and talk page messages to accuse others of vandalism and, yes, edit warring. They opened a section on Talk:Taras Shevchenko but continued reverting and accusing others of vandalism. They have previously been blocked once for edit-warring. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello I'm a victim here! @Lute88 is editing without taking part in discussion here Talk:Taras_Shevchenko#Ukrainian poet, Russian writer born in Russian Empire and even remove it from his page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALute88&diff=1144227993&oldid=1144223358 Even more its looks like he also used dynamic IPs @93.75.254.213 and @194.44.253.74 to continue editing war. To topic its been changed Shevchenko place of birth from Russian Empire to Ukraine (country that was created in 1991 almost 150 years after his life) and most of his prose was written in Russian including his autobiography and only some of his poetry was in Ukrainian language. I understand there is war, but there not a reason to rewrite history and remove his in Russian work and his place of birth Joaziela (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100%, Madeline.--Aristophile (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I blocked Joaziela for a week. Lute88, who is at four reverts, probably needs to be blocked as well, but I am involved with this user and will not block them. Another administrator will need to look at the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've merely restored the consensus version. Nothing to look at.--Aristophile (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:3RR only makes exception for vandalism and BLP violations. Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hateful sniping from Texas IPs

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

---

• 2600:6C56:6408:71:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The Texas IP range Special:Contributions/2600:6C56:6408:71:0:0:0:0/64 has never been blocked, but the person has an edit history showing about 90% disruption. The person has made hateful comments about biography subjects such as "Obviously a jew nose", "his small penis", and "what a piece of shit". I don't think they are worth the trouble. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Range block. /64. 1 week. Any admins should feel free to unblock or modify as they wish. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Increased to a year - the hateful misogynistic and anti-Semitic sniping has been going on since 2021. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Severe LTA / block evasion and vandalism from an IP editor in Philippines

Hi all, I just wanted to bring to administrators' attention, some severe block-evasion and "abuse filter test" vandalism that has been going on lately from a certain IP editor.

Here are four articles that were recently targeted by the LTA editor:

• KOCE-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Luke fon Fabre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KLCS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Luke fon Fabre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here are some of the recent IP addresses/ranges that were involved:

• 49.144.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:4450:81DE:500:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:4450:81A8:8200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP range from last month:

• 112.206.112.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think there's much that I need to explain here, just looking at the edit history of the articles and contributors pretty much says it all. They only make two or three certain kinds of edits, making the pattern very obvious. One thing I will add is that this vandalism has been going on for several years now and I believe this may be some sort of long-term abuser. I am making this report as a place for further investigations and action. AP 499D25 (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Can I get a sanity check? The background is that I objected to the use of Science-Based Medicine for statements of fact about the scientific consensus in this edit here, after which Bon courage reverted it and opened a talk page discussion. In the ensuing discussion, which spanned all of 30 minutes(!), Bon courage managed to accuse me of not reading three separate times (1 2, 3), then said that I was either WP:PROFRINGE or WP:CIR afflicted (here), after which they decided to just reply to my reasoning with the one word response "wrong" (with the edit summary "read the article").

I'm not going crazy here, right? I've been editing here for a bit over year and have made a bit over a thousand talk page edits, and I have never ran into behaviour this... idk, bizarre and inflammatory? This cannot be the appropriate way to engage with other people. Endwise (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Why did you 'noping' BC? Have you notified him properly? - Roxy the dog 04:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep. I did it just because I remember someone else formatting it that way. I can convert it to {{u}} in the header if you'd like though. (edit conflict) Endwise (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Endwise, neither the diffs you present in isolation, nor the entire discussion on talk in context, support the statements you use those diffs to support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't call 'you' that, but was referring (in another part of the thread) to the editors another editor invoked who would have difficulty with a certain situation. I am happy to clarify this is not a specific reference to you. Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I came in and objected to the use of SBM, Iskandar323 said that editors are going to continue doing that, and you said that such editors have either PROFRINGE or CIR issues. I don't really see how that doesn't mean me given I'm the only one who came in as a new editor and objected to the use of SBM, but, whatever, I guess I'll have to accept your statement. Endwise (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Well if any editor started to rock up at articles on fringe biomedical topics and deleted all uses of WP:SBM on sight from ledes because it's "a blog" that would be an issue, especially since pretty much all of those article are WP:CTOPs. Yes?

To be clear I think the issue is not so much your opening edit, but Adoring nanny's reinstatement[145] of it, complete with spurious reasoning about needing 'first-tier' sources at the top of the lede.. That editor had been party to all the long-drawn-out discussions about this, and knew what the prevailing consensus was. Bon courage (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is the reasoning about "needing 'first-tier' sources at the top of the lede" spurious? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• If your first and only edit to a contentious topic article is to remove something that has been repeatedly discussed and obtained consensus for on the talk page, then you're probably the one in the wrong. And I don't think very minor statements of "you're not reading the source" and usage of PROFRINGE and CIR are negative or actionable here at ANI. It's not even a statement about a person, but about editing. Which is an appropriate thing to call out considering your actions in the article. All you had to do was apologize for making an edit that was against consensus and go on your way, since as you said yourself, this isn't an article you had edited before or were invested in. Silverseren^C 06:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that consensus was never obtained on the talk page, the result was a no consensus which left the status quo active. The current rough consensus on the talk page is *not* to use SBM in the lead but instead to use a high quality source as befits the seriousness of the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

For reference there has was an RFC at RSN about the source in 2018 that found it was generally reliable and not a self published source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256#RfC on sciencebasedmedicine.org. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

While I don't think calling other editors PROFRINGE has ever been helpful at reaching consensus or defusing contentious discussions, I don't see any edit here by Bon courage that merits sanctions. Their defense of an RSN-vetted source seems appropriate to me. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Matiullah Jan is WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Matiullah Jan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly just here to promote their blog. They continue to submit drafts that are copyright violations taken from their blog postings; namely Draft:Matiullah Jan, Draft:Research process steps, Draft:Tricks to reduce world count in research or How to reduce world count in research, Draft:SELECTING A RESEARCH TOPIC: HOW TO CHOOSE A RESEARCH TOPIC:, Draft:Tricks to reduce world count in research. Their talk page is full of notices and warnings which they've ignored. Bennv123 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The user in question has now been blocked indefinitely by Cullen328. AP 499D25 (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Admin attention needed

I would like to report about Christopheronthemove. This user has made 106 edits so far and has participated in 22 AFD discussions [146], which is extremely unusual for a new user. Note that this happened within just three days since they had joined. I have opened an SPI against them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jehowahyereh. Checkuser results say that they may be a possible sockpuppet, but no admin action has been taken yet. I am raising this issue here because their massive participation in AFD discussions could potentially impact the outcomes of these AFD discussions if they are proven a sockpuppet due to the backlog at SPI. I have provided additional evidence at the SPI. I urge someone to review it and take appropriate action. Akevsharma (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Akevsharma - Could this not have been handled at the SPI? If you have evidence suggesting they are a sock of a specific user, that's where it should go. (Non-administrator comment) casualdejekyll 22:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

They have filed. The CU is done and labeled possible. Needs behavioral review/admin action. Slywriter (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter - Yes, I was under the impression that this is a matter for comment on the SPI page that doesn't become an "admin attention needed" direct-to-noticeboard type deal unless there's some sort of backlog or odd circumstance. (And even then, that'd be the other AN, right?) casualdejekyll 23:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

They have participated in many AFD discussions and eight of them have closed. I'm uncertain to what extent their vote influenced these closures. Akevsharma (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Reply carry on. Admins please note this Akevsharma, is also a suspected sock at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Farzanfa007 . Please check the page Christopheronthemove (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC) .

  Note that @Christopheronthemove: twice posted a new case to that archive. I reverted them the second time. As I explained on their talk page, I'm not going to directly help them file the case give that it may be a retaliatory filing by a sock. So if their case has merit hopefully them or someone else is able to properly open a case. Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  User_talk:Akevsharma/Archive_1#User_account is definitely concerning. SPI can have fun unwinding it all. Slywriter (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Reply Wikipedia seems very less helpful to new users like me, I seeked help to two users who messaged my page related to posting the sock investigation request in archieve page. I finally found the right way and have rightly posted it.I have corrected the link above. Sending the link again for admin attention - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Farzanfa007 . Please check Christopheronthemove (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

CLEAR EVIDENCE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akevsharma/Archive_1 From this archieve its so clear that he is a multiple account abuser. From the discussion seen in the above archive link, he agrees there that he has another account user:manjappada as well and he also signed comment as Farzanfa007 (blocked sockpuppet) . Clearly sock without doubt. Please check and block to prevent abusing wikipedia Christopheronthemove (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Additional Admins please check the NON ADMIN closure of this AFD of the page Jithin M S user:Akevsharma created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jithin_M_S . Just being curious if non admin closure of AFD is valid/acceptable ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheronthemove (talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Poorly sourced edits by IPs

188.2.84.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

82.117.204.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These IPs have been editing articles on Soviet/Russian tanks since a couple months, but their sourcing habits are very poor to say the least. In the recent days, they have started replacing sourced content with their own original research [147][148][149][150], or just adding new unsourced stuff [151][152]. After several warnings on talk page, they have started sourcing their edits, but it is done in a very shoddy manner. I think it is fair to say that they are trying to find sources that somewhat support their edits, instead of adding information that they find in the sources.[153][154][155] Still, they keep adding some unsourced stuff and other fantasy designations.[156][157]

Basically, their edits are disruptive, because they are still intent on adding stuff they think is true, instead of content supported by reliable sources. Several warnings haven't made them change; their disruptive editing is just subtler. BilletsMauves^€500 10:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Shivanikk

Despite several reverts and warnings, non-constructive editing has been done so far. Major removal of content and references, editing as per their own point of views and personal analyzing the guidelines, especially on Sidharth Malhotra. ManaliJain (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I request to kindly have a look at this. ManaliJain (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy linking Shivanikk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GabberFlasted (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion and POV-Pushing

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

---

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

While out on patrol I came across this edit which I reverted. The user in question removed +7500 characters from it and also added some POV-pushing text to take its place. So I reverted and when he asked on the talk page, I told him that it was better to wait for the other users to come forward before undertaking such a major modification alone. He seemed to accept it but then went to cancel my revert, and, faced with another cancellation from me, forced to force through. AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I've attempted to explain the following repeatedly:

• I made two edits to the page.
• The first edit reorganized the lede, which needed it.
• The second edit (which, incidentally, I stand by) removed content which was not relevant to the page, and already existed on a different page.
• If you disagree with the second edit, please roll back only the second edit, rather than both.

I am genuinely unsure what POV you think I'm pushing. I attempted to discuss this with you on the talk page, but you were unwilling to do so, stating that you didn't know anything about the topic. Moriwen (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I said on the talk page that I let other contributors discuss this, as I don't have the knowledge to suggest, or not, editorial changes on the page. However, deleting such a volume of text is not trivial, especially when it comes to your first interventions on this page, which you have not touched before. AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that you didn't wait to start an edit war to keep your edits in place, both of them. AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

And (while I think the deletion is correct) I think that's a reasonable stance, and don't object to you rolling it back. However, you continue rolling back both edits, rather than just the one you disagree with. Just roll back the second one.

(Also, I'm pretty sure using rollback on this is inappropriate in the first place; it does not fall under any of the categories under the guidelines for rollback.) Moriwen (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Moriwen, you should use dispute resolution instead of edit warring. Perhaps a third opinion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I really don't want to edit war -- I am happy to let his rollback stand! -- I just want him to only roll back the edit he actually disagrees with! I don't know why he's unwilling to do this. Moriwen (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

(I also don't understand why this is an edit war on my side and not his side, especially given that I have attempted to discuss it on the talk page and he has refused to do so, or even to tell me what POV he thinks I'm pushing, but that is perhaps a separate question.) Moriwen (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a 3 times rule. Well, if you think you can revert the deletion of the text and ask for that (as you did btw), I have no problem.

I won't intervene more on the article that is in question, since we already moved a lot of stuff, so maybe keep your text without deleting the rest.

Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Cool on my side then. :) Moriwen (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This looks like something that can be resolved using the talk page, given good faith on both sides. @AgisdeSparte: the amount of material removed is not by itself a reason to revert something, and @Moriwen: if your edit is reverted then wait for discussion on the talk page to conclude before reinstating it, per WP:BRD. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Will do! Moriwen (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Dronebogus and involved NAC closures

Unfortunately, even after User:Dronebogus had made a promise to me he would not make this mistake again, today he has closed a formal process in which he has already !voted. He has an unfortunate habit of closing discussions in which he has already made assertions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). He sometimes clerks various discussions, even when such clerking is not necessary and is quite unwelcome (9, 10). After today's transgression I have lost my willingness to look the other way.

There's an existing thread on this page where he says: "You keep insisting that you’ll improve your behavior but then just move on to some other topic to continue it. You have officially exhausted the community’s patience." I wish he would heed his own advice more, and offer it to others less. Dronebogus and I often disagree on the merits, but he seems to ignore this sort of feedback, or at least not keep his own pledges. I'd appreciate other editors looking over my shoulder here, because he and I DO frequently disagree. If I were not involved, I would have already blocked him from Wikipedia space and asked for an XfD ban from the community. BusterD (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I am highly involved here, so assume that my testimony comes from a position of bias and not of objectivity.

Second, I can attest to Dronebogus's behavior at WP:MFD among other venues being a combination of overzealous, offputting, and at times just downright combative. Beyond the six closures that BusterD mentioned, he has a high tendency to editorialize during discussions and closures. I've also been disturbed at his tendency to trawl through long-dead userspace looking for items to delete, effectively pillorying users who have long since been blocked for years, declaring such items useless or stupid, then quickly retracting if consensus heads in the other direction. Some argue that he has been doing Wikipedia a service, but to me, it creates a chilling atmosphere at WP:MFD. He also has not followed WP:BEFORE when initiating MFD's, in one notable example he dropped a welcome template on a user's talk page and then nominated their user page for deletion a day afterward.

I cannot ask for them to be blocked, because I know that at times I have been acting as an opposing force. But I find the behavior nonetheless to be as intolerable as BusterD does, and I think something needs to be done. This is getting to be a recurring issue. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there are issues with Dronebogus' conduct, especially in deletion discussions.

A lot of their speedy closures are full of insults and not done in accordance with policy. Here [158] for example they speedy close a discussion on the basis that the creator is a "probable sockpuppet" (not that they've been blocked as a sockpuppet, but on the basis that dronebogus is accusing them of being a sockpuppet), and that it was a "frivolous renomination" (regarding a discussion from three years ago, that closed as no consensus). Here [159] they speedy keep an article on the basis that it passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and is therefore presumed notable. A presumption of notability does not mean a topic is 100% guaranteed to get an article, and a closer does not get to just declare something notable.

Their responses to discussions are often filled with over-the-top, aggressive language which does nothing to further the discussion and just inflames tensions and insults the people who created the articles, e.g. "this useless article" [160] "We really need to gut Wikipedia of these" [161] "Wikipedia is not supercruftipedia" [162] "failed draft" [163].

There are a lot of comments that don't align with policy "list that should be a category" [164] (WP:NOTDUP). Articles shouldn't exist even if the topic is notable if they could be redirected elsewhere [165]? What on earth is an "obvious article" and how does that tie into content or deletion policies [166]? Claiming that a page used for a rewrite (and therefore required for attribution) should be speedy deleted under a non-existent speedy deletion criteria [167]?

Their interactions with other editors are often uncivil, containing personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. "Don’t bother arguing with DF, they vote “keep” on almost every deletion discussion they participate in, especially useless lists." [168], "Not an argument" [169]. Here they claim that notifying people who participated in a previous discussion would be "borderline canvassing" because they claim the previou discussion was "vote-bombed into oblivion by generic “support per above”" comments by people who just happened to disagree with Dronebogus [170].

I agree with the points made WaltClipper about Dronebogus' unfortunate focus on "cleaning up userspace" by nominating pages that no-one is realistically going to come across for deletion, which often turns into a massive time sink/drama fest. I also think that their nominations of other peoples sandboxes and userpages for deletion as Fancruft [171] or Webhosting [172] [173] is extremely hypocritical, given that >20% of dronebogus's edits have been spent making stuff in their own userspace like User:Dronebogus/True facts about Wikipe-tan, User:Dronebogus/Wikimedia Hall of Dubious Fame and User:Dronebogus/Basement. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have an amazing amount of knowledge of microscopic details of my editing history for an IP with I have never interacted with less than 600 edits. You are also digging up things from the beginning of last year I would never say now and making ad hominem attacks. Also, how is “not an argument” a personal attack? Deletion discussions are not votes! Dronebogus (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You see, this is the central issue, and why I proposed a limited duration ban on all XfD. I believe User:Dronebogus can learn to assume good faith, but so far he's resisting. He goes right for casting aspersions against an IP editor who shows up with diffs. Instead of working with the evidence, he goes straight for the personal attack. With a possible community ban under discussion. Not the smartest card to play just now. BusterD (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict after edit conflict after edit conflictfor an IP with I have never interacted with less than 600 edits. Dronebogus, when you find you've dug yourself into a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging. Going after the messenger will not help your case. This is the sort of behavior that is leading to your imminent sanctions. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

But don’t you find it even a little bit odd that some random user, with barely any history, shows up with a small essay’s worth of intricate information? Dronebogus (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No. There are plenty of IP lurkers on Wikipedia. The IP contributor from Germany comes to mind. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I do appreciate Dronebogus making my case for me. A self-inflicted wikibreak might be wise. BusterD (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That comment is just kind of passive aggressive and not helpful. Dronebogus (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, he turns this away from his responsibility and towards mine. I'm losing my good faith here, so I'm signing off for a while. BusterD (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD: The problem is that Dronebogus is right. That comment wasn't constructive and was passive aggressive at best, and at worst poking a bear so you can complain when it swipes at you. This is a formal discussion about a user's conduct, elbow nudges to someone else saying Get a load of this guy amirite? are unhelpful and fairly rude. I'm curious what response, if any, you wanted from DB when you made that comment. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

BusterD, I understand your perspective here, and it's very frustrating when someone else like Dronebogus isn't heeding your advice. But your comment really was unconstructive. Advice like when to take a wikibreak may be true, but it almost always will be ignored if coming from someone the user has clashed with before. Better to let the facts show themselves and have either someone who often agrees with the user, or is entirely uninvolved, provide that advice. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

1) This was certainly an unusually reactive response coming from me. I myself immediately stepped back from keyboard after I made the comment. Without prompting. 2) User:Dronebogus's edits have drawn my close attention before. A further reading of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096 § Proposal: Dronebogus warned will show it's Dronebogus's frequent incivility and WP:Ragpicking which first drew my (and other editors') attention. The involved closings are just the most obvious policy violations I demonstrated in my evidence above (still unrefuted). Involved closings demonstrate battleground and failure to understand or adhere to deletion policy. In my OP, I did not expect a broad discussion about every breach of protocol and decorum which I have seen from Dronebogus. I intentionally kept the scope narrow. 3) I was not myself a regular contributor to MfD until comparatively recently, when I noticed the frequent ragpicking for which Dronebogus was warned in the past and continues to a leading nominator and commenter. 4) In this very process Dronebogus demonstrates his bad habit to personalize the discussion, pointing fingers everywhere but at themselves, ignoring the issues, the policy, the behavior. His immediately commenting on the editor (not the edits) is what set me off. BusterD (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

5) Dronebogus's response to my evidence is "...I genuinely forgot the details of the discussion not to do this..." This is an unimpressive response from a user with exactly one talk archive page. An administrator noticed repeated bad behavior, interacted with them on the subject quite a bit, extracted a pledge not to let it happen again, then noticed the breach of policy again three months later. What is an admin supposed to do? "I forgot" is ridiculous. So far no admission of responsibility for their repeated violation of policy even after multiple warnings, only anger, denial, bargaining and depression. Still waiting on acceptance. And that, I'll concede, is absolutely infuriating to the admin. So I said something sub-optimal, then adjusted my behavior and took a break. BusterD (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve violated policy, okay? I admit it. I fully, completely, sincerely admit it and would like you to leave me alone now. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: It took BusterD starting this ANI for you to finally understand that, since you weren't showing signs of understanding or recollection on your talk page (and if you had, the ANI almost certainly wouldn't have begun), so if you frame his words on this page as him disturbing your peace—if he had not done that, you would not have been in position to finally understand and say "I've violated policy"... so... BusterD is good, no? Forest, trees... BusterD is doing his best to deal with something that you are originally responsible for, in order to make the situation bearable for everybody. He doesn't have to WP:SATISFY you in the process, measuring every word perfectly, just like you were not required to act perfectly. Note here that the MfD that is the most proximate background thing to this ANI has now been reclosed by an (especially experienced) uninvolved administrator as 'keep', when you who had !voted delete closed it as 'no consensus' (nearer to your position); the discussion hadn't changed in the meantime. Would you notice how incredibly tolerantly and mildly editors expressed their concerns to you on your talk page: (1) avoiding disagreement regarding the merits by not even telling you that the close is basically wrong (when I'm positive that they knew, just like I knew when I saw your close, that it's not the best reading of consensus, and not just bad as an involved close), (2) not demanding that you yourself undo it, (3) not threatening deletion review if you don't—at least not directly. Almost nothing was asked from you but simply to engage in the conversation. And you responded with Please do not use my talk page as a general discussion page. No one asked you to be perfect, so don't ask BusterD to be perfect. The most critical element here, the real point of failure, is your talk page. I'm saying this as a friend ...and someone with some very relevant experience in this area. I felt a need to tell you this. I hope you'll think about it. Cheers. —Alalch E. 22:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That wall of text doesn’t justify that BusterD is essentially being given a “two wrongs make a right (especially if the second one is from an admin)” pass here. Dronebogus (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As an administrator of English Wikipedia, my actions are always subject to community review and I encourage others to offer me direct feedback, including those with whom I disagree. Community trust is my only armor. If Dronebogus wants to start a separate thread on this page or at AN, I welcome the chance to see critique of my actions. This thread is about Dronebogus's behavior and conduct. BusterD (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have interacted with you before in deletion discussions, but I'm on a dynamic IP range shared by a lot of people. I don't see the ad homien attacks here? “not an argument” isn't a personal attack, but I think it is an uncivil way of interacting with a newbie in their first ever deletion discussion after they had put a lot of effort into improving the article - you could have spent some time explaining what the issue with their comment actually was, rather than just dismissing it off hand as worthless.

My fundamental issue with your contributions to deletion discussions (and honestly discussions more generally) is that rather than explaining things politely in terms of policy you leave rather unpleasant comments full of rude language. Rather than focusing on "these templates are unused and for a constructed language that isn't widely used" why do you need to insult the people who made the templates and who speak the language "no-one needs to know you can communicate in a conlang nobody’s heard of." [174]. Why was leaving a comment like that nessasary? What did it add to the conversation? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s technically an ad hominem to bring up my edit count, but I’ll drop that since I was just frustrated and not really thinking whether it made a useful point. As for the comments issue, I guess I really did not think my tone was crossing the line into “rude”. When I think of incivility, I think pure insults like “you are an ass hat”, not harsh language like “this is useless”. In fact I’m usually at the brunt of such language from established users who are angry with me so I’m just assuming it’s normal. Dronebogus (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not an ad honimem (technically or in any other sense) to point out that you have content in your own userspace that resembles the type of content you have nominated for deletion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Then that was an honest mistake. Dronebogus (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to be a pedant, that's exactly what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is any argument that tries to derive a conclusion based on traits of the speaker. There's even a name for this type of ad hominem: tu quoque. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Tu quoque attempts to discredit an opponent's argument by pointing out behavior or statements that are contradictory to what they are arguing. That isn't applicable here because Dronebogus is not arguing right now that there needs to be tighter standards on userspace or Wikispace content, which is an argument which may have some merit independent of this discussion, nor is the discussion about the validity of that argument. The discussion is about his behavior and his conduct. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Community ban of User:Dronebogus from XfD

I believe that Dronebogus can be a useful contributor, but he continues to act as if a trusted servant while not earning the responsibility. I recommend a lengthy community ban from XfD procedures.

• Support as proposer. BusterD (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I appreciate Dronebogus engaging and admitting their part in this. For my part I am concerned about any clerking-type behaviors from this user, like hattings and closings of any kind (which have previously and may next be seen by others as attempting to "win" discussions). I'm happy with whatever remedy the community decides. I suggest the community establish a duration, not a permaban. For the record and Dronebogus: this the first time in my 17+ year wikicareer I've proposed a ban of any kind. BusterD (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Should I just retire? I seem to be a net negative to the project and my only constructive edits are just gnoming somebody else can pick up. Dronebogus (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    I ask myself the same question every day. Seriously. And then I log in and start to work. Willingness is our only useful contribution. Everything else is just work anyone could do. BusterD (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Find something of interest to contribute by building. Improving Wikipedia by going through other peoples work desks and calling attention to what they shouldn’t be doing (ie MfD) requires more delicacy and less enthusiasm than seems to be your style. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Try diversifying. There are many types of activities. You don't know what you could be good at, and start enjoying, until you try. —Alalch E. 01:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Do you really think threatening a ragequit -- as opposed to, y'know, conceding that the presenters here have a point, and that you resolve to do better -- is going to help you here? Ravenswing 02:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    You know I already feel absolutely horrible and you don’t need to keep pointing it out. Dronebogus (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    @Dronebogus: it's ok, this is just Wikipedia. I have a little experience with you, and you seem to be a good editor. This will likely result in a topic ban that will have quite a limited impact on your contributions overall. But, I can't blame you for retiring if you do. This isn't always a fun place to be, but I hope you don't retire because of this discussion because I believe you are a net positive here. :) Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you, I genuinely appreciate that Dronebogus (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment from Dronebogus I genuinely forgot the details of the discussion not to do this and would like to apologize sincerely. As most of the inappropriate closures have been in MfD I would like to request an MfD topic ban in exchange for being allowed to still participate in AfD on the condition that I do not close any discussion I have already participated in or any discussion that has not run for at least 7 days. I enjoy AfD a lot but MfD has mostly lead to endless clashing with other users. Dronebogus (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose complete XfD ban, Support MfD ban and a ban from closing any XfD. I suggest it's better to go some time not closing anything, Dronebogus, and then perhaps appeal that part at a suitable future time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Works for me. Dronebogus (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Concur with Boing (reasoning is just the clearcut evidence by OP) - that is, a full TBAN from MfD, and another TBAN from closing any XfD - with a clear note that if it ends up having to be enforced by a full namespace ban, it will be. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Concur with Boing, but broadly construed I'd also be on board with an MfD ban broadly construed (including talk pages and so forth), and a ban from XfD closures as BSZ suggested. I think that would address the immediate issue. I agree too with BSZ that a CBAN isn't necessary. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose cban as excessive, Support Xfd tban, an Mfd ban would just allow the problem to spread elsewhere.  // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Concur with Boing - the idea being that the smallest ban that works is the best ban that works. casualdejekyll 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Per Boing, with the clarification that the MfD topic ban should be from the entire topic of MfD, not just participating in individual MfDs. Note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096 § Proposal: Dronebogus warned. It's been 11 months and we're still seeing similar issues. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Involved closures are a big no-no. My first choice would be a complete ban from closing discussions (not just XFDs), appealable after 12 months; second choice is Boing's remedy.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XFD ban as outlined by BusterD. I don't think the issues here are restricted just to MFD or closures, there's an extreme amount of battleground mentality, a lack of civility, a sometimes sketchy understanding of policy and procedure and a tendency to resort to insulting or belittling language that doesn't usefully contribute to the discussion. My experience has been that rather than plainly explaining "this should be deleted because it clearly doesn't meet WP:FOO" Dronebogus will instead go on a snarky rant about how terrible and awful something is. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• 12 month ban from closing discussions. Dronebogus is an over-eager closer, often making mistakes such as involved closes. His closes are not a net positive contribution, due to them needing careful review and possible rectification. I haven’t seen or considered evidence that normal XfD participation is a problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XFD ban as proposed by BusterD. I was prepared to support Boing's limited tban until I saw the list of diffs compiled by the IP. The problems go beyond MFD. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 12-month ban from closing (anything, not just XFDs). For me, this is essentially about the closes. The nominations and general XfD participation are not something that needs this type of response. —Alalch E. 01:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Concur with SmokeyJoe with the caveat that the ban is indefinite and can be appealed in 12 months. I've seen the diffs by IP. There is a problem with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and uncivil language that Dronebogus frequently uses, but I prefer that Dronebogus given a second chance and eventually improve. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 6-12 month ban on closing XfD's, indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion - this user has shown they can't use adequate judgment on closing a discussion in which they are involved (that should rarely be done anyway). That's why I'm supporting a indefinite ban from closing involved ones. Furthermore, there seems to be a specific issue with XfD's, which is why I'm supporting a time limited tban on closing those; it hasn't really been proven that they can't close uninvolved discussions. I don't think it's appropriate to ban them from participating in XfD's in general, I would oppose such a ban. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion - Isn't that something people aren't supposed to do in the first place? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
    • @WaltCip: See Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Wikipedia:Closing discussions and the note ("In uncontentious circumstances, even an involved editor may close a discussion. ..."). There are discussions that may need closing, which are pretty weakly addressed by the NAC essay, because use of administrative tools is generally not required in those processes. Furthermore, WP:MERGECLOSE expressly allows for involved closures of merger discussions. NAC doesn't interact with that page in a particularly relevant manner, for example. —Alalch E. 13:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok. That seems like semi-contradictory wording to me, but it at least makes sense now. Thanks. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any complete participation bans, but Support closing ban for now. Sergecross73 msg me 03:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose full MfD topic ban or WP namespace block as excessive punishment. The only problem I can see is involved closing, so Support closing ban (maybe temporary). IMHO, Dronebogus performs very useful function on MfD by bringing here some old forgotten trash, litter and shit. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 05:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why is it useful? If everyone has forgotten about those pages anyway, then taking them to MfD serves very little useful purpose. It's merely a diversion from more important things such as improving pages that people actually look at. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's useful because Wikipedia is not a webhost, so this old forgotten garbage has no right to lie in userspace for ages. Also, since most (if not all) pages discussed at MfD aren't pages that readers actually look at, what's the difference what to discuss here? MfD is already not about improving articles, with Dronebogus's noms or without. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 18:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, one might argue that much of what goes on at MFD is not all that important and that digging through what you so delicately term the old forgotten garbage is essentially a waste of time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I really think calls to simply block from closing discussions miss the point that has been made by the above posted diffs. This is not an issue that is limited just to closing MfDs, this is a general behavioral issue that permeates his interactions on XfD as a whole. There's a recurring pattern here of jumping into an over-the-top response to an item he deems undesirable, then quickly retracting when challenged on it, without actually preventing those future aggressive responses that are causing issues in the first place. The fact that people feel some of the items deserved to be deleted anyway doesn't and shouldn't excuse combative behavior. Moreover, it's not punitive because the effort is to reduce further disruption in those areas. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t believe I’ve actually been adequately warned that my behavior at AfD is unacceptable. The IP is dredging up WikiDrama from ages ago, and most of my inappropriate closes at afd are pretty reasonable. (I.e. they don’t dump on anyone). Dronebogus (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that any quantity of warnings would be adequate given that you tend to repeat the same problematic behaviors after being warned. Moreover, the diffs from the IP are hardly ancient history. Yes, people can change over the space of a couple years, but there's no evidence that you have changed. As for your final point, most of my inappropriate closes at afd are pretty reasonable, all I can do is shake my head. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  That last part was bad phrasing. I meant something like “less unreasonable”. But my point still stands: can you point to any specific warning I was given about AfD? Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to dig through all the diffs again to see whether or not there was a formal warning. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  But I don’t get the benefit of the doubt if I don’t remember certain things? Dronebogus (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  If by certain things you mean making INVOLVED closes, then no, you should not expect to still be getting the benefit of the doubt about that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, I meant the bit about not recalling the exact details of the above warning above, which was summarily dismissed as invalid. Dronebogus (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support MfD ban as their excessive WP:RAGPICKING and general combative attitude has been a problem at MfD for some time. Also support ban on closing discussions. I do not think a full ban on participation in any XfD is yet necessary however.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support ban on closing XfDs, which seems to be where the primary issue lies. Oppose any broader XfD ban at this time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from closing XfDs and from initiating MfDs, which seem to cover the actual issues. We do not need to waste time forming a consensus about a deleted page no one remembered. Participation in XfD welcome as that doesn't seem to be an issue. Star Mississippi 16:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose broad participation ban The breadth of a proposed ban from XfD procedures is murky and unclear to me so excuse me if this wasn't actually on the table. I can't speak to the minutiae of specific restrictions on closing or initiating of specific deletion discussions but I don't see a good justification for banning Dronebogus from all participation. It seems that the closings are the brunt of the problems here, so let's address that, right? GabberFlasted (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• No comment on XfDs, but oppose any restriction on closing or hatting talk page sections, where Dronebogus has done valuable work keeping things on track. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XFD ban. A Dronebogus close is generally not a net gain, and as demonstrated by the above discussions and diffs, there's a general lack of evidence-based reasoning versus editorializing, which is the last thing deletion processes need more of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XfD ban as first choice, second choice would be ban from MfD and closing discussions anywhere. The frequent incivility, making inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, creating disruptive MfDs and then withdrawing them, bullying other editors, ragpicking, and lack of accepting responsibility are too much. Forgetting that you promised not to continue doing something you already know is against policy is an unconvincing excuse. I'm also at a loss as to why anybody would go hunting through Zordrac's userspace for ancient relics to try to wipe away, or well regarded essays like WP:BLUESKY and picking through random peoples' userboxen for offensive or even just pointless things (while having a ridiculous number of useless ones on their own page). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  You haven’t provided a reason why I need to be banned from AfD. Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I did, you just don't want to accept it (part of the problem). Incivility,[175][176] inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, etc. This one you closed after 3 days [177], these after just two hours.[178][179] for reasons that were completely invalid. Even if they were valid, that's not a good NAC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Diff 185 is not incivility, unless topics have to be treated with respect now. Dronebogus (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  The frequent incivility, making inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, creating disruptive MfDs and then withdrawing them, bullying other editors, ragpicking, Is this not a sufficient reason? Also, the Wordsmith said XfD, then specifically MfD. There is no mention of AfD. An XfD ban would include AfD anyway. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose XFD ban and MFD ban - Support ban on closing XFD discussions. The narrowest possible ban is usually the best, and from what I can see above, most of the ire and concern here is about dronebogus closing things out of turn or in ways others find disagreeable. Why would that not be the obvious choice to ban? Bans are preventative, not punitive. I have seen valuable closes from this user in other namespaces, and have not yet seen any evidence of problems in their conduct in other namespaces, so I wouldn't support any broader sanctions. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is that someone who shouldn't be closing XfDs shouldn't be closing anything. Of all the kinds of things that need closing, XfD is the easiest, because XfD closers are choosing from a menu of options and have lots of precedent to work with. It's arguable that RM is also easy but I wouldn't say it's as easy as XfD. Talk page disputes can be treacherous, if they get as far as needing a formal close; they need to be read with care, close attention and a decent knowledge of policy and procedure. And to my eye, DRVs, MRs and RfCs are clearly far more advanced than XfDs.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Strongly agree with this. That's exactly why I also recommended "closing anything". —Alalch E. 22:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support XfD/closure ban Overzealous closing/deleting seems to be a recurring issue with this editor, especially the combative tendency to "tell off" editors with the hat summary. Admittedly I'm INVOLVED with a CoI, given my interactions with them, and I'll grant that my talk-page brainstorming in that case was excessive. However, it's not just me, it's consistent across the board, even where there's far less of a rationale. Policing of userspace & RAGPICKING also seems to be problematic; there are cases where deletion is appropriate, but controversial/irrelevant content that takes up little server space is usually not worth the time & effort to deal with. Overall, there's an attitude of "if I disagree with this, close/delete it" which is an abuse of process. You're supposed to let editors operate naturally, and only intervene when it becomes necessary, not as a first response. That's why a ban in this area is justified, not necessarily infinite, but I'll let the admins decide. Xcalibur (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Bilateral relations troll at it again

88.230.106.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The bilateral relations troll (previous discussion here) has returned on a previous IP. Can an admin take care of it? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Was blocked for a week and just came back to do the same? 1 month it is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It ain't even their only IP. As per the previous discussions, there are other IPs that person uses. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

They are back at 88.230.103.57. Might consider extending the block to 88.230.0.0/17. It doesn't look like a lot of collateral damage.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 10:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've put a short block on that range. If they're still on it in three days' time, I'd be happy to make it longer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

ADifferentMan's disruptive editing

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

---

user:ADifferentMan has made multiple edits on Sino-Vietnamese conflicts (1979–1991) against a long-time consensus (about the casualties section[180]) without any explanations (e.g. here [181], [182], or [183]). I've asked him to express his reasoning on talk page within my reverts but haven't received any reply. Since then I propose the article to be restore back to the version prior to his edits. 117.6.92.15 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If I may respond here, I don't see any "long-time consensus" on the discussion you linked. ADifferentMan (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@ADifferentMan: Any version or editing that has persisted for a long time can be presumed as consensus. According to WP:CON, "[e]ditors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit."

Whatever consensus is, it shall be achieved through discussion, and you're supposed to discuss on talk page before if you want to challenge others' point, which you have failed to do. WP:CON clearly states that "[w]hen editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." Any repetitive edits that are not explained through discussion shall be considered disruptive editing. 117.6.92.15 (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No, no, no. While a version that's persisted for a long time can be presumed to be consensus, that doesn't immunize it against future editing, and such edits sure as hell aren't grounds for an ANI complaint. So far, you seem to be engaging in an edit war, without YOU attempting to discuss it on the talk page, or proffering any reason for objecting to ADifferentMan's edits beyond "the issue about casualties has been settled for long time" in an edit summary. Ravenswing 06:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Why I have to restate anything on the talk page since the reasons for what appears on the article has already been there????[184] It is him who's supposed to explain on talk page, since he has made an edit which is disputed, and "discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus". 117.6.92.136 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Btw I have said something on the talk page, although I feel it's totally unnecessary. 117.6.92.15 (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Ghostown37

Despite repeated warnings: [185], [186] and [187] User:Ghostown37 continues to ignore WP:ICON and WP:III. This, in addition to their earlier vandalism: [188], [189], [190] and [191] shows they are WP:NOTHERE. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Requesting block of Ghostchild for any pages related to Psyche (band)

• Ghostchild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psyche (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Goodbye Horses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ghostchild has admitted to having a conflict of interest when it comes to pages involving the band Psyche. He has identified himself as singer Darrin Huss, the lead singer of the band, several times. His recent edit warring on the page for "Goodbye Horses" has been over material giving undue weight to his band's cover version and stating that "aside from the original, only Psyche's interpretation has maintained its popularity", among other things, with no source aside from Discogs, which is considered generally unreliable and does not verify most of his additions to the page. He took to my talk page after I reverted his edits, again making claims that have yet to be backed up with reliable sources ("To this date, no other cover version of Goodbye Horses has over 2.5 million views on Youtube other than the single edit by Airborne Toxic Event", "My band was the first to cover this song, and made it famous before you could even find the original in the Internet", "As far as I know Psyche's version is the most widely known cover version out there", "We started the story before you could even find any information about the original in the internet", etc.) and instead stating that YouTube views, vinyl prices, and Amazon reviews are proof enough.

Looking at his edit history, almost all of his edits have been about Psyche, its members, and the songs they have covered, but very few of them have included reliable sources or material that is not promoting the band. I would normally wait to have a thorough discussion with another editor before suggesting a block, but the COI and frequent self-promotion suggests that this will continue without one. benǝʇᴉɯ 11:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Tikgeit and WP:ENGVAR

Today, I reverted Tikgeit (talk · contribs)'s edit to Blind Faith here when they changed "were" to "was" and removed the comment telling them not to do that. I noticed they have been asked about this before [192], [193]. I was thinking of an attention grabbing block, except 1) They don't really edit often enough for a time-limited block to be effective, and an indef is akin to cracking a nut with a sledgehammer, and 2) As they were editing an article I've made significant contributions to, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and can't take any action directly. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I would not take action. Although within Wikipedia it is regarded as correct English usage that bands be referred to in the plural, in the Big Wide World of English usage by real English writers, they are not always treated so. The Evening Standard, for example, writes "The Clash is the greatest punk band the UK has ever produced."[194] (although to be fair, this journalist does mostly refer to bands in the plural). What real English writers and speakers do depends strongly on the band and the context. Yes, it is better to be consistent. Yes, it is a waste of time to piddle around changing unnecessary things like this. But it doesn't mislead the reader, it only grates on a few readers who know the rule, and as Wikipediacrimes go, it's a minor one. It's not a hill I'd want to die on, but nor would I want to sacrifice someone else on that particular hill. I don't think Tikgeit is making a useful contribution, but since they've only got 10 edits in the last three years, they're not a threat either. Elemimele (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the collective noun should be used though, it's that the editor continues to do so even when asked to stop and against messages in the article. It also appears to be the only activity the editor carries out, even if they rarely edit. Neither do they communicate with other editors who try to communicate with them. The user has never editted a talk page or any other page outside of main space, and communication is a required part of Wikipedia. An indef block until they answer other editors could be needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Support indef. All this editor appears to do is "correct English". Some of it is good but some of it goes against WP:ENGVAR, which is an important guideline. An indefinite block is proportionate relative to the editor's overall contributions, in light of all the warnings related to this issue. This preventative action will grab their attention when they come back to edit. They can then appeal and say how they will keep correcting English more correctly. —Alalch E. 13:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Support indef in order to get this editor's attention and to require engagement with community concerns. It should not be acceptable to blindly press ahead with this sort of contentious edit while both ignoring WP:ENGVAR and understanding so little about modern grammar as to describe that as a minor edit "Correcting fashionable non language." Even though they do not edit heavily, the editor is deliberately being provocative, and needs to be stopped, or at least brought to the table for discussion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked them indefinitely so that they can find their talk page. Zero edits to any kind of talk page. Any admin can unblock once it appears they've begun to interact with other editors. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Good block to get their attention, but this case makes me miss the old style "You have new messages" orange bar that was impossible to miss; the little blue number is just too easy to overlook even for an old salt like me, so if this person does respond, in any non-disruptive manner, I hope the unblock will be swift. Courcelles (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Legal threats / harassment by User:81.100.188.197

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

---

This is a report of the IP user:

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

for harassment/threats, and possible POV pushing, on the following article:

• Shola Mos-Shogbamimu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The edit summaries give me an impression that they are going to report someone (though I don't know who) to the Police for 'misinformation'.

AP 499D25 (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Elbrusoid1507

• Elbrusoid1507 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vladikavkaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Elbrusoid1507 keeps on removing sources and the sourced text in Vladikavkaz: [195][196][197][198][199]. It's good to mention that the user insulted me based on my ethnicity, calling me "Ingush vandalist" and sort of threatened that he will call admins:[200]. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Noting that Elbrusoid1507 has counter-filed against WikiEditor1234567123 below; these two discussions are concerning the same page and the same two editors, and should both be had here. I have notified Elbrusoid1507 of WP:CTOP and intend to intervene if either editor makes any further disruptive edits (n.b., Elbrusoid1507 has yet to provide any substantive evidence of WikiEdtor engaging in disruption at this page). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Long term talk page disruption by User:Karagory

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

For the last few years, most of Karagory's activity has been centered around removing a description of former Trump administration trade advisor Peter Navarro's economic views as fringe. That is quite well sourced, so they have not met with any success, and most people don't bother to respond to their points on the talk page any more - most of which consist of adding quotes and links to news articles about trade policy that don't even mention Navarro or his views.[201][202] Karagory seems to be unable to understand that these articles are irrelevant, though it has been explained to them several times.[203][204]

They have also taken to edit warring to prevent the archiving of these talk page sections (which have not been commented on in years) because Karagory claims that they are all active discussions.[205][206][207][208][209] Karagory's refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK has been disruptive for some time, but this rejection of talk page archiving seems over the top to me.

It is my belief that Karagory is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and is either unable (WP:CIR) or unwilling (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) to understand that consensus has long been against them. I'm not sure if a block or a topic ban from politics is needed here, but I believe that something needs to be done. - MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This “incident” is not urgent. Will the editor please explain how this “incident” is urgent?

The editor did not attempt to use Dispute Resolution. Will the editor please explain why Dispute Resolution was not tried?

The editor claims that “most of Karagory’s activity”; what does the editor mean by “most”? My activity has included all kinds of articles. The editor is falsely trying to portray my motives as being something other than positive.

The editor claims "so they have not met with any success"; that is not accurate. My discussion has added two references to the claim of "fringe". Why does the editor not mention that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karagory (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The editor claims “most of which consist of adding quotes and links to news articles about trade policy that don't even mention Navarro”; again, what does the editor mean by “most”? They have included articles mentioning Mr. Navarro and the editor summarily deletes them. I think this would be better handle by Dispute Resolution.

I have added to the discussion new/updated references of February 13, 2023, May 20, 2022, October, 2022, and multiple others that the editor has archived.

The editor claims "which have not been commented on in years"; this is not accurate. Why does the editor claim falsehoods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karagory (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The editor claims “this rejection of talk page archiving seems over the top to me”; the editor never discussed, only archived without discussing. Will the editor please explain why discussion did not take place first? Or now?

The editor claims “They have also taken to edit warring“; this is not the case. If editor believed that Edit Warring was taking place, why did not the editor bring that up in discussion?

If the editor claims “I'm not sure if a block or a topic ban from politics is needed here”; then why does the editor suggest it here?

I believe the healthy discussion that I added to the lead of the article that ended with better and more accurate referencing, was a big positive to the article.

In conclusion, I am bringing up recent, and I believe relevant, references for discussion. I do not understand why the editor wants this to stop, and archive anything that the editor disagrees with? Karagory (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123

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

---

• WikiEditor1234567123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vladikavkaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

writing again, for this I can file a complaint with the administrator due to the fact that you are vandalizing the article. Oh well, the same for falsification.

• curprev 16:12, 10 March 2023‎ WikiEditor1234567123 talk contribs‎  28,825 bytes +222‎  Undid revision 1143877510 by Elbrusoid1507 (talk) Vandalism and removal of 3 sources. I ask administrators to protect this page. undothank Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit

Elbrusoid1507 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elbrusoid1507, Requests for page protection should be submitted at WP:RPP.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 18:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

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

London rangeblock needed

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

---

• 2A00:23C6:9923:CF01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in London is having too much fun vandalizing articles.[210][211] Can we get another rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2A00:23C6:9923:CF01:0:0:0:0/64, blocked for one month last November? All of their edits are disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done x 6 months. Looks like a vandalism only IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Racist editing

Good evening,
I would like to inform the Administrators noticeboard about recurring incidents regarding deeply racist edits of an IP-range to the wikipedia pages of belgian airports.

Latest edits, which made me come to the ANI, include the following:
- Brussels Airport, IP: 94.109.73.126, date: 14.03.2023
Edit summary: "Can the Romanians stay out of Belgium please? It will increase theft and vandalism by those gangsters and it is better without them. Romanians, go home now!!"
Page difference: User removed content stating the opening of new scheduled routes between Brussels and Brasov and Bucharest (both in Romania), respectively.

- Brussels South Charleroi Airport, IP: 94.109.73.126, date: 14.03.2023
Edit summary: None
Page difference: User added "(Couscous Airlines)" next to TuiFly Belgium in the airlines and destinations table, drawing a connection to the destinations TuiFly Belgium serves from Charleroi Airport, which are all in Tunesia or Algeria, therefore targeting Ethno-passengers and immigrants.

Further example:
Edit summary: "Romania ends collaboration with Brussels; Romanians can steal in their own country", IP: 2a02:1811:b731:a200:64f0:c65b:e91d:3f53, old page id: 1119046188

The following has been the most extreme edit and respective edit summary, though.

Edit summary: "If Romanians are raping my people, they do not deserve my country. Romanians are uneducated and here to overpopulate our country. And no Kebab, Turks are motherfucka"

This is severely uncivilistic behaviour, and the grossest you can do to break WP:NORACISTS, insulting multiple people. A talk page note was afterwards added by another user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:94.109.235.89

In September of 2022, these racist edits peaked, with there being multiple per week. Therefore I was even more surprised to see that the racist vandal now has returned, with me having hoped that he would have stopped forever.

Latest Ip has been warned on respective talk page.

I will be pleasantly surprised if you can have a look and take countermeasures.

Thanks and brgds,
Der HON (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Der HON. I have blocked the first two IPs you mentioned. Please provide a link to any other article where disruptive edit summaries have been left. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Jasper Deng’s closing of a discussion

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

---

Moved to WP:AN

Jasper Deng recently closed Talk:Hurricane Orlene (2022)#RfC - User created map or NHC Map as an non-admin, uninvolved closure. In the closing comment, Jasper Deng singled me out saying me stating a neutrally worded RfC was “inappropriate and disruptive”. Per Wikipedia:Closing discussions, the closing comment sure be neutrally worded. In the discussion, there was previously no mention of the discussion being disruptive or inappropriate. I then attempted to work the situation out on Jasper Deng’s talk page in User talk:Jasper Deng#Request for a strikethrough. My request for the comment to be made more neutrally worded (with support from myself, the RfC starter on the closure) was met twice with no. Based on their full wording of the discussion closure, “Elijahandskip In light of the RfC we already had, this is inappropriate and disruptive. At the least, this is the wrong forum; such a change would have to be projectwide and discussed at WT:Weather. We will not be using the NHC-made maps.”, I highly suspect this user should not have closed the discussion as they appear to be biased and refusing to stay neutral in their closing remarks. The comment sounds more like something you would see in a RfC comment, not a closing discussion remark. In closing discussions, one person should not be singled out under any condition, let alone being pinged in the closing remarks.

As such, I request the closure to be overturned and request a new person to close the discussion (As noted on Jasper Deng’s talk page, I support the closure of the discussion). Jasper Deng also appears to not have any idea about how to properly close discussions, so a potential warning or topic-ban from closing discussions should be considered until they can properly show that they understand how to stay neutral in closing discussions. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. The RfC was procedurally closed with a WP:CONLEVEL rationale, premised on a WikiProject being superordinate to talk pages of individual articles in the WikiProject's scope. This is not an urgent incident or a sign of a chronic or intractable problem, but it may need a serious review. RfC closes are reviewed not here but at WP:AN. —Alalch E. 23:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Alalch E., should I copy this over to WP:AN or what would be the next step since this is the wrong venue? Elijahandskip (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd let someone else answer that, give it some time maybe. —Alalch E. 23:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Closing this discussion and pasting your statement at AN (with a link back here for transparency) should be fine. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Stating the objective fact that this attempted RfC was disruptive does not make my close biased or non neutral. This thread is baseless and should be closed before a WP:BOOMERANG strikes the OP for keeping the WP:STICK raised.—Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Technical Closure Request: Discussion was moved to WP:AN, seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Jasper Deng’s closing of a discussion. Can this discussion be closed so comments may be posted at the correct location? Elijahandskip (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Elijahandskip:  Done. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Dweisz94 continued disruption and not respecting AfD consensus

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

---

• Dweisz94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For context, see this ANI thread from a few days ago. The article ended up being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999 but, within moments, Dweisz94 posts the same content into a different article to effectively bypass the deletion of their article. They then violate NPA policy in the subsequent AfD for the new article. They then also abuse the privilege of editing while logged out to make multiple !votes here and here. When I point out that the IP editors are SPAs, Dweisz removes this here and here. This is all behaviour that Dweisz was warned could result in a block in the previous ANI thread. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to admins that dealt with the previous issue. @Girth Summit:, @Yamla: and @Mackensen:. Dweisz has been notified too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Here are some interesting notes from the history of their talk page: 1, 2, 3. Take note of their talk page history. AP 499D25 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Article speedy deleted. Was tempted to indef, but thought it prudent for them to have a chance to weigh in so I have not. If someone thinks we need to indef, don't wait for me to wake up in the morning. Star Mississippi 01:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all I’m likely finished editing Wikipedia, second of all it is unacceptable that you accuse that two votes where my own when logged out. Dweisz94 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

because these uninvolved editors just happened to know if your dispute with @Flibirigit? Please don't lie, have better respect for your fellow editors. Star Mississippi 02:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No your claim isn’t correct, mostly due to the page getting taken down. Dweisz94 (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Since the previous ANI, Dweisz94 has accused multiple users of not liking him [212], accused multiple users of bias against him [213], accused multiple users of bullying him [214], and accused multiple users of ganging up on him [215][216], all of this without any diffs or evidence provided. He has also engaged in personal attacks towards myself, calling me "sick" and not welcome on his talk page, and says that I need "IQ". He was previously warned about personal attacks in the previous ANI. Flibirigit (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Another personal attack here. Flibirigit (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This is unacceptable and I’m not even reading this, this Flibirigit user indeed requires some sort of assistance to back away from stating whatever possible fact could make me look bad, some which are facts, most which are exaggerations and some lies Dweisz94 (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have never said anything personal about Dweisz94, nor do I have anything personal against him. I have no intent to make anyone look bad, and all of my arguments for deleting the lists are based on policies of Wikipedia. Flibirigit (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Indeffed Enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  + 1, having now read the prior ANI and AE, long overdue. Editor unfortunately lacks the competence to edit here. Star Mississippi 02:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Endorse. I would have blocked this editor myself, but I took a break to cook dinner. Cullen328 (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Extreme Vandalism

Hi Admin, article Economy of France is vandalized by User:Backwardsnap this user is constandly changing GDP data without providing any source. I even reported at WP:AN3. He is not willing to listen at all. The GDP data are mentioned as per IMF source and he's changing is randamly. Unbale to control this freak.--2405:201:800B:684F:FD8E:C59C:D77F:A0F0 (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)