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)

References

Af420

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

At Rumi, Af420 initially made several attempts [48] [49] [50] 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 [51], 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 [52], 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 [53]. 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[54] and is now trying to convince us that his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits "were actually correct". How is user:Af420 editorial pattern a net worth to this project I wonder? Take a look at the thousands of disruptive accounts that have made a few edits here and there and have wasted the time of the community and that of veteran users, and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User making major changes to rail articles without discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popping in to say that I noticed this discussion because I still had Micga's Talk page on my watchlist from when I wrote this: [55]. 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: [56]. 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: [57]. 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,[58] which I reverted, then they restored the changes adding a couple refs in an edit[59] 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 [60]) 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[61], 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 [62] are howlers, but they are certainly unattributed changes. These others [63] 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

• 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)

[64] 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 [65] 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: [66], suggesting AfC, to no reply. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I don't speak Japanese, but I know Eiríkr Útlendi from en.Wiktionary and trust his assessment that this is a serious problem, especially backed up as it is by a few other Japanese-speaking editors above. Frankly, given how hard it might be to enforce a ban on machine translation (how do you prove the user machine-translated and didn't just ineptly human-translate?), and given that the user has apparently said they'd stop doing this only to then switch accounts and continue, I wonder if a block would be better, in terms of preventing harm / the creation of copious incorrect and/or copyvio content that needs cleanup. -sche (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • -sche, WP:BEANS applies here, but at least for Japanese, machine translation produces characteristic errors that differ from the kinds of errors that humans tend to make. I can immediately think of a couple of grammatical structures that a person with low-intermediate Japanese ability could easily understand and translate properly, but that machine translation will reliably translate incorrectly. While this isn't 100% definitive on its own, there is a supplementary method, which is to ask the editor how they came up with a particular translation in the event of an apparent error. People who rely on machine translation typically cannot explain their thinking about translating from the source text at all, for the obvious reason that they did not actually think about it in the first place. That said, you may be right about the block, but Dekimasu is offering them a chance for course correction, which I agree is worth trying. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Additional remedy proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support this and the above remedies. I commented on the SPI about this editor recently. My position was that their use of multiple accounts in isolation wasn't enough to justify sanctions, but that there are broader conduct issues that should be addressed at another venue such as ANI. I share the concerns raised above about machine translation and use of AI, and I don't find Immanuelle's statement about "the standard I hold myself to now" convincing considering that they were adding factually incorrect AI-generated content to articles as recently as this Monday (see the example above about Draft:Confucian Shinto). There have been other instances of poor behaviour. For example, after Onel5969 draftified some of Immanuelle's articles, they indiscriminately reverted dozens of Onel's draftifications in what appears to be retaliation [67]. Frankly, I'm not convinced that specific restrictions on machine translation and AI usage are enforceable, and I question whether this user's approach to editing is broadly compatible with the project. However, I support these restrictions as a start. Also support WP:TNT deletion of machine-translated articles that have not been improved by others. Spicy (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FleurDeOdile Cross-wiki edit warring

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

---

An outcome was reached for a new track map color scheme in order to provide MOS:ACCESSibility for the color blind users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC after having a long discussion that took multiple months. FleurDeOdile reverted image changes three times on Wikipedia [68] [69] and [70]. After being warned that he was at 3RR by Jasper Deng [71] and given a followup reminder by MarioJump83 [72], he then proceeded to take it to commons to avoid breaking the 3RR here. He continued edit warring there by nominating three maps with the new scheme for deletion with no valid rationale. Here [73] [74] [75], he simply called the images "useless duplicates". This behavior is also present in edit summaries where he reverted edits on EN-WP as "useless" during the past few months. Further attesting to the bad faith in these nominations is the fact that he openly accused a participant of canvassing in the discussion on commons and in the priorly linked discussion on WP for the colors here while there is no evidence of canvassing having taken place. Someone else even mentioned that they were notified via the notice at Cyclone Freddy's talk page. Given the fact that multiple blocks have occurred due to this behavior and the fact that there have been AN/I threads in the past related to it, I am bringing this here. There is a right way to go about handling discussion outcomes you disagree with, however, I don't believe that occurred here. Noah^Talk 03:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [76] 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 [77], which has been ironed out to [78]. 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: [79][80] and then, hours later, you posted this thread [81]. 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)

Personal attacks, canvassing and wikihounding by Wes sideman

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the 3 claims, I do not think the claim of canvassing has merit as pointed out here. [82] It at most was an innocent mistake and really just normal practice. Regarding hounding, I can see both sides, but personally lean aganist that claim also. If Wes thinks someone like Korny is make disruptive edits (which right or wrong at least a few editors feel he has been) I get the impulse to want to see if they have also done that on other pages (although when some did that to them, Wes implied said user was hounding. [83]) Which gets to Korny's side where I can understand one feeling like someone is hounding them. Furthermore, Wes did not do themselves any favors on the page especially in the second post.[84] Just provide evidence like at the start and move on or you risk people taking your actions the wrong way. Personally, in neither case was a user hounding someone, but I can also understand why a user might still feel that way. Finally, about personal attacks the only one that I think could be one is the comments here [85]. As Springee points out coming back just to say that can easily be seen as such. If this was just one instance, I think just a friendly reminder would be needed, but Wes has on multiple occasions been told/warned not to assume bad faith and to be more civil in discussions[86]. Even if they think that Korny was POV-pushing or acting in bad faith they should have known better than to imply that since it only weakens their case. I do not think their actions here alone are enough for a sanction, but if people think it is I'll defer to them. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [87]

Turoyo language: changed sourced info [88]

Arameans: removed sourced info [89]

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)

Repeated BLPvio, editing warring at Keith Raniere: assassination talk

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

---

Raniere is convicted racketeer serving a life sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I give up, congratulations on winning the Edit War

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

References

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

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

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

Note: Evackost has been indef'd (with talk access revoked) after a short period of many disruptive edits across their talk ([90][91][92][93][94][95][96]) and the article talk ([97][98]). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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) [99]. 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.[100]
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.[101]
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)

User:Wjemather

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point is that you shouldn't be doing either. Adding content which contains little or no useful content is generally a waste of time. Edits like this [102] are ridiculous. Wait until there is something to report and then report it. I would recommend that you give up these "preparation" edits completely, hidden or not. Nigej (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

+1 for Nigej's response. "No one complained until that guy did" applies to each and every complaint in the history of the world, so that doesn't do you any favors. As far as other hidden text created by other editors on the same pages that aren't being reverted, would you mind supplying some diffs? And -- ultimately -- you're be falling into a fallacy on your "damned if you do/damned if you don't" screed. The answer to "But how else can I get this information in?" isn't to come up with some gimmick to do so over the objections of other editors. The answer is "You don't." If you cannot obtain a consensus for these edits, then you don't make them. No one hands out barnstars for being the first person to type in the champion's name in a tournament; this is an encyclopedia, not a race track, nor a competition. Ravenswing 20:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• A couple of my recent edit summaries were a little terse, perhaps due to the disappointment in seeing the return of such pointless edits having not seen them on my watchlist for a while, but there was nothing personal in them, and certainly no spite or malice. Unfortunately, it would seem that JohnSmith2116 sometimes takes things very personally and reacts inappropriately, on this occasion with revenge reverts of verifiable content that I had added to other articles, along with inappropriate edit summaries (e.g. diff, diff, diff); the above opening message (full of attacks and aspersions) was later posted to the talk pages of multiple admins over the course of several days, seemingly moving on to another admin when not getting the response they desired from the last.

  In the past I have tried to help JohnSmith2116 to understand WP policies and guidelines with respect to problematic edits, particularly with respect to WP:CRYSTAL (e.g. pre-empting results, creating articles on events before any coverage exists to verify the content, etc.) and WP:IDHT (e.g. refusing to accept community consensus on nationality tables, etc.), in addition to WP:HIDDEN (as described by Nigej above). Their inappropriate responses have previously resulted in them being blocked (e.g. diff). It's also disappointing that they are now repeating comments about off-wiki discussions that were described as "creepy" back then (diff) and they were advised against continuing (diff). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Aggressive behavior of User:Hotwiki towards other editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hotwiki also display ownership on other pages such Twice singles discography insisting that The Feels is not a single of Formula of Love: O+T=＜3 over the objections of other editors. Hotwiki needs to respect consensus when it does not go their way. See [103] and [104]. 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[105]. 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[106] 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.[107][108][109] 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:Iheartbrownbananas

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)

• 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)

Unsourced or poorly sourced edits

91.216.181.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has multiple warnings for unsourced or poorly sourced edits, including a final warning less than a week ago. With this edit, they use a registry office as a source for a husband; the first Independent source doesn’t actually say she has a daughter; and the second Independent source doesn't say where they currently live. – ².O.^Boxing 21:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

They were also informed of BLPPRIMARY and blocked for the same kind of issues on 91.216.181.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ².O.^Boxing 21:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably just a kid at school horsing around, I'd support a block. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

NOTHERE

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

---

For a half a year, User:Turktimex3 has been creating BLPs for barely notable people and cussing at other editors whenever they were questioned about their edits. Many of their article creations, including the latest one (Lisa Schurer Lambert), bear the hallmarks of promotional editing--they're articles on people who'd never pass the GNG, written up in promotional language. The Lambert article, for instance, is nothing but a resume with a couple of web links. (I am not continuing fighting with them over that article: listing published articles for academics is resume writing, and the claim that Lambert has a named chair at U of Oklahoma, which might satisfy NPROF, appears to be a bit skewed: her position has a name, sure, but it's just the name of the business school at a satellite campus--even the "satellite" part is obfuscated in the piping of the article. In other words, all that is deceptive already, especially if they cite NPROF, "a major institution of higher education and research"--whether Oklahoma is such a major institution is an interesting question, but the satellite campus certainly is not.

The bigger problem, besides the edit warring and the likely promotional editing, is a NOTHERE attitude; the talk page presents plenty of evidence. They accused me of vandalism four times, and said "you are not here to write an encyclopedia, but edit war". Well, I'm also here to hang out and have a good time, but that's beside the point. Pinging previous editors and administrators they have cussed out and accused of various things: User:Rosguill, User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, User:Zaathras, User:Some1, User:Ohnoitsjamie. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a great look for either side here, frankly. Turktimex3 has been pretty hostile to others, and it's shocking they still don't realize it's not acceptable to call basic content disputes "vandalism". A trip to ANI was probably inevitable. But the pings to "people I think the person I'm reporting may have wronged over time" is pretty close to canvassing and you're both over 3RR on that article. As for the content of the article, "barely notable" is notable. A named professorship at OSU, even a satellite campus, is still pretty typical for NPROF#5 as far as I've seen. It's a weakness (or a feature, depending on one's perspective) of NPROF: we have articles on people who have, say, a named professorship, but have to rely on primary sources because there isn't GNG-style coverage. If it's too close a call, AfD can solve it. In any event, Turktimex3 didn't actually create this article. This is the extent of their edits. Which, yeah, they shouldn't add a list of non-major works, but that's what a ton of relative newbies do? Looks like they even removed the "Awards" header, which isn't typically what people do when they're trying to promote the subject, and the rest is fairly standard for these kinds of NPROF-but-not-GNG pages. Turktimex3 and has ... not received a warm reception on enwp thus far, but also doesn't seem to be very receptive to disagreement, either. The reality, Turktimex3, is that even if I think there are times when you've been treated improperly, your response to people's criticism and disagreement isn't ok. If you find yourself the common factor in a series of hostile exchanges, the reality is a block probably isn't far away (especially if someone decides to ping everyone who has a problem with you like happened here :/ ). You really need to dial it back, err on the side of discussion, and for crying out loud stop calling things vandalism that aren't vandalism (people really don't like that here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've moved the article back to draftspace, as there are no reliable INDEPENDENT sources provided. CVs do not qualify as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A thorough survey of all of that user's new page creations (as well as their serial edits to particular biography articles) should be done with a jaundiced eye toward notability. I don't think every article is non-notable, but there is certainly quite a bit of dubious dreck all throughout. -- Veggies (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ya, this person getting taken to ANI was an inevitability, their general demeanour is rather off-putting. Turktimex3 came to my attention via Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Cartoon_portraits, where many of the recent additions of low-quality, amateurish images that were adorning BLPs were added by them. I and several others removed images, they reverted, images were removed again by myself and others. A final warming by an admin seems to have sobered them up and the edit-warring ceased. I suggested, practically implored that they join the discussion at the WP:NOR board, but this was declined. I'm still not 100% clear on what this threat of retaliation was supposed to accomplish, but all in all this adds up to a Doesn't Play Well With Others" attitude. I haven't really followed Turktimex3's subsequent article creation super-closely, other than taking the occasional peek at the output to see if any cartoon caricatures were reappearing (none have, thankfully). Zaathras (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: My experience is that Turktimex3 brings a hostile attitude to many discussions, which is in breach of WP:5P4. There are several examples on their current Talk Page. Often this includes making unjustified WP:ASPERSIONS that others are vandalising the encyclopedia. Also, their behaviour also seemed unusual for an account which has only been editing continuously since September, but my question on their Talk Page was reverted by Turktimex3 without an answer. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked Turktimex3 for two weeks, for a variety of infractions that I have described on their user talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 11 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! [110] [111] [112] [113] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and possible canvassing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vach (2nd nomination)

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vach (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a current AfD for an article in terrible condition. From my observations, every "keep" !vote has been cast by newly created accounts. There's also User:Info Rail who created an account 30 minutes ago and was editing random topics before closing the AfD, and I shouldn't even need to explain how wrong that closure was -- it was done the same way I'd expect an inexperienced canvassed editor to close an AfD. They subsequently blanked my warning without even responding and just carried on editing. That behavior is quite suspicious, but I can't be sure of anything. Can an admin please review this? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Info Rail making 10 rapid fire edits to meet the autoconfirmed requirement to edit AfD, then closing the AfD, needs significant further investigation. Blanking your talk page enquiry on this topic also breaches the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT (which I would argue applies to anyone closing an AfD discussion, administrator or not). Daniel (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

And here on their user page they admit they aren't new. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Might be worth adding to the existing SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Memohwiki.-KH-1 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

SPI came back positive unsurprisingly. As the sockmaster was already indeffed I've deleted The Vach and Justin Jin per CSD G5. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Aketu?

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

---

A bit borderline, but this ("This matter will also be submitted to the proper legal venue that has jurisdiction over such matters.") could probably be construed as a legal threat, esp. in the broader context of ranting and RGW. I know Whpq and Deepfriedokra have eyes on it already, but thought I'd flag it up all the same, in case they missed it. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

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

207.72.1.104: has been vandalising WP for years

User:207.72.1.104 appears to have vandalised Wikipedia for years and to continue to do so recently: see the IP's talk page. Recently, they have attempted to promote and online store. I think this IP needs to be blocked for good. Veverve (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

User Flibirigit labeled a wrong article as AfD and accused me on the AfD discussion of taking down the AfD notice because I took down the incorrect one

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

---

User was aware I was on the autism spectrum prior to pulling this disgusting trick, an interpretation of putting both articles for deletion cannot exist because it can’t be fully applied to group non-AfD articles with AfD discussions, my talking about this could only lead to a separate AfD notice for the second article therefore he has intimated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweisz94 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. I've done this for you. I assume this has something to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999, and you'll need to provide links, diffs, and context. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Dweisz94, I'm confused as to why you are bringing up autism. It's not relevant here. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

All I will explain is that July 16, 2021 Larry Sanger explained that Wikipedia is no longer a reliable source of information, people like you are part of the problem why this brilliant idea can't work just like communism Dweisz94 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks. See WP:NPA. I strongly recommend you drop this whole issue. Otherwise, WP:BOOMERANG may apply. This isn't a threat, this is a recommendation based on the lack of merit of your complaint here. --Yamla (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen As far as I can work out the series of events is as follows:

• Two articles Dweisz94 created were nominated for deletion in a bundled discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999
• Dweisz94 responds to the discussion with the comment “appropriate” reasons are not suffice to describe the incompetence with reasons listed here being happy with less information, the article is beneficial to people such as myself on the autism spectrum, and I believe this wasn’t well thought about by the supposedly “fair” social thinkers listed above, insulting the participants at the deletion discussion and implying that the article has been proposed for deletion on the basis of discrimination.
• Dweisz94 tries to remove the AFD notices from the articles [114] [115]
• Flibirigit responds to the removals of the templates with the polite message Dweisz94, removing the template from the list is incorrect. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process. Have a great day..
• Dweisz94 starts accusing Flibirigit of threatening them for asking them to comply with policy [116].
• Dweisz94 files a thread at AE trying to get Flibirigit blocked [117], Euryalus explains to them on their talk page that the complaint is meritless and in the wrong venue [118].
• Dweisz94 repeatedly tries to reply to their closed AE thread [119] [120], Drmies tells them to stop on their talk page [121].
• Dweisz94 starts an ANI thread about the same issue (we are here).

It seems that Dweisz94, as a an newbie editor, made a mistake at AFD, and rather than listening to the polite messages trying to explain what they're doing wrong decided to go full scorched earth and try to get another editor blocked over nothing. This has resulted in them making a mess of baseless administrative threads and a load of uncivil comments towards other editors. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Dweisz94 is not a newbie. They've been editing for well over a decade and have a few hundred edits. That said, the AfD process can be confusing, as can many of our processes. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

They may have been here for 10 years, but they've only made 600 edits and have never set foot in project space prior to this AFD. Sure, they're not a newbie in terms of "time they've had an account", but they are a newbie in terms of editing experience, especially in project space. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There is no case to answer here. Flibirigit nominated two lists (List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999 and List of first ice hockey internationals per country: since 2000) for deletion in a single nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999). Dweisz94 improperly removed the nomination template from one of the articles (diff). Flibirigit correctly reinstated the template (diff), and politely advised Dweisz94 that removing the template was not the correct way to dispute the deletion (diff). Dweisz94's response to this was to report Flibirigit to Arbitration Enforcement (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Flibirigit), and then when that didn't work, to come here. Flibirigit has done nothing wrong, and Dweisz94 should take heed that this kind of behaviour is not collaborative, and is becoming disruptive. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'll also mention here and the end of the thread, July 16, 2021 Larry Sanger explained Wikipedia is longer a reliable source, and this brilliant idea has been ruined exactly by people in this thread Dweisz94 (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Alike in this thread* Dweisz94 (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Vilaminta (persistent insertion of fabricated content)

User talk:Vilaminta has been repeatedly warned against adding fabricated and/or poorly sourced content ([122] [123] [124] [125]). They have now repeatedly added a bunch of completely made-up flags to States of Ambazonia, despite multiple requests to either prove their usage or refrain from re-adding them. At this point, it is clear that they are not interested in listening. Requesting an admin's review. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:19, 11 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,[126] adding excessive plot description,[127] and edit-warring over a ridiculously vague quote at the George Romero film director bio,[128] previously adding an unreferenced elopement.[129]

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.[130] 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[131][132] 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)

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: [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] changing budget/gross: [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] changing release date: [150] changing release date and cast members: [151] changing release date, budget and gross (for an unreleased film?) [152] malformed edits: [153] unexplained reference removal: [154] 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: [155] [156] [157] [158]

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: [159] and [160]

• 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 [161]

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)

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: [162][163][164].

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)

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 [165] and [166] coming a few hours after this warning [167], 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 [168] 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

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)

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[169][170][171] but they are still going at it. The editor says that having any Jewish ancestor means the person is Jewish.[172]

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)

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)

Hateful sniping from Texas IPs

• 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)

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[173] 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)