User talk:MeirKovner: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Replying to the earlier thread about AI-generated content: Forgot a word Tag: Reverted |
Adding sockpuppetry block notice per w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dag21902190 (using spihelper.js) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
<p>Additionally, you must be logged-in, have [[WP:ECR|500 edits and an account age of 30 days]], and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.</p><p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'' you may ask them at the [[WT:AC/C|arbitration clerks' noticeboard]] or you may learn more about this contentious topic [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles|here]]. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 05:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
<p>Additionally, you must be logged-in, have [[WP:ECR|500 edits and an account age of 30 days]], and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.</p><p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'' you may ask them at the [[WT:AC/C|arbitration clerks' noticeboard]] or you may learn more about this contentious topic [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles|here]]. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 05:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Blocked as a sockpuppet == |
|||
{{checkuserblock-account|sig=[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)|spi=Dag21902190|indef=yes|master=Dag21902190}} |
|||
== Replying to the earlier thread about AI-generated content == |
|||
Hello! |
|||
This is in response to the reply you posted to my warning about using large language models to create articles and why I blanked and redirected an article that you recently published. I note that in removing the comment and your reply (as is wholly your right) you claimed that I refused to answer you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MeirKovner&diff=prev&oldid=1247692133]. I'm back, roughly twelve hours after you replied to me, to clarify my rationale. |
|||
Firstly, I ran the original text of your article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abd_al-Nur_Shalaan&oldid=1247110791] through an AI detector, which was what resulted in a 100% confidence match for use of an LLM. It may be that your later edits reduced the likelihood of an AI match, but for argument's sake, let's assume that I am wrong and the article was not AI generated. |
|||
That brings me to the other two points that I outlined in [[Talk:Abd al-Nur Shalaan]], beginning with lack of [[WP:RS]]. As I pointed out, the six sources that you used can all be found on the first page of Google results when searching for Abd al-Nur Shalaan. This lack of research depth and rigor concerns me. |
|||
*I looked into the background of The Daily Reports to understand who was publishing it and establish some sense of reliability per [[WP:REPUTABLE]]. I could not find any transparency in terms of publisher, date of foundation, or even who was writing any given article. |
|||
*The [[Counter Extremism Project]] is an explicitly biased organization, which falls under [[WP:BIASED]]. |
|||
*While israel-alma.org (aka the Alma Research and Education Center) claims to be bi-partisan, I would argue that it is too close to this topic to provide neutral coverage and is also biased. (I'm willing to accept that I could be wrong on [[WP:BIASED]] for this one, we can certainly open it up to a third party to evaluate.) |
|||
*The U.S. Department of Treasury and the Office of Foreign Assets Control are both [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources, so while they are certainly reliable, they should be used sparingly. OpenSanctions.org is a copy of the data from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, without any actual [[WP:SIGCOV]]. Having half of your article's sources be primary is a concern, but would not be the end of the world if it were the only problem. |
|||
Next is my larger concern, that your citations do not back up the information in the article. |
|||
* Where on israel-alma.org does it say that "Over the years, Shalan has cultivated close relationships with senior Hezbollah figures, including Muhammad Qasir, the head of Hezbollah's Unit 108, which oversees the transfer of weapons from Syria to Lebanon"? |
|||
* Where on OpenSanctions.org does it say that "[Shalaan's] role in Hezbollah’s operations has grown over time, leading him to become a key player in the group’s weapons procurement and smuggling activities"? |
|||
* Where on the Office of Foreign Assets Control site does it say that "In September 2016, he co-founded Orient Star LLC, a company based in Damascus. This company was allegedly used as a cover for Hezbollah’s weapons-related activities. Shalan’s ability to establish shell companies and use front businesses to disguise his operations allowed him to continue facilitating weapons procurement for Hezbollah while evading international sanctions"? |
|||
*You claimed that "In the aftermath of the Beirut Port explosion in August 2020, '''several '''reports surfaced suggesting that Shalan may have been involved in Hezbollah's procurement network related to the shipment of ammonium nitrate, the explosive material responsible for the devastating blast.," but israel-alma.org is only one report, and their citation for this claim is only one new article. |
|||
[[WP:VERIFIABILITY]] is a core tenant of Wikipedia and you have failed to meet this standard. You have had a Wikipedia account for less than a month now and '''I STRONGLY STRONGLY encourage you to use [[WP:AFC]]''' to have your articles reviewed by a more experienced editor to avoid this happening. If you'd like to revise and re-submit your article through [[WP:AFC]], I promise that I will not make any modifications, regardless of how I feel about the contents. |
|||
This brings me to my next point. In deleting the last thread, you speculated that I am "Most likely Hezbollah sympathiser/editor paid to remove information about Hezbollah operatives." I can assure you that this accusation is absolutely laughable, but more importantly, I'll refer you to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]. |
|||
I see that you also noted in your reply to my warning that "This situation feels unusual, especially since it’s not the first time significant portions of my work have been removed by you." It is true that I do have major concerns about the quality of your posts (see my above explanation of why, as well as the two warnings that you had for AI-generated content before I posted mine [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MeirKovner&oldid=1246440603][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MeirKovner&oldid=1247392151]). I have made edits to four articles that you have authored or made contributions to, [[Abd al-Nur Shalaan]], [[Arie Shenkar]] (where, as I previously warned you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MeirKovner&oldid=1246573909], you removed a maintenance template without fixing the issue that it flagged [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arie_Shenkar&diff=prev&oldid=1246570192]), [[Nachi Gordon]], and [[David Tidhar]]. I will note that my edits to [[David Tidhar]] were to flag the harmful edits of another Wiki editor who was banned for repeatedly violating Wikipedia policies. |
|||
Despite your accusation and observation of overlapping edits, I can assure you that I am doing my best to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] and I ask you to do the same. I would be happy to continue discussing my concerns, but we can also bring this to [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. |
|||
[[User:Vegantics|Vegantics]] ([[User talk:Vegantics|talk]]) 14:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 22:29, 1 October 2024
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, MeirKovner! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place
{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. |
|---|
|
|
Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Burrobert (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Dag21902190 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dag21902190. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped. Izno (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.