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

Onel5969

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

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

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

But then :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Regardless of article quality or anyone else's actions, Onel was way out of line in blanking the page 4(!) times without starting a discussion. This is unacceptable and deserves a warning at the very least, especially for an editor who's been around long enough to know better. I'm not generally a fan of articles based solely on statistics but these olympics articles are normally built around stats tables and are a rare case where it's acceptable to not have SIGCOV sources. –dlthewave ☎ 22:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Edit-warring in a redirect is never the right decision (and AfD was clearly the right decision if Onel cared enough and they were blatantly aware of AfD being an option considering their edit summaries, but were refusing to start one and instead kept up the edit war). Another problem is trying to do the edit war over an extended period of time, which gives the impression that Onel was trying to sneak through the redirection at a later date to try and get it accomplished without being noticed. Silverseren^C 23:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • - seren - This is what happened to me. I used the site frequently a few years ago then lost interest. Then the new rules were made after the Lugnuts situation finished and the requirements for posting articles got more strict. Within a few weeks of returning here, Onel drafted about 9 articles of mine that would have been eligible before the Lugnuts situation finished. This was completely new to me since I only knew of the AfD process. So I got very upset about it and it really soured me on this site. It created a lot of extra warring, arguments and issues with not only me and him but other users as well that might have not existed otherwise if the articles were just AfD'd in the first place.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've noticed his edits and deletions many many times, and I'm glad someone brings this up. He's sneakily getting rid of pages without getting called out. I would endorse at least a short ban for the editor, and at least complete prevention from redirecting/deletion for at least the foreseeable future.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's a bit disingenuous and I don't believe we should stop assuming good faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• I am undecided on how to handle this, but how many times has this editor been referred to ANI these past couple years? It seems like we have this same discussion every few weeks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Since this discussion started a couple of weeks ago Onel5969 has conscientiously avoided redrafting and, as other editors wanted, sent anything contentious or disputed to AfD. As the desired objective has already been achieved therefore, I don’t believe any action is necessary here. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment- I was also about to report this editor; they have tried to draftify three separate articles that I have made (and I don't make that many articles). In all three instances their claims ranged from misleading to simply wrong, and the articles eventually were let stay. They consistently refused to respond to me or incorrectly interpreted the notability policy. The articles were Wilburn Ferguson (they were the only person complaining about it), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (legitimately a tighter call about when she became notable, with multiple people commenting on different sides of the issue), and Costa (Pante Macassar) (currently ongoing). I'll admit to having a negative opinion of the notability policy, but none of these were articles that I considered a stretch from a notability perspective. Still, whatever your thoughts on the notability policy, letting people who obviously and blatantly misapply it go ham on new articles seems like a bad idea. This editor's actions have consistently and significantly reduced my motivation to edit Wikipedia, especially as, until I saw this, I thought I might be in WP:HOUNDINGMcavoybickford (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wilburn Ferguson had (and still has) huge swathes of unsourced text; that was a perfectly legitimate draftification which I'd reinstate if it was worth the fight. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez looked like this when Onel got to it (five months ago), and at that point she'd never been elected to anything; most of the coverage was run of the mill; redirecting was a good call. Costa (Pante Macassar) okay probably passes WP:GEOLAND but I'm sure if you'd put any effort into researching it you could have written more than one sentence based on a single source, which is still its condition a month later. Addressing problematic articles is not hounding. If you don't want your articles to receive this kind of attention, write better articles. Or draft them first then move them to mainspace when they're ready. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Back-Door Deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Onel5969 never responds to these discussions, and this is a deliberate choice: [1] I am also appalled by this and this which are blatant personal attacks. --Rschen7754 17:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for participating. Two observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I have seen a lot of draftifications from Onel. I have only sent one back to the mainspace. In fact, I think I have only sent a few in total from all other editors who have draftified back to AfC. I think as reviewers we should limit the number of times it gets sent back (one time, after that it is an AfD candidate), but I generally don't see an issue with Onel's work. The process has worked. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yup. I've had problems with Onel's edits when I was significantly less experienced a few years back, but I've grown to realize that trying to push back would end poorly. From my perspective, draftification is meant as a space for incubating potential articles, not as a backdoor for deletion. I've started numerous articles in draft space and user space. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: I think Onel5969 does understand that the community majorly disagrees with their actions. So, we could give them a warning about it, but I think they get the idea from this discussion that they should know what to expect if it is brought up again, so the warning probably isn't even needed. Huggums537 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• I endorse any sanctions.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions or warnings. The theory of "back-door deletion" outlined above is nonsensical. The reason AFD has the high threshold it does, and the structures it does, is because it is difficult to enact and reverse; the same is not true for draftifying or redirecting a page, which any editor is free to do WP:BOLDly at any time they please. Likewise, the argument of "the article's creator might not see it!" is nonsense - if an article doesn't have anyone watching it who is willing to make a single edit to retain it, and at least one editor sees a reason to redirect or draftify it, then the safe thing to do is to go with redirecting or draftifying (which is also appropriate per WP:EDITCONSENSUS.) Newly-created articles with literally nobody watching them are a danger to the reputation of the encyclopedia and anyone putting in the time and effort to go over them should be commended, not criticized. If there are objections, of course, such bold actions generally get reverted and then needs to be hashed out (like any bold edit) but implying that there is somehow something intrinsically wrong about draftifying an article (giving the creator a change to show it can be salveaged) and then nominating it for deletion (if they reject this) is silly and smacks of red tape - we shouldn't default to the most process-heavy solutions. --Aquillion (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Draftification and subsequent deletion when an article remains abandoned for 6 months are normal parts of our established creation and deletion processes; if folks disagree with a process, they should work to change it instead of criticizing those who use it. I can maybe see the argument for years-old stubs that might go unnoticed, but a freshly-created article is going to be on the creator's radar if they have any interest at all in developing it.

There seems to be an idea that articles on notable topics shouldn't be draftified. Draftspace is for developing articles on notables topics that shouldn't go to AfD but also aren't yet ready for mainspace (for example, articles about sportspeople that don't have the mandatory two SIGCOV sources). Our goal here is to build a quality encyclopedia, not placate the feelings of editors who refuse to learn about our notability standards and take personal offense when their subpar articles are not published. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all sanctions per Dlthewave above. Well said. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent claim by onel5969 that he can use AfD for cleanup

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

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

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

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

No, this is untrue. WP:BEFORE is optional; it is a suggestion, not a requirement. Per WP:NEXIST it is merely strongly encouraged; likewise, the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says This page explains what you should consider before nominating (emphasis mine) - it does not set requirements. More importantly, while those parts are ambiguous, WP:BURDEN is unambiguous that the burden of finding sources ultimately lies on the people who add or wish to retain text, never on the people who wish to remove it. Making it a requirement to search for sources before nominating something for removal would be completely inappropriate, and people who inaccurately cite WP:BEFORE in arguments like these are weakening their position by doing so. There is no requirement to do any sort of search-search before a nomination; and it is entirely appropriate for editors to decline to do so on every nomination they make. If you wish to retain the challenged material and therefore wish to search for sources yourself, you are free to do so, but you cannot require that nominators perform such a search. --Aquillion (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:TBANs can be proposed for any frequent abusers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE issues?

I've had another Onel5969 Redirect-into-AfD nomination pop up on one of the delsort lists I watch, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorcenter Norway. I am concerned that they rushed to AfD here without bothering to check sources in Norwegian, for an article very clearly about a Norwegian topic. Within 2 hours of the nomination, numerous Norwegian sources were added to the article. Further, I am concerned by the lack of time Onel gave the editors working on the article from the restoration of the article from redirect to the AfD nomination. Overall, I am now beginning to feel like they need to take a chill pill and possibly reread WP:NODEADLINE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree here. I have come across multiple articles where there was clearly no WP:BEFORE done before redirecting an article. For ex [3], and my edit [4] to add sources to the article. I think a restriction of some sorts is needed here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Protip: If you complain about "WP:BEFORE", a bunch of people will kneejerk-respond "BUT WP:BEFORE IS NOT REQUIRED!". That's technically true, but to nominate something based on notability is to assert that sources don't exist (that's what notability means). That's not something you can determine without checking to see if sources exist, so nobody should be nominating anything for deletion without checking to see if sources exist. That's not WP:BEFORE; it's basic WP:N. The fact that a list of best practices is not itself a policy or guideline doesn't mean the policies and guidelines it's based on don't still apply, of course, but it's a convenient way to wikilawyer the acceptability of absolutely any deletion rationale. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that Onel was told to send these to AfD above, and it was pointed out that that would result in exactly this ANI report. I suggest Onel redirect on WP:V grounds rather than notability, then WP:BURDEN applies. If it's the restored with additional references no AfD would.be needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

But...it was nearly all verified at the time Onel redirected it. As an aside, one of these days we need to figure out the whole "can you remove absolutely every statement without an inline citation across Wikipedia, even if they're verifiable, and cite WP:BURDEN to keep it out?" thing. My sense of the consensus position on WP:BURDEN is because WP:V doesn't require inline citations, it's only supposed to apply when someone challenges the material or when it's the kind of material that's likely to be challenged as being unverifiable or failing verification. i.e. it's not a catch-all to purge all unsourced statements, but requires a judgment call in each case. Using WP:BURDEN to circumvent guidelines on when it's acceptable to, say, draftify would then seem to be WP:GAMING. But I may be wrong about where consensus stands, or my view may be outdated. If that's true, why wouldn't we just codify "all statements must have an inline citation" rather than assume that someone won't abuse "if someone challenges material, it must have a citation" by simply challenging all statements without citations? Sort of a procedural tangent, granted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Last month I chatted with Onel about this issue at Talk:Quebec City#Infrastructure. The sequence of events was roughly this:

1. An editor split off most of the content of the "Infrastructure" section of Quebec City (transportation, mostly) to a new article, Transport in Quebec City. This content was mostly unreferenced, as it had been in the parent.
2. Onel reverted the split on these grounds: Restore redirect - not enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG, and not enough sourcing to meet VERIFY. I think they're correct, FWIW.
3. The original editor reverses Onel. They should have opened a split discussion on the talk page instead of doing that.
4. Onel stubs down the content on Transport in Quebec City to what was referenced, and nothing else, which is as it stands today. Given that most of the original content on Quebec City was split, this created a situation where Wikipedia had almost nothing to say about transportation in one of the largest cities in Canada.

When I stumbled across this situation (personal interest, thinking about traveling there) I assumed that the article had been vandalized and was surprised at this sequence of events. I agree with Rhododendrites that WP:BURDEN shouldn't be read this way. The information is uncited, but verifiable, unchallenged, and perhaps more to the point uncontroversial. Onel's explanation left me unsatisfied: Hi Mackensen -- I don't care one way or the other, really, just felt that there should be some discussion before splitting. Once it was split, I simply removed all the uncited material as per WP:VERIFY. This is a lazy application of WP:VERIFY, in that it doesn't identify problematic material. If WP:VERIFY was a license to simply remove all uncited material, it would say that. It doesn't, and WP:BURDEN is clear about when WP:VERIFY comes into play. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 should not have let Tbf69 force the contested split without obtaining consensus. This edit by Tbf69 to the source article where they edit-warred to enforce their removal without creating a summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is purely disruptive. A totally terrible edit. When your bold split is reverted, it's reverted on both ends. You can't enforce removal on the source side citing contested WP:BLAR; that's worthless wikilawyering. Tbf69 has been indeffed in relation to ill-advised bold actions that are not entirely dissimilar to this. Onel5969 should have protected the article more aggressively instead of conceding to the split, and finding a half-way solution that satisfies no one. Apart from that, Onel5969 did acceptably well here. —Alalch E. 23:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

A similar issue to what occurred at Transport in Quebec City has occurred at The Language of My World. They've repeatedly WP:BLARed the article to Macklemore, without taking into account an RfC closed in 2021 which suggests that that WP:AfD would be more appropriate in these situations. Also, Template:R with history and Template:R with possibilities could have been added, but weren't.

To allow time for the article to become notable per WP:NALBUM, I've moved undone Onel5969's last WP:BLAR on The Language of My World, and moved it to Draft:The Language of My World. I've retargeted the resulting WP:CNR to Macklemore, so it appears similar to the previous situation.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 16:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

See the section above where people say Onel shouldn't move articles to draft as it's a "back door" to deletion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested I'm not intending to use it as a backdoor to deletion.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 17:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I'd argue that the WP:BLARs used on the page were worse, as they actually deleted useful information about the albums content (which wasn't included at Macklemore). On the other hand, this draftification retains the article's content until it's ready for mainspace.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 17:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Your lack of intent to cause back door deletion doesn't affect much here, unless you personally intend to fix up the article; there is a perception among some editors that draftifying an article you do not intend to edit further is always tantamount to back door deletion, as described in tthe discussion above, largely due to the WP:G13 time limit that kicks in for any drafts over 6 months without an edit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill The issue is I personally think Draft:The Language of My World is pretty much okay for mainspace, providing it's tagged with Template:More citations needed. There's definitely worse articles. However, if I'd only reverted Onel5969's last WP:BLAR, and left it in mainspace, it would probably be WP:BLARed again.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Last month I did a history merge [5] on the article Rodovia Luís de Queiróz. Onel5969 then took it on himself to remove everything that was unsourced. This is well outside the scope of NPP and I sure don't want to go around doing history merges if I then have to fix up the entire article. Most of the material could have been cited using the ptwiki version of the article which is what I wound up doing in the end. [6][7] --Rschen7754 18:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Of all the kvetching in this thread this flavour seems the least well justified. If you can source an unsourced block of text, great; if you can't or don't wish to spend your time on that but still take responsibility for keeping the encyclopedia verifiable, also great. "Letting stuff sit in mainspace with a cn tag" is a method that starts to look less attractive the more crap you see, and Onel sees a lot of crap, so I don't blame him in the least for this kind of predilection. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Undergirding most Wikipedia policies is the belief that unsourced, non-controversial (yet verifiable) information, added in good faith, is not harmful to the encyclopedia. This way of editing runs contrary to that belief, and it shouldn't be surprising that editors have a problem with it. Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen What about Draft:The Language of My World then? Onel has WP:BLARed it, when at it's current stage, rather than WP:DRAFTIFYing as I've done.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 09:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Block review - AndewNguyen

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

---

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

---

A few days ago, Moneytrees (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked AndewNguyen (talk · contribs) with a rationale of "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia-- Endless tendentious editing to promote a fringe POV". [8] This morning, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) unblocked, describing the block as "a blatant case of admin overreach against an ideological opponent". [9] This unblock has been criticised by Courcelles (talk · contribs) [10]. As nobody wants to wheel war, I'm bringing the block here for review.

In summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• On Moneytrees' talk page they claim that they reversed the block because Moneytrees blocked an ideological opponent [11]. They have provided no evidence whatsoever to support their claims of a political motivation, this is simply casting aspersions.
• They made no attempt to contact Moneytrees prior to reversing the block, leaving a message literally seconds prior to reversing it. When asked to explain their actions they claimed they were busy and would be unavailable for hours.
• Their repeated criticism of Moneytrees for acting unilaterally and without consensus is without any basis in policy (it is completely acceptable for an admin to block an account as an individual action), and is the height of hypocrisy, given they themselves were acting unilaterally and without consensus.
• Their claims that they "had their attention drawn to the block" following weeks of inactivity suggests some kind of canvassing or off-wiki conduct.
• Their "instructions" to moneytrees show they have no understanding whatsoever of blocking policy or practice. It is ludicrous to suggest a fourth opinion would be required for a temporary block, or that a full arbcom case would be required for a routine disruptive editing/NOTHERE block.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endorse all of the above I'm not sure if the evidence points to Dbachmann being canvassed. They have previously shown an interest in race related matters, voicing similar views of different races of humans as potentially being different species/subspecies of Homo [12] and may have just been following the previous AN thread. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Deepfriedokra They've spent the evening editing the German wikipedia [13] At this point it seems that they're deliberately avoiding replying. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

  @The Wordsmith They've been editing the German wikipedia all evening, instead of responding here [14]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can join the discussion on the RFC closure[15]. If you want to look into the aggressive templating and intimidation attempts on my talk page, that would be great too. Sennalen (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP edits

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

After their last few comments (particularly [16] and [17], I've come to believe that 2600:1700:1250:6d80:947a:51e4:eb45:1fb4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the person who was formerly editing on range 2600:1004:b100::/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and was topic banned from this area. Can something be done about this? - MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I had been considering a separate WP:NOTHERE block for the /64, and was mostly waiting for someone to make a connection to a previous account/IP before acting, so that edit definitely tips me that direction. (NB the topic ban of interest is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Trolling.) I've given them a month off now. Izno (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) (Comment moved here from Izno's talk page per request.) Thanks for giving the disruptive IP a month off. Just FYI, in the closure review currently at AN, this IP range also copped to editing in the ranges 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0/64, 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0/64, and 2600:1012:B014:8929:0:0:0:0/64. The first two are owned as "I attempted - several times..." in the OP comment, and the third one is owned in this comment. Another arguably disruptive comment by this user was posting "Casualties of the Cabal" at the bottom of AndewNguyen's talk page. I'll leave it to you to determine whether a more expansive range block may be required. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Block evasion from this IP user is coming on hot and heavy now in the range 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:0:0:0:0/64. Courtesy ping to Izno who asked to be informed here if the evasion continues. According to this comment on my talk page, they claim not to understand that they've been blocked at all. Note however that per the diffs in my comment above, this is clearly the same user who was blocked by Izno. A more expansive range block appears to be necessary to give them the intended month's vacation. Generalrelative (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) This is exhausting. I am NOT the same IP who is responsible for the vandalism. Generalrelative has repeatedly accused me of being responsible for edits that I had nothing to do with. If I've run afoul of procedure, then by all means, block me! But please don't block me for an imagined transgression. [Generalrelative] is unique in that he steadfastly refuses to discuss anything with me. I've tried going to his TALK page several times and am reverted evey time. Please investigate further to see what I'm talking about. 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Please re-read this section. You are the OP of the RfC closure review on the Eyferth study, 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64. Please click that link to confirm that you are in fact blocked for 30 days. In that discussion you copped to also being the user editing in the ranges 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0/64, 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0/64, and 2600:1012:B014:8929:0:0:0:0/64. Now you are continuing to edit in the range 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:0:0:0:0/64. If you actually did not understand this before, despite being told repeatedly, now you are aware that you are engaging in WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Can an admin please block this block-evader? --JBL (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC) FWIW, they have promised to "refrain from editing henceforth" on my talk page. I hope they keep their word. Generalrelative (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC) WP:ARBECR R&I. Levivich (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I have also seen these IP addresses as well on the same talk page that might also be related Special:Contributions/12.31.71.58 and Special:Contributions/2601:581:C180:1980:206E:CD5B:8C72:BCC0/64 Qwv (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks Qwv, but these IPs do not appear to be related. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to Indef DBachmann

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

---

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

• (no !vote)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Of course he should be blocked. The amount of editor time wasted on any subject seems directly proportional to the obviousness of the action needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  My point appears to have been borne out here. Why is this still being discussed a week after it was proposed, and it's blindingly obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that he should be blocked as a simple racist who can't collaborate with people that he considers to be part of a different subspecies? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. De-sysopping would certainly remove most of my concerns. Topic banning may well be an option. I'd rather wait until Dbachmann replies, if he does, and wait for the ARC to run its course. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose a desysop (Arbcom can decide) and a topic ban from R&I (available under CTOP protocols) would be enough to handle this. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

  Support In light of the images evidence presented. That's enough to justify revocation of editing privileges. --Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment Overkill in the wrong place (ability to be an editor) and lack of action / displacing of action in the correct place which is review of admin status. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Struck because I "voted" twice. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  Reaffirming my support in case this is closed in the near future. I consider myself to be someone who tries to see shades of grey and avoid looking at the world with all-or-nothing thinking. I'm at a loss at to how the reaction of the community to this versus what happened with Athaenara seems to be slightly different? We have two long-term admins that recently lost the trust of the community (the latter was explicitly mentioned in the ArbCom motion). I remember people saying that we wouldn't accept an admin who espoused racist views so we shouldn't accept one that espoused transphobic ones. Obviously, I don't think either type of hate is okay, but I'm used to people being more strongly opposed to racism in contrast to transphobia. For lack of a better term, at least where I live, one is considered way more socially acceptable than the other, even if I wish it wasn't that way. I try my best to be an ally for other members of the LGBT+ community even if I don't fully understand everything that people who live differently than I do experience. I try my best to treat people that way in general.

  Athaenara was indef-blocked. She still is. Mostly as a result of one diff. Here we have someone that has problematic edits that align with racist talking points and that history goes as far back as pretty much my entire lifetime! Dbachmann's response at ARC makes it clear that they aren't backing down from this, same with Athaenara's brief responses after she was unblocked. Their unblock of Andew citing "ideological opponent" grounds makes it pretty obvious that their views are inherently incompatible with Wikipedia. That unblock is recent and again, the underlying pattern here makes this all the more concerning. I started editing here in 2018. Literally like a week and a half after they made the comment about how certain humans should qualify as seperate species! If I had said something like that back then, I'm fairly certain I would've been blocked as WP:NOTHERE. In this case we have a long-term pattern of disruption. Admins (or in this case since the desysop motion has passed – former admins) shouldn't be immune to this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC), edited 13:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  The idea you’re thinking of is the overton window Dronebogus (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose The remedy for abuse of admin tools and unresponsiveness per WP:ADMINACCT is surely de-sysop. It could potentially move on to indef if there are problematic issues relating to general editing established - such as discussed below in the context of the TBAN. But that's not the proposal and doesn't seem to be established either per my weak oppose of the TBAN. He should definitely be de-sysoped by Arb Com of course. I don't think there's much doubt that that will be the Arb com outcome so I don't think ANI need do anything further on that particular issue. DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose No, they've done nothing to indicate they should be disallowed from normal editing. Misuse of the admin toolset is a different matter from editing Wikipedia articles. Desysop should be the appropriate response. Blocking is the wrong response entirely here. --Jayron32 16:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Outside problematic use of admin tools, supposed evidence of any problem with Dbachmann's editing is extremely stale and contrived WP:SMEAR. Sennalen (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as a response to "abuse of admin tools and unresponsiveness per WP:ADMINACCT". The correct solution for that is a desysop. Weak Neutral as a response to race topic area ickiness, but the topic ban below is marginally better IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Floq and several others above. This is sledgehammer to crack a nut territory. Serious infringements of ADMINACCT lead to a desysop, not a ban. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Boing! and Lev. The editor can not be trusted to edit with the integrity of the encyclopedia in focus. The disruption and drama only adds to the net negative. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Reopened. Original close reason was: "Consensus for this option is unlikely to form. The general feeling is that abuse of sysop tools and a failure of WP:ADMINACCT is not enough to justify an indefinite block, and the evidence presented, mostly five years or older, isn't enough either. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)"

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

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

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

  @Clovermoss: Thanks. I fixed it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Support per diagrams. This is a savvy and therefore dangerous user who has used their familiarity with Wikipedia's systems to spread misinformation undetected. I think a TBAN is not sufficient as there is evidence that this type of editing extends beyond even Wikipedia to Commons and other projects. It cannot continue. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBan per WP:NORACISTS. Racism or any other kind of bigotry is inherently incompatible with the goals of this project. Any unblock should have to be approved by the community. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose an indefinite block or community ban. First, the misuse of admin tools, while justifying desysopping, was not of such a blatant nature as to warrant a ban. Second, the expression of hateful opinions should only very seldom result in a ban from the project, although it should result in a ban from the areas in which the hateful opinions are relevant and toxic. Desysop and topic ban are sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the evidence presented so far. Clearly a long-running issue that goes far beyond ADMINCOND. DFlhb (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in this case jumping to an indef without first trying a TBAN seems like skipping a step. I also note that most people seem to have lost interest in this since he got desysop'd. maybe just close this all and reopen the issue if anything else noteworthy happens. (i would just like to get this off my list of open issues.) - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough (per support arguments above, eg by Boing! said Zebedee, Clovermoss and RickinBaltimore). Doug Weller talk 07:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support community ban. I'm swayed by the evidence put forward here and I believe that allowing Dbachmann to remain a member of the community would harm the project. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 09:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose—I admit that I'm not a paleoanthropologist or anything of a similar nature, so I cannot speak with any expertise in assessing the disputed images. I'm not even sure if they qualify as "scientific racism" or if they have mainstream acceptance within the paleo community at large; however, prima facie, I can see why this diagram in particular might give the impression that humans branched off into different subspecies, and that this accounts for racial differences between black Africans and so-called "non-Africans" (i.e. everyone else). Usually, POV-pushing isn't something that's done maliciously, but rather by people who are unable to distinguish their own internalized biases from reality. That's why we have a whole essay on civil POV-pushers, and why it can be so difficult to deal with them. I get the sense that Dbachmann sees himself not as a "proponent of racism", but as a harbinger of truth in the face of modern political correctness. He's trying to mitigate what he considers misinformation in race-related articles, and holds certain viewpoints that may diverge from those accepted by fellow editors and scholarly sources alike.

  My opinion is that a topic ban from race-related pages, broadly construed, is worth trying before jumping straight into an indefinite site ban. Dbachmann has made over 235,000 edits over a period of roughly 20 years (ranked 200th in the list of Wikipedians by edit count), uploaded countless images, and has consistently been a very hard-working contributor. I'm not saying that a history of good, productive editing in and of itself absolves someone of incompatibility with a collaborative environment like Wikipedia, but it does mean we should be hesitant with swinging the banhammer in cases where other options have not yet been attempted. I still think Dbachmann can make valuable contributions to Wikipedia—it's just that they should probably avoid doing so in areas where their involvement has anteceded dissension. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Topic ban proposal

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Valereee: It is very messy here with knee jerk proposals and it is dependent on whomever happens by looking for drama. It is orderly at Arbcom, and arbitrators with conflict recuse, not so here. Most good editors never come here for any reason. I always check the RFA candidates and many of them do not participate here. I am not telling you anything new, and nothing I am saying will change anything about this process. As I said before, is there an organization anywhere in the world that allows volunteers to skewer other volunteers? Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  That is, I'll be disappointed if he ends up with his admin status intact. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Digging up old posts seems punitive and even vengeful at this time. If he continues spewing the same racist garbage, I'm all for it, but I'd prefer if it was based off of recent, on-wiki evidence. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  19:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Struck in light of the below section ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  20:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  It still hasn't been substantiated that there's anything racist about the diagram, as much as some editors are trying to read into the color scheme. Sennalen (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

  Thanks, UTBC! Valereee (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Support per Beyond My Ken and Floquenbeam. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The evidence is at best five years old but I don't see any evidence that his views have changed since then. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. His comments and graphic show an intent to push a POV in the race area. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 02:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum. --Rschen7754 02:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support even if good faith an admin should absolutely not be making slapdash contributions to an area they seem either biased or confused about. Dronebogus (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if it weren't old, the evidence presented so far doesn't substantiate the existence of a problem apart from the use of admin tools, which is better dealt with by desysoping. Sennalen (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Unlike the desysop (which I support) I haven't seen a case made for this;we don't want to be a careless lynch mob. As an aside, this is a very mild remedy and so not a huge deal either way. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Based on the image below. Though I think the old links are sufficient by themselves, also. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As I note above re:indef: most people seem to have lost interest in this since he got desysop'd. maybe just close this all and reopen the issue if anything else noteworthy happens. (i would just like to get this off my list of open issues.) - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I was going to request evaluation and closure of both threads, but in fact there are !votes on the indef proposal from yesterday and today, so the proposal is still active (that they are opposes is irrelevant, the !votes show that people are still considering the issue). However an admin might want to take a look at closing this TB proposal, where the most recent !vote is from 3 days ago, and the raw !vote is 14 "support" to 6 "oppose" (possibly 15 "support" -- I couldn't tell if Beeblebrox's "suggestion" was intended to be a "support" !vote). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I missed User:GhostofDanGurney's un-bolded "support" !vote, so the raw !vote count is 15 (possibly 16) "support" to 6 "oppose". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, sure a lot of the evidence is old, but the recent action shows that things haven't changed. Unless dbachmann disavows what he said before, there's no way he should be editing about race (or IMO anywhere on wiki as per Usedtobecool). Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Clearly has a strong POV that is at odds with scientific consensus, and has tendentiously pushed it for several years. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 02:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support in addition to indef block/site ban. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 14:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support—Per my comment in the above section. I feel that this is worth trying in lieu of a site ban. Should Dbachmann be banned at the conclusion of this discussion, then this should also be interpreted as a support for a topic ban when/if Dbachmann is allowed to return. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Images

Given the racist views on human lineage by DBachmann uncovered above, can someone explain why we are relying on a diagram of human evolutionary history by DBachmann from 2018, claiming to show the human species as having diverged into multiple subgroups and using distinctive colors to emphasize that supposed divergence, in some eight of our articles on the topic? With at least three more related images by DBachmann also in use in article space [18] [19] [20]? The hosting of those images on commons is a separate issue off-topic for here, but their use on en is a matter for en. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Something does not add up. If he's not racist or made racist edits, why would we want to topic ban him from "race"? On the other hand, if he has... well, this is the first time I have seen on Wikipedia, where we came across a racist and said, "let's not lose a valuable contributor, we can give him something else to do". [21] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Joe Roe: You know way more about anthropology than I do. What are we looking at? Is it the same level of concerning as the fringe viewpoints expressed here [22][23] or is it more mainstream-like (even if it might have other issues like synth/OR). I think the former is more relevant to the currently reopened indef proposal if it's a fair representation of these actions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Joe Roe and XOR'easter: Evidently, the problems with IE_expansion image were raised on talk page and Dbachmann also agreed it is not perfect.[24] Azuredivay (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That brief talk page discussion goes over some specific objections to the details of which arrow points where. The deeper problem is the impression it gives of a wave of Indo-European (language? culture? people? it's not clear) spilling out of the steppe and covering most of Europe, which is misleading and linked to the scientific racist ideologies that we've discussed above. "Not perfect" really doesn't cover it. – Joe (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Desysop Proposal

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close? (re: AndewNguyen & DBachmann)

1. the block has been reviewed and that is settled
2. the ip edit sub-issue has been closed
3. the proposal to indef DBachmann looks like it lacks consensus
4. the proposal to tban DBachmann looks slightly in favor, but seems to have stalled for lack of interest since ARBCOM's action
5. the images issue should be moved to the related boards if it needs to continue
6. ARBCOM desysop'd DBachmann

- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s kinda dodgy to vote “oppose” and say “well we’re done here, no consensus (which we all know is just “oppose” in practice) Dronebogus (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Especially since you’re in the minority here. Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the CBAN (indef) proposal has !votes from yesterday and today. Even though those are "oppose" !votes, it's an indication that people are still considering the proposal, so it should probably remain open until several days have passed without any new !votes. As for the TBAN proposal, it's been 3 days since the last !vote, and the raw !vote count is 15 "support" and 6 "oppose", or 2.5:1, not "slightly in favor" as ForbiddenRicky claims. The "images" section is not a proposal per se, it consists of evidence to be considered in the other two proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't count !votes.

• The indef proposal was looking split to me. I'm used to more clear addressing of the opposing issues; which is to see if people will switch !votes or stick to their !vote. Also, some of the support was in the form of "he's a bad admin", which in my mind calls into the question if that support remains, now that he's been(? is going to be?) desysop'd.
• I support the TBan, but the support is divided into various partitions of clear support some kind of ban, support for the original proposal, and support for a stronger (clearer?) ban. It would have all been better, if there weren't two competing bans. That really should be hashed out.
• The images sections (in addition to evidence) has issues/topics that need to be addressed, but those issues/topics should cleaved off of the issues around AndewNguyen & DBachmann.

This has all been a little strange because this is partially here in ANI, and partially in ARBCOM. FWIW, I think the indef and tban should handled here in ANI. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I am fully aware that determination of consensus is not made by counting votes, I simply offered what I clearly labelled as "raw count" as an indication of where the discussion stands, which is better than saying "looks like it lacks consensus" or "looks slightly in favor", as you did above, without actually having investigated the state of things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• If you want to propose closure here, ForbiddenRocky, you should *not* offer your own judgment on how it should be closed, as you are very much on one side of the discussion. Still, I'm quite sure the closer will ignore you and review it for themselves. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• I can't close an ANI thread that I started and have commented on, but for what it's worth, I also don't see a consensus for an indef block or a topic ban at this time, and therefore the whole mega-thread can probably be closed out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  A lot of folks supported a topic ban. I would be a bit surprised if there wasn't a consensus for that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  There's a substantial amount of support in each section, and it looks like the balance of !votes shifted significantly after the above discussion about DBachmann's image contributions. We're talking about potentially banning an admin of 15 years here; these discussions should be properly and individually closed. – Joe (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

User Jaredscribe

Jaredscribe (talk · contribs)

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

I should note here that beyond the Tesla nonsense where I've been most deeply involved, there appear to be numerous other issues in regards to Jaredscribe's behaviour which probably also need consideration, concerning unrelated matters, though as someone involved in that mess, I'm probably not best placed to make a fair assessment. As just one example, take a look at this [25] series of edits, where a 'humorous essay', WP:WikiDwarf, was turned into a hostile diatribe. After I reverted this, JaredScribe went on to restore his attack piece as Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf. And see also Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired, where the same thing has been done with a core Wikipedia explanatory essay, after his dubious and distinctly pointy edits to WP:CIR were rejected. This, along with more or less everything I've seen of JaredScribe's recent behaviour, seems to indicate a chronic battleground mentality, and an abject refusal to accept that he isn't going to get his way with everything. Frankly, I don't think JaredScribe has the necessary attributes to engage in a collaborative project, and we'd be better off without him - though rather than taking my word for it, I suggest people look for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Competence_is_required#Three_Essential_Competencies_for_Managing_Editors

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

Also, Mr. Grump forgot to mention that he reverted my recent contributions to WP:SCREW, and did so, according to his edit summary, on [26] on orders from the "go-write-your-own-polemic-somewhere-else-cabal". So in response to his instructions, his polemic, and to the existing polemics against newcomers and marginalized persons, that's sort-of what I did. Although would call it an "argument" rather than a polemic, because I don't resort to the type of circular reasoning, informal fallacies and vulgur personal attacks to which Mr. Grump habitually and deliberately resorts.[27]

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

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

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

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

Despite being notified, JaredScribe is continuing to engage in further battleground behaviour [29][30] rather than responding here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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

I will contribute where I chose, as and when I chose. Though thanks for reminding me of your WP:OWN behaviour, which clearly needs discussing here too. See e.g. this edit [31] which is a blatant attempt to assert control over who participates in talk page discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

User_talk:Jaredscribe#Nomination_of_Iranian_Democracy_Movement_for_deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CIR essay itself is pointy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Allegations of "Tendentious" at Tesla master plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More battleground behaviour

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

The WikiKnighthood cabal

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

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

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

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

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

diff [32]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a {{humor}} page.

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

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

  I have responded here: {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing to these exaggerated and false claims of SYNTH in "numerous" articles:

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

  This is not SYNTH:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  canvassing support on an AfD he has nothing to do with I assume this refers to this post of mine. [33] Pointing out that someone doesn't understand how to properly participate in AfD discussions, and giving advice on how to do it properly, while explicitly stating that I wasn't going to !vote, isn't 'canvassing'. As for 'hounding', when the same disruptive behaviour is evident in multiple places, including core explanatory essays as well as articles, it is legitimate to comment on the matter. Maybe if JaredScribe hadn't already demonstrated a monumental lack of clue over the Rudy Giuliani 'cross-dressing' nonsense (which I took no part in, but was well aware of) I'd have taken less note of his behaviour, but it was self-evident from a quick look at his talk page and recent editing history that there were problems all over the place - the most fundamental ones apparently being a total inability to take advice concerning his misunderstanding of policy etc, combined with an immediate assumption that he is being conspired against. AS for WP:AGF, it should be noted that the first comment regarding 'competence' in the now-deleted Talk:Tesla master plan came from JaredScribe, not me. Frankly, if, as it appears, JaredScribe really thinks everyone on Wikipedia is engaged in some vast conspiracy to sabotage Elon Musk's supposed plans to "prevent civilizational collapse" (a direct quote from the deleted article lede) he needs to find another soapbox to tell everyone about it, since he clearly isn't going to succeed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Post-close comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've now responded substantially here:

User talk:Jaredscribe § CHOPSY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not even something I can even respond to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons learned through a hostile AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It needs to be noted here that inspection of the 'Lessons learned' linked above yet again demonstrates that JaredScribe has failed to learn the actual lesson of the AfD discussion: that Wikipedia policy does not permit the forking of an established article on an electric vehicle manufacturer (or anything else), based solely on a selective reading of three minor primary-source publicity/promotional documents ([34][35][36]), that a contributor (but no cited source) wishes to claim are somehow of independent notability, beyond that of the company itself. This was made abundantly clear in the AfD discussion, which was (bar JaredScribe's failure to get the point) utterly unanimous on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Propose block

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

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

• Support unless he promises to change his ways soon and actually does that in practice. He should be given a chance to repent, but not carte blanche to continue with his present behavior. He accused me of baselessly stating that he claimed that Wikipedia is antisemitic, simply because he does not find that anti-Jewish is synonymous with antisemitic. I'm not making an April's Fools Day joke about it, see [37], [38] and [39]. Yup, he never called Wikipedia "antisemitic", he just called it "anti-Jewish". And I was supposed to parse words in order to realize there is a difference between "antisemitic" and "anti-Jewish". In his own opinion, "anti-jewish propaganda" and "anti-Jewish bias" do not mean antisemitism. Up to and including [40] he was the sole editor of his user page, so I don't feel compelled to provide diffs, just search that version, it is all of his own writing. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

At [41] he accuses me of hounding him for two years, as a reply to [42]. I wasn't hounding him, my approach to his edits for the past two years has mainly been to get the popcorn. See https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=jaredscribe&users=tgeorgescu&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki . Every interaction time larger than 30 days is irrelevant, and when we have had edit wars, those are roughly two years old. Also, accusations such as due to your use of the Egyptian and later imperial Roman calendar system and astrology are nonsensical and ridiculous. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yup, and he wasn't unaware that it is his own coinage: [43]. "Non-solar religion" does not appear on Google. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  And if things weren't bad enough already, JaredScribe has resumed editing the recently-deleted 'Tesla Master Plan' article (now at User:Jaredscribe/Tesla Master Plan, by misusing a cited source in the lede (or whatever the first section is supposed to be, the article was never properly structured). The source cited ([44] from 2016) states Not content with producing sleek electric cars (which to be fair, was only ever a stepping stone to greater things), Musk wants to fundamentally change how we live our lives. But the road to Musk’s techno-utopia may be rocky.". JaredScribe uses this to write Observers have noted in addition that it is a plan for a "techno-utopia" that would "fundamentally change the way we live our lives". Using a source which goes into considerable detail elaborating on the writers thoughts about the social and technological obstacles facing Musk in this cherry-picking manner - picking out words to suit his own promotional agenda from a much more nuanced and sceptical article - is utterly unacceptable. Even after all the criticism his Article received at the AfD he is carrying on writing exactly the same promotional bullshit, without even the slightest gesture towards neutrality. Whether this is due to an inability to understand what others have repeatedly told him, or a refusal to take note of it even after understanding, doesn't really matter at this point. He is clearly and unambiguously a net liability to the project, and self-evidently incapable of acting otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have updated that to make my intentions clear:

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

  Also tagged it:

  {{original research}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  And even considering that he is a neo-aristotelian POV-pusher, neo-aristotelianism is one of hundreds if not thousands of philosophies available on the market of philosophical ideas. Pushing one of those as unvarnished truth is not done. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I invite you or anyone to audit my contributions, point out the errors or inappropriate use of sources, and I will endeavor to correct them.

  Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Audit_of_User:Jaredscribe's_philosophy_article_contributions Jaredscribe (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I can see how Adler et al are primary sources for neo-Aristotelianism, and as such secondary sources should be preferred on that topic.

  For Aristotle's own philosophy, they are secondary sources. McKeon's notes to the random house / penguin editions published from 1941 on (the one I have is 2001) are probably one of the most widely read secondary sources in use by students. I also consult Jonathan Barnes edition. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  And doing it with great zeal all over the encyclopedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Thank you @Larataguera is exactly right:

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

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

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

• Support With regret. I have been following this one from afar for a bit, and originally intended to weigh in on the side of some sort of lesser sanction than a block. The unearned sense of superiority struck me as bad, but something that could be worked with. When I saw the diffs that Andythegrump so adroitly called "pseudolegalistic horseshit" below, my mind was changed. It is had to imagine someone misunderstanding both the substance and process of Wikipedia so badly. Combine that with the fact that learning calls for humility, and I see nothing good from this editor anywhere in the near future. Dumuzid (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Anyone who makes wide-sweeping suggestions about what should be of prime importance on the main page of the encyclopedia with references to "post-christian academic scientism"[45] and makes multiple "demands" [46][47][48] of other users to "stand down and renounce", before making personal attacks [49], assuming bad faith in other users (that they are not "able to have civil discourse" [50]), is absolutely WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They are here, as demonstrated, to right the great wrongs of "academic scientism" (AKA, our WP:BESTSOURCES) and remove or extinguish their ideological enemies (get them to "stand down" and "renounce"[51] or "Wake up and use start using your brain"[52]) or in whichever other available method, let them have their way. This is an extremely obvious indef that is being obscured by lots of window dressing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Agree, the problem with this user is that they are yet another user who doesn’t like what reliable/best sources say and goes after the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia in a fruitless attempt at righting these great wrongs. Dronebogus (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  "Upholding WP:BESTSOURCES is not pushing a worldview": precisely. And so we should block users who oppose that policy, not users who oppose scientism. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  “Scientism” is a meaningless term used by people who don’t particularly like one aspect or another of science. Dronebogus (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's not. I like, I love science, everything about it. I sometimes do use the term 'scientism' though, when talking about some aspect that I don't like of positivism. But I see that the confusion between science (a methodology shared by people from many different backgrounds) and scientism/positivism (a narrow philosophical position) is endemic here, so I guess that the alienating of anyone not toeing to the positivist line here will just go on. The reason why I'm making such as fuss about is that though popular among the wider public, within academia positivism is minority/fringe position, meaning that we're driving away academics by the bunches here. Oh well, what's new? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have no idea what you’re on about. This user likes haranguing people about lunisolar calendars, Tesla, and anti-Jewish bias in a weird pseudo-legalistic way. What this has to do with “scientism” is beyond me. Dronebogus (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately @Apaugasma is exactly right about this - positivism is a minority fringe opinion in philosophy and academia, but a widespread, even 'mainstream' opinion in society, and now also on wikipedia thanks to that snarky essay and to the pseudo-CHOPSY clique that enforces it.

  I love science too; but it is the misapplication of the methods of natural science to the social sciences, compounded with the uncritical acceptance of their findings, and then exaggeration of their claims by "pop science", then implementation of recommendations by governments, schools, institutions.

  Critiques have been given by Hayek, Wittgenstein, Feyerabend, and many others - but the snarky essay on "Academic bias" ignores all actually reliable academic sources, and merely quotes a random wikipedia editor as an authoritative decisor. This random editor in turns cites himself, saying

  Scientism is a term I only ever hear from homeopathists and creationists. It's an understandable reaction to the fact that the scientific debate is over and they lost.

  — User:JzG

  This essay is a discredit to academia and to scientists: it will drive them away.

  The CHOPSY essay does not represent CHOPSY, it represents a bunch of entrenched wikipedia editors who can't even be bothered to read the wikipedia article on the subject. Thats why I served notice that this essay is not a WP:Reliable source of guidance. Jaredscribe (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Unable to quote a single academic source on the philosophy of science, the essay proceeds to quote another wikipedia editor with this gem of wisdom:

  My 'attitude', and that of Wikipedia (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters...

  — User:AndyTheGrump

  What he means to say is "pseudo-science" and "religious fundamentalism" - which are different from each and from "bullcrap", but like on this discussion and elsewhere, the user quoted is unable or unwilling to mitigate his obsession with feces for long enough to even make a pretence at academic discussion.

  Wikipedia needs a good essay on "Academic bias". The essay as written ought to be deprecated. @tgeorgescu and @AndyTheGrump ought to locate WP:Reliable sources on the philosophy of science, with critiques of pseudo-science and of scientism, and provide them in the essay. Else they ought to stand down from this tendentious prosecution of me for making a good-faith effort at giving a reasonable and much needed critique. Jaredscribe (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have no intention in engaging further with JaredScribe's ongoing campaign to mark his return from a one-week block by arguing with absolutely everyone about absolutely everything. I will however note here that (as is very frequently the case) JaredScribe is making shit up again (n.b. this is a 'rhetorical device' [53]) in assigning particular views to me in regard to WP:CHOPSY, and the essay (Wikipedia:Academic bias) it appears in. I have never edited that essay. And nor, as far as I can recall, have I ever commented on 'scientism'. The essay contains a quote from me, certainly. One added by another contributor, taken from a post I made elsewhere. I haven't really looked into this in enough detail to determine whether the quote has been taken out of context, but either way, I'd advise anyone misguided enough to read JaredScribe's ongoing diatribes against the refusal of the universe to recognise his outstanding intellect to take note that their connection with reality is tenuous at best. I am not the AndyTheGrump that lives in his head, and bear no responsibility for the actions of this particular figment of his imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Throwing around words ending on "ism" as if they were valid arguments does not help. "This is scientism" or "this is positivism" will only convince people who think that those isms are 1. clearly defined, 2. applicable in the case at hand and 3. something to avoid, which is not consensus but just dogma. Consensus is field-specific: Chemists decide what is chemistry and what pseudo-chemistry, because they have the competence. The same holds for biology, geology and so on. Having philosophers dictate the borders of every discipline would be arrogant, obtrusive, and silly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  this entire thread is astoundingly inane. guys, really? Jondvdsn1 (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support I learnt about this a few days ago and then reverted Jaredthescribe on Wikipedia_talk:Competence_is_acquired (where their takes were mostly reasonable, but the wording was weird). Since then I've somewhat followed this thread but stayed away. This diff has convinced me an indef is the only way. A new editor who made that comment would be blocked at first edit. (Whether that is more about treating newcomers more kindly or treating "prolific editors" more fairly, I cannot say) The rope must end somewhere, so indef and move on with our lives please. Soni (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Note the royal we in that diff. Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Good grief. Dronebogus (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose an indefinite block or community ban. Jared has posted incompetent nonsense, and has been blocked for it for a week. Let's see whether, when he comes off block, he has learned not to post about matters about which he is ignorant. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

  Just because he was temporarily blocked, it does not mean that the problems will go away when the block expires. From all his answers at the Jaredscribe thread at ANI, it is obvious that: (i) he does not understand the charges, and (ii) he has big ideas about how to edit Wikipedia, while his ideas are incompatible with how we edit Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: His block has expired. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

And it clearly, clearly, clearly did absolutely nothing. If anything they’re just emboldened to WP:BLUDGEON their opaque fringe points even more. Dronebogus (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

  @ParadaJulio is himself engaging in disruptive editing, refusing to retract false allegations of HOAX. This is not SYNTHetic original research - this is supported:

  Talk:National_Council_of_Resistance_of_Iran#2023_U.S._House_Resolution_100

  @ParadaJulio is simply saying WP:IDHT. Jaredscribe (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Jaredscribe's non-stop behavior seems to reflect the lack of tools required to participate in a project that requires collaboration with others who may disagree with them.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Post one-week block comments

Time to close this

It is time to close the above. He returned to Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf. He claims that those statements are humour, but those aren't humorous, they are full of resentment towards the WP:WikiElf ruling class. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

See my response to your essay, which I resent, in my comments to @Apaugasma above.

I love wikipedia and I want it to succeed, and that is why I'm offering a critique.

I am taking a voluntary leave from mainspace for a while, which is why I'm now editing humor pages and drafting essays. Bad humour is not against the rules here, and neither is resentment, and neither are differences in philosophy or culture, but that is the substance of the complaint against me - which entirely focuses on my unpublished userspace diatribes and draft essays, and my denunciation of certain non-consensus essays on their talk pages. None of that is against policy - we need to have debates on wikipedia policy and practice - because these can and should improve. What ever happened to WP:Ignore all rules? Isn't that our 5th pillar? Does anyone still believe it?

Other than the deleted article - which was very rough - no one has provided an example of a mainspace contribution to which they object. Where are the violations of content policy, of which I'm accused? Produce the body of evidence. And if someone does, I will be glad to correct those errors ASAP and to receive correction on how to improve my editing. Jaredscribe (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Why can dwarves and elves not get along even on Wikipedia? Dronebogus (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I personally really like that they did this. Although it won't work (unfortunately, editors who are willing to systematically peer-review other editors' contributions are all but non-existent; this is a volunteer website after all), I think it shows the right intent and an improved understanding of our policies.

Edits being firmly grounded in secondary RS is only the start, however. If Jaredscribe would also be willing to accept that wp:due means that even secondary RS should sometimes be ignored, and especially that when wp:consensus is against them it is better for everyone involved that they stop arguing quickly, there might still be some perspective here. Contrary to what they have written elsewhere in this thread, resentment and inter-editorial polemics absolutely can be disruptive on Wikipedia, and will lead to a ban at some point if not checked.

One thing that would probably help a lot for Jaredscribe to know is that policy pages reflect and describe existing practices rather than prescribe them, and should be changed only after common attitudes among a large number of editors have likewise shifted. Trying to change policy starting from an individual opinion purely on the basis of arguments will not only not work, if sustained it will set up other editors against that opinion, and eventually it will become disruptive. When a large majority of other editors take a different view on how Wikipedia should be written, the solution is to accept that and move on. Yes, this can at times be enormously difficult, but it is the key to becoming a successful long-term editor. What helps a lot against wiki-stress is to step away from Wikipedia for a time. Diving into policy-pages is quite the opposite of that, and seems to be what made Jaredscribe end up here at ANI. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

policy pages reflect and describe existing practices rather than prescribe them So I do not have to use reliable sources, it is just a widespread thing people happen to do at the moment? This is news to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Urgent admin action needed

Seen [54] and [55], I think that urgent admin action is needed. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Answer the charges, or else stand down and renounce.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

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

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

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

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

Please explain your reasoning here - how can a single individual can simulataneously be an Aardvark, a Bull, a Dingo, Emu, a Fennec-fox, and a Gnu? These are all distinct species, some of them are even in distinct phylogenetic families. Has anyone ever seen an individual that is a simultaneously a member of two species? To my knowledge this does not exist in nature.

Jaredscribe (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm very sorry that I insulted you @AndyTheGrump

I suffered a one-week block for that, just now.

Just because you call my thinking and my discourses "sh--t", and this is evidently tolerated by everyone, doesn't give me the right to imitate your vulgur potty-humor when telling you to please stop and start using your brain. I should not have made the inference that this is tolerated by the wikipedia: two wrongs don't make a right.

Please forgive me for insulting you.

I hope we can all get back to making an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA, which is what I'm here for.

Jaredscribe (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And there is some consensus for my demand that the

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

above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that I blocked Jaredscribe for a week for personal attacks [56] --Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal threat

At [57] he continues to claim that he served notice, fails WP:NLT. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"Served notice" has several meanings, and not all of them have legal connotations. In this particular context, I do not detect a legal threat. It seems to be a rhetorical device. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: See above. He served me notice in pseudo-legalese to "cease and desist from prosecuting him". Using the royal we. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC

tgeorgescu, not a legal threat. Nice try, though. Using "we" can often indicate a shared account, which is a policy violation. The "royal we" is pretty much the opposite. Irritating to many editors, but not a policy violation. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Its a rhetorical device - informing you and everyone that I will write a critique of the WP:Academic bias essay, which I perceive to mis-represent CHOPSY and to be as written inconsistent with our WP:5P

I intend to write a counter-point wikipedia essay, and then we can all have a civil discussion about it at the Village pump. How about that? Maybe even parliamentary debate with you as government and myself as opposition. Resentment is only natural in politics.

If that is not possible due your prosecution of me here at ANI in seeking an indefinite block over our philosophical differences, I will publish my critique somewhere else off-wiki.

Eventually, you will have to answer, or else all wikipedia will have to answer for you. Also, you are now engaging in ad baculum, as before, and you are doing it ad nauseum. These are informal fallacies, and might doesn't make right.

Answer the complaint. Or else admit that you can't, and tolerate me to give a try at improving your essay. Jaredscribe (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfair treatment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  How about something along these lines?

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

   — Freoh 02:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  Also, holy run-on-sentence, Batman! The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I mean, the microcosm of this entire issue is in the first couple comments. The entire purpose of the "Put a notice at the persons talk page when you start a section about them" rule is to make sure people are aware they are being discussed. It is mind-boggling to me that you would respond to a new editor doing their best to make you aware of this (while already being aware of the discussion!), with "ah ah ah, you didn't do it at the right page! resubmit the forms, please." We don't have rules for the sake of rules, we have them for REASONS. When an editor, especially an IP!, attempts to follow the spirit of the rule in good faith, if not the letter, continuing to argue with them about shows that you need to take a step back and re-evaluate why you're enforcing this rule. Is it for the benefit of the wiki and its users? Parabolist (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  It is mind-boggling to me that you would respond to a new editor doing their best to make you aware of this (while already being aware of the discussion!), with "ah ah ah, you didn't do it at the right page! resubmit the forms, please." That's something that is required at ANI. If I hadn't said it someone else would've. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well done proving the point. --JBL (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Multiple misunderstandings there. The rule exists and for a reason. The IP (mistakenly) assumed that making an effort was enough and that Blase Wolf was going "over the top" on strictness or wrong in saying that it wasn't met. Blase Wolf responded by more pointedly saying that they were correct and what needed to be done differently. I would have done the same, albeit probably with a bit more explanation. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  But in this case, it WAS enough. Blaze Wolf was already aware of the discussion. If the person is already aware by other means, why bother enforcing the rule in this case? What is the benefit, and if the only benefit is "well they'll know next time", that is absolutely not what happened here. Its not a huge deal, but the fact that Blaze Wolf above still doesn't understand the point I'm making is the problem here. We don't have rules simply to enforce them. An IP coming here to complain about what they perceive as byzantine rules being used against having their concern be immediately set aside because they didn't file their form in the right bin is a user who is not being served correctly by ANI. Parabolist (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be misunderstanding. I only noticed this happened because I have ANI on my watchlist. If not then I never would've know. We have rules for a reason. having their concern be immediately set aside because they didn't file their form in the right bin Their concern wasn't set aside. I never even said that just because they didn't notify me correctly their concern was invalid. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Also, just because it was enough in this case, doesn't mean the rule gets to be ignored. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why not? That's my point. They even told you that they made a good faith effort to do so, just not on the right page! ANI is the last port of call for users having trouble. So many threads by new users start with a veteran user chiding them over this, all the while never actually addressing the topic of their problem. You saw it, you were aware of it, and you responded solely to chide them for reporting you incorrectly, and then arguing with them about it, never once addressing the issue at hand! There's a lot of reasons ANI has the reputation it does, but this one specifically is one everyone here can personally work to make better. Parabolist (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I wanted to make sure they understood why I was arguing with them. I didn't see a need for me to respond myself since from my point it seemed like a waste of time and energy arguing further. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  If your attempts to be helpful to new and IP users include "I think you need to take some time and read things completely so you actually understand what you are being told." you should probably leave that to another user not in conflict with the filer. Think about their experience from their perspective. Would you have found your responses helpful or friendly? Parabolist (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  BW, That's something that is required at ANI. If I hadn't said it someone else would've. Or possibly what a lot of people would have done with an editor with a handful of edits is say, "IP, you're required to notify the editor at their User talk:Blaze Wolf; I have done that for you." And from the discussion at their talk, they make a very good point. They made a single short comment agreeing with someone, so you just pelted them with policy? Valereee (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Do we want to close this or are we just going to continue telling me that my behavior was wrong? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well you could do the decent thing and say "Yes I admit my behavior was not ideal, I shouldn't have done that" instead of digging in and then this whole thread of conversation will go away. --JBL (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not attempting to dig in. It honestly just feel like you guys just keep piling this on top of me. Yes I understand that I could've done better but you don't need to keep telling me that I should've told them something else. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Literally this is the first comment that you've made that acknowledges the validity of the complaints, and you didn't even make it to the end of the sentence without switching back to defensiveness. If you want people to take the view that you understand the complaints, recognize their validity, and will take them to heart, you should try saying things that indicate that (instead of being defensive and making excuses). [This advice is extremely generalizable -- e.g. my spouse and I have improved our marriage by adopting less defensive modes of communication in the face of perceived criticism, and we don't even edit an encyclopedia together.] --JBL (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to add to this discussion that anyone who was involved in this incident who also has rollbacker rights should know better than to revert anything other than blatant vandalism on a talk page since they have been quizzed extensively in order to get those rights that they have read all the documentation regarding the use and privileges of those rights. I understand people can get swept up in a kind of "righteous indignation" about being over zealous with the rules, and make mistakes, as I myself have done, but we must acknowledge them, and learn from them, then grow from there. Huggums537 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC) I would also like to add to my comment that just because someone did not "technically" use the rollback feature specifically to do a reversion does not exonerate them from anything since owning that right is proof that they have educated themselves on which reversions are considered best practices. So, whether they did or didn't use the tool is really just a technicality since there is evidence they should still know better either way. Huggums537 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Another thing I would like to add is that it is very hard to assign any blame to Blaze Wolf for their actions when I found out that just recently a related ANI discussion was closed in their favor, which might give the false impression that these kinds of reversions are appropriate when they really are not. It should have been more clear the OP was actually blocked for being a sock, and only one admin did that correctly in that discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Gyan.Know is a prolific editor, with over 2.5k edits and 44 articles created. Many of their articles deal with highly sensitive subjects such as antisemitism and the Holocaust. Unfortunately, I believe that most if not all of their recent creations contain falsified citations and unreliable AI-generated content. For example, see their most recent article, Occult writers and antisemitism. At the time of creation, it looked like this. There are no inline citations, only general references (in my experience this is typical of ChatGPT output). There are zero results for the first reference, "Occultism, racism, and the ideology of the Thule Gesellschaft", on Google [58]. Likewise, the reference "The angle between two walls: Fiction, occultism and the question of history" appears to be fake, although there is a paper with a somewhat similar name about J.G. Ballard (who as far as I know was not a Nazi occultist). No results, either, for "The image of the Jew in German society and culture" or "Savitri Devi's mystical fascism: A religious perspective", and so on. Gyan.Know has since added inline references, but based on the history of the article I believe they are simply tacking these on to faulty AI-generated content. Likewise for the article Jewish economics - there are no results, for example, for the reference "Jewish Economists and the Making of the American Economic Association" outside of WP [59].

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like the first version of that article is AI generated [60] (it's even complete with a citation to a paper that I have been unable to show the existence of anywhere). Gyan.Know has then googled "United Kingdom and the Holocaust" and added in "citations" at random without looking at what they actually say [61] (try it, most of those "citations" show up in the first page of results). So what we're left with is AI generated content with the first page of google results sprinkled over the top to give it the appearance of being properly researched. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Not just their creations, earlier this month they did a bunch of edits where they "Expanded heavily" various articles, they also all appear to be AI generated (not to mention very unencyclopedic) [62] [63]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  That's actually the signature of Bing Image Creator, which is indeed powered by DALL-E. PopoDameron ⁠talk 03:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  -

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

  -

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

  -

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

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

  I just want to humbly apologize that I won't be of any help to you guys now. It's just that after getting blocked I have lost all spark for editing on WP and and I don't want to get myself further involved. Again, I would say sorry for my any potentially harmful actions. GyanKnow _{contributions?} 11:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Similar issues with User:BrownDan101?

I see somewhat similar issues with the creations of User:BrownDan101, whose articles have some facts and then mix in a lot of unverifiable or simply wrong statements. Whether this is deliberate or just the result of using AI is unclear, but the end result is similar disruption by posting fake information. I moved to draft Draft:Kaisertown because the intro claim "The neighborhood is named after the Kaisertown Roller Rink, which was built in 1922 and became a popular entertainment venue in the area." is complete bullshit. But I only got really worried after reading Draft:SS Chemnitz (was in the mainspace before I moved it): while there was a SS Chemnitz from 1901, it had different dimensions, different passenger numbers, a different builder, a different company, ... The sources are about other ships or give a 404 error, except for this suorce[64] which gives the story of the real Chemnitz, none of which matches our article. Fram (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have unblocked BrownDan101. Cullen328 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Another Chat GPT penned article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah but you can't integrate laborious human checking into the training loop, at least without click workers (hence my first bullet point), and these tools aren't currently being designed to produce realistic record of a writing process behind what they generate (hence bullet two). small jars tc 09:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

To me it seems the obvious solution is not to attempt to detect the human or non-human origin of a given swath of text, but rather to make an efficient machine able to reliably verify that the cited sources (1) exist and (2) support the text content. How far is current technology from this point? (Assuming that all the sources are online or otherwise machine-accessible.)

Of course such a technology would also pose an existential threat to Wikipedia, but at least it would be a different kind of threat. Shells-shells (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A fully automated wiki is no better than a database of caches. When/if AI gets good at truth, it will have value as a client-side alternative to WP, not as part of it. Whether or not it will eventually become redundant, WP currently has unique value as a human-written encyclopedia, and we shouldn't let that be ruined with tools that are both inferior and available elsewhere. Information resources are like paints: WP is one colour, GPT is another, and if you mix them together without thought you'll probably end up with something that is less trustworthy than either were to begin with. small jars tc 12:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Putting asides the question of offline, unreadable, or paywalled sources, this would require tools to understand what the source says; we have policies against copyright violations, after all, and excessive quotations do not a good article make. We're not there. I'm not going to provide a timeline; that would be irresponsible. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 18:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It exists, and it's not very good (announcement, github). DFlhb (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting links, @DFlhb. They have a metawiki page too. Shells-shells (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Large language models

In case people were unaware, an attempt to create a policy about AI-generated articles is happening at WP:LLM and editors' thoughts would be very welcome (and perhaps more useful, dare I say it?) at the talk page. There's also links to other on-wiki AI-generation discussions and various article and talk page templates there. — Trey Maturin™ 14:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Chatbot banned in Italy due to date privacy concerns.[65]. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Not unique to AI; just a privacy thing that revolves around OpenAI not having servers in the EU/complying with privacy regs. There are concerns, to be sure, but this isn't one of them. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Any specific application of LLMs is only tolerated, not recommended. Why is it even tolerated?! It's inimical to building a trustworthy encyclopedia. There's no way we should ever say that an act which is an indeffable offense is "tolerated". XOR'easter (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's no good telling me! You need to be telling the people working on WP:LLM! :-) — Trey Maturin™ 14:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Watching a statement of principle get devolved into bikeshedding over terminology is an even less justifiable use of my time than visiting a drama board. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Painful indeed. What do you think of the trim? It was meant to sidestep the endless discussions on wording, and to be simple enough that it can easily be adjusted to be more discouraging towards LLM depending on emerging consensus. DFlhb (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that an RfC (or several) would be beneficial at this point. Right now we have a lot of back-and-forth based on the personal opinions of a few interested editors, and getting community consensus on a few big questions (Do we allow LLM use at all? If so, when must it be attributed?) would help immensely. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes please. Feel free to launch the first ("do we allow?") DFlhb (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a one-to-two year policy-level moratorium (a policy with an expiration date) on any LLM use on Wikipedia, outside of responsible experimentation in userspace, could be met with consensus—as a compromise between editors who hold a view that a blanket ban is justified and useful, and those who have different views. At the end of this period, the time-limited blanket ban (1) could be converted to an indefinite blanket ban, (2) could be prolonged for a definite amount of time, (3) could be replaced with a policy governing LLMs that does something other than impose a blanket ban, (4) or it could be simply let to expire so that there is no policy about LLMs, (4') or it could be let to expire so that there is no policy about LLMs, but maybe some other, non-policy, PAG material is created, and/or some new organized activity/effort such as a project, tool, whatever, is introduced, and/or existing organized activities, such as processes, are modified to better deal with the problem of LLM misuse.—Alalch E. 14:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I can also understand a view that nothing like a policy or an organized effort by editors is useful, that the solution to the problem will have to be technological, and that we have to wait and see, and learn from future incidents like these. Another possible view is that the problem doesn't need any special attention, that LLM drafts can't break out of draftspace, that LLM-originated articles with fake references are easy to detect, that an incident like this where a seemingly average and reasonably trusted editor with 2.5k edits creates many such articles is rare (this is one and only such incident in several months) and essentially easy to deal with (they were all deleted and no one complained), that any ideas like those above are a waste of time, and that we should carry on as usual, and maybe talk as little of LLMs as possible so as not even to, inadvertently, make people aware, who would not have been aware, that using LLMs on Wikipedia is one possible way to spend your time (and cause disruption). —Alalch E. 14:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that, with a strict standard set at WP:LLM that is well-enforced and has teeth (e.g. indef block upon violation), every statement made, every sentence and clause written would be liable for checking. Every reference would need to support statements made. In that case, it's little different from writing an article from scratch, and the end result would be of decent quality. If someone used an LLM which was then not detected by specialists and editors, then wouldn't that meet wiki goals? But this might require a reworking of administrative practice around warnings and hoaxes. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If we can't trust Good Article reviewers to do anything more than check little green checkboxes instead of actually performing an in-depth review of the articles they are claiming to review, how can we trust users of LLMs to check every sentence, clause, and reference? The same people who are likely to use LLMs as a crutch in the first place are also likely to perform these checks perfunctorily, if at all. What teeth would you put into such a standard? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Heh, therein lies the rub. That, and proactively warning people against it is highly likely to backfire by giving people ideas. But the post facto cleanup, I think, will one day be unsustainable, hence my suggestion of a block-on-discovery thing as damage limitation. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 14:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User warning templates

I've taken the liberty of creating {{uw-ai1}}, {{uw-ai2}} and {{uw-ai3}} to help in the clean-up that this thread has revealed as being required. They're a rewrite of uw-test, which seemed most appropriate. Assistance in creating the template docs and integrating them into our various systems would be very appreciated because I know my own limitations. — Trey Maturin™ 16:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So now this is going to be some ridiculous delete on sight thing regardless of content? Makes me tempted to make an LLM written article with completely accurate information and references. Silverseren^C 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Arguably, if you're willing to put in the effort to verify every statement made with references listed, copy-edit it, adjust for weighting concerns, you're putting in just as much effort as you would be writing it from scratch. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just saving on the writing part itself. Less of an effort for me, but I can understand those who aren't great at writing prose in encyclopedic style. Silverseren^C 17:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

That slippery-slope/strawman argument is beneath you, Silverseren. LLMs may in future be useful to us, but right now they're creating plausible hard-to-detect bollocks in mainspace and we don't have the tools to deal with it beyond dragging the editors in question to the dramaboards. Short-circuiting this with an escalating no-thanks user talk template seems much less work. — Trey Maturin™ 17:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This has still prompted me to set up a ChatGPT account just now. Gonna see how well it does with summarizing existing news articles. Avoids the whole made up references and information thing from the get-go. Silverseren^C 17:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I know this was written to provoke this reply, and loath as I am to say it to someone with your seniority here, but please don't post the results of your experiments to the 'pedia, not least because the potential copyright/plagiarism issues surrounding LLMs are a huge bomb under Wikipedia at the end of a very long fuse. — Trey Maturin™ 17:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the copyvio you're referring to inherent to the LLM being the one that wrote it? Or are you referring to copyvios of the source text I'm giving it? Since I'm checking with a copyvio checker to make sure the text is paraphrased enough to not be a problem like that, as I would for any other article (and any DYK submission too). As we already have systems in place to check for copyvios from basically anywhere on the internet. Silverseren^C 17:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. I fell into the trap you set for me by pointing out this huge future issue (which will end up at SCOTUS and Strasbourg in the end) out because it doesn't apply to your own personal processes right at this second. Well done, I guess. You got me. Thanks. — Trey Maturin™ 17:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about? There are ongoing cases, yes, with one question being whether the LLMs have their own inherent copyright or not for the original formulations of stuff they make. Kinda like how we as editors have a form of copyright for the articles we make here. Though there is the one art case that finished already that determined that the original art isn't copyrightable to the artbot, so outside of any potential copyright held by others, the art is in the public domain. (Which prevents commercialized usage of the art, so that's good at least). But is that what you're talking about? Potential inherent copyright held by the LLMs? Silverseren^C 17:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Silverseren, I don't think there's any point to this. As you can observe above, we're trying to deal with a serious issue here. It is deeply unproductive to suggest that we're making this a "ridiculous delete-on-sight issue" when there is two excellent use cases for this template provided right above your comment. Especially note the almost always in the template. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Re "is that what you're talking about": I can't speak for Trey but that's not my impression of the biggest problem. The "potential inherent copyright" is a potential problem, of course, but not the big copyvio problem. The big problem is that the LLMs cobble together text they pulled from who knows where, and some or all of that source material may be reused in a copyvio way, much like the human editors who copy text from sources but then hide their copying by using a thesaurus. We don't allow close paraphrasing by human editors, but with the LLMs it's much harder to tell what they're closely paraphrasing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ignoring the rant above for a moment, I think these templates look fine. Perhaps connecting the third template a bit more explicitly to already having been warned/doing it repeatedly would be helpful? E.G. in the third template "repeatedly adding AI generated content in defiance of warnings is considered vandalism" rather than just "Adding AI generated content is considered vandalism".----Licks-rocks (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and edited the phrasing in that direction. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Discussion about these templates is continuing at the dedicated central warning template talk: Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#New series: uw-ai —Alalch E. 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

LLM-generated information as a tool

Following up from the above discussions, I wanted to ask what everyone's thoughts are about using an LLM like ChatGPT as a tool for consolidating information in order to make research easier and more focused. For instance, I recently asked ChatGPT about Black September in Jordan, specifically about what sorts of military actions were undertaken by the Jordanian military and the manner in which Palestinian civilians were treated relative to members of the PLO. An excerpt from ChatGPT's response: "The Jordanian government distinguished between civilians and militants, and while innocent Palestinians did suffer during the conflict, they were not targeted in the same way as PLO fighters. In fact, some Palestinians who opposed the PLO were allowed to leave Jordan unharmed." Let's say I took this line, attempted to verify its accuracy, and if it turned out to be a correct assessment of the situation, searched for reliable sources to back it up. Should I mention the fact that I used ChatGPT for this purpose in editing a page on Wikipedia? Is it best that I avoid using LLMs in this manner?

For the record, in revisiting ChatGPT's response, I noticed the paragraph directly above saying that the Jordanian government "was supported by other Arab countries, including Syria, which sent troops to help suppress the PLO uprising." In fact, Syria sent troops into Jordan to help the PLO, not King Hussein's regime. This casts some doubt over the overall veracity of its other claims. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You might get some good answers and discussion if you repost this at WT:LLM. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Even when summarizing ChatGPT often makes mistakes, as you mentioned. I honestly don't see where one could use LLMs responsibly because it's whole purpose is to create the most plausible looking text, i.e. it is designed to fool humans into thinking what it is saying is reasonable. Galobtter's sock (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT comments at AFD

Here's something that's just turned up in an SPI filing, ChatGPT generated AFD comments by spammers [66]. You can see that most of the text has been generated by a LLM, and it's been customised by tweaking it to fit the article. The ChatGPT stuff is capitalised properly, the customised bits have every word capitalised (e.g. Recently Dr Bhaskar Sharma Appointed All India Secretary Medical Wing Of People's Forum Of India). 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT being used to defend homeopathy? Merry fucking Christmas. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This was also likely happening with an LTA at AfDs and even GARs

This article is extensive in its coverage of such a rich topic as Ontario Highway 11. It addresses the main points of Ontario Highway 11 in a way that isn’t just understandable to a reader, but also relatable.
While Ontario Highway 11 is brimming with fascinating background trivia, the article does a great job staying focused on the topic of Ontario Highway 11 without going into unnecessary detail that isn’t directly related to Ontario Highway 11.
Neutral point of view without bias is maintained perfectly in this article, despite Ontario Highway 11 being such a contentious and controversial topic.
Images are truly beautiful and done with expert photographic skill. They definitely enhance the reader’s understanding of Ontario Highway 11. Without them, I wouldn’t have any idea what the highway looks like. But thanks to these wonderful images, I now understand that Ontario Highway 11 is a paved road that vehicles use to travel.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That final flourish is just perfect. EEng 04:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Nyxaros

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Reversion_of_whole_edits there was a discussion of User:Nyxaros's edits, and there was a wide consensus to start a conversation about them here. User:Nyxaros has a consistent history of ignoring consensus and making personal attacks against editors. They simply does not at all appear willing to be part of a community here, and just wants to do their own thing. Examples of their problematic behavior include: after making an edit against the consensus at Don't Worry Darling [67] and getting reverted, instead of participating in discussion, they instead chose to leave passive aggressive edit summaries.[68][69] Other times they left uncivil edit summaries include: "that's sad for you", calling another a "disruptive editor", "Had the audacity to send a message without even knowing how to write an article. Nice.", called another editor smartass. Leaving a message saying Next time, see if the user you're pinging has any previous relevance or knowledge of the topic in question. Otherwise, you are wasting both parties' time." They have stated "I don't see the problem with a little bit aggressive replies from me on my talk page months or years ago to statements that attack me, such as Saying that "rotten" is not "negative" is stupid, and if you think that, you should be topic banned from film articles." Pinging GlatorNator, Tintor2, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, ProtoDrake, soetermans, and JOE who have all also expressed concerns about their behavior. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You certainly have interesting ideas on what isn't an insult. "Get over it", "butt out" etc. are inherently rude quips that would make someone insulted both in private and in public. It may be you aren't socially aware of this for some reason, but that doesn't change it being unfit for Wikipedia. Competence (in being able to interact properly) is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Looking at your incident has shown me more problematic behavior they have committed in the past: They edited an essay to better suit their argument in an unrelated discussion.[70][71] That may not be against any rules, but is definitely a red flag. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

 Comment: You repeat what you wrote more than me, which makes it look like WP:NOSPADE, and you are still required to be reasonably civil. Calling someone "troll" over and over doesn't help to resolve this discussion as everyone can clearly understand your thoughts. ภץאคгöร 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• For the record, I didn't write anything "uncivil" to anyone recently. On the contrary, I received responses that say I don't know what I am doing for 11 years, I am supposed to get their "consent" for my edits (expecting me to solve the problems I identified), I have a "serious problem", I am "uncivil troll" and my "normal behaviour" includes "troll-ish" actions. They opened Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games section to talk about the past and accuse me instead of talking about the problems and the edits on the Ada Wong page which has had intensive IP activity lately. Blame is attributed to me (as in my responses 2 years ago, which started with "Had the audacity..." and I already I was wrong at that time), but they see the right to make an uncivil attack on the person they accuse. Trying to reopen discussions that have been closed for a long time by linking them here, instead of constructively criticizing and discussing the Ada Wong article and my edit summaries, they found it appropriate to attack me in the style of "you had this wrong, you are troll" and in some cases, to misrepresent the past resolved situations. If they had taken steps to help the article, the issues would probably have been resolved by now. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't clear, but the issue is with you and your attitude towards your fellow editors. But I guess you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT?. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Their replies to this thread really exemplify their problems. If several established editors, most of whom have little to no interactions with me in the past, raise concerns about my edits, and no editor has defended me, I would want to have a discussion about what I seemed to be doing wrong, which is not what they're doing here. They seem to not understand the difference between calling out problematic behavior (something that we're encouraged to do) and personal attacks. Their comments that even having this discussion is a waste of time that should be spent editing articles shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Despite responding to every comment in this discussion, they have not addressed their behavior on their talk page, which has raised many concerns. I definitely feel that they need to be indefinitely blocked untill they're able to demonstrate that they realize the problems with their behavior. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not want to vote on whether we should ban him or not, but I would like to say that my experience interacting with this editor has also been unpleasant. He often uses edit summary to make snarky comments about other editors, which is highly inappropriate. This edit summary in particularly shows how hypocritical he is when he also left comments like these [72] and [73]. I also want to point out that there is another discussion about this editor's behaviour in the past as well. OceanHok (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Of course everyone should call out problematic behaviour, but is it really relevant to now? All you're doing is trying to revive long-dead debates ("problems", "edit summaries") that do not reflect the reality of now by taking some of them out of context. My edit summaries, "uncivil" or not, has nothing to do with now. So I don't quite understand the purpose of your repetitive comments just to argue and punish me, and don't see the point of getting an editor banned for past activities especially if most people actually forgave and forgot. A month ago an admin called me "stupid" and at the end, we were somewhat able to find common ground on the article and improved it instead of talking about rude behaviour and heating the argument for days. I didn't care much about it then and definitely don't now because both parties moved on because everyone makes mistakes. For this reason, I remind that I think it would be more ideal to spend the effort spent in this discussion on the page in question in order to improve the encyclopedia. That's just my opinion. ภץאคгöร 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

PS. I do not know anyone here, and I collaborated with a very few editors here and there. I don't expect anyone to make a defense and I don't know why a defense should be made or how editing summaries can be defended as they are often open to interpretation for everyone. ภץאคгöร 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like your comments being scrutinized, maybe change your attitude, huh? The point of looking up your old comments is to show it's a consistent pattern, not just an incident or two. I also just noticed, Nyxaros was blocked twice in 2019. "...for repeated violations of WP:CIVIL" (WP:CIVIL) - no suprise there I suppose. In June last year, Tintor2 tried talking to you. Your response: not taking the time to properly reply, but reverting to an earlier revision and leaving "You are not using quotes and being "repetitive", not me" as an edit summary. If that's also too old for your taste, your snarky (or "troll-ish", if you will) edit summary "that's sad for you" reacting to NinjaRobotPirate was a little over three weeks ago.

At no point have you taken responsibility for your words and actions, not then and not now. Instead of talking this through, or heaven forbid, you apologising to another, you're suggesting we go improve Wikipedia instead. But you seem to forget (ignore?) that fundamentally, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As your many instances of arguments and warnings show, working together is something you seem incapable of. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I didn't write anything about not liking my comments "being scrutinized" anywhere. Another misleading thing about my comments. NinjaRobotPirate's incident was already explained above (and on the WikiProject Video games section before), which is the one with "stupid". I clearly do not get your point (and do not actually care at this point as this discussion became a strange loop and a vicious circle than anything else) even though I explain the incident clearly you still try to come up with your own version of things for the long-dead edit summary incidents as someone who was not even involved in them. ภץאคгöร 11:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess one of the problems is that while you don't rememeber us, sadly we remember you and your behaviours, and how your edit summaries, while "open to interpretation for everyone", offended most people. I can forgive and forget if you are actually a changed person, but that is not the case (obviously). Through these discussions, we realize now that these are not singular incidents. You have always been rude and uncollaborative, both in the past and present, ultimately suggesting that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. OceanHok (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: "We" is not "most people", is it? You are taking your time to write paragraphs here, saying same things and trying to create different interpretations even though I explain them and most people just do not care enough to join this discussion as they have better things to do. There is literally not single evidence of showing my "rude and uncollaborative" behaviour now. I'm going to write it hopefully one last time that the last issue that is somewhat related to this discussion happened almost a month ago when an admin called me "stupid" and wrote that I should be "topic banned from film articles" becuse I wrote "rotten" doesn't mean "negative", and I replied "That's sad for you", which I thought was really upsetting and sad. Instead of arguing, both parties edited the page and moved on. Simple as that. (One minor point, by the way: it's unrealistic to expect anyone in any condition, anywhere in life, to magically "change" for anything all of a sudden.) ภץאคгöร 11:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree it's unrealistic to change all of a sudden. But it's been years. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

My stance was originally more neutral, but if you're seemingly implying that you can't change your ways, when the complaints here are about you being uncivil and unpleasant on a collaborative project, well, that's harder to overlook. Do you really find it so difficult to just be nice to other people? Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: It is not my intention to make any insinuation. I no longer wish to respond to what I think has turned into another (inconvenient/ill-founded) embodiment of the "I like pancakes." "So you hate waffles?" argument and is therefore protracted, as I think I have already made myself clear enough in the messages above. ภץאคгöร 16:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

125.235.238.149‎‎: possible CIR and meatbot issues

125.235.238.149‎‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This IP mass added auto-archiving to 59 talk pages, probably in violation of WP:MEATBOT since they do not appear to have consensus. Myself, @David notMD and Doniago: have asked them to stop. It is hard to tell from their replies because their English is not great, but I think they intend to continue.

The archiving settings they were using are not the standard archiving settings recommended at Help:Archiving a talk page#Sequentially numbered archives, and can potentially archive every section on a talk page because they are setting minthreadsleft=0. In recent edits they may have fixed this, I see a couple diffs where they stopped doing this.

They are also setting algo=old(365d).

Attempts to communicate with them are difficult because their English is not great. I cannot understand some of their replies.

• Wikipedia:Teahouse#Talk page archived
• User talk:125.235.238.149

Does this need admin intervention? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the archiving edits by this IP, many of its other edits have been to add "Preceding unsigned comment added by..." to years-old Talk page comments that were not signed at the time. This is a negligibly useful activity - albeit not as harmful as disrupting archiving - and represents more evidence that this IP is not here to improve the encyclopedia. David notMD (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding {{unsigned}} to unsigned comments seems useful to me, as long as it's accurate. That's not disruptive, unlike the issues with their archiving. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD Please don’t add "Preceding unsigned comment added by…" including new archive formatting in one more time, I just clear an consensus to wait an new edit with made going to new everything is done to stop archive formatting. That’s an not small case. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

What is your native language? Are you using Google Translate? I honestly cannot understand most of what you write. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes, I using some words in discussion was closed in 7 minutes in Teahouse but actually, the languages is Vietnamese is an translation from English and now can be added to the English language and this is an encyclopedia not in Vietnamese, this is an English Wikipedia. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please write your own English-language text directly, without using translation software, if you can write English at all. A beginner's mistakes are easier for native speakers to understand than the mistakes made by something like Google Translate. You may want to return to editing the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia instead of the English-language one. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

As it's been two days without further feedback from 125.235.238.149 (talk · contribs), and they are continuing to set up auto-archiving without getting a consensus first[74], and I and at least one other editor have acknowledged having trouble understanding their messages, I think we'd be content to see an unambiguous statement from them that they will refrain from setting up archiving on any additional pages without getting a consensus on the respective Talk page prior to doing so, as discussed in the third paragraph of Help:Archiving a talk page.

If the IP cannot or will not agree to this, then I would in turn propose that they be banned from archiving any Talk pages in the future. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, time to get another way edits not make archive formatting and I agree do this, I wouldn’t be banned archive in the near future and for some reason, I don’t get to be banned from editing Wikipedia and not making into trouble understanding their messages, I come to edits in Vietnamese Wikipedia first before returning to English Wikipedia since I not make archive again. @Doniago if IP address not install non-standard automatic archive, I want to edit some more and stop archive right now to turn off set up archive bot and if revive my IP address, not to make archive formatting, please do so if wanted to let you know. And one more thing, if edits another articles in the next time, I want to edit Vietnamese Wikipedia before returning to English Wikipedia to edit with some articles if I can. Thank you, I want to edit and understand an consensus policy. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t add archive formatting without getting consensus to make sure I apologize for any inconvenience in the one more time. I’m sure IP address will continue to add another article. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

After 2 days not make feedback, I added 1 article in Vietnamese Wikipedia and since bonus add minor content to get an consensus, I never made archive again and if edits in Vietnamese Wikipedia again, I want to make useful contributions instead of archive formatting in one more time. If want to edit another article to update the counter and score, this is a good way to keep IP continue and never made archive again. Lastly, tomorrow not sure want to make archive and keep get consensus first and if go home, I want to make another way to edit Vietnamese Wikipedia instead of English Wikipedia first. Thanks! 125.235.238.149 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, The IP geolocates to Vietnam. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

IP added archiving to a page while this ANI is in progress diff, and (for me at least) their responses are unintelligible so it is hard to assess if they plan to stop. Might be time for a sanction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Novem Linguae if working hard to stop add archive bot, I can do it with another article, if final results is here and today, if I not add archive to multiple pages. Sources said:"If can clear an consensus policy first, I making to added new articles instead of archive formatting and can be clear to changes IP address and if go home not makes archive after unblocked on 26 days ago, I won’t be able to do it again until clear an consensus policy first to added in the next articles." Postscript: If I continue to added and not violate in MEATBOT when set up archive bot, your IP address will continue right now. Might be in 1 more time. If can to be results if today not to make works in the next talk page archives. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bgsu98, This IP address is geolocateds to Vietnam since I want to added some articles in Vietnamese language, if English is your second language, maybe returning to Vietnamese added first and some article can be added or fixed to comply this policy. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm reluctantly inclined to agree. I can't tell from IP's responses whether they understand our concerns or whether they're agreeing to make any changes in their behavior. They don't appear to have understood what I thought was the pretty straightforward proposal I made earlier, and if we can't communicate with them clearly on Talk pages, I certainly don't feel I can trust them to be editing articles or making technical changes to other portions of this project. DonIago (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Now I haved 2 IP address not continue to be making archive, this is an big story to tell about not making archive bot and it takes to continue editing Wikipedia, I want to make another way in this time, if tomorrow not make archive formatting again and edits with another article, I agree this to make any changes with an another page, not in behavior in the archive bot, I think want to stop add another archive formatting and I don't feel my bad can told to you I want to be edits another articles or making technical changes to other portions in this website. 2402:800:63A5:803E:F560:870E:64C2:7817 (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop. Just... stop. Your English skills are NOT good enough to be editing the English Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to agree this, and can add in Vietnamese Wikipedia with the some article and for some reasons, if English skills is not enough to editing in English Wikipedia, @HandThatFeeds. Just stop another time to archive bot and if can wait result by administrator to be sure add another minor content in Vietnamese Wikipedia and if returns to English Wikipedia, My English skills will continue but will come to Vietnamese Wikipedia and if administrator takes no violation when added another article in Vietnamese Wikipedia, I just stop adding another archive formatting in all talk pages. If not violated in policy, I'm sure added content in Vietnamese Wikipedia because your Vietnamese skills are enough to be done in Vietnamese Wikipedia. Postscript: If continue to editing in Vietnamese Wikipedia, I will takes an last chance to let administrator not being blocked me and go to List of Wikipedias and view in 332 languages is available in all Wikimedia project to make sure I choose another language if want to edit all the Wikimedia Foundation project in all more time. I agree this. 2402:800:63B0:8E69:7559:A0EB:A496:1B12 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Can administrator review and takes the chance to make sure not violated in MEATBOT? If today and tomorrow not work for all of the archive talk pages, I welcome to editing Wikipedia in your primary language. If Vietnamese Wikipedia is an target to edit minor content in this time, I want full enough to make sure after 5 days get messages about want need to do and total 6 users requests to stop adding another archive formatting. I want to result if return to Vietnamese Wikipedia and add in Vietnamese language and complete this time. If administrator review complete and takes final results, mission is currently complete and canceled added archive formatting in all talk pages. @HandThatFeeds, thank you for your help. If 100% sure not being blocked from editing, I can want to see again in Vietnamese Wikipedia and I agree to not banned in all articles in the future. 2402:800:63B0:8E69:7559:A0EB:A496:1B12 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't even tell what you're wanting to do. Just stop editing here, and edit the Vietnamese wiki if that's the language you speak. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Ban appeal of User:Shoot for the Stars

The following is the ban appeal request of Shoot for the Stars. I am bringing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am writing to request an appeal of my ban that was imposed in August of 2021. I was 18 years old and had been uploading low-quality photos. This behavior ultimately led to my ban from Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was frequently advised to stop, but I chose to ignore the warnings and continued my actions, which resulted in my block. In addition, another incident that resulted in my ban involved something I did back in 2019, when I was only 16 years old. At that time, I frequently added fake Beatles covers to articles despite editors' instructions that I do not do so. I disregarded their warnings and persisted in my irresponsible behavior. After I was banned, instead of taking time off to do other things, I was deceitful and frequently engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, originally using the accounts user:TheCleanestBestPleasure and user:Beatlesfan210. I also utilized a wide range of various IP addresses. In September 2022, I was not aware that I had engaged in sockpuppetry and believed that I was able to request a standard offer (SO) in good faith. I now understand that my actions were inappropriate and have since learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also want to mentioned that I was diagnosed with OCD and have been struggling with urges related to staying away from certain websites, including Wikipedia. While I recognize that this does not excuse my behavior, it does help explain why I have kept coming back to the site.

I want to emphasize that I did not have any malicious intent and did not intend to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. I am a passionate supporter of Wikipedia and deeply regret any harm that my actions may have caused to the community. Since my account was banned, I have taken steps to educate myself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I have stayed away from the site for over six months. I am eager to return to the community and make meaningful contributions. Since my ban, I have gone to therapy since October 2022, which has helped me to better manage my OCD and behavior. And for over six months, I have been editing at Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, making positive contributions like creating new articles, working with the community on stuff like article deletions, and uploading pictures with the right licenses. My vocabulary has also improved tremendously since starting college, and I feel that it could benefit my contributions to Wikipedia, especially with my new interest in law and crime articles. I realize that my past behavior was unacceptable and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, I am deeply remorseful for my actions and am committed to making positive contributions to the community. I want to prove that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a responsible and productive manner.

• Comment having looked at UTRS 71442 and their semi badgering there and in parallel communications, I have some concerns about their urges to edit may still be an issue given the relatively slow pace in which the project can operate. Not enough to oppose, but definite hesitation. Star Mississippi 12:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• uploading low-quality photos was only a small part of the issue here, a much bigger and much more serious problem was their repeated uploads of mug shots and the insertion of those mugshots into articles on living people [75] [76] [77]. This is a BLP violation (WP:MUGSHOT). Rather than thinking about the harm that my actions may have caused to the community they should be seriously thinking about the effect those edits would have had on the subjects of the article - one of the first things you would have seen when searching the internet for these people would have been a police mugshot - hopefully they can see how this is inappropriate? I'm not completely opposed to unblocking, but I think a WP:BLP topic ban would be well worth considering as part of the unblock conditions. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Carrying over replies from user talk.

  Star Mississippi sorry for the late reply. Was at school finishing up some homework. I have been going to counseling for over six months and it has helped me a lot. It proved to help me a lot as I was able to work on Simple Wiki without getting into any trouble. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Replying to the IP address, I would totally agree with a topic ban on uploading any kind pictures to enwiki. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)"

  --- carried over -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Accept unblock/unban with TBAN on images. Especially adding images to BLP's.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Adjust TBAN recommendation per S Marshall below. " (1) not to upload any images at all to Wikipedia and (2) not to add, change, or remove any images depicting living or recently deceased people from articles. Both restrictions should be appealable after six months." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  And TBAN for BLP's in general -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I feel that if unblocked this user should have two logged restrictions: (1) not to upload any images at all to Wikipedia and (2) not to add, change, or remove any images depicting living or recently deceased people from articles. Both restrictions should be appealable after six months.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  That seems like a good set of unblock conditions. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Per the articles brought up by Abecedare I don't think this goes far enough - the issues appear to cover more than images. Maybe a full BLP ban would be appropriate. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Accept, with restrictions—per S Marshall /edit: and also with a full BLP tban/.—Alalch E. 12:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment After reviewing the editors recent editing history on Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, I have doubts over whether Shoot for the Stars have truly stopped the conduct that got them into trouble on wikipedia, and concerns about their ability to edit in compliance with WP:BLP. They have continued to upload mugshots and low-quality images on Commons. And more seriously, see, simple:Stephen Buchanan, an article they created within the last month and are (so far) the sole editor of. Reading, for example, the Aftermath section of the article should make my BLP concerns obvious.

And the repeated appeals at UTRS (ten in total including on 3 Dec, 30 Jan, 9 Feb, 6 Mar, and 30 Mar) are not a good sign IMO that the off-wiki issues have been laid to rest. At a minimum, in addition to the above image-related conditions, I would like to see a topic-ban from BLPs, a disclosure of all past sock accounts, and restriction from using any alternate accounts on English wikipedia. Frankly, I am not sure I am comfortable with an unban even under those conditions, but I will let others weigh in on that. Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC) (Updated the UTRS appeal count; had missed the most recent one. Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC) )

I will be removing that section due to the BLP violation it presents. It can still be accessed in the above permalink. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose given the information brought up by Abecedare. This user would either need so many topic bans as to make it difficult for them to edit anywhere, or they will simply become a time sink as other editors have to follow behind them to deal with new violations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any unblock without a topic ban from FAC space. See this discussion for a brief overview of the disruption caused there, which hasn't been addressed. There are also civility concerns. This user has repeatedly made up excuses about their personal life to get out of trouble in the past so them now citing an OCD diagnosis in their unblock request does not give me confidence this is going to stop. Their work mostly included extremely poor quality articles being passed as GAs because they did QPQs for the reviewer. I would suggest this user spend their energies elsewhere. The potential disruption that will come from unblocking them simply is not worth it.--NØ 20:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Abecedare. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Abecedare. Thank you for bringing these issues up in a clear manner. I also have issues with their statement, such as the issue brought up by 192.76.8.84, and I just do not see a clear path forward at the moment. I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but I do not see any clear evidence that this user will not repeat disruptive and/or problematic behavior in the future (as discussed above by other editors). Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose without prejudice against an appeal at a later date, provided SFTS can demonstrate that he understands the spirit of the BLP policy, not just the letter. The "aftermath" section of the Stephen Buchanan Simple English Wikipedia article linked to by Abecedare had only one citation—a collection of Reddit comments put together by BuzzFeed. Essentially, an entire subsection of a biographical article was based off of a single comment on an internet forum left by an anonymous poster. There's no way of verifying whether that poster was telling the truth or not, and the subsection serves only to further defame the subject of the article. Even if SFTS didn't technically post that material on this website, it still shows what I consider to be a misunderstanding of the principles behind why we have BLP in the first place. Amplifying anecdotes about someone's life by adding them to a Wikipedia article without reliable third-party sources, especially if it's negative coverage, can have serious real-life consequences for them, and that is something we should do everything in our power to avoid, even for not-so-good people.

  Having said that, I believe SFTS is a good-faith editor, not someone with intent to do harm to others. I think what they should do is continue editing on both Commons and Simple English WP, maybe without contributing to anything biographical for a little while, and then submit a subsequent appeal in 6-12 months outlining the specifics of exactly how their contributions were below the standards of what we expect of our editors, as well as what they intend to do going forward to avoid repeating the same mistakes as the ones they made in the past. If they do this, I would support their eventual return. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think you've nailed it there, Kurtis. They've got the wording of a great unban request nailed. If what they had said was true and verifiable, then it'd be a slam dunk (probably). But what they've said is not true and is verifiably wrong. This is a shame.

  But perhaps, just perhaps, they're on the brink of an epiphany and, given time and some better focus on other projects, they'll get there. Until then, no, certainly not. But I join you in looking forward to the day that they succeed. Try again in six months or so, SftS, please? — Trey Maturin™ 18:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  And just to add onto my original statement, I don't even think SFTS is necessarily "lying" about reading up on BLP, but more misunderstanding what it entails in practice. The point is that words are powerful things, and putting out the wrong information—inadvertently or otherwise—can have unforseen consequences. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Changing to support, with some hesitation, per Panini. Everything I said above still stands, and I'd like for SFTS to continue growing as an editor, as a member of our community, and as a person regardless of whether or not he is unblocked. However, Panini has swayed me into supporting an unban on a probationary basis, with topic bans in place on editing BLPs and uploading images (subject to appeal within six months' time). Reblocks are cheap, and if SFTS demonstrates a continuation of previous behavioral patterns, we can reinstate the community ban at any time. But let's unban him with the aforementioned restrictions in place and see what happens. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Accept unblock/unban with Tban on images and BLPs. A lot of evidence here is old; years old at this point, and shouldn't be recognized as a valid demonstration of his current behavior. Years can change a person's behavior and way of thinking, especially in a teenager (now a young adult). From the reading and research I've done (which has been relatively minimal) other cases of BLP mistakes are all in good faith. The user is merely struggling to understand incorrect editing patterns on BLPs, such as due weight. This could be from refusing to listen, but from what I see it's more likely from the fact that what they were doing wrong is never fully clarified; a link to a generic jargony policy on something as complicated as image copyright is overwhelming and confusing, and if a 17 year old were told they were doing something wrong without explanation, a sailor-swearing fit should be expected.
  

My argument lacks linkable evidence, much like how a religious' person core beliefs lack "scientific" verification, but hopefully that doesn't mean it's ignored. Just look at his behavior. The first block was from mere nasty behavior and refusal to listen. Nowadays it's mere policy mistakes and misunderstanding them. Repeated bad behavior comes from trying to fix mistakes, only for them to do something different incorectly and therefore having all mistakes bunched together. I also see very noticeable improvement in his behavior. Calling his impact on Wikipedia "bad" and "malicious" is completely disregarding their many edits to Simple English Wikipedia (only 2% reverted) and their many GAs prior to being blocked. What will Shoot for the Stars get out of continuing bad behavior on purpose? Why would he continue working on Simple English Wikipedia? What Shoot for the Stars could use is a mentor, or an adopter. Someone who is willing to spend the time laying out everything there is to know about what he is trying to accomplish and what he is doing wrong, not just slap down a template or link a random policy.

I understand some people aren't open to giving people more than one (or two) chances, or not assuming good faith with extreme scrutiny, but I do. But for the sake of making things easier, a topic ban on images and BLPs should suffice. Shoot for the Stars, dealing with images isn't even worth the hassle it seems like, at least for me. Besides, your best work comes from articles about songs and albums anyhow. Panini! • 🥪 08:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I was going to stay with my comment, but per these edits, they don't understand why their edits to a BLP were a problem, which brings me to HandThatFeeds' need so many topic bans as to make it difficult for them to edit anywhere. Standard Offer isn't a get out of jail free card, they need to show that their editing has improved, and the problems raised here show that it hasn't yet. Star Mississippi 01:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Replacement of the entire lead of eight biographies by IPv6

User 2600:1702:3650:9050:88E3:9399:5608:8A92 (talk · contribs), with no edits before today, has replaced the entire lead in eight biographical articles of French statesmen or politicians in 28 minutes. Maybe we need to welcome them with a special barnstar created for the occasion, and instant adminship! Or, could it be...<spooky font>Chat GPT?</spooky font>

IP replaced the lead of Charles de Gaulle on 7 April at 01:52 (diff). In my opinion, (read: "I have not the slightest effing tiny little doubt in my mind") these have all been generated by Chat GPT. (I've been experimenting a fair bit, and I recognize the style pretty easily, now.) The CDG lead is pretty good, but it doesn't necessarily summarize the most important points in the body of the article, and I'm not convinced everything in it is already covered in more detail in the lead, where references can be found.

I've raised a discussion at Talk:Charles de Gaulle#Replacement of the entire lead on 6 April by IP user via LLM, reverted IP's edit at the CDG article, and reverted several other of their edits (as have Manticore and Galobtter; thanks!):

• Jacques Chirac
• Charles de Gaulle
• Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
• François Hollande
• François Mitterrand
• Alain Poher
• Georges Pompidou
• Nicolas Sarkozy

(So far, nothing else of interest in 2600:1702:3650:9050:0:0:0:0/64.)

Finally, the larger issue of LLM use at WP is an unsettled one at Wikipedia, and I'm aware of the growing body of discussion both here and elsewhere about it (see the tip of the iceberg here), so I thought this should be brought to the community's attention as soon as possible.

For starters, a question: I plan to revert any edit by this user that smells of LLM to me, and I'm getting pretty good at spotting it, but that's a pretty iffy reason, policy-wise. I trust myself, but you don't necessarily need to agree, and if there's a good reason not to follow my plan, please weigh in. The more important question, of course, is the more general one. This may also be of interest to @Fuzheado, CactiStaccingCrane, and Mztourist:; feel free to add others. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I entirely agree with User:Mathglot's position. Mztourist (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I read two of them, Charles de Gaulle and Nicolas Sarkozy. These edits are summarizing the summary and significant introductory content is lost from the leads. This is automated dumbing down and a clear degradation of our content. I favor an immediate indefinite block from article space for any editor who pulls a stunt like this. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hear hear! I looked at what happened to Mitterrand: replacement of nearly all the factual summary by bland grammatically-correct blurb that could have been written about anyone from the pope to the florist at the end of my street, the sort of deceptively-correct cosmetic-English that AI is good at producing. There is no way it was an improvement; there is no way AI can improve in a situation like this, as it must either summarise (which had already been done) or look beyond the text (in which case it needs to support itself with referencing like any other editor). But fundamentally, if a person is capable of writing half-way decent English they don't need AI to rewrite leads, and if they aren't capable of writing half-way decent English, they can't assess the AI's writing. And we need honesty from our editors: if they cannot admit they aren't a human, what editorial ethics do they have? Elemimele (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

A-Admit I'm not a human?... I'm definitely a human, beep boop. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet another reason to ban all LLM use on Wikipedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this definitely furthers the case for banning LLM use on Wikipedia. Even though the edits were fairly obviously detrimental, and completely changed the leads of high profile leads, they still took hours to revert - I can only imagine how much easier it would be sneak in referenced content that looks perfectly reasonable but is totally made up/full of AI hallucinations and factual inaccuracies. Galobtter's sock (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Banning LLMs might be useful in dissuading already established editors from using them, but what would that do when it comes to IPs like this one? They're not exactly well-versed with our policies, and most don't care to be. PopoDameron ⁠talk 10:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW: based on their editing history, this editor is clearly User:President of Switzerland. They were blocked for 31 hours last month, see User talk:2600:1702:3650:9050:E969:B1EA:947:E5C5. This recent attempt at “summarization” involved replacing the intro with verbatim quotes from the body. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm less worried about the lead rewrites, which are not too hard to spot, than with the ability to fake sources, or to generate fiction with real sources. Consider this snippet for example, and tell me what you see:

Asked Chat GPT for a paragraph about this Frankish king

view wikicode for paragraph about king Clotharperic This wikicode is copied verbatim from a Chat GPT response. It took me about five refinements to get it to use inline ref tags with citation templates, and I stopped before telling it about reusable ref names, so here's what it generated: Clotharperic was a Frankish king who reigned over a kingdom that covered much of modern-day France and Germany in the late 6th century.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wood, Ian |title=The Merovingian Kingdoms: 450-751 |publisher=Pearson |location=Harlow |date=1994 }}</ref> He was the son of King Clotaire I, and upon his father's death, he inherited a significant portion of the Frankish kingdom.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. |title=The Long-Haired Kings, and Other Studies in Frankish History |publisher=Methuen |location=London |date=1962 }}</ref> Clotharperic was known for his military conquests, having expanded his kingdom's borders through successful campaigns against neighboring peoples.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wood, Ian |title=The Merovingian Kingdoms: 450-751 |publisher=Pearson |location=Harlow |date=1994 }}</ref> He was also a patron of the arts, and under his reign, many magnificent works of art and literature were created.<ref>{{cite book |author=James, Edward |title=The Franks |publisher=Blackwell |location=Oxford |date=1988 }}</ref> Despite his successes, Clotharperic was not without his detractors, and his reign was marked by political turmoil and assassination attempts.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wood, Ian |title=The Merovingian Kingdoms: 450-751 |publisher=Pearson |location=Harlow |date=1994 }}</ref> Nevertheless, he remains a significant figure in Frankish history, and his legacy continues to be studied and debated by historians today.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. |title=The Long-Haired Kings, and Other Studies in Frankish History |publisher=Methuen |location=London |date=1962 }}</ref> Clotharperic was a Frankish king who reigned over a kingdom that covered much of modern-day France and Germany in the late 6th century. He was the son of King Clotaire I, and upon his father's death, he inherited a significant portion of the Frankish kingdom. Clotharperic was known for his military conquests, having expanded his kingdom's borders through successful campaigns against neighboring peoples. He was also a patron of the arts, and under his reign, many magnificent works of art and literature were created. Despite his successes, Clotharperic was not without his detractors, and his reign was marked by political turmoil and assassination attempts. Nevertheless, he remains a significant figure in Frankish history, and his legacy continues to be studied and debated by historians today. References References (The footnotes link to the references, but I didn't teach the bot about named refs.)

Chat GPT turned the tables on me, because I was expecting a mix of real and faked references, as I've mostly seen in the past, but these are all real (usually I ask for a lot more than one paragraph, so maybe that's why). The interesting thing here, is that king Clotharperic is a figment of my imagination (zero hits in Google, but that may change by the time you read this ), and Chat GPT "sourced" it anyway with real references. If I had picked a real king, and the bot gave real references, who is going to check them? This is what really worries me, because if an editor doesn't identify bot usage in an edit summary, I just don't know how we're going to discover it. Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You may be interested in WP:ANI#Suspected hoax content and LLM use by User:Gyan.Know. Which was about ChatGPT and fake referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is what concerns me: We can unequivocally ban the use of ChatGPT or LLM on Wikipedia. That is the easy part. Writing a policy, having the community agree upon it, is comparatively easy to what will be the real challenge - enforcement and identification. The IPv6 showed its hand pretty early by hitting all eight of the aforementioned articles within half an hour, but we will have a harder time sussing out those edits that are introduced with more stealthy or considered approaches that I won't expound upon due to WP:BEANS. And any editor that is determined enough won't give a damn what our written policy is¹. Moreover, as the software improves (and it will improve), the line is going to increasingly blur to where we run the risk of friendly fire against good-faith editors whose edits may bear a passing resemblance to ChatGPT. So far our ability to discover AI edits is based on intuition and pattern recognition, all forms of inductive reasoning and, as Mathglot says, very little deduction due to lack of prima facie evidence. Because of that, I wonder what a "no LLM editing" policy accomplishes other than just expressing our collective outrage. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Footnote 1: One alternate solution is to outright ban IP editing on Wikipedia as a result of the heightened risk of LLM-editing created by having such a wide attack vector, but I don't see this happening ever, and certainly not for this reason. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been advocating that for years, but no matter how much evidence and argumentation is put forward that doing so would be beneficial to the project, it doesn't seem as if it's ever going to fly here, unfortunately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Detection is definitely a big problem. But I think a "no LLM editing" policy would at least make sure that good faith users know not to use LLMs to generate text for articles - and we have always relied on there being a lot more good-faith editors than malicious ones. Right now I'm seeing a wishy-washy approach from the community (at least the one that is outlined at WP:LLM) that doesn't seem to acknowledge the risks involved, and seems to think that humans are actually going to meaningfully verify what the LLM writes (which would take longer than writing the text by yourself).

(as a side note, I just saw this article about how ChatGPT invented a sexual harassment case against a professor - scary stuff.) Galobtter's sock (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think an expression of collective outrage could be a good thing. If the unethical products of a toxic industry are going to drag down our attempt to use the Internet to educate humankind, we might as well be angry about it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

And yes, WP:LLM was written in a fantasy land where the only people adding LLM content to Wikipedia will be those who are so conscientious about double-checking and revision that they could start their rough drafts by throwing the bloody I Ching and still end with a respectable article. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I'd say almost by definition those using LLMs to create content are those least likely to (or to even be capable of) double check the content. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I once uncovered a decade-old WP:HOAX biography. It was well-written and entirely plausible; but contained one tiny error which may not even have been such when it was posted: it linked to a DAB page. The problem was that I could find no evidence that several of the key references (all print-only, no later than C19, and in an accessible language) existed. My emotions after completing the investigation were mixed: satisfaction at a job well done, admiration for the hoaxer's skill, and something approaching fury that I wouldn't get that hour-and-a-bit of my life back. The thought of mass-produced articles of that kind fills me with horror. Narky Blert (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The ultimate answer to that may wind up being significantly tightening the minimum requirements for article creation. Not at all what most veterans would prefer, and not within the scope of ANI -- that'd be a site-wide RfC -- but this is downright an existential threat to the encyclopedia. All we need is for the media to start trumpeting how Wikipedia's being written by chatbots, and the encyclopedia's credibility is gone for good. Ravenswing 01:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a copy, but from memory More Random Walks in Science ed. R. L. Weber (1982) contains two fictional biographies which made their way into a printed encyclopedia.or compendium, whose editors adopted a very stuffy attitude when they found out they'd been taken in (compare the Sokal affair). They were of Jean-Marie Litre (a simple-minded French aristocrat executed during the Reign of Terror, whose name is commemorated in the litre) and of Luis Herrera Torsión (a Spaniard tortured by the Inquisition, whose sufferings gave their name to the torsion balance). They were very obviously practical jokes to anyone who actually read what they said, rather than being written to deceive. Narky Blert (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: I agree about a site-wide Rfc (possibly with some preliminary discussion, to narrow the Rfc question before we start), and I don't think we should wait too much longer to attempt it. How do you feel about WP:VPP as a venue? Mathglot (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly where it should start, I believe. Ravenswing 13:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to contribute; feel free to {{ping}} me. Narky Blert (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, please also ping me. But – but – I know we'll be backing a losing cause when it comes to consensus. At my last unscientific check, ⅓ of editors who expressed an opinion don't think that AI/LLM is a problem at all, ⅓ of editors think AI/LLM is useful, and ⅓ of editors wish the issue would go away until they've had time to think about it properly. Add that to the current 60:40 inclusionist:deletionist ratio and we're on a hiding to nowhere. Nevertheless, even some doomed battles are worth fighting. — Trey Maturin™ 18:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's much too pessimistic, especially as pro-ban editors are more likely to comment than anti-banners, and the issue has received a lot of publicity recently. We also need a process for reverting suspected AI additions. Do the sites produce the same content when asked twice? Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It's received a lot of publicity recently, but we've still, on this page right now alone, had two otherwise unobjectionable established editors go to ChatGPT, type in a question, post the answer to a new article here and then not understand at all in any way why this was a problem – despite the disclaimers and the publicity and the news articles and everything else. They thought a chatbot was 100% spot-on Wikipedia material. And then a third of the people responding to this had no problem with this but were unhappy with the editors being blocked from mainspace because they meant well. We're on a hiding to nothing in trying to get consensus. Even the no-AI-please warning templates ({{uw-ai1}} etc) got pushback from established editors saying that this "deletion on sight" policy was bad and they would prove so by posting AI/LLM articles to mainspace themselves. — Trey Maturin™ 19:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod They shouldn't, no. They will tend towards producing similar content, but unless they start caching ChatGPT and BingChat answers for popular questions (I don't believe they do this, but perhaps I am wrong, in which case I would appreciate being corrected!), the answers are newly generated each time. Using specific phrases in "prompt hacking" can duplicate weird hacks to a certain extent, but not typically exactly. -- asilvering (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Which makes it a thousand times harder because it means there's no common phrases or giveaways we can use to filter out the AI-written content (yet, anyway; if we're lucky there's certain word strings that the AI likes to use that might make it possible to flag its writing, but I suspect we would need a lot more data to see if that's how it works.) StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if we find some strings that current models are more likely to output, within a couple of years there'll be completely different models that don't behave the same way, so it would be a very temporary solution. PopoDameron ⁠talk 02:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

At this rate, it's more like "within a couple of months". -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Viktor Sublime

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would someone kindly have a word with Viktor Sublime, who's been repeatedly down-casing the names of dog breeds, continuing to do so after he received a polite warning about MOS:BREED from Meters and a follow-up message from me. I can't take any action myself, for obvious reasons. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I also left an edit warring warning. Cullen328 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

And I've just soft-warned them for overly-close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source. I think all of their remaining edits will need to be checked. Meters (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits checked. I'm afraid there's not much left of his contributions. Meters (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW this looks like a relatively new user and most of their edits appear good faith to me, if admittedly problematic. I think there are enough warnings at this point. Carpet bombing talk pages can sometimes drive off even well intentioned editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The last post on his page was my soft copyvio notice. Copyvio is not something that could have been ignored. Meters (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I agree that he thinks he's right – this isn't vandalism. But it's becoming quite disruptive, see this, for example. Yes, he's had enough warnings, but he didn't hear them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Now blocked x 48 hrs. This user looks like they are just thumbing their nose at the community. I've issued a Final Warning so the next block, if needed, will be an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Justanother2 and their uncivil attitude

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Justanother2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been part of a lengthy discussion on Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting, and Justanother2 has been very aggressive, not assuming good faith and, most notably, saying that this article has been taken over by "special interests" who in the guise of seeking consensus seek to change both history and the news. This article is a train wreck of journalism practices and a dumpster fire. (diff) After trying to falsely accuse Sideswipe9th of recruiting other editors of the same viewpoint (diff), I've sent them a final warning against harrassment, which they removed (diff). But they didn't stop, instead doubling down in a second RM (diff). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not the Wild, Wild West or Canada... doubling down? One, I was stopping the foolishness that was occurring at said article. Two, warnings? Three, doubling down again. Show me what edit I made after you put a warning up is something with which you disagree. Four, you and the project pages are trying to take over discussion. Five, you have misunderstandings about the operations of this site.Justanother2 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You're the one misunderstanding the operations of the site. The bare minimum "me and the project pages" (whatever that means) want to do is respect MOS:DEADNAME. All I'm seeing from you is complete and utter disrespect for even that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See, you're pushing a pov. That shows you don't understand the situation.Justanother2 (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

How many times will I have to tell you MOS:DEADNAME is not a POV? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, even if this MoS rule is a POV, it's a WP:GOODPOV. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 16:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This is so Canada, as you'd know if you read the parts of my Talk Page you claimed there to...have. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have been keeping an eye on User:Justanother2's contributions for a few days. They're a decent wikignome but otherwise extremely uninterested in learning any wikipedia base policies. It was looking likely that I'd report them here sooner or later.

They recently moved 5 articles based on no policy arguments. When reverted, they edit warred against consensus, refused to discuss it anywhere, and I basically had to go to WP:BLPN to get someone else to look at this. They got blocked for 24h for edit warring, only to go back and do the same undiscussed moves a few days later.

Anytime someone disagrees with them, they show up on the user's talk page to prove them wrong. The problem is, they show their lack of understanding policy each time. See User_talk:Soni#Soni_or_OS or User_talk:Stwalkerster#Perchance.

Ultimately, it feels like a very clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Just from a few days edits alone, I cannot imagine they wont be indeffed sooner or later, the question to me is when. Just see their talk page history and you'll see the pattern of ignoring everyone else.

Soni (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC

LilianaUwU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) False accusation, not understanding what constitutes a warning and how a reply regarding an unnecessary "proposed move" of a page is supposedly incivil. Recruiting did happen. Sideswipe9th had not edited prior to the notification ie "call to arms" posted by Funcrunch on a wiki project page. Since that post EvergreenFir and Sideswipe9th have tried to push their pov incessantly.Justanother2 (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

EvergreenFir is an admin. I am not required to post evidence or diffs. I was trying to reduce tensions, de-escalate stuff.Justanother2 (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Trying to reduce tensions is fine, and I have been pretty aggressive, and I apologize for that. However, you've been quite literally stalking me ever since I reported you here. Knock it off, I beg you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

How about another admin (whose only connection to the content dispute is protecting the page per formal request until consensus is achieved) directly telling you that the onus is on you to provide evidence? If you don't have any feel like posting any, then don't make the allegation. ● 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B184:2761:56FB:BC90 (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Justanother2 WP:ASPERSIONS does require you to provide evidence. And I warned you of that as an admin. Accusing others of wrongdoing in no way deëscalates anything. You seem to have missed the fact that I disagree with Sideswipe and Lilian for some reason.

Like Soni, I've been watching this user as they seem to have issues with following policy and guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I can confirm I also have been keeping an eye on Justanother2, for the same reasons as EvergreenFir and Soni.

In the last week alone, Justanother2 has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, warned twice for edit warring on the school shooting article (first notif, second notif), issued a final warning for moving articles against consensus and relevant naming conventions, and issued an only warning for harassment of other editors.

It also seems that this is not Justanother2's first ANI visit for their talk page behaviour. In February 2022 @Floquenbeam: said please let me know if this user's behavior doesn't improve (examples would be edit warring, insults, hounding, or ignoring consensus), and I will block them for disruptive editing, which seems applicable here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Also just to note, because I pinged Floq here, and his talk page says he's may not be active, I've left a note about the context for the ping, should this discussion be archived/resolved before Floq sees it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This is what you'd consider a "call to arms"?

Also — people of all POVs are able to follow any project they like. I'm wondering why you've only chose to make spurious accusations of collusion against editors you disagree with.

Sideswipe9th's very first edit on that page came nearly 19 hours after that post.

Ignoring the obvious post hoc inherent to claiming anyone who first edits a page after it's posted about somewhere must only be there because of that post... are you aware that your very first edit on that page came nearly 8 hours after that same post? ● 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B184:2761:56FB:BC90 (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I was first alerted to the article by the move request, and the neutrally worded please see request at WT:NCEVENTS. As you can see from my contribution history to that article and talk page, my first contribution was solely on the application of WP:NCE in relation to that move request. It was only after I read the article, saw that it involved a trans person, and saw what I believe to be misapplication of relevant guidelines like MOS:GENDERID that I decided to remain and actively contribute to the broader discussions on the talk page and edit the article.

If you have proof that editors were canvassed to the article, in a manner that the community considers innappropriate per WP:INAPPNOTE, and/or that I have canvassed other editors to that article, then per WP:ASPERSIONS I would ask that you provide these now. Otherwise please stop making baseless accusations against other editors and myself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on the diffs provided above and the user's comments here, I think it will end up as Soni said, with an indef NOTHERE block either now or later, since a prior ANI thread in which the user avoided a block, and then a prior block, plainly hasn't resulted in any improvement. -sche (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty removing content with misleading summaries

User:Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty has been removing content from pages and giving misleading edit summaries. For example: [78], [79], [80], [81]. Sometimes, no edit summaries are given for content removal at all : [82]. User:User:Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty's claims of "misrepresentation of source", "not in source", and "WP:NOTRELIABLE" are not credible. The cited sources are not misrepresented and cited material is indeed represented in the sources. I can provide quotations from the sources if needed to illustrate that the contents removed are in fact a true representation of the cited sources. Additionally the claim of sources being unreliable is not true, as I explained: [83]. I have attempted to explain to the User about misleading edit summaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kalu_Dada_from_Thathri_Kutty&oldid=1143429207), but they have dismissed it with no explanation [84]. This editing is WP:TENDENTIOUS and disruptive. Chariotrider555 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• He was warned over using misleading edit summary over this same article just last month[85] over the same edit that he is still repeating.[86][87] Some sanction is clearly needed. Dympies (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I see that Talk:Shaikhs in South Asia is nearly virginal, so I'm surprised that we're here already. This looks to me like a dispute about the reliability of certain sources in one particular article. I think your first response should be to demonstrate that the sources are reliable, using the talk page I linked rather than AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 08:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Misrepresentation of sources even after being told about it in edit summaries at least deserves a deeper look on this noticeboard. Also, a response from the reported user should be read before deeming this to be a content dispute. Dympies (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Use. The. Talk. Page.

  If you had used the talk page before coming here you would be in a very strong position. This previous incident shows that this user has a history of failing to engage on talk pages, so a sanction on them would have been quite a likely outcome if you had done that. But at the moment all you have to show is this user removing content with an edit summary challenging the credibility of the source, and without more, that is not sanctionable misconduct.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: I think you are confusing me here with the OP. I am not the one who filed the report. While I understand your approach, we are seeing people justifying blocks over far smaller offense in above sections. The information is supported by the mentioned sources. Check it. Now when the reported editor has engaged in edit warring and misrepresentation of sources even after warning, then a sanction should be requested too. Dympies (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I was using "you" in the plural, to refer to the OP and those who agree with them. I'm sorry if that usage caused any confusion. I think the circumstances in the other case to which you refer are entirely different.—S Marshall T/C 15:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  I had previously attempted to warn them about misleading edit summaries, but they dismissed it. This behavior is not limited to Shaikhs of South Asia, but at Jinnah family ([88]) the user has summarily dismissed a reliable, well published, on-topic source with no explanation. Another example on another page of blatant removal of sourced content with a misleading edit summary is here [89], even though the source clearly supports the content "for zina to be unjustified due to the difficulty of establishing the crime according to to the requirements in the Qur'an, which states four eye witnesses of sound mind and upright character are needed to prove zina." Another example can be found here [90], despite sources "he was married to the daughter of a Turk" and "The Spanish traveler, Pero Tafur, wrote that in 1438, at the time of his visit to the Trapezuntine court, Ioannes IV was married to “a daughter of a Turk” (Letts, 1926,p.131) and Kuršankis (1976, pp.124-125) suggests that she was probably a daughter or sister of one of the khans of Salkhat, most likely either Hajji Girey or Devlet Berdi." Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Long term disruption, edit warring and general incompetence by Eni.Sukthi.Durres

Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk · contribs). See recent history at [91]; [92]; [93]; [94]; [95]; [96]. That's just the last week of edit warring and complete comfort allowing others to mop up their poor writing. No indication of accountability. As an example of their issues editing English Wikipedia, see Stiven Shpendi, where the text has enjoyed little or no correction from others. That's just one article. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

are you the king's servant which I mentioned at "that edit summary" which you asked why? Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Eni.Sukthi.Durres' contributions don't look that great.

more or less a random sample (Shpendi twins)

Stiven Shpendi: Stiven was born in Ancona, Italy along with his twin Cristian from Albanian parents originally from Pukë who were immigrants since 1997 and thus they hold dual citizenship. Their first team was Real Metauro from where they moved at Delfino Fano, then to San Marino academy until they went to Cesena. Twins in life twins also in the field of play, playing their first competitive season for Cesena under-17 squad coached by Filippo Masolini in Allievi Nazionali U17, where the attacking duo made each 16 appearances with Stiven scoring 11 goals and Cristian 14. Then playing for Cesena Primavera under coach Giovanni Ceccarelli in Campionato Primavera 3 2020–21 with "twin" appearances and goals 15 and 13 each, the duo helpes the side to reach the final losing only to Arezzo Primavera. For the next season 2021–22, promoted already at Primavera 2 Stiven scored 23 goals in just 20 matches becoming league top-scorer and helped by 15 goals of Cristian in 17 matches, Cesena won the Championship gaining promotion now to Primavera 1 and also won the Primavera Supercup against Udinese Primavera beating them 4–1 with 2 goals from each twin. Meanwhile they were promoted also with in the first team in the 2021–22 Serie C where Stiven made his professional debut under coach William Viali on 10 October 2021 against Ancona-Matelica coming on as a substitue in the 86th minute in place of Mattia Bortolussi. He played a second game on 23 February 2022 against Imolese in the last 6 minutes of a goaless draw. Two days later the twins extended their contract with Cesena until 2025. — Special:PermanentLink/1138950251 Cristian Shpendi: Stiven was born in Ancona, Italy along with his twin Stiven from Albanian parents originally from Pukë who were immigrants since 1997 and thus they hold dual citizenship. Their first team was Real Metauro from where they moved at Delfino Fano, then to San Marino academy until they went to Cesena. Twins in life twins also in the field of play, playing their first competitive season for Cesena under-17 squad coached by Filippo Masolini in Allievi Nazionali U17, where the attacking duo made each 16 appearances with Cristian scoring 14 goals and Stiven 11. Then playing for Cesena Primavera under coach Giovanni Ceccarelli in Campionato Primavera 3 2020–21 with "twin" appearances and goals 15 and 13 each, the duo helped the side to reach the final losing only to Arezzo Primavera. For the next season 2021–22, promoted already at Primavera 2 Cristian scored 15 goals in 17 matches and helped by 23 goals of Stiven in just 20 matches which became league top-scorer, Cesena won the Championship gaining promotion now to Primavera 1 and also won the Primavera Supercup against Udinese Primavera beating them 4–1 with 2 goals from each twin. Meanwhile they were promoted also in the first team in the 2021–22 Serie C where Cristian made his professional debut under coach William Viali on 25 September 2021 against Olbia starting and playing for 57 minutes before being replaced by Salvatore Caturano which managed to score the winning goal in the 90+4' minute with Cesena taking an away 0–1 win. On 25 February 2022 the twins extended their contract with Cesena until 2025. — Special:PermanentLink/1132025758 reftalk References

—Alalch E. 22:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See also Cristian Shpendi and numerous edits to Myrto Uzuni, Arbnor Muçolli and [97] at Agon Muçolli. These, too, are small samplings. Also the determination to restore this [98] right after another editor began tidying up. The first question is how someone with these linguistic challenges has been entrusted to write at English Wikipedia for nearly ten years, and then why they haven't been blocked, given their responses by way of interaction. At any rate, there's a decade-long trail of edits like this [99] left in their wake. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted Eni.Sukthi.Durres's readdition of the content mentioned above at Stiven Shpendi. (I agree that Cristian Shpendi is just as bad.) After looking through their other contributions and reading their comments at Drmies talk page here, I'm concerned about their ability to edit collaboratively and with a level of writing that is expected. This edit summary doesn't inspire confidence. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• I knew we were going to end up at ANI sooner or later--unless an indef block would have come first. And such a block wouldn't be unwarranted, considering the level of incompetence, disruption, harassment, and childish namecalling coming from this editor. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I saw your interaction, and took a quick look at their edit history. Bringing it here was not a difficult call. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
    • @Kinu @Drmies "you were blocked thrice, you can be blocked, you must be blocked unwarranted" ¿Qué te pasa amigo? you talking only for block, you have to be so arsh in wiki? You guys bear in mind that I'm not from an English-speaker country, I'm from Albania a small and not very developed country and i just want to work here with additions and updates information for anything related with my country's national team, you don't like my long content, it's excessive you shorten it, you couldn't ok remove it, but DO NOT revert all edit including useful correct part, because I feel offended then. What you pretend to do here on wiki, you will expell anyone who isn't professional in this work and what you win, we are few persons here not millions so instead of throwing away our work, you improve it, thank you both. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
      • It's the English Wikipedia, so it's kind of obvious that you need to be able to write English if you're going to write here. I don't think we're arsh, whatever that is. If you come here and your writing is not up to snuff, and you're wanting other people to help you, you could ask nicely instead of acting like ... well I think everyone knows what I mean. I'm not L1 either and if someone corrects my English, I swallow my pride and thank them. But in the meantime I will make sure that my edits are explained properly in edit summaries, and verified by links to reliable secondary sources. If you can't do that, then there is no net benefit to your contributions. If you actually can do that, if you provide properly verified and relevant content, and you are humble enough to realize that you can't be a dick when someone corrects your English, and you actually try to improve your written English, then we would love having you. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Based on this screed, I have to say that your level of English is not sufficient to constructively edit this encyclopedia. (This confirms that.) Given this, I'm partially blocking from the article namespace. If anyone disagrees or feels that additional sanctions are reasonable, they are welcome to implement them. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
        • @Kinu if you partially blocked me for however not vandalising articles only exaggerating with information, then what you gonna do to someone who mention d*ck as the king @Drmies did it above, as you can see. I've been for almost a decade here and I never offended someone like this way, but this kids doesn't know how to face problems but instead use their own "accent", how about to meet face to face like adults you little princ, but without knifes or swords since. So you admin. what you gonna do with that, I'm waiting for your answer, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
          • When you're in a hole, you should stop digging. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

            Maybe an arsh hole? EEng 12:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

          • Nice threat. Now blocked indefinitely sitewide. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

To answer my own question, they hadn't edited much in the course of a decade, until this year, when the issues of language and behavior became obvious. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Rock Stone Gold Castle

A editor seems hijacked Surrogate advertising article (see this [100]) and did undo my edits without telling genuine summary. I told him you should not do this but I don't think he'll listen this. If ther some problem in writing he should tag it for CE, its not ok to remove properly sourced material. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Rock Stone Gold Castle's writing is borderline incoherent. Some recent examples: Also by Vimal pan masala product 'Vimal' allegedly advertise its lots of products those have harmful things such as tobacco. 1, umpire, match referee suppose to panalise teams which bowl overtime but only one time the umpire gave panalty to a team following this rule in 12 happened so far 2, but they not use to tell audience through ads that you could lose money, suffere financial losses 3. All their contributions look like this. I think a WP:CIR boomerang might be appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say we're well over the borderline here. EEng 14:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I've just moved Draft:Vimal Gutkha to draft because not only is it of a poor standard of writing, but there actually is zero information about the actual product apart from a controversy about their advertising. And as for this, whether it's notable or not, it's not understandable. I think Rock Stone Gold Castle should probably consider contributing to a Wikipedia in a language in which they are fluent. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If you found any grammatical mistakes, you should tag it by 'clean up', ce tag. There are lots of editors, they can edit it. Sometimes mistakes happen but you should understand that, not everyone's 1st language is US English. You should not discourage other editors. You moved I written article to draft space, but you should ping me about it. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rock Stone Gold Castle: Sorry, no. It is not reasonable for you to create unintelligible gibberish and to then expect others to try to figure out what you meant and make it intelligible. It would be far better for you to edit a Wikipedia written in a language in which you are proficient. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Further, it is not hijacking to remove unintelligible text and otherwise bring the article in line with the expectation of the English Wikipedia. I think you owe the other editors (such as MrOllie) editors apologies for your accusation and thanks for the improvements they have made. The question of your continuing on Wikipedia hinges on your net effect on it and the time of other volunteers. And that hinges in part on your ability to collaborate with those users. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, it was not hijacked, my bad. Did you noticed that i also wrote ? in title of the discussion because I also wasn't sure. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rock Stone Gold Castle: No, that's not how it works. I see that you've submitted Draft:Vimal Gutkha again despite the fact that it's got at least ten spelling and grammar errors in the first section alone. You cannot keep introducing errors into the encyclopedia and expect others to tidy up behind the fact that your language skills are not adequate to do this. Also, this appears to be a removal of sourced material for no good reason; the fact that the material is historical is irrelevant - we document the history of competitions. What's going on there? Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please use civil language, don't accuse others for errors. We are humans, errors can happen, no one is perfect in this world. If you found some grammatical mistakes, you can help WP to fix them, otherwise no one is forcing you to do it. You are removing properly sourced material just because of 3,4 errors? You should tag it for ce, should give a chance to me to do its clean-up. Your talking like your perfect and never done any mistake ever. I am also editing in good faith. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No-one is saying you're not editing in good faith, but there is a difference between a few minor errors and an article which is very difficult to comprehend because of the level of errors in it (we're not just talking 3 or 4 errors here - as I said, there are ten or more in just the first section of that draft article). In the second case, you should be correcting the majority of those problems before introducing that material into Wikipedia. Meanwhile you appear to be removing properly sourced material from articles like the IPL example I pointed out above... Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not hijacking to remove bad content and clear violations of WP:NOTADVERTISING. And that's before we get to the fact that this user also ignored my polite request to revert their nomination of 2023 Indian Premier League for a GA when it met almost 0 of the GA criteria (Talk:2023 Indian Premier League#GA nominated), and they did the same for the 2019 IPL article. And I've had to fix spellings at least 5 times in the last few days after they edited. And they're trying to keep lots of unencylopedic fandom on the 2023 IPL page. It's getting frustrating, as this user appears to be a case of WP:NOTLISTENING. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If the edit I did not worthy to keep, you can remove them or open a discussion in concerned article's talk page and wp is a free space anyone can edit it.

About GA nomination, I did it in a good faith. I was never nominated articles for GA review before, I did in last weeks. I did not know how to take back GA review, so I didn't and i did not read your message to take back it. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I was trying to add some missing piece of the puzzle, in Good faith. If someone think it's not should be there then okay. I know WP work this way. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, A editor seems hijacked Surrogate advertising article and did undo my edits without telling genuine summary is just incorrect. There is a clear and correct edit summary given: Broken english and inappopriate listing of brands, both of which are correct, valid reasons. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for advice sir. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Sidebar I find what I see here incongruous with an an editor with accepted GA notification's on their talk page and more than eight thousand edits. Is something amiss?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I see several failed GA nominations, apparently due to repeated failure to understand the criteria. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  vielen dank -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  You got it right, I didn't awarene about the guidelines for GA nomination. Now I understand it, we can't nominate article for GA which have tags for CE etc. We can't nominate a stub or small article. See I know now guidlines. Don't worry I'll read rest of the rules for GA. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• As an example, this is what I had to do to a short section added by RSGC to make it into intelligible English. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Rock Stone Gold Castle: No one doubts your good intentions. The question is whether your grasp of English is sufficient. I have a basic level of understanding German, and I am well aware that my knowledge of German is not sufficient to edit the German encyclopedia. Practicing to learn a second language is great, but I'm not sure that editing an encyclopedia is the best method. (And thanks @Black Kite: for taking the lead in this.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've stumbled upon some of Rock Stone Gold Castle's edits and have reverted them due to being written poorly, almost to the point of incomprehensibility. While good intentions are nice, I agree with some of the assessments above that their ability to write at a level of English needed to contribute constructively to articles is lacking. In another thread below, Beyond My Ken suggests that they should probably be partially blocked from mainspace at the very least, and I am inclined to agree. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Due to yours and other so called experienced, native English speaker editors pressure, I am feeling stressed. So I'm taking a long wikibreak. At the end I'll tell you just one thing, please don't bully good faith editors. Be more tolerant and inclusive. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  As indicated numerous times, we have no doubt of your good faith. However, as other editors have opined, your English skills do not appear to be a sufficient level for building encyclopedia articles. I am sorry if you feel stressed or bullied by these statements, but it is simply an observation based on your edits to date. Given your desire to contribute, my advice is that you instead edit a Wikipedia project in a language in which you are more comfortable communicating at a more formal and technical level. Kinu ^t/_c 15:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Obvious WP:CIR issues. However, I'm currently of the opinion it's mostly due to English comprehension and not an inherent inability to understand policy. Having seen many others with similar grasp of English, I do think it's possible to mitigate with the right experienced editor to interact with them and teach them the ropes. Some of the articles I saw were definitely of the salvagable quality, so I might try and interact with them and see if I can convince them to try WP:ADOPT or similar. They seem to be good faith enough an editor that I think limiting to a subset of editing could be the right solution Soni (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Rock Stone Gold Castle again (was: Abuse)

• Previous ANI discussion above Sections now merged - this is the section above this
• ...and note this as well

A IP editor here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1119932337?diffmode=source vandalised a sports person page by writing abuses in it. The IP should be banned from editing to prevent future disruption to the wp project. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You should report incidents like to to WP:AIV, you'll get faster action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That edit happened in November of last year. Furthermore the IP hasn't edited since then. Why are you reporting it now? Didn't you make a report above that turned out to be about appropriate reversions of your additions using badly mangled English? Are you trolling us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at your most recent article creation Book My Show. As was indicated in the previous discussion above, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. I don't have the patience or the time to correct everything, but assuming that all your other 12 article creation are as badly written, it'll take editors a fair number of hours to clean them all up. Personally, if I were an admin, I'd be more inclined to block you indefinitely and nuke all your articles, but I'm sure more reasonable heads will prevail. In any event, you should probably be partially blocked from mainspace at the very least. After all, WP:Competence is required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Beacuse, I found it yesterday. I saw a tweet in which a man was complaining that, couple of crickters article have abuses. So I immediately gone that article, so who did it and reported him here on AN/I. Tell me did I done any mistake. Its an example that I'm an editor with honesty and good faith. Do you understand that language, who dirty abuses that IP written on Joshua Little article. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I replied you, why I reported him so late, please read. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for serious problems, especially long-term and ongoing ones, not for reporting 2 bad edits made 5 months ago which were immediately reverted, and then the vandal never edited again. Reporting a problem that has already been fixed and hasn't continued wastes everyone's time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Let It Be InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Some ambitious soul should merge these as the first is still open. I'm afraid this is yet another WP:CIR episode related edit by OP It may go beyond English comprehension.

  -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

   Done Sections merged. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• So they just posted this talk page message in response to a perfectly valid edit (that was missing an edit summary) that's relatively easy to figure out. Yes there's definitely a competency issue here and now they're harassing other editors unnecessarily with incoherent talk page complaints. Canterbury Tail talk 12:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• The irony of RSGC berating another editor for wasting their time is rather splendid... Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Why I'll bother anyone, what I'll get from it? I am volunteering in WP project. Why you reached on such a extreme point. WP guidlines also say that experienced editor should consider Good faith of others. If you found any mistakes you can fixed them, if you don't want, then just tag them. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, editor, you alligations are baseless. My intention wasn't to bother anyone. I'm contribute wp in Good faith, you all the guy should be more tolerant towards non English speakers. WP is a global projects, Anyone can edit. My language is not that bad. Mistakes sometimes happens, but I'm honest and I'll avoid them in future. I myself report many editors at AN/I, who vandalised or broke WP rules. WP don't say that when we open an account that, we'll prohibit you from contributing if you did an error. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You have already been assured that no one doubts your good faith, and we are quite tolerant here of editors at many levels of English competence, but it is simply the case that your English skills are not sufficient for you to be creating articles here. You demonstrate that in your articles, and you demonstrate that in every comment you post. It is not true that, as you write, your "language is not that bad": it is bad. Not to put too fine a point on it You cannot write English well enough to write for an English language encyclopedia. This is not a blog, or a personal website in which simply getting the gist of what you want to say across to the reader is sufficient. You must be able to write in English with encyclopedic quality, at least as well as a student in secondary school, and preferably better than that.

As several people have pointed out, there are Wikipedias in other languages, and probably one in your native tongue. Please take the advice that has been offered to you, and create articles for that encyclopedia, and keep your activities here to those things that don't require you to write in proper and coherent English. We're happy that you want to volunteer to help, but you're not helping here, you are hurting English Wikipedia. Your native language Wikipedia will almost certainly welcome you with open arms, so please transfer your desire to create articles there.

I am sorry to be so blunt, but you clearly are not catching on to what you're being told. If you don't stop creating articles, or even expanding existing articles, it is inevitable that the choice will be taken out of your hands, and some administrator will block you in some manner. It would be so much better for you to simply accept the advice that numerous long-time editors have given you, and leave of your own accord. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Noting :Rock Stone Gold Castle| is taking a wikibreak.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Noting that Rock Stone Gold Castle has been editing heavily, with no slow down, since they put that Wikibreak notice on their userpage. So it means nothing and appears to be more of a tactic to avoid scrutiny than anything we should pay attention to. Canterbury Tail talk 00:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Welp. I guess I can be the bad guy and ask if we want to block them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've only done a spot-check of their non-creation edits, but I do think that their article creations are bad enough to justify a block from creating articles in mainspace, or moving them from draftspace, if that is possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I done any vandalism? No. WP himself say in Copyediting that you should help do ce to new, and less experienced editors in writing 'What they ment and what they mean'. I am taking long wp break beacuse, its editing affecting my studies, health and social life. I am a busy boy, I have lots of stuff to do in real life. I know lots of editors of WP are obsessed and Wikiholic, I don't want to be like that, Best of luck for your further with WP. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, I want to tell you very politely, that harsh word like you recently used caused me stress, I previously said, I'm saying again, WP is a global project and you should encourage people from every walks of life to contribute. Be inclusive, be friendly and polite, try to understand others, give them chance to improve, you should guide less experienced editors like me. Nowadays WP is becoming very toxic place, I don't want conversation with toxic people. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Given this editor's continued poor edits (e.g., this, despite their alleged wikibreak), I have blocked them indefinitely from editing the Article namespace. Enough is enough. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I definitely going to take a long wiki break, beacuse WP editing affecting my other daily jobs, I am a student, I know Wikipedia editing cause a addiction and I want to go away from wp, I want to be a outsider, I'll just read like a normal guy, will don't try to interfere in it. I know there are lots of people are doing editing here, if I didn't edit, WP will run absolutely fine. I just came to check messages. I read your history, you are experienced editor and experienced bad things during 2010, but that doesn't mean now, you harras timid boys like me. I hope you'll edit WP for your entire remaining life, just like you did since 2007. Do whatever you want to do man but don't trouble others. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Block request

• Charlie Chan 1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please block Charlie Chan 1974,  sock puppet of AXXXXK, already blocked in commons, another sock Allocato has been already global locked, this user is created in this wiki 14.0.168.216 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Something something, you're required to notify users of AN/I discussion on their talk page. I've done it for you this time, please be aware in the future. Something Something Burma Shave. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Obsession to create an article on an institution

Someone, or multiple people seem to have a desire to create a Wikipedia article about the Bihar Engineering University in Patna.

There's currently 2 duplicates at BEU Patna and Bihar Engineering University, Patna, and Bihar Engineering University has been repeatedly deleted. There's also two drafts at Draft:Bihar Engineering University and Draft:Bihar Engineering University 2.

It appears that User:EG2009TU, User:Amarjeetkr97, User:R7461867442 are collaborating, or WP:SOCKPUPPETS, to create an article on this university. Also, User:GargAvinash has edited one of the drafts.

I'm not an expert of sockpuppetry or editors who are determined to create an article, despite all opposition, so I'm asking for advice from admin(s).  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 14:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Bihar Engineering University has been salted against recreation, after being moved to draftspace by User:Liz. I've just salted Bihar Engineering University, Patna myself, and prodded BEU Patna as non-notable. The only remaining potential problem now should be that there are two drafts, but I'm not sure that matters, as long as they don't emigrate to mainspace again. And of course there remains the possibility of creating yet other spellings (I won't suggest any examples, per WP:BEANS). And yet other socks.. sigh. As for obsession, such obsessions usually come about because of paid editing. It all comes with the territory, I'm afraid. Thanks for watching, CityUrbanism. If you should happen on more versions, feel free to contact me directly. Bishonen | tålk 13:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC).

Block request for Editor MVM

• Editor MVM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is constantly adding promotional/glorifying content to articles related to Nair Service Society, despite multiple warnings.

jojo@nthony (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Editor MVM also moved an article in order to add honorifics to the title. MVM hasn't responded to any of the messages on their talk page. Perhaps an admin could block them from article space until this editor engages in discussion? Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked from articlespace until they start engaging. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit late to point this out but for the record, the editor in question has still not been notified about this discussion. I've notified them. Something something big red box something something Burma Shave. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

PadFoot2008 - LTA RGW editing

PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user has been engaging in WP:RGW editing changing all text from British India to Indian Empire stating British India didn't include the agencies or princely states. And nation should point only to the country. The disruption went as far as September 2022. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia rather for a POV push — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

All right then, give any one source stating the princely states were a part of British India. I've provided enough sources. You need sources to build encyclopedias. Not anti-India bias. A User Vif12vf has been reverting all my edits without having stated any sources to prove his claims, which I request he do. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

PadFoot2008, you haven't provided any source, what you have provided are WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. —  Salvio ^giuliano 08:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

All right, maybe that's true for the agencies. But my edit on Dir (princely state) had a reliable source clearly stating princely states were a part of India and Dir is a princely state. Do I also need to provide a source for Dir being a princely state? And do I need to provide a source explicitly stating agencies were a part of India? Will it be considered non disruptive editing then? What should my source state?PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment by Fowler&fowler Padfoot has been promoting anachronistic POV on a broad swath of British India-related articles. It has gone on for much too long. I, as an editor who has contributed to the articles Presidencies and provinces of British India, Company rule in India, Indian rebellion of 1857, British Raj, Partition of India, and Dominion of India for 16 years, feel that Padfoot has become highly disruptive. Other competent editors and I should not be held hostage to relentless regression and puerile back and forth. Some admin needs to step in and award a punitive block of at least a few weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  You had failed to provide any sources to support your claim that "British Raj" also referred to territorial expanse of the country between 1858 and 1947. The Interpretation Act 1889 clearly mentions the difference between "India" to fulfil that criteria and the Imperial Gazetteer of India mentions "Indian Empire". Your maps itself which have been sourced from the Gazetteer mention "Indian Empire" in the title (also which you have miscaptioned as "British Raj".) You need to provide sources in Wikipedia. Your assumptions do not matter.

  I greatly value your enormous contributions to Wikipedia and consider myself to be absolutely nothing compared to you but I just want to correct in a small spot with reliable sources. I don't have anything against you and I just want you to understand. I also understand that I've made some edits without providing sources, which might be viewed as disruptive and apologize for that. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment by HistoryofIran A lot of PadFoot's edits since summer (if not the majority), have been reverted. Click here [101] and Ctrl + F "reverted". Their arguments to change the name of "British India/British Raj" were already rejected in at least two discussions, going back to June [102] and November [103]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

UCLAPhdCandidate complaint

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's a complaint of harassment against me here from a paid editor who I've p-blocked from mainspace. Would some kind colleague care to review my actions there and amend if necessary? Thanks, I'd be grateful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have posted here too. Wikipedia:Help desk . Seems to be a combination of the Draft:Inertial Labs talk page, that page and my talk page. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@UCLAPhdCandidate your responses on your user talk page have been poor, at best. To note, you indicate that his accusations of advertorial were ungrounded All I have been asking him is what he found advertorial?, while also saying several experienced editors worked on the page, removing thousands of characters of advertorial language. That someone else removed the problematic text, which you freely admit, does not mean your editing escapes those accusations. So that you claim the admin is harassing you while you are both admitting and claiming false accusations of advertorial editing suggests your accusation is unwarranted.

You also did violate the paid editing rules - both in the specifics of the disclosure aspect and in the significant aspect of directly mainspace posting. I would not say that your disclosure failings were significant enough to warrant a mainspace block, given an incorrect but attempted disclosure on your side.

The violation of the no direct editing was clearly breached by you avoiding articles for creation. That alone could justify a partialspace ban - I would probably have avoided it, but I don't think it's beyond admin discretion. Others may disagree.

My tl;dr:

1. Harassment charge not upheld by evidence
2. Paid disclosure breaches insufficient to warrant partialspace ban
3. Advertorial breaches sufficiently conceded to indicate that accusation is reasonable, and could act as sufficient reasoning to make the partialspace ban reasonable, even if not required. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I never say the advertorial tag was unfounded. I asked what else he felt needed to be removed because another admin had already chopped thousands of characters off the article, I would assume with the intention of brining the article into compliance? That is why an admin would do this? Instead of providing any type of constructive criticism at all on the article, he began banning me, avoiding the question and changing the focus of his initial complaint from mostly about the articles advertorial issues to more about the paid editing which wasn't being hidden at all. I might not have had the whole proper tag but there is no way it should look as if I was trying to hide paid editing at all. There is no reason other editors should have that impression at all. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

By my count, three separate users so far have expressed some reservations about the rapid escalation to a block from mainspace. I will quote from @David10244's comment on user talk: [UCLAPhdCandidate] posted a paid editing disclosure, then was admonished for "undisclosed paid editing". Huh?? That is weird and counterintuitive. May I suggest that things might have gone more smoothly had a block not been so quickly issued? Shells-shells (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing users also seem to firmly rebut the harassment charge. In the normal flow of things, I'd gladly advise a "accusation incorrect, but while we're here, let's remove the block" outcome. However, at the moment, UCLA is demonstrating a lack of awareness on how to avoid future issues. This includes their failure to read the most relevant rules carefully and a hugely incorrect first article where they were fortunate enough to have it fixed rather than deleted. It also includes their communications with other editors, to whit: I have enough wikipedia experience over the years to know the admins literally make a game of trying to make new editors subservient. I know he wants me to kiss his ass but, what he is doing in my opinion is disruptive and it is taxing.. So we end up needing to see if JLAN may have come to a viable conclusion even if their reasoning wasn't what we'd have wanted. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's correct. Not a good enough reason for a mainspace block, but the editor has demonstrated that it is warranted. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize.. I haven't backed off, I am in PST and went to bed.. Technically we are talking about my 2nd article. My first article went through AfC as it was supposed to and was moved into main space by an admin. The issue with me moving the page isn't really in doubt or challenged. I did it to get help with an article I felt was already better than most needed for wikipedia to get some help bringing it down to size to be compliant. I left detailed notes in the pages history and talk page to this affect and had a paid editing disclosure on my page. In fact, this had exactly the affect that I had hoped and several editors immediately jumped on the page and began improving it, such is the intention and result of a collaborative wikipedia, as it should be. My only other article I created before this issue, I submitted through AfC and it was approved by a senior editor, the way everyone likes it to be. My issue was with him coming in without reading the article, seeing a notice at the top of the page after many editors had already worked on the page, and just randomly adding tags just to add on to what everyone else was doing. It was obvious the page had been moved by me, and several editors and admins in the spririt of wikipedia began to help me fix the page constructively. Justlettersandnumbers came along and drafted the page after it had been substantially worked on, including by a person who works heavily on the new page patrol. He added liberally added notes and drafted the article without much consideration for anyone else or engaging on conversation on the talk page of the article either. When asked about what he detailed as promotional since that was the focus of his original notes rather than COI or UPE (though UPE was mentioned), 1) he changed the focus of his actions to UPE/COI 2) escalated his individual actions against me and my pages to the point of tagging a Artlist properly created through AfC and unpaid when it too was clearly done correctly and had a notice on my talk page 3) He blocked me from editing the main space 4) He continued to refuse to add any constructive comments about the original reason 5) He tried to shape this as unpaid editing when it was absolutely nothing but the opposite. An editor who had disclosed paid editing, using Wikipedia successfully and collaboratively, the way it was intended. 6) After his retaliation, he leaves intentional notes detailing his apathetic feelings towards the entire class of paid editors, bolding his text to highlight this as the reason justifying his aggressive behavior. I find the whole thing very retaliatory, very aggressive and improper to be so narrow minded to not check and see who was working on the article, if it was improving in the spirit of wikipedia, and to check if the notes he left on the page were still appropriate. As with any editor drafting an article, he should be able to explain in some detail the reason he noted when doing so. This isn't obnoxious, it is mandatory.. Making the whole thing look like paid editing so other editors will dismiss my complaints is also a very deceptive enforcement action in my opinion. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Literally a quote of what he said \"I have just no idea why we tolerate paid editing in this volunteer project, but we do, within certain limits. " That is an admin, Justlettersandnumbers intentionally displaying nothing but apathy for paid editing.. so much so that he intentionally bolded the statement to intentionally emphasize it so as I know the reason for his aggressive behavior. This is WP:Civ from an admin? To me it looks like intentionally displayed apathy to an entire class of wikipedia editors and justification for his retaliatory behavior. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Apathy = indifference. Perhaps you meant antipathy? Schazjmd (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

UCLAPhdCandidate, I assume that you mean "antipathy" instead of "apathy". Most administrators are highly skeptical of paid editors for good reason. In general, their primary reason for editing is to make money rather than to improve the encyclopedia, and they are more interested in making their clients happy than in collaborating with other editors. Indignant denunciations of administrators as a class are unlikely to be effective for you, since adminstrators are selected by the community to deal with problematic behavior, and many paid editors engage in such behavior. I think that you have found yourself in a hole of your own making, and I advise you to stop digging. Cullen328 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Now that you bring it up, I imagine he was intentionally projecting both. I am not admonishing a whole class of editors and I am not going to get into a paid editing scenario since wikipedia only deals with paid editing when it is convenient. The truth is it is allow, the rules on paid editing are there because they are legally required to be there to satisfy internet advertising disclosure requirements, not because paid editors aren't wanted or are discouraged from editing on wikipedia. Without paid editing which occurs on every celebrity and major company page, half of this platform wouldn't be here so people can write articles on 800 different breeds of cattle. Also, I shouldn't be subject to antipathy, apathy or any type of discrimination for disclosing paid editing and asking an admin to explain his actions so I can make the changes to fix the page BECAUSE IT IS MY JOB THAT I AM BEING PAID FOR! This subservience to older accounts who bully new editor accounts and are allowed to mislabel and inaccurately post tags on new accounts and pages as retaliation with no accountability is unacceptable. Seniority is not an excuse to be prejudicial, especially by an admin whose job it is to oversee these types of issues. No one will recommend suspending the admin for 48 hrs will they? Many of the editors on here already have voiced support and say the ban was improper.. That sort of is the consensus... If I were to make a disparaging statement that grouped all paid editors together, you would say I was wrong to do so.. as an admin he is not admonished for the same identical behavior? UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess you prefer to keep digging. That's sad. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block, as evinced by the most recent reply by UCLAPhDCandidate here, particularly the NOTHERE and contemptuous attitude expressed by Without paid editing which occurs on every celebrity and major company page, half of this platform wouldn't be here so people can write articles on 800 different breeds of cattle. Also, I shouldn't be subject to antipathy, apathy or any type of discrimination for disclosing paid editing and asking an admin to explain his actions so I can make the changes to fix the page BECAUSE IT IS MY JOB THAT I AM BEING PAID FOR!. If the disparagement of volunteer editors continues, a full block may be necessary, but perhaps they will be able to make appropriate edit-request contributions a la WP:COI guidelines once they cool off a bit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The oppression of independent thought and push for subservience to others strictly based on tenure on this platform amazes me. I can't imagine what types of discussions would occur if gender roles were required to be released on here. Would you like to look on upwork and see how many paid editing jobs there are? Do you know how many PR companies actually engage in active editing for clients? How many corporate SEO and PR offices are actively following their accounts to make sure they are properly adjusted? All of them worth over $5m. It is a requirement and it is taught in SEO, PR and in incubators through out the startup community. Every political page has paid editing. Want to look, start and any major candidate, look at those pushing the false Trump Russia story, those impeding the Hunter Biden story, I imagine the Clintons probably have 20 people working on their page to suppress press from different stores they do not like. Wikipedia is taught in SEO classes and in startup incubators throughout the worldwide tech scene. I have disclosed paid editing from day one.. This is what Wikipedia wants and these are the rules established. I shouldn't be targeted or subject to discrimination by admins practicing retaliatory practices. Banning is for harmful editing, not as a tool to demand oppressive subservience from those who like the status quo of power. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You aren't helping yourself here and I highly suggest that you put down the shovel. This isn't about tenured editors vs new ones. Nor should we break down and embrace paid editing because we can't catch it all and people choose to be dishonest. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The contempt for Wikipedia shown here, warrants a block on it’s own per WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, openly prejudicial attitude towards even properly disclosed paid editing. Real paid editors understand how to make a page, properly reference them, chose clients who are notable, and are following the rules of wikipedia. Apparently Wikipedia:Don't be prejudiced, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:WikiBullying and I love this one especially Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers are just content for show? UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont have contempt for wikipedia at all. I have contempt for the attempt to either hide the true value of paid editing, attacking it, or just being ignorant of how much it is happening on wikipedia. You push editors to disclose, then attack and are openly prejudicial against ones who disclose from the beginning and who are only on their second page. There is no accountability for what I experienced and admins continuing to try and demand silence or subservience when I have a factually provable set of actions that violate the wikipedia TOS, just proves my point of the larger issue. Somehow me being the victim resulted in my ban from editing the main space? UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about you, but no, many paid editors do not know those things at all. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Despite your claims to the contrary, COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. That is a direct quote from WP:COI. Unlike yourself, volunteers aren't getting paid to argue. Keeping promotional writing off the encyclopedia is not bullying you. Be respectful of other people's time and don't file nonsense complaints. Thanks! - MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It is mildly amusing when someone with 180 edits to date tries to "educate" highly experienced administrators about the intricacies of the paid editing ecosphere. I have personally blocked about 7000 promotional editors in the last five years, so I don't think I am bragging when I say I already know a thing or two about the problem. I have also helped thousands of good faith new editors at the Teahouse and at the Help Desk, but it is tough when a new editor is belligerent and has a chip on their shoulder. UCLAPhdCandidate, you did not properly disclose initially, and you submitted a badly written article to main space. Instead of arguing with all and sundry, your time would better be spent improving your draftified article and preparing it for an AFC review. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328: perhaps you could have just cited this meme instead. --Jayron32 18:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 dont you understand, that is how this whole thing started.. I asked what he still felt was advertorial.. he obviously wasn't reading the article and was just fast editing because instead of making a constructive comment so I could bring the article into line like so many other editors have done since, he decided to put a main space ban on me after publishing one previous article because I hadn't made enough main space edits even though I am not supposed to because I do paid editing. It is funny that you see a new wikipedia account an assume that is the total amount of my entire wikipedia experience. I also find it not very funny that it is same editors and admins from 3, 5, 10 years ago practicing the same bullying and subservience in these "open forums" which Wikipedia says

"All complaints about bullying - even those which turn out to be unjustified - should be treated with seriousness and respect; any WP:BOOMERANG on individuals who have complained they are being bullied is contrary to the principles of respect for thoughtful intellectual discourse that Wikipedia represents. No one should ever be afraid to come forward to make the community aware of a bullying concern, and no one should ever feel (for one reason or another) that they can't come forward and report it.

There are essentially two forms of bullying on Wikipedia: attacks against the individual editor by targeting a single user, or giving the perception of power aimed at the entire Wikipedia community at large.

On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level, or not entitled to their point of view."

• WP:LAWYERING
• WP:Disruptive sanctions
• WP:Don't edit for power

UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, we got it. I highly suggest you return to editing your draft. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

In these trying times let us not forget the wiki motto of those who forged the bricks this holy tower was built on... "Improve not remove"! UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Remember, I am trying to get the block removed per

• WP:Disruptive sanctions

UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

One more thing.. paid editors are also the ones who donate to the wikipedia foundation .. those who make their living are more likely to contribute to the financial success of the platform. I know I donated several times so, I don't appreciate this antipathy. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok.. I didn't quite realize this was a voting board. I didn't see any bold voting print like I AfD. I thought this was more of a jury.. I will quite down and see what some others have to say. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment I don't think you'll like what I have to say. Your comments in this discussion indicate an arrogance about your supposed better understanding of Wikipedia's precepts and processes than editors and admins with many more years of experience here than you have, as well as a misguided self-assurance about your value to the project, which you've hardly shown in any practical way at all, certainly not enough to put yourself on the pedestal you've constructed. You are, pure and simple, a paid editor with a bad attitude who seems unwilling to be judged by the normal standards of this project, but instead is full of special pleading for your supposed importance.

Paid editors are evaluated by much stricter standards than ordinary volunteer editors, because their first loyalty is not to building a quality encyclopedia, it is to their clients, and to making money from the process. Those of us who labor here without ever collecting a cent for the many hours we devote to it have every right to do whatever is necessary on our end to insure that editors such as yourself contribute acceptable material and are not led by their pecuniary interests into promoting their clients rather than objectively reporting about them in an encyclopedic manner. Object all you will, that is going to remain true as long as the powers-that-be allow paid editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block - I agree with those above that the partial ban was within administrative discretion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to examine this statement for a second in which you insinuate their is an incited quote from me that you are referring to me " indicate an arrogance about your supposed better understanding of Wikipedia's precepts and processes than editors and admins with many more years of experience here than you have" .. Do you see this line you wrote above? Where is the direct statement you are referring to here that allows you to accurately publish that sentence? Wikipedia:Don't be prejudiced, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:WikiBullying and I love this one especially Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers .. I would have hoped you would have evaluated you decision on the initial encounter and if it followed or violated the above cited principles of wikipedia and not the arguments or posturing that has to this point. You are welcome to your opinion and as much as I may not agree since I feel it certainly violated those principals, I somewhat value it. Have a nice day. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Or the motto ... Improve, don't remove. For the record, my vote is unblock since it wasn't disruptive editing in the main space, there was a disclosure on my user page and I only had a single previous client so it may have been incomplete but it would have been obvious who the client was. So this definitely shouldn't be tagged with UPE as a reason either. I think he should be at least warned too about working with new accounts. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block - This looks like WP:NOTHERE Very Average Editor (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Since as a paid editor, UCLAPhdCandidate should propose edits on article talk pages and submit proposed articles via AFC, the block from article-space doesn't hamper their efforts. After demonstrating that they can edit following the WP:PAID guidelines, UCLA can request a lift of the block. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply - I am going to use WP:PE here since you people seem to inaccurately quote it on here all day. The language on WP:COI says exactly "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". Now, I am going to put this sentence in context of the entire piece of the article and I want you to notice their is no bolding to emphasize and there is no strong language such as "you must not act" or "strongly discouraged" as In the rest. It is published exactly this way:

  "the policy on the English Wikipedia is:

  • you must disclose who is paying you, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation;
  • you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;
  • you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
  • you may propose changes on talk pages by using the {{request edit}} template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed;
  • you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
  • you must not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;
  • you should respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise (see WP:PAYTALK)."

  While I understand this is general practice, wikipedia has intentionally left the language exactly as it is and that is how we are supposed to interpret them. It certainly sounds to me like in certain cases is would be ok to self publish, which I did here with very detailed notes when the article was moved. Please stop using this as a means to justify the admin's behavior because it is 100% untrue even if it seems to be the agenda people are pushing. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  We have seen this kind of lawyering behaviour before. You're not going to find some loophole or technicality that will get you unblocked and allow you to do what you like - that isn't how things work here. Every time you post one of these tone-deaf messages you are digging the hole you're in a little deeper, and reinforcing the appearance that your COI prevents you from working collaboratively on the encyclopedia. Your messages are making it more likely you will remain blocked, not less. MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Also, given this admission, I think some checkuser should verify that they are respecting the article space block with their other account(s). MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I dont have other accounts. It was retired years ago. There is no overlap in editing. I am not an idiot. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  This language has been exactly this way on wikipedia for over a decade and every established editor who patrols has been trying to get it changed with no luck for years. They left it that way intentionally. If you are going to lawyer I will refer to Wikipedia:Don't be prejudiced, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:WikiBullying and I love this one especially Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  You've just said you're not a newcomer. If you're not new, you should know better. MrOllie (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I should be aware that editors will bully and enforce their will over articles regardless of the actual TOS. I should know they will falsely label accounts as undisclosed paid editing even though the disclosures are there and were even there before the article began work in my sandbox. If this is such a hard rule, why not change the language and emphasize it with bold lettering in the TOS like I have show has been done in the rest of the TOS? UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Was tempted to indef, but have instead upgraded this to a Wikipedia space block as there posts here & Help Desk clearly show no intent to edit collaboratively. If someone things an indef is merited, feel free.

Star Mississippi 02:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but after the Karenesque "but I am paying you!" I am very surprised he wasn't indeffed. Ostalgia (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone here is going to have to contact the WMF and fess up that there's going to be a dent in their ~$150M of fundraising revenue next fiscal year. Time to eat some humble pie. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Prescient block, possibly weakly based, but this discussion has shown its value. If we need paid editors at all (dubious) we don't need argumentative and self-important ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

David Eppstein, if I'd been prescient I'd have done straight away what Jayron32 has now done, saving a lot of people a good deal of time and (virtual) ink. I endorse that block as essentially the only remaining solution to the disruption this has caused (and apologise for being a contributory factor in that disruption).

As regards the possibly weak basis for the block, my block summary was definitely not sufficiently clear. This editor had already moved two improperly-disclosed paid advertisements into mainspace, and I wanted to ensure that would not happen again. It would have been enough to remove auto-confirmed status, but we can't do that (can we?), so the p-block seemed a reasonable middle ground between doing nothing and an immediate indef as an advertising/promotion-only account. I should have stated that clearly when issuing the block. Thanks to all for their comments here, constructive criticism included. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Reblocked to sitewide At this point, I think the chance for useful work from this user is essentially nil. They're more interested in debating that complying with policy. --Jayron32 11:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Good Block; now make it sitewide A) because editor is here "so I can make the changes to fix the page BECAUSE IT IS MY JOB THAT I AM BEING PAID FOR!" rather than to improve the wikipedia. This is supported by B) Editor's general attitude as displayed on talk pages and this thread make me seriously doubtful that they can AGF and collaborate at any time they aren't being strictly agreed with. Also I might just be spooked by the apparent thought that pages regarding major companies and celebrities are the REAL pages of import while pages about 800 different breeds of cattle only exist because paid editors do the real editing. This line of thinking is fundamentally incompatible with WP. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Addendum: Whoops, wasn't trying to gravedance. I read Jayron32's post as a proposal that UCLAPhdCandidate be Reblocked to sitewide. I failed to realize that the post was them announcing that they already had done so. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unconstructive edits from IP editor

• 185.24.188.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

For about three to four months now, this IP editor has removed content from articles without explanation (mostly alternative names in the lead and infobox). Despite warnings in the past, their behaviour has not changed. I have just given them a warning about removing Sámi names, but upon a deeper examination of their editing history, this seems to be a recurring issue. They haven't engaged with any of the comments on their talk page thus far, so it seems unlikely that they'll change their editing in the future. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP has made about 50 edits since the beginning of 2023 and has never left a talk message or an edit summary. A block may be needed to get them to communicate. Other editors have left messages on their talk four times since 1 January. Their anti-Sámi campaign is their most distinctive behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan's big fan in Mexico

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 189.172.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Personal life of Lindsay Lohan
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf/Archive

Someone using various IPs in Mexico, likely User:Andrewbf, has a long history of disruption in pop music articles. Another IP popped in today to restore a large mass of contested text at Personal life of Lindsay Lohan.[104] The Mexico IPs previously involved in this behavior include 200.68.161.254, 189.174.19.198, 189.172.38.3, 189.174.17.233, 189.174.21.221, 189.172.25.229, 189.172.49.152 and 189.174.9.87 during May–July 2022, resulting in blocks and the article placed under semi-protection. I would like to propose a wide rangeblock on Special:Contributions/189.172.0.0/16. There would be surprisingly little collateral damage from such a block; about 95% of the edits at that range are clearly from the same person over the last four years and probably further back. Note that this person also uses other IP ranges such as Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:8020:426A:0:0:0:0/64 as may be seen in the history of the article Speak (Lindsay Lohan album). Their typical style is to make many small changes in a row, saving after each one. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked the range; I found no sleeper accounts. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Fabulous! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ridiculous back and forth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can't somebody just do something about this [105]? Someone is continuously adding a sidebar to this article through several IPs. There is already an image so it is violating MOS:SANDWICH. I already both reported the IP and requested the protection of the page and nobody did anything. Super Ψ Dro 19:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, I think the "part of a series" sidebars are helpful. Maybe move the map down? Woodroar (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, moving the map will take it to a historical period it is not related to. It would ideally be next to text talking about the period the map is about. I think I will just have to remove it as I'm skeptical anything will come out of this. Super Ψ Dro 20:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trolls Band Together unsourced material by IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 122.59.159.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IP keeps adding unsourced material without finding a reliable citation. CastJared (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked the IP from Trolls Band Together. They are free to discuss their proposed changes at Trolls Band Together, as long as their requests are based on reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beauty pageant SPAs needs help understanding verifiability

• Mauriziok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hitsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mauriziok has edited virtually exclusively in beauty pageant related articles, a topic covered by WP:GS/PAGEANTS. Plus hundreds of related pages in userspace, I don't know what that's about.

The complaint is this: They recently added back large sections of unreferenced content at Miss World 2017. The edit summary seems to state that they think that I should be adding references. They have been discussing on their talkpage with another pageant SPA, Hitsme, how to preserve the unreferenced content as well, in this and other pageant articles. I think they both need help understanding WP:V and WP:BURDEN. One of the editors has been blocked for disruptive editing in the past, and the other has a recent warning from an admin on their talkpage. I'm out of patience and don't want to get into 3RR territory. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I'm just trying to ensure that the information that has been placed with so much effort is not suddenly deleted. Placing an improvement template like <nowiki>{{refimprove|date=April 2023}}</nowiki> seems the most appropriate thing to do, in fact I just placed it in the article Miss World 2017. Obviously, as always, the information must be duly referenced. The issue here is that they are being deleted from the '''final results''' of a Big 4 competition, removing them completely seems like an outburst. Like the preliminary competitions that in Miss World have considerable importance. Other details such as the order in which the contestants are named are characteristic of beauty contests.

In any case, if you consider and persist that the information should be removed without any consideration, I will not oppose it or enter into any pitched battle.

I understand the good and logical intentions but the actions taken seem hostile and do not invite responsible and friendly participation from the Wikipedia editing community.

No more to refer to.

Says goodbye Mauriziok (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mauriziok. Here is some friendly advice. If you want to add substantive new content to this encyclopedia, provide a reference to a reliable published source. If you want to restore content that another editor has removed as unreferenced, then provide a reference to a reliable published source. There is nothing at all unfriendly about any of this. It is how we maintain a high quality encyclopedia. Can you agree to that? Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I already mentioned it before. The background of the action is reasonable but not the way in which it is done. If you want to revert the edits. Do it no problem. Mauriziok (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite: in which way do you believe that unreferenced information should be removed, except for, well, removing it? You've been editing on Wikipedia for five years now, and you should have learned long since that unreferenced information is liable to be removed at any time, in any quantity. You should also have learned -- long since -- that your edits are liable to be changed, edited further or removed outright at any time, without prior warning to you or to any other editor.

The purported "importance" of the information is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it should not have been put in in the first place if you were unprepared to properly reference it at the time. If there's any "hostile" action at work here, it's in adding information and expecting that some other editor is going to do the work of properly sourcing it. That's not what I'd call "responsible" OR "friendly." Ravenswing 06:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there may be a bit more of a fundamental problem here. Just scanning their contribs I haven't been able to find any where they add any refs, despite being quite prolific on adding tables of info. I've checked about a dozen of their larger edits where they add material and I haven't been able to find one where it's supported by a citation. if there are 6k of edits specifically to beauty pageeant pages on that basis... DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Numerous small, at best pointless, edits to many articles

Ngăn chặn kiến (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making numerous small, at best pointless, edits to many articles. Adding or removing a comma here or an apostrophe there, putting a full-stop after "see also", that sort of thing. No edit summaries. Does the behaviour ring any bells? THanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• I checked out the user's most recent three edits and didn't see anything of concern. If you have a specific example I'm confident several of us would check it out. Have you noticed any harm or policy violation, or just editing preference?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Holdfast1905

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Holdfast1905 (talk · contribs)

I've already reported them as a sock of Heyoboyo at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heyoboyo, and one of the affected articles has been semiprotected. It seems they are displeased by that and they are now following me around to revert my edits at unrelated articles. - MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

How am I a sockpuppet? Because I edited a page you're defending? Absurd accusation and fairly ridiculous too. This is my first account, I have read the rules and have respected them. I am not displeased by the reversion, even if it was sourced properly according to wiki rules, I am however disappointed that you seem to think you are the end all be all for some topics and seemingly refuse to comply with wiki rules. You also doxxed me outside of wikipedia. Please do not spam me again. Holdfast1905 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Except the rule about not making perosnal attacks. I removed it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. I see that Holdfast1905 is harassing Mr Ollie and will block them for 24 hours. As always, any admin can revert, undo, or modify as they see fit. A ping would be nice -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

And they now have been blocked as a sock. Gee, I didn't see that coming...RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Will wonders never cease. 😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure. The kicker was the ridiculous comment in the Rock Stone Gold Castle thread. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.