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

Consistant gaslighting behaviour by Freoh

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

---

Freoh (talk · contribs) is a relatively new editor, from August of last year. Since then, a pattern of disruptive/gaslighting editing has become obvious. The most recent is at Rayleigh–Jeans law, an article which they never really edited and suddenly got involved into a debate without understanding the basics of it, mostly about whether or not it should be included in the category Category:Obsolete theories in physics. From the article, it should be patently obvious that it is (and certainly is obvious to any physicist). The Rayleigh–Jeans law was an attempt to characterize radiation emitted by black bodies, and it was known since its inception that the law was inadequate. This was called the Rayleigh–Jeans catastrophe.

Some other editor removed the longstanding category, I reverted since this is known obsolete since its very inception in 1900s. Then the insanity starts where Freoh tags the category as uncited. This is patently false, Ref 1 explicitly states RJ is obsolete

When physicists tried to apply classical ideas of radiation, they could not derive blackbody spectra that agreed with the experimental results. The classical calculations yielded an intensity I(ν,T) given by

$I(\nu ,T)=2KT\nu ^{2}/c^{2}$

This is known as the Rayleigh–Jeans Law. [...] The Rayleigh–Jeans Law agrees with experimental results at low frequencies (long wavelenghts), but disagrees at high frequencies. [...] (The classical prediction of arbitrarily large energies at high frequencies was sometimes referred to as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. ) [...] In 1900, Max Planck, a German physicist produced an empirical formula that accurately describes the experimental blackbody spectra:

$I(\nu ,T)={\frac {2h\nu ^{3}/c^{2}}{e^{\frac {h\nu }{kT}}-1}}$

Emphasis mine. RJ was obsolete back in 1900. This was not good enough for Freoh, who keeps demanding sources and writes.

Headbomb stated that "this is cited" in the article, but I do not see where. I am not taking a side here on whether or not it is obsolete, just ensuring that the information in this article is verifiable.

On the talk page, the following additional source was provided, after Ref 1 was (again) pointed out

We remember the Rayleigh–Jeans law as an incorrect hypothesis superseded by that of Planck.

Freoh then writes:

XOR'easter, that looks like a good source to me. I would not be opposed to re-adding Category:Obsolete theories in physics along with a cited sentence to this effect

Emphasis mine.

Thinking we have finally reached agreement, I reinstate the category, which Freoh reverts again demanding a source, and then warning me about their disappointment of me supposedly refusing to provide a source. A source which they already agreed exists, was provided, and supports that category, and which they themselves deemed good and sufficient to re-add the category.

This is gaslighting WP:NOTHERE behaviour of the highest order. Similar behaviour was also seen at Talk:Science, Talk:Constitution of the United States and many other places as evidenced by User talk:Freoh#January 2023, User talk:Freoh#January 2023, User talk:Freoh#January 2023 and User talk:Freoh#NPOV debates.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm very new to all of this, but here are some facts relevant to what I've observed. I think it would be worth it if everyone concerned just paused and looked at some facts. I would hope these are easily agreed by all:

• approximations are used in physics and science all the time
• when a new discovery in science supersedes a previous one, it is often the case that the previous one continues to be used as a useful approximation
  • For example, Newton's laws of motion even after they have been superseded by Quantum mechanics, Special relativity, and General relativity
• the word "obsolete" means no longer used. Something that is actively used is therefore not obsolete

What I have observed unfortunately is @Headbomb refusing to acknowledge any of the above. This baffles me. @Freoh and others had a good-faith, honest debate about the topic. The difference is clear, and is recorded in the talk page. Dllahr (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Obsolete means out of date, not "no longer used as an approximation". RJ was never, even at the time it was proposed, ever in agreement with reality. It was known to be wrong even at the time of proposal. The attempts to salvage it involves invoking the luminiferous aether. XOR'easter explains why further on the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the proof again of @Headbomb's dogmatic approach of ignoring all evidence. Rayleigh-Jeans has always been a useful approximation at long wavelengths. Dllahr (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @XOR'easter, Ancheta Wis, Thebiguglyalien, Andrew Lancaster as others who had similar run-ins with Freoh recently for their opinion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I'm surprised that this has made its way to ANI. What I've seen is entirely consistent with what Headbomb has described, and I've tried to explain this on Freoh's talk page. Headbomb did not mention what I think is the largest issue in these discussions though, which is that Freoh often refuses to drop the WP:STICK. All of the discussions and RfCs opened by Freoh follow a cycle of proposing fundamental changes about the approach of the article, multiple editors explaining why it's not viable, and a subsequent back-and-forth.

In addition to what Headbomb mentioned at Talk:Rayleigh–Jeans law, Talk:Science, and Talk:Constitution of the United States (where according to Xtools, Freoh has written 87,455 bytes, almost entirely on a single WP:1AM issue over the last four months), this has also happened at Talk:James Madison, Talk:Civilization, and Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the exception of Rayleigh-Jeans law, all of these also have a strong WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS component to them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

1. His project is WP:countering systemic bias, according to a participant list.
2. The encyclopedia is so big that it can harbor editor groups with all these points of view. So he doesn't have to "poke the bear", he can "live and let live" / ... Sorry that it got to be too much.
3. I think we handled Talk:science by getting to a meaningful dialog on his talk page that we could agree on, and he stopped. --

Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh isn't doing anything that couldn't simply be ignored by editors who don't want to engage with them. Headbomb gave them a warning for edit warring on Rayleigh-Jeans law, but they only have one single revert in the history for that page, and two edits total spaced out over a week. Their insistence on documentation for that category could be a little nitpicky, but could also be seen as an attempt to facilitate an agreement between Headbomb and the other editor. There's no behaviour here that requires intervention. Larataguera (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Larataguera: we sadly can't ignore it, because this behaviour occurs across the board on Science, on Raileigh Jeans Law, and elsewhere. That "only" two reverts happened on that page is immaterial. What matters is that discussion is impossible with them because they read words differently than everyone else, then revert consensus when they've agreed to it. And that's on top of the other behaviour highlighted like accusing people of espousing white supremacist views when they say the ancient Greeks has an important role to play in the history of science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Not eager to dip my toe into the ANI waters, but... I'm a bit baffled as to why the text already in the article didn't count as cited sentence[s] to this effect, and why Freoh reverted the re-addition of the category while pointing to a guideline that says the correct course of action is to add the {{unreferenced category}} template. I'm significantly more baffled by the remarks from earlier this month to the effect that it's racist/white supremacist to say that the ancient Greeks were important for the history of science [1]. XOR'easter (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I was pinged here, and like User:Ancheta Wis I was part of some awkward, and needlessly long, discussions involving the history of science. I can not speak for other articles but the descriptions sound familiar. Sometimes Freoh seems to refuse to get the points being made by others on talk pages. On the other hand, I am not sure why this level of talk page awkwardness by a new editor would deserve an ANI discussion? If it is just for collecting feedback to help Freoh get perspective then I am OK with that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the very long discussion at Talk:Science. And it does seem like it took Freoh way too long to finally "drop the stick". But as long as the behaviour is confined to talk pages, other editors (as pointed out by Larataguera above) can simply choose to not engage. Paul August ☎ 16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Paul August: He appears to also be tag bombing articles and reverting BRD notices while editing main pages, as he did with Dhtwiki on the James Madison article for several weeks. Binkster, in his comments below here seems to be stating that this has been the long-term edit conduct of Freoh in his edit history. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that this is a misunderstanding, Headbomb, and I wish that you would assume good faith and try to reach a consensus rather than edit warring and taking this to WP:AN/I and WP:RFPP. I do not think that the text currently in the article supports the idea that this law is obsolete, only that Planck's law is more accurate. (As Dllahr pointed out, these are not the same thing.) I do not understand why you are so opposed to clarifying this point, and you might benefit from reading the advice for hotheads.      — Freoh 18:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"this is a misunderstanding"

Then please to explain why you reverted the addition of the category because it was 'unsourced' after you explicitly agreed that XOR'easter's source was appropriate and that you would not object to the category being restored.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As I have previously explained at the article talk page and my talk page, a citation in the talk page is insufficient for verifiability, and I said that I would not object to the category being restored along with a cited sentence.      — Freoh 20:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh tagging a category as needing a citation is a little odd. Categories can be wrong but category discussions need to be approached a different way. Decisions about how we structure and make Wikipedia itself are not subject to those rules in any simple way. Please do take notice of the concerns being raised. The line you could cross here would be if these types of interventions start to make it literally difficult for other editors to keep editing. It is important that in your interactions with other editors you should show that you are trying to understand them and work with them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not just add whatever sentence you wanted yourself? I'd like to understand, but I'm at a loss here. XOR'easter (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Then perhaps, we might "Seek first to understand, then to be understood"— This is an invitation for some of us to go to the problem page to perhaps work things out? OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, per WP:CATV Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition. It is entirely sufficient to establish things on the talk page, so long as the article gives an indication as to why a category might be there. The article clearly explains that RJ was supplanted by Planck in 1900s, which is plenty sufficient to support the addition of the category (on top of the existing refs which support the same). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

At the time, I chose to tag and remove the unsupported content because I thought that it would have taken more of my time to figure out where and how to describe the obsolescence. In retrospect, it would have taken less time to just write the material.      — Freoh 02:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The list of users who are arguably involved in some way with the Freoh situation, as Thebiguglyalien points out, spans far more individuals and articles than have been included and notified here, and with that in mind I think this ANI report may be premature and of too limited scope. Of respected editors, Doug_Weller immediately comes to mind and commented on this on Headbomb's talk page.

I find Freoh to be quite confrontational (e.g. with the spamming of veiled links to WP:DISRUPT against everyone they disagree with) and to themselves be a situation of probably something along the lines of WP:PUSH. The user, to be honest, seems to openly have contempt for anything to do with "white men" and feels like merely using that label is a sound argument against inclusion (e.g. the ancient greeks were white men, so their contributions to science should ipso facto be downplayed).

That said, it would be very easy to say that Freoh is bringing needed balance to articles that do suffer from institutional bias. It's the approach that's the problem. Freoh seems to be very WP:IDHT and WP:STICK and to continue plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others. Even when I partially agree with them, and offer some middle ground compromises, they do not seem to understand how to take advantage of that or collaborate.

I think Freoh is more of a wait and see situation, and where one should compile a list over time of examples of behavioral problems for a single comprehensive ANI report that covers all these articles and behaviors. Maybe Freoh will learn how to be a good wikipedian, or maybe their personality and approach are just unfit for this place, but I think it is too early to say - or at any rate, it would need much more thorough documentation and wider input than this report is going to get, which is actually counterproductive in getting Freoh dealt with. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• After reading Freoh's talk page I'm starting to wonder if this is an editor we can work with. That's not the talk page of someone who's here to work together in a collaborative environment. It's the talk page of someone who knows Wikipedia is wrong and is here to fix the great wrongs. Someone who has a lot of confidence in their own judgment and not much in anyone else's. They're attracted to fraught topic areas and they want to make big changes. Collaborating with this one is going to be a challenging and time consuming exercise.—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  @DIYeditor@S Marshall Agreed. As I said at Headbomb's talk page, there's clearly a problem that I doubt will go away soon. It looks as though this will need a more comprehensive report than this. I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that as I'm trying to devote my time now mainly to writing. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: I hope you are paying attention to all this, especially to what DIYeditor and S Marshall are saying. I think you are intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-meaning, and so have the potential to make a significant contribution to the encyclopedia. But not the way you are going about it now. Paul August ☎ 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain why you characterize my behavior as plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others? I have listened to the concerns of other editors and made plenty of compromises. Looking just at the conversation in Talk:Constitution of the United States about how to discuss the People:

• I listened to Allreet when they opposed my use of footnotes to clarify who the People were, so I made a new proposal that avoided footnotes.
• I listened to ONUnicorn when they pointed out that I was blurring the lines between the people who wrote the Constitution, the people who ratified it, and the people who voted for delegates, so I made a new proposal that was less ambiguous.
• I listened to Dhtwiki when they complained about my attempts to address length concerns within an RfC with a different focus, so I made a new proposal that I thought was in the spirit of their proposal while addressing ONUnicorn's concerns.
• I listened to you, DIYeditor, when you recommended that I include an in-text attribution for a widely-agreed-upon estimate of the support for constitutional ratification, so I edited the proposal to include an in-text attribution.
• I listened to you again when you suggested that I expand my in-text attribution to name one of the historians who has made that estimate, so I made a new proposal that named Forrest McDonald in particular.
• I listened to BogLogs when they argued that it would be misleading to cite the percentage in favor of ratification without citing the percentage opposed, so I made another proposal that cited instead the total percentage.
• I listened to Gwillhickers when he argued against making a vague reference to the people as a whole, so I made an edit that avoided the issue by cutting out the disputed content.
• I listened to Randy Kryn when he wanted the Preamble section to mention Gouverneur Morris, so I made another edit that kept the reference to Morris while again removing the disputed content.

This conversation has gone on so long because of my substantial response or reaction to others, and I feel like I am one of the few people who is trying to compromise rather than status quo stonewalling. I know that I am in a minority among editors, but I have been taking the opinions of others into consideration when trying to reach a consensus, and I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong.      — Freoh 13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Because you lost all of those discussions, there was no need for any deletions, and yet you keep going and going and going into thousands of words of discussions not realizing that editors are volunteers and not paid to be here or bots. You've been told this many times by many editors on many talk pages, that you seem to have no idea when to stop beating the horse. You removed most of the Preamble section, I reverted, and then you removed it again and someone else reverted - at that point WP:LETTINGITBE probably works. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. Yes, I can see that. My main advice to you is to go a lot slower and be a lot more succinct. And absolutely do not go within 100 miles of anything touching on post-1932 US politics under any circumstances whatsoever, but I'd say that to anyone.—S Marshall T/C 13:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Please, hopefully nobody requests an indef ban, or even a topic ban just yet, this editor is going to be a very good one once he stops beating the dead horses into submission and maybe stops bragging on his use page about negative reactions to his disruptions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Since I received a ping from Freoh I'll respond. To get a definitive idea of the nature of Freoh's on going involvements all one need do is look at the the failed RfC on the U.S. Constitution Talk page which he initiated, starting on 2 February 2023 and continuing to 11 March 2023. During that RfC he introduced three other proposals on top of the one initiated under discussion, and in the process some 42 browser pages of talk ensued in an apparent attempt to obscure the discussion, and ward off any newcomers to the discussion. I would not be surprised if some sort of block was imposed, but he should at least get a stiff warning, that is, if he promises to stop flooding the discussions with endless argumentative talk first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Pinged to comment here by Randy Kryn. After reading through the last six months of Freoh's edits, then there appear to be some comments to make. Freoh seems to have made a hobby of Quantum computing, which is a timely subject, and sysops editors have apparently been pleased to have him edit the Quantum computers articles and to give him something like a 'pass' for his tag bombing and multiple reverts on other pages not dealing with Quantum computing as a type of courtesy. A closer look at Freoh's edits other than Quantum computers seems to show him as repeatedly presenting himself as a SJW for the various causes which he considers to be his own, and then to spend hours, days, and even weeks grinding down other editors who might not agree with his SJW opinions. One example which literally went on for weeks and weeks was his interaction with Dhtwiki on the Talk page for James Madison where Freoh was tag bombing the article and making revert edits against several editors, which Freoh was making against BRD on the James Madison page. At the end of weeks and weeks of interaction with Dhtwiki, the peer review nomination which was in progress for Madison at that time was fully derailed and failed. And Freoh as SJW was able to prevail over Dhtwiki for his own purposes, with regards to edits unrelated to his hobby in Quantum computers. Supporting Randy Kryn on his report here regarding Freoh's edit conduct issues made above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  "SJW" is not a good argument against Freoh any more than their "white men" argument holds water as a reason to diminish or remove something from an article. These need to be framed in an appropriate Wikipedia behavior and Wikipedia content fashion. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and that cuts both ways. Feeling that their calling is to address "institutional bias" or whatever is not a reason to block Freoh from editing. In fact, many would say it's a needed role on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Gaslighting continued

Actually, ErnestKrause's comment is right to the point, as from what I've seen in a number of cases Freoh has exhibited SJW behavior in several ways, esp when, on the Talk page, he referred to the atomic bombings in WWii Japan, which ended the war, as a "terrorist attack", a fringe POV that none of the sources resort to. Also, your statement that Freoh's activity is needed to correct "institutional bias" presents its own acute bias, and only encourages this editor to continue with this behavior. In any event, I agree that WP should not be used as a battleground, and this is indeed why this ANI involving Freoh is occurring, as explained by numerous editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

At the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Freoh changed the infobox template from "military conflict" (which it had been since 2010 when I put it in) to "civilian attack". Freoh was reverted and started a talk page discussion which attracted strong opposition to Freoh's suggested change. Nevertheless, Freoh tendentiously changed it back, asserting a consensus: "I've seen a few talk page comments in favor of this infobox proposal, and none opposed". That's the kind of falsehood others have been complaining about, and it makes me think Freoh is not able to collaborate at all. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's good to identify behaviors that indicate WP:CPUSH, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or WP:ADVOCACY issues. It's not good to label an editor in what appears to be a derogatory manner. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable using the third person, so I'll be direct. Freoh, responding to others is not the same as listening to what they have to say. Above, you gave examples of your willingness to make compromises. Certain things, however, do not lend themselves to compromise: specifically, the fact that Wikipedia's focus is determined by the prevailing view, meaning what most mainstream sources have to say. I've pointed this out several times, in several different ways, and I'm certain you haven't listened; otherwise, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. And to be even clearer: You say you listened to what I said about footnotes, yet changing them to text wasn't a compromise, just another tact, since the message and its effect were essentially the same. Allreet (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It gets back to the ability to collaborate. Freoh doesn't really seem to understand how to work with others and this I think gets into CIR territory, but it premature to claim such here in ANI. I'm not sure what the respondents here want done about Freoh. A warning? For what exactly? Let's move on to either in depth evidence supporting some stronger action, or wording on a "warning", or just drop this, because I don't think we are going anywhere. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The comment from Binkster directly above just stated that the long term harsh edit conduct of Freoh is described as: "That's the kind of falsehood others have been complaining about, and it makes me think Freoh is not able to collaborate at all." ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A warning? For what exactly?  ( ? ! )  Numerous editors have said essentially the same thing and have provided detailed examples involving a lot of time and articles, and thus far there hasn't even been an acknowledgment from Freoh that there's an issue, other than, I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: Tens of thousands of words, literally hundreds of hours, have been wasted over the past three and a half months on issues you've raised that have little to no basis. Here are a few detailed examples:

• I just pointed out that Georgia and South Carolina relied heavily on slavery..., and you contended this amounted to ambiguous synecdoche. Clearly, you don't understand the guidelines related to the term. The states and their governments are synonymous in this context, and we don't need to distinguish one from the other.
• In illustrating a point about vagueness, I cited a passage from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you said you wouldn't be opposed to some of this information, meaning you would oppose other parts. That puts you at odds with Joseph Ellis, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who oversees the encyclopedia's articles on the Constitution.
• You contended we should be presenting a global perspective on the Constitution. Aside from a minor tweak, I have no idea what that might mean, but I do know we're accurately reporting the viewpoints of leading historians.
• Most scholars generally concur with Yale historian Akhil Reed Amar that in the late 1780s the Constitution was "the most democratic deed the world had ever seen" (America's Constitution: A Biography, page 5), as exemplified by the Preamble's opening words We the People. Yet you've called our section on the Preamble and its emphasis on this phrase vague and misleading, even though what we've stated is consistent with the mainstream view.
• We just concluded a five-week RfC where S Marshall ruled no changes should be made to the Constitution article without first seeking a consensus. Despite the finding, you deleted a full paragraph in the Preamble section a couple days ago. While your deletion has since been reverted, you continue to argue that your edit was justified.

What I see here is a combination of incompetence—a lack of understanding of WP's guidelines, values, and methods—and an unwillingness to heed what others tell you about them. Perhaps a formal warning will make this clear to you. If not, then IMO a topic ban should be imposed. Allreet (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Formal warning

I propose that Freoh be formally warned that they must:

1. significantly improve their collaboration
2. demonstrate an ability to adapt to Wikipedia practices, philosophies and culture (i.e. behave like other people here)
3. drop the WP:STICK and not plow ahead when a discussion has gone against them, or perpetually prolong discussions that have gained no traction with other editors
4. not try to concoct "consensus" from thin air on the premise that it is not a vote to use as a pretext for unilateral action on an article
5. understand that Wikipedia reflects only prevailing scholarly consensus and not WP:TRUTH or what is right
6. tone down this aggressive piped linking of Wikipedia: space policies/guideliens/essays in disagreements with other editors until Freoh gains more experience and understanding themself

and that if this warning is not heeded, a narrowly construed topic ban from history, human civilization, politics, government and science be put in place. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support the general outline. Allreet (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Its not clear what you are supporting since Freoh appears to have already stated above that: " I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong." Freoh has not acknowledged a single comments made in this list and I'm not sure what your support means given his comment. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment the general outline. That list of your six items above is, after reading it again, really a very strong criticism of Freoh and his edit disruptions over months and months; I mean that if another editor where accused of even half of those disruptions then everyone would be talking about a possible block of an editor like Freoh for a day, or a week, or even a month. I'm not for being excessive on this, but your 6 point criticism of Freoh really portrays him as being somewhat extreme in his disruptions of Wikipedia over the last several months. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  For that matter, there could've been a 7. avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and insinuations that other editors may have heinous beliefs, or something like that, or even more items. It can be difficult to precisely define what the problems have been.

  I do think some acknowledgement of the issues and this warning would be appropriate, but I don't think it would be necessary to have any duration of block given such acknowledgement, even a brief acknowledgement. Not everyone "gets" Wikipedia right away. To me it's better to say "stop this general behavior, or it will be a longer topic ban, or block" than to shut out a new user right off the bat. I'm not sure what purpose a brief block would serve other than punitive. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support — Actually, the six items are points of good advice, not criticisms, given the endless arguing, (which is still in progress in at least two articles) reckless handling of an RfC he initiated, tag bombing and often times, multiple reverts (still in progress). And yes, this involves many articles over months and months indeed, and in some cases with obvious SJW behavior, in spite of his subtle attempts to dress this up as simple discussion, all of which makes his activity on the extreme side, though, albeit, I've seen worse behavior. In any case, we are still not seeing any acknowledgement from this editor, so I'm inclined to go for a topic ban, at least on American history articles, but no more than 30 days, this time.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I (and Thebiguglyalien) mentioned above, I don't think it is constructive or appropriate to use labels such as "SJW" which is pejorative. There are many good editors who are sympathetic to "social justice" political views and who would no doubt like to see what they believe to be bias in major articles addressed. I think we should phrase this instead as WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

SJW, which there is a WP article to which you linked, can be either pejorative or complimentary, as the case may be, and the way it has been used here was a reference to behavior, as are BATTLEGROUND and ADVOCACY behavior, – not exactly name calling inasmuch as terms like Liar or Thief. In any case, I will desist from using the term, which I didn't even know existed until someone else introduced it here, so as not to futher side-track attention away from the issue here at ANI. Just for the record, "Social justice" is a two way street. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Does this canvassing look like it might be trolling [2] or something? Hard to tell what the point of all of it would be. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Freoh's edit conduct with Dhtwiki on the James Madison page (which was just linked by DIYeditor) was very odd from before, which suggests that your concern for that canvassing should be examined. Also, it should be noted that Freoh appears to be ignoring the very generous offer made by DIYeditor above and appears to have no interest in the comments made by DIYeditor; its a large difference if Freoh acknowledges the issues which DIYeditor has raised or if he ignores them. If he ignores them, then something may need to be done in addition to a low-level courtesy warning as stated by DIYeditor. Its possible that Freoh has already calculated that he will be given something like a 'free pass' by sysops on this ANI because Freoh may think that his hobby of editing Wikipedia articles about "Quantum computing" are highly valued by sysops at this time. Its different if Freoh acknowledges the issues raised by DIYeditor, than if he continues to ignore them without acknowledgment. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support It is clear that Freoh has irreconcilable WP:IDHT behavior issues in several topic areas. I am still concerned that the scope of this proposal is still excessively broad — since most of the science-related disruptive behavior is specific to human history, the term science should probably be dropped at the end. Also, since all of their problematic behavior involves discussions related to article sourcing or analysis of sources w.r.t. the article topic, a better alternative would be to ban Freoh from participating in discussions related to third-party sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Upon further review of the US Constitution talk page, I am convinced that the topic ban from American politics and history is still needed, since at least the earlier comments are primarily about NPOV and show that Freoh has a strong left-wing bias on this topic. Nowhere is this as self-evident as in the edit that started the round of discussion, where they amended wording in the article to refer to wealthy elites and to imperial subjects [of the United States] as a term for the insular areas, and asserted that the Preamble to the US Constitution pretends that the [United States] government stands for everyone. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I was initially content with a warning, because everyone deserves a second chance. Based on the lame defense Freoh has just offered and the behavior noted below regarding the Constitution article (see my comments and Gwillhickers's), I agree with you that a ban is justified. Allreet (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Response. I am aware that I am often in the minority among Wikipedia editors, but the personal attacks here are disappointing. Most of these conflicts have been my attempts to uphold Wikipedia's second and third pillars. The dispute at Talk:Constitution of the United States is my attempt to make the article more neutral by avoiding stating opinions as facts, especially those with widespread disagreement. The dispute at Talk:Rayleigh–Jeans law was my attempt to ensure that Dllahr (a relative newcomer) feels that their voice is heard in the face of passive aggression from experienced editors unwilling to engage in a reasonable discussion. I am sorry that this rubs some of you the wrong way, but I assure you that I am acting in good faith, and I assume that the same is true of all of you. I agree with DIYeditor that these disputes are not battles for anyone to win, and we are all ultimately here on the same team. With that in mind, I will respond to each of your demands.
  1. I am still learning the best ways to collaborate, but feel free to leave a message on my talk page. A few concrete points:
     • I see now that I have upset some people with my use of contentious labels within talk pages. I will try to avoid these in the future.
     • There have been a couple times when someone removed a cleanup template I had added, and my response was to then remove the tagged content. I have learned my lesson, and in the future I will instead re-add the tag and discuss these issues in the talk page.
     • I see that some of my comments have been unclear and at first glance contradictory, leading to the gaslighting charge. I will work on phrasing problems more clearly.
  2. The other people here have called me names, tried to drive me away, and repeatedly re-added disputed material without consensus [3] [4]. I do not and will not emulate this behavior. If you have other suggestions, please leave a message at my talk page.
  3. It is not my goal to perpetually prolong discussions. I usually make it clear exactly which changes would end the discussion, and as Larataguera said earlier, these discussions can simply be ignored by editors who don't want to engage. These conversations have dragged on for a while because I have spent a significant amount of time asking clarifying questions to understand the points of view of other editors, and then making new compromise proposals that try to address everyone's concerns. These are not subtle attempts to dress this up as simple discussion; I am honestly discussing these issues. I am getting a better sense of where my perspective differs from others', and I will take S Marshall's advice to heart and go slower and be more succinct. I will also spend more time on my responses, especially on concrete proposals rather than abstract criticisms, so that the editors I am arguing with can feel more heard. I think that these conversations might also end sooner if some of you were willing to meet me in the middle and try to understand my concerns and make your own compromise proposals.
  4. I never try to concoct "consensus" from thin air. I am aware that in many of these cases, we have not yet reached a consensus, and my edits are only attempts at reaching an edit consensus after I have better understood the concerns of other editors. I admit that I was off-base in some cases, so if you would like, I can spend more time on the D before cycling back to the B of BRD.
  5. I do understand that Wikipedia reflects only prevailing scholarly consensus. I have focused my efforts on cases where there is no clear prevailing scholarly consensus, and I have always backed this up with tier 1 sources. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, which is why I have pushed back against Allreet's vague and controversial content about how the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.
  6. Piped linking is not aggressive. If you feel that I am lacking in experience and understanding, then feel free to explain.
  7. I have made no insinuations that other editors may have heinous beliefs. It is possible to criticize the undue weight that an editor is giving to white people without calling them a white supremacist. I do not believe that Headbomb is a white supremacist, but I do believe that he may have been influenced by systemic bias. Every editor is biased (myself included), and every source is biased (mine included). LaundryPizza03, I made those edits a while ago, and I was still learning Wikipedia's neutrality policies and using wording from my sources, but I think that I have improved since then.

TL;DR: Contrary to what some of you believe, I have been trying to have real discussions about good faith disagreements, and you are welcome to advise me on my talk page. I apologize for upsetting people and for being inefficient and unclear in some of these conversations, and I will work on this.  — Freoh 19:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• This ANI is about your consistent and ongoing conduct, and now you're trying to drag in many of the same subjects you've been involved with in the apparent hope that we will forever be going over these things, yet again. e.g.Making the same claims about the Constitution, etc. This only tells us you've ignored the well thought out explanations of multiple editors who took the time to address your never ending contentions. Iow, all you've really done here, regardless of your apology and one acknowledgment, is to exemplify your WP:IDHT behavior, because you're still pushing many of the same issues all over again, only now it's in this forum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Freoh, is back at the Constitution of the United States article and has just tagged the Preamble section with another one of his POV tags, which I reverted, as he was already turned down at the RfC he initiated. So much for his apology. At this point this editor clearly needs to be topic banned from US history articles, at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Freoh, in what amounts to a non-apology apology, is blaming other editors for most everything while accepting very little personal responsibility for the situations created. Meanwhile, the recent RfC, which ruled against Freoh's proposals regarding the U.S. Constitution article, warned editors that any changes to this article would need rough consensus before they could be made. Despite this ruling, Freoh forged ahead with adding a POV tag to the article today. What's astounding is that they did so while a vote was in progress to determine whether a community consensus favored such a tag. Frankly, I'm appalled anyone would act this way in the midst of an ANI regarding their behavior, and thus I agree with Gwillhickers that a topic ban is justified. Allreet (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. This ANI is about to roll over into archive without any action taken by sysops; is the assumption that this Freoh thread may roll over into archive without any sysops action. As I mentioned earlier in response to the 6-point chart presented by DIYeditor, then if any other editor than Freoh had committed even half of the disruptions listed in that chart then a possible ban of a day, a week, or even a month would be discussed among participating editors. Pinging the last last three respondents here before the chart was added by DIYeditor for a second opinion on the appropriate level of response for either of Topic ban, Page ban, Editor block, etc.: (@Randy Kryn, Binksternet, S Marshall, and Doug Weller:). I've already stated that I'm not for being extreme on this matter, and the comments from the 3-4 previous respondents I've just pinged would be useful to hear for their own opinions and their own viewpoints. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This response is tone-deaf.

• always backed this up with tier 1 sources Tier 1 according to you, in a WP:1AM way since these sources' reliability regularly gets rejected by others, or show signs of cherry-picking/misalignment with overall scholarship (see the entire U.S. Constitution talk page). At Science, you presented six sources but seemed to misunderstand all of them, since none actually supported your claims (having the "cognitive foundations of science" does not mean practicing science, which should be obvious).
• You've accused others of edit-warring, but that is largely caused by your own behaviour. Your approach to attempts at reaching an edit consensus consist of repeatedly boldly inserting material or tags into articles (which you frame as "compromises"), forcing others to either give up and let it stay, or continue arguing with you. It's classic bludgeoning.

The fundamental problem, in these repeated WP:1AM discussions, is that we end up with that we end up with threads with 30+, 50+, sometimes 100+ comments debating your suggestions, and those suggestions wouldn't even improve the encyclopedia or reduce systemic bias, they'd just introduce fringe or poorly sourced claims into our articles. I support the general outline. DFlhb (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the discussions at Talk:Science, Talk:Constitution of the United States, and Talk:Rayleigh–Jeans law, and in none of those was Freoh 1AM. Levivich (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see gaslighting or a chronically disruptive user. I see a new user getting essentially bullied by more experienced editors who disagree about content disputes. For example, look at the edit warring warnings on Freoh's talk page, then look at the page histories and behold how there is no edit warring. It's not inherently problematic to challenge the use of the term "obsolete" to describe an outdated scientific theory. I don't see any problem with the Constitution RFC (the points Freoh raised are legitimate, per RS, and I agree they should be addressed in the article, although the problem is how). I don't see a problem with suggesting that the US' nuking of two cities in WWII were attacks on civilians, not military targets, and even the suggestion that they be described as state terrorism is reasonable, and supported by some RSes. (It's not the mainstream view, but it's not fringe, either.) I'd change my mind if someone showed diffs of actual edit warring, or misrepresenting sources, or personal attacks, etc. Maybe there's something more I'm missing here, but so far all I see is disagreement, and disagreement is not disruptive. And I certainly don't see any "gaslighting" by Freoh at all (that accusation seems like an aspersion to me). Levivich (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Freoh is not a new user, although their present account is fairly new. See their talk page for mention of a vanishing of a previous account (for similar reasons as are complained about here?). That makes sense, since they have a knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that is rather extraordinary for a new user. Gaslighting didn't seem as right to me as does Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in terms of categorizing Freoh's actions. If you are looking at only the RfC at Constitution of the United States, then you might look at earlier discussions with me where Freoh's persistence in wanting to make changes without consensus developing was pretty much the equivalent of edit warring, if not in actual fact. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Taking into account all the evidence I see here, I do not feel that Freoh's behaviour has risen to the level where a logged warning would be needful.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  

• Pinging involved editors:   @Levivich, Marshall, ErnestKrause, Allreet, Randy Kryn, Dhtwiki, LaundryPizza03, Thebiguglyalien, Headbomb, and Thebiguglyalien:
  @Hawkeye7: additional ping.
  — Levivich, multiple editors have said basically the same thing about Freoh's conduct, (habitual use of tagging, reverts with WP:IDHT and lengthy, repetitious and endless talk that has gone on for many weeks - and to lump all the involved editors together as a bunch of "bullies", simply picking on a new user, is not a very fair characterization of these editors.
  Just for the record, no one denies that mostly civilians died during the bombing, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military industrial cities, turning out weapons of war on a massive scale, where most of the weapons testing was conducted, all of which were engineered and manufactured by "civilians", and which would have extended the war indefinitely, costing more lives than were lost during the bombing. Freoh, who referred to the bombings as a "terrorist attack", wishes to focus on civilians, i.e.Civil POV pushing, while he ignores these facts, and when these things were explained to him by several editors he simply refused to acknowledge the point, and continued with lengthy talk, i,e.gaslighting.This is just one example. On the US Constitution page, he deleted a major portion of the Preamble section Diff with very little talk and no consensus, calling it a compromise. When this text was restored, he again made the same basic major deletion, Diff, with no discussion. Again this was restored by yet another editor. During this time, he POV tagged this section three times Diff1, Diff2, Diff3. The third attempt to POV tag came after he apologized to us (see above). I'll let other editors present the diffs they were involved with if they must. This editor clearly needs at least a stiff warning, if not a topic ban on American history articles, for at least 30 days.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd personally argue for an indef ban on anything history related, very broadly construed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb: The opening sentence of your original start of this thread stated that Freoh is a new editor, but Dhtwiki is now telling us above that Freoh is not a new editor and that he had a previous account. Does this have an up or down effect on your comments about his editing practices being discussed here? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It has little effect honestly. Since this ANI thread began, they got warned twice for 3RR stuff about very much the same behaviour under discussion here. If this is a returning editor from a clean start, it does not bode well, and what little good faith we could assume goes straight out the window. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause, I believe this user has had numerous previous accounts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently Allreet and Gwillhickers were targets of Awolf's. Does this new behavior fit the pattern? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Awolf's behavior was outright vandalism, repeatedly, with different IP's, unlike Freoh's, who never targeted us specifically. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Similar behavior, similar topic areas, etc. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Perhaps an administrator can see if Freoh geolocates to the San Francisco Bay area as well? @Tamzin, you've dealt with this editor in the past. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Bgsu98. I'm rather bemused by this one. Comng into conflict with Allreet and Gw, and for that matter Randy Kryn, matches the Awolf MO, as does interest in foundational U.S. articles and broad-concept articles in general. On the other hand, interest in quantum computing is totally new AFAIK, and we're missing a lot of Awolf tells. On the third hand, I did tell Awolf a while back that if he was going to keep socking, he might as well pick a new topic and edit quietly, so maybe he's followed at least the first half of that "advice"... but I've learned a fair bit about Awolf and quantum computing really isn't the secret previously-unmentioned interest I'd expect him to have (especially since, AFAIK, he doesn't edit in the topic area he actually works in, which would seem a more logical place to quietly return). Oh and on a fourth hand, there's a significant overlap here with the GreenCows sockfarm... but on the other side ideologically. Blablubbs, do you have any thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin, I have never filed a sockpuppet report before, but if you think it's appropriate to look into, I will. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll give Blablubbs the chance to respond, since he's a CU familiar with both the Awolf and GreenCows cases. If he's unavailable, I can handle SPI. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledging that I've seen the ping. I should be able to take a look later today, and hopefully no later than tomorrow. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I'm not really seeing anything I would consider solid evidence that they're the same as Awolf, or the same as GreenCows. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, please tell me what Coming into conflict with Allreet and Gw means regarding a past editor's "MO"? I don't feel targeted, so to speak, as much as sucked into an abyss where my good faith has been taken advantage of, so some insight would be helpful for moving forward. I did look up Awolf58's past discussions and their writing tone and argumentation style are a carbon copy of Freoh's. Also note the date of the ban, August 5 2022, and the start of new account. August 12. All just coincidental? Could be, but the circumstantial evidence appears substantial enough to warrant a closer look. Allreet (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Having read through this I agree. I’m also concerned about the “clean start” issue. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm needing to go along with Dhtwiki and Doug Weller that the 'clean start' issue in a concern. Does Dhtwiki have the link which shows that Freoh has stated, using his new 'clean start' account, that he had a previous account or accounts at Wikipedia? Does Freoh state which Wikipedia articles he may have previously edited or modified at Wikipedia under the previous accounts before opening his new 'clean start' account? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The text on their talk page is: "I will say that this is not my first Wikipedia account, and I was somewhat successful on a previous account before a clean start with this one." That doesn't mean that they were blocked for disruption, especially as they freely admitted the previous account's existence. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

One would have to wonder why this editor felt it was necessary to get a fresh start in the first place. "...somewhat successful on a previous account"? Without knowing the user name of the previous account I can only assume, all the (many) things considered, it wasn't because he was well received by fellow editors -- somewhat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It could also mean that the account revealed too much personal information, among other possibilities. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Anything is possible, but probable? If he was that concerned about revealing personal information I doubt he would of put much of it out there in the first place. Very few editors use their real name, and I've never seen anyone put their address, or phone number or eMail address, place of employment, etc out there, so realistically, it was likely because he was taken to task for the same reasons a dozen or so editors have done so over this latest account. In any case, this should not weigh in on whether a topic ban is imposed. We should only use the facts to do that, and there are plenty. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe a two weeks history topic ban, 30 days is pretty steep and a couple of weeks will give all of the editors who are trying to reason together through tens of thousands of words a break for 14 days to go on about their business of improving the place (some very good sources have emerged from all of this though). There may or may not be another reverting-needing-talk-page-discussion situation shaping up at Mount Rushmore (trying to downgrade and now actually mock its alternate name "Shrine of Democracy", which is what the statue's sculptor and many others called and call it) which could use more readers, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I agree Freoh needs to be given a choice between changing their behavior to become a good Wikipedia citizen, or face the risk of getting booted. In comparison to some of these examples, the current discussion over at Talk:Civilization_(disambiguation)#Complex_and_advanced is not nearly as troublesome (being merely tedious, repetitive and unconstructive), but still - Freoh does not appear willing or able to a) heed advice and/or b) let things go. Specific points of concern include #1, #2, #6 and especially #3, in my opinion (I'm an involved party of that discussion). CapnZapp (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems timely to bring up the question of whether someone can request a sysops comment for this ANI discussion which is very near to rolling over into archive. I've previously stated that I'm not for extreme measures here, though Freoh not responding to the many editors here who have commented on his using other accounts, along with his admission to Dhtwiki of having a second account is something of a let down. This Noticeboard discussion seems to need someone from sysops to assess this; Freoh seems to be completely avoiding this Noticeboard discussion after the admission to Dhtwiki of having a second account and is currently editing the Constitution article as if nothing is taking place here. I'm rarely at this Noticeboard here and do not know if a request for sysops closing can be placed on the Noticeboard for "Closure requests" before this discussion here rolls over into archive without being assessed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh didn't admit anything *to* me. I merely gained that information by reading through their talk, and I don't want it to imply anything nefarious unless it can be undoubtedly proven to be so. I don't see Freoh as the same editor as AWolf, for example. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support at the very least, per the ongoing disruption [5] at Constitution of the United States, which this discussion appears not to have prevented. A topic ban may be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support warning, leaning toward a ban of some sort. Since my last post here, it seems that Freoh has not only declined to course correct, but has spread this disruptive behavior to other talk pages, including user talk pages. Freoh appears either unable or unwilling to address the issues with their editing, which is starting to come off as sealioning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk about it... He's actively goading me, despite me having clearly stated I'm done interacting with him until this ANI has run its course... and remember: he's wildly off-topic, and have been informed of that already. Multiple times. CapnZapp (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support some sort of formal warning. While Freoh's response here sounds reasonable and conciliatory, reading his talk page tells me that he sees what he does as a necessary corrective in spite of the fact that there's often little support from other editors (... it's exhausting to continuously argue with people who think that Euro-centrism is "mainstream" just because it's what they learned in high school....With James Madison, I was successful at drawing attention to some serious issues that prevented it from getting promoted to featured article status...). The pride in the derailing of the Madison article, in spite of little objection being raised at FAC, is probably the most egregious disruptive behavior. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Time to close this ANI?

As I said above, it seems that Freoh and Awolf are not the same editor, as the latter was involved in flagrant vandalism, repeatedly, whereas Freoh is not. However, he just POV tagged the the Preamble section in the Constitution article for the forth time, where yet another editor reverted it with a reminder that consensus was not on his side, which apparently he refuses to accept. This has been going on for some time now, keeping the article in a constant disruptive and unstable state. A week or so ago I was somewhat undecided about a topic ban and would have been satisfied with a stern warning, but that has changed, ast it seems he has no intention of complying with consensus and continues to ignore reasonable discussions from a good number of editors, and this is just one article. At this stage it would seem nothing short of a 30 day topic ban is called for, as some dozen editors have chimed in with the same basic concerns over his behavior. It seems like it's about time to close this ANI with a decision so everyone can move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe the issue of identity is now the question of the hour. It's possible, maybe likely, we're talking about two different people, but vandalism wasn't the only issue last year (see User talk:Awolf58). Freoh, if I'm wrong in my suspicions, I apologize. However, I believe it would be in your best interests and the community's to settle the issue several editors have now raised. I have no idea what the processes are, but my hope is that administrators at some level will take a look at this. As for the ANI itself, I continue to support a ban and believe it should be of sufficient length, 30 days, to make clear that your behaviors over the course of nearly four months have been at the expense of the good faith efforts of others, my own included. Allreet (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's something interesting. Back in August of 2022, Awolf created another user account with the name of GwiIIhickers, (spelled with two capital 'i' (I)) to make it appear that it read as my user name, Gwillhickers, spelled with two lower case 'l' (L) . This account was blocked indefinitely on August 12, 2022, only days before the user account of Freoh was created on August 20. Nothing conclusive, but something to consider. In any case, right now our primary concern should be aimed at closing this now belabored ANI, as it appears that Freoh is bent on slighting US history articles. As stated on his user page, his favorite article is List of common misconceptions, where the United States is the only country listed by name in its table of Contents, and where the Christianity section is the longest, by far, of any other religion covered.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This noticeboard discussion is about to be archived and is the next in line to be archived currently without a closing comment. Although I've previously said that a close should not be extreme, Freoh's not answering any of the questions about his 'new account' as mentioned by Dhtwiki has been a let down. Has anyone placed a request on the noticeboard for "Closure requests" to try to get more eyes on this discussion, or maybe someone could list an "administrator help" here on this page. This noticeboard discussion is next in line to be rolled over into archive and seems to be in some need of some closing comment. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:John Cummings

I highly respect User:John Cummings's contributions to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Foundation, also as Wikipedian in Residence at UNESCO), but I'm worried about some of their contributions highly suspect that they're doing some WP:COI edits without any proper discloure. On contacting them, they have refused that clearly which is okay, but they are autopatrolled and that helps them avoid scruitny especially when they create spam page like QWSTION and its product Bananatex, Piñatex, [6], and many others. I'd leave it to the community how they would like to go with this case, but at least we should remove autopatrolled rights (not meeting guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, properly - visible on their creation Geeetech), so that an independent editor gets a chance to review their new article creations. Thanks! US-Verified (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @US-Verified: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Notification was hidden in a slew of other notifications, and for that I apologise. (Amended 01:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I did that. US-Verified (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

[Disclosure: I know John Cummings, having met him at editathons, Wikimedia UK AGMs, and Wikimanias]

This is an egregious failure to AGF; with none of the claimed respect on show. No diffs have been provided, and no evidence of malfeasance. US-Verified appears to have nominated a great number of John's article creations for deletion, on spurious grounds. For example, Geeetech is described as "Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT. This page is clearly a marketing piece..." and is garnering delete !votes on that basis; again, no evidence of the claimed COI is provided, and no evidence that the page is "a marketing piece". US-Verified also tagged the article with {{COI}}, again with no evidence; and without starting the required discussion on the talk page. This all occurred after John had stated in reply to US-Verified on his (Johns) talk page that he has no COI in the article and asking US-Verified to provide evidence for his unsubstantiated allegation there that John had "not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements". US-Verified did not reply. Furthermore, US-Verified had earlier `removed all the photographs from the article, describing them, falsely, as " complete spam". This kind of hounding of a good-faith editor and positive contributor is not acceptable. Administrative action is required to prevent its continuance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• @US-Verified: You have yet to provide any evidence of a conflict of interest or that he has an undeclared financial incentive. Making unsubstantiated allegations is a personal attack and potentially blockable. Please substantiate your claims or strike them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I do find it highly concerning that an autopatrolled and Foundation-affiliated editor would dump this into mainspace. How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure. The sourcing is not great (largely press releases and non-independent coverage). Or why are we including text like The Simple-Strap system allows bags to be used in multiple ways e.g. from tote bag to shoulder bag to a backpack, it is used on the Shopper, Zipshopper, Day Tote, Tote and Small Tote. or QWSTION bags have multiple carrying options, for example the Office Bag can be carried horizontally, or as a shoulder bag or as a backpack. (with an image demonstrating the use to boot) or QWSTION doesn't follow the seasonal fashion calendar, they iterate on existing products, rather than creating new ones.. This reads like a toned-down PR/advertising piece. If warmed-over WP:CORPSPAM is what Cummings normally contributes, then autopatrolled needs yanked. Hog Farm _Talk 19:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure." The same way it isn't on our many pages about motor vehicles, or aircraft, or video games consoles, or... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It's one thing to include pictures of car makes for say, Ford Focus, to illustrate what the thing looks like, or to have a picture of a book cover so you know what the book looks like. It's another to include a picture of every.damn.product a borderline non-notable organization offers. It crosses the line and becomes problematic when we have content about how wonderful a satchel is that it can be worn/carried in many ways, and then demonstrate the many ways of carrying with images (provided by the company, to boot), of handbag models carrying the thing around in different ways. The article as Cummings left it was little better than a sales brochure. Hog Farm _Talk 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Such conetnt issues should be discussed on the article's talk page; no evidnce has been provided of a pattern of problematic editing worthy of adminstrative action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're being real, if QWSTION were created by a new user, I suspect it would pretty quickly be draftified, stubified, or possibly tagged for G11. It's promotional for reasons Hog Farm explains. But while being a long-time good faith contributor doesn't make you exempt from WP:PROMO, it should buy a modicum of AGF and collaboration. Instead, US-Verified went in hot with assumptions of bad faith. It looks like before any edits to any of John's articles or any communication with John (that I can see), they just assumed bad faith that Geeetech was Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT, and continued to bang the COI drum without furnishing any evidence. The article does look like the person created it has a COI, but there's a difference between saying an article looks that way and making an accusation even after it was denied by someone who we have no reason to disbelieve (and, to the contrary, every reason to believe). Then, without any non-template messages to John that I can see, and without any talk page comments on any of the articles, US-Verified went through John's creations and nominated a slew for deletion. If they were all for promotional reasons, I'd understand, but the next link I clicked was Fidelity Communications, which is largely critical of the subject. It seems to just be WP:HOUNDING at this point. For something like QWSTION, it seems like a good first step would be "hey this is looking pretty promotional, could you take another pass?" YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I've now read WP:HOUNDING and would not interact with them in any sense that gives such impression. My only intention was to bring it to the community's notice. I appreciate what they do and won't disturb them in future in any sense, if the community decides that their work is not problematic. US-Verified (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've put an asterisk on "I won't hound him" with if the community decides that their work is not problematic. IMO you've alerted enough people here; leave it to someone else to take action if necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the autopatrolled right is not appropriate for an editor creating this kind of content. If you showed me the QWSTION revision linked above without any further context, I wouldn't hesitate to assume it was thinly veiled advertising. I don't think US-Verified is unjustified in expressing a suspicion of a COI just based on the content of the articles they linked above (though some of their other comments elsewhere, like describing some of John's contributions as "spam", go too far in concluding bad faith). Colin M (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. I've now read WP:AGF completely (and now aware how this works), so would comply with it strictly. Also, I've striked my comments which were not per WP:AGF. Hope this helps. US-Verified (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. And for what it's worth, it's entirely possible to create poor or problematic articles without having an ulterior motive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your comments. General observation: User:John Cummings created QWSTION on 20:52, 14 April 2022‎ and then on the same day they uploaded more than a dozen product photos to Wikimedia Commons (diff: [7]) and then they were verified by VRT member. Like this photo: it shows that the souce and author of this photo is QWSTION - the company under discussion. Is this normal? In my opinion, this suggests that there was some sort contact with the company and then their representative emailed to VRT team (so as part of the process, it was verified by VRT and released under creative commons license). The same is true for Geeetech, created on 13:26, 30 August 2018‎ (diff [8]), it was tagged (notablity) by @Deb: (diff:[9]), removed by User:John Cummings on 3 September 2018 (diff:[10]). Photos were added by them a day later (diff:[11]). Now, also note that these photos were uploaded by User:John Cummings, like in the case of QWSTION, and then were verified by VRT member after an email was received from Geeetech (as they were the owner of these photos), like [12]. I will share some more diffs as I find some time this weekend. Thank you all. US-Verified (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Milo Edwards, created by User:John Cummings on 6 February 2022 (diff: [13]), a photo was posted earlier, i.e. 27 January 2022 (diff: [14]) when User:John Cummings/Articles/Milo was created. Re Autopatrolled: Mahdi Gilbert, Stephen Clarke (archaeologist) (and the organization: Monmouth Archaeological Society) were created by them, but I failed to find any siginifcant coverage about these topics. US-Verified (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is this normal? It's sometimes true that paid editors or people with a COI get photos submitted through VRT, but that requires a level of wiki knowledge that [most, I'd say] people here for promotion don't bother to learn. They'd probably be more likely to just upload the file without thinking about Commons licensing processes. On the other hand, many of us have, upon writing an article, decided to reach out to the subject for images. I've done this a number of times. More often than not they just say no, get confused, or don't reply, but once in a while you find someone happy to oblige. The first one that comes to my mind is Pocket FM. I had no connection with the company when I wrote that. I think I'd just heard a radio story about it, and now we have a bunch of relevant photos. Realistically, if the person in charge of PR/marketing/whatever is savvy these days, they should be happy to oblige when someone wants to write about you on Wikipedia. None of this is to say I agree with the use of images in e.g. the QWSTION article, but to answer your question "is this normal?", I'd say "fairly normal". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  As you said, On the other hand, many of us have, upon writing an article, decided to reach out to the subject for images. This fits well in your case. You created the article on Pocket FM on 14:12, 20 January 2016 (diff: [15]) and then decided to reach out. A donated photo was uploaded by you on 25 January 2016 (diff: [16]) that means it took around five days which is reasonable. Now, take a look at the case already mentioned. QWSTION was created by them on 20:52, 14 April 2022‎ and but they started uploading photos on Wikimedia Commons before that. Around four photos were uploaded by them (exactly on 19:41, 14 April 2022) before the article creation. The photos uploaded are: 1) [17] (Text: Freunde von Freunden Qwstion Company Profile Zurich) 2) [18] (Text: "QWSTION holdall design process") 3) [19] (Text: "QWSTION minimal collection cutting pattern"), 4) [20]. All uploads on that day [21]. This is not normal. How can they be so sure — by uploading them earlier than the article creation itself — that the company will donate these photos, if they create an article — not one article, but two articles, other one is about the company's product — about them. Also, this odd editing pattern is only visible on a few articles only. Your example of a new user above makes more sense. Anyways, the community deserves a satisfactory answer from them. Let's wait for their response on this. US-Verified (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have a vague memory of tagging one of John's articles, but I also recall that I discussed it with him and explained that he needed to make a reasonable claim of notability, which the article at that time didn't do. I believe he made the necessary changes before he removed the tag. That's all I can say. Deb (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  So the sum total of your evidence for accusing - a very serious accusation - John of COI and undeclared paid editing is a hunch based on the fact that he followoed the correct and advertised process fror getting an artcile subject to provide clearence for the use of their images? It's a pitty many more editors do not take the time and trouble to do that. Do you not realise the chilling behaviour your inappropriate action can have on other good-faith volunteers who may be considerng cnotrbition to our project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nope. If you go through this discussion, then you will find multiple editors who concur with me (partially maybe). If we post any of above mentioned articles on WP:COIN (blind test - not possible though), then you find it clearer. WP:COI issue is not addressed yet - merely rejecting it is not enough. I'll expand on my rationale as I said above. US-Verified (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  You've posted evidence that John has created some problematic articles on potentially non-notable subjects but that is not, in itself, evidence of a conflict of interest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not one single editor has agreed with you that there is a "COI issue". There is no COI issue to address, because you have provided not one scintilla of evidence of COI. And yet you still keep casting unfounded aspersions. This needs to stop, or be stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)~

With no comment on this specific example, it might be a good general principle to have autopatrolled removed from paid editors, including Wikimedians in Residence. It's useful to have that second pair of eyes regarding COI. CMD (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It really would not, for a number of very good reasons, but that's orthagonal to the issue at hand. In none of the articles under discussion was John paid, nor acting as a WiR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's orthogonal. No, a number of unexplained reasons is not convincing for a very rare user perk. CMD (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more from John (and less from Andy) about John's connection with the article subject, if any. I disagree with Harry; an editor creating a WP:PROMO page about a company does, in and of itself, raise reasonable questions about WP:COI, and this looks like a product advertisement. I don't think I've seen a Wikipedia article that looks so much like a brochure before. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: for a new editor or one who has only shown an interest in a narrow range of topics, sure. John has ~17k edits to a variety of subjects. Looking at his last few hundred, it looks like he writes/edits about subjects he sees elsewhere (like the news or a social media feed or in the street) but without the deep knowledge of encyclopaedic writing and notability requirements. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Instead of asking OP to strike, we should be thanking them for bringing this important matter to our attention. Levivich (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this alleged conflict of interest, but there seems to be some original research going on here. For example, take a look at this diff of Manila hemp that adds a step-by-step description of the manufacturing process (the same material is also present at Bananatex and Abacá). Four citations are given: [22] [23] [24] [25] (I've fixed the last link, which was incorrect in the article). There is also this YouTube video embedded in the last two sources. As far as I can tell, none of these citations except the first one describe the manufacturing process in any detail (and the first source only supports the first ~6 images in our gallery). The YouTube video does briefly mention turning the fibers into paper and then into yarn, but it does not give a description as detailed as that given in our article. Am I missing something?

Also (and this is just something I happened to notice), so far three separate users have added the {{advert}} tag to QWSTION, which is not really a good look. Shells-shells (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• The QWSTION diff is really bad. That revision potentially qualifies for G11, and shows a major misunderstanding of what our articles are supposed to look like (too many images), what tone to use for our articles (absolutely should not be hyping up a company/product), and what sources to use for articles (use of neutral sources would probably have avoided the tone problems). The Bananatex diff seems to violate WP:NOTHOWTO. In this user's defense, they haven't created any articles this year, and they have created a lot of species articles (which benefit from autopatrol) in the past. Overall, I'd lean towards removing autopatrol because of the QWSTION diff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've pulled autopatrolled. COI or not, this is blatant spam that would disqualify any other editor from that user right. – Joe (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Good move and having no autopatrol is no big deal. Just means that their new articles will get a second set of eyes. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Good call. Autopatrolled is really the only "user right" that we have that having it or not changes nothing about your own editing, it just manages review queues. Sending this editors pages through NFPP seems a reasonable choice for now. Courcelles (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I had almost pulled it myself earlier, but decided to wait to see how this discussion went. Hog Farm _Talk 15:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The question of whether or not we can determine a COI is somewhat irrelevant. Any editor creating blatant advertisements and spammy pages, as Cummings is doing, is in violation of our policies, whether he was paid to do it, or whether he has any connection besides he thought it was interesting. Frankly, the idea that US-Verified should be sanctioned for failing to assume good faith when the most obvious possibility here is an undeclared COI is ridiculous and smacks of shooting the messenger because someone's wiki-friend is the one being discussed (and haven't we had enough of WMUK protecting their buddies from well-deserved sanctions to last a lifetime?) AGF is not a suicide pact, and I applaud US-Verified for bringing this up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. I'm quite disturbed by the initial response to US-Verified's comments by a couple of users. It's pretty clear there is a problem here. Number 57 17:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, Number 57, Levivich for your comments and calling a spade a spade. Andy's above comments are not helpful and I'm feeling disturbed reading them. US-Verified (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Add me to the list of those who find these edits disturbing, to say the least. US-Verified may have made some errors in presenting this report, but that doesn't invalidate it; there's definitely cause for concern here. If I'd seen this tagged as G11 I'd have deleted it without the slightest hesitation. So here's a plain question which just needs a plain answer: John Cummings, were you paid to create the truly awful page you made at QWSTION? I'm sorry to hear you're not well, but please take the time to answer anyway. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the archiving of this thread, given that John has long COVID and his ability to respond promptly to questions might be compromised. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into the details of this specific ANI report, but there's a broader, longstanding problem with UNESCO and COI that I've raised before - most recently at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 196#Continuing UNESCO COI issues and meta:Grants talk:Project/John Cummings/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2017-2018/Final. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO are exempted from WP:COI? Asking for my understanding - cause, John has edited/created multiple UN-related articles. In my opinion, this should go though WP:AFC process like other COI editors. US-Verified (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm still astonished that a Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO, in receipt of funding from the WMF, would think creating an article looking like Special:Diff/767682017 was appropriate, and to refer to it "as example for training on reuse of open license text". Judging by their acceptance of the report I linked to above, the folks at the WMF don't seem bothered though. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Reply by John Cummings

Hi all

I'm recovering from long covid and taking an extended break from work and going on the computer in general so haven't seen this thread before.

COI

I have already said (as US-Verified acknowledges above) I have no COI with regard to these articles. Nor am I paid for any of my editing, other than as previously declared as a Wikimedian in Residence. I would guess maybe 5-10% of the 100s of articles I've written are about organisations or products, I mostly write about the environment/sustainability/plants, I think I've maybe had 1 article deleted as not notable in 11 years of contributing to Wikipedia (about a man who saved people from a mass shooting).

US-Verified

After no one replied to this post for only 10 minutes US-Verified added COI and other tags to many (I counted 18) articles that I've created and nominated 7 for deletion in about half an hour. Like others here have already said, I have experienced this as hounding.

Previously I have replied on my talk page to them explaining users must provide information on why they think there is a COI, but they have not and have continued to accuse others of COI without explanation e.g ByHours, CarSwap, Guildhawk, Jurga Žilinskienė, Relief Therapeutics and nominated a large number of pages created by others for deletion. They've nominated so many articles for deletion they've had to be asked on their talk page to slow down because they're overwhelming the system. On Thursday they sent me a message on my talk page saying I don't have a conflict of interest... so I am quite confused by their behaviour. I'd really appreciate if someone could provide US-Verified with some guidance on rules around COI because they're continuing to accuse people of COI without providing evidence which cannot be pleasant for the editors. Also to assess the article tags and nominations for deletions they've made.

Article

Regarding the article about QWSTION I agree the tone could be much better, I asked the people who put the tags on the article to clarify which parts were problematic (on my talk page) but received no reply. I'll work on the article again taking this feedback into account when I'm physically able. Please add your comments on how to improve it to the talk page of the article rather than here so they don't get lost.

As others have said I've asked companies/organisations for photos to include in articles I've written, something I'm pretty experienced in guiding people through given my day job. We usually don't have any open license photos for products, or just poor quality ones, but articles for more masculine products like cars, trains, planes, military equipment etc often include images of every product eg Ferrari, Boeing 747. I don't think including every model of a plane or car for a company would be described on Wikipedia as advertising but I understand why it could be seen as this for articles that don't usually have so many photos available. Again if people have ideas of which images to include please add them to the talk page.

Responding

I hope this answers your questions, I will check again next week some time for any replies. I would appreciate if users could @ me in the messages if their questions are directed at me, it's a lot of effort for me to read all this text currently.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'm hoping you get better soon. I don't think this answers the questions asked above. RE e.g.:

• CarSwap was created by User:Isingness who is blocked for advertising
• ByHours, when I discovered this article (btw, I tracked your articles, this article, all other through reverse search using press release or spammy website link) it looked like this. A few problems I noted were use of press releases, ref bombing, and way the awards section was written clearly suggest someone with COI edited it. I was right about this and found that a single-purpose account User:Oneal Rock created the article.
• Guildhawk and Jurga Žilinskienė are interlinked, much like QWSTION and its product Bananatex. These two articles, Guildhawk and its founder have been edited by someone (User:Paxlife) who is sort of maintaining these two for a year now and the tone of their edits suggests that they haven't declared COI yet -- I have sent them a message to declare it. I'm glad you brought these two here so there is a chance we can cleanup its contents now.
• Relief Therapeutics is cited mostly with primary sources (i.e. press releases, company links, and others), edited recently by User:WaterfordWhisperer. Thank you!

US-Verified (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

RE hounding: As I said, I tracked your problematic article QWSTION through reverse search and was the reason that I checked your editing history and found more articles that were not compliant with WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV (I just nominated them, so we can discuss). I've just seen your editing history for a few times and this was done for a "good cause" (as described on that guideline). US-Verified (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

N1C4T97

N1C4T97 (talk · contribs) demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - it's evident this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Some glaring examples from their recent contributions:

• [26] - Removes "cultural genocide" and replaces it with “vandalism” instead, despite the wikilinked article Armenian cemetery in Julfa indeed describing Azerbaijan's actions as "cultural genocide" with reliable sources. In the same tendentious edit, for no logical reason, changes the citation of George Bournoutian - an accomplished historian on Caucasus and beyond, to attributed citation.
• Removes the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article [27]. At the same time, adds unsourced "Armenian war crimes" category in several articles [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], previously added by a sockpuppet IP [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].
• Reverts and edit-wars without discussing when asked for a source for his edits, does not provide a source [39], [40], [41], [42], edit-wars in another article [43], [44].
• According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn’t have an Azeri war crime category since “places cannot be a war crimes” [45], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [46], [47], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article.
• While removing sourced Azeri war crime and category in Talish article [48], adds a partisan and unreliable archive website as some sort of apologia for Azeri Nazi legion [49]. The same website (echo.az) publishes garbage such as this: "Armenia revives myths about "genocide"" [50].

In summary, this user demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - they edit it partisan manner, resort to reverts and edit-warring, their edits push a clear nationalist point of view and they're restoring sockpuppet edits. It’s clear that this user is here to push POV in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, that is - WP:NOTHERE. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to report them myself, they blatantly refuse to abide to the community imposed extended-confirmed restriction, even though I did notify them about it on their talk page, for them just to continue tendentious editing as if nothing happened. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Proposal - Indef Topic Ban for topics relating to Azerbajian/Azeris and Western Asia Countries, broadly construed - I think based on the editors disruptive editing in this area is clear in their partisan editing, and would normally think a site ban would be warranted, but it looks like the user has made some edits outside the topic area and could still work constructively in noncontentious topics.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my report.

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support I reverted the POV edit of N1C4T97 in Gülüstan, Nakhchivan - what they don't mention is that the wikilinked main article in their edit literally has 3 reliable sources for cultural genocide in the lead [51], [52], [53]. Can't comment about the other articles, but N1C4T97 defending his tendentious editing with this misleading wall of text pushes me to support a topic-ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian, I was not actively editing, while I created my account many years ago. So, I am new to Wikipedia, especially to the EnWiki, and I acknowledge that I unintentionally disobeyed some rules. Like, I was unaware of the community-imposed extended-confirmed limits that prohibit new editors from making edits related to the topic area. I stopped making any further alterations to the topic area after I noticed the message put on my user talk page about that.

Tendentious editing accusations against me are made-up and groundless. In this case, the "evidence" against me cannot even be referred to as such, as the difference between revisions were manipulated to deceive the admins. I am not sure why KhndzorUtogh did that, but evidently, he snipped through my edit history, and without even attempting to clarify them with me, he brought a bunch of snippets in an effort to convince admins to ban me.

For example:

1. In this difference between revisions I specified the author "Armenian historian George Bournoutian" because I thought that "primary sources" sound vague. I also changed "cultural genocide" to the "cultural vandalism" as per cited source, which clearly states "cultural vandalism" and doesn't contain "cultural genocide" term. The other source other is a website that is funded by Armenian government (note the text on bottom). I am astounded that KhndzorUtogh did not even bother to discuss this edit before bringing it up to accuse me of tendentious editing.

2. difference between revisions KhndzorUtogh accused me for removing "the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article". In fact, I explained everything in the edit summary, but I will repeat it here. I removed the war crimes category because it is not applicable for the article which is about the village, and I removed "the sourced Azeri war crime" because it was cited to some unknown partisan website, which is based in Yerevan, Armenia. On the other difference between revisions, I was adding war crimes categories to the events where civilians were massacred. There is a difference between an article about village and an article about events. I do not think I even need to explain that to anyone. I was doing that because those events fall under UN war crime classification [54]. I am curious why KhndzorUtogh did not mention anything about the edit summary in which I explained everything. Why is he making this bogus accusation without even bothering to discuss this edit beforehand?

3. "According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn't have an Azeri war crime category since "places cannot be a war crimes" [174], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [175], [176], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article." - This is totally made up; in fact, it is a clear disinformation. On 20 February 2023, I added the Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany category to the Armenian Legion article. That edit was reverted on 17 March 2023 by Kevo327 with the "Category is for persons" edit summary. Kevo327's edit summary convinced me, and I deleted an identical category from the identical article on March 19, 2023. Before we established the consensus that these categories do not apply to these articles, there was some back and forth between these difference between revisions[55] [56], but the point is that KhndzorUtogh's description of these difference between revisions is entirely misleading. I don't know why KhndzorUtogh attempted to mislead administrators into believing that first I removed from one article and then added to another. Time, when edits were made, proves the opposite.

In conclusion, it is apparent, and I have demonstrated, that this report is baseless, and I can not believe that it was filed in good faith. KhndzorUtogh never came out to me on the talk page to discuss my edits, nor did he engage in many of the difference between revisions he provided here. From what I see KhndzorUtogh essentially glanced through my edit history, sniped some of my edits, did not even bother to discuss them with me, and did everything he could to mislead administrators and persuade them to ban me. I hope administrators will recognize this and not fall for this false information.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@N1C4T97, articles on Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts are under an extended-confirmed restriction, meaning they are off-limits to editors under 500 edits. They are contentious subjects that require a solid understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know it now, but I was unaware about that restriction until I was informed on my talk page by another user. I believe making that restriction more visible to newcomers would be beneficial.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked N1C4T97 for 1 week for their violation of WP:GS/AA on March 19 (Special:Diff/1145494935, a series of 3 edits), 3 hours after receiving a notice from Kevo that specifically explained the community sanction (Special:Diff/1145468587). I haven't otherwise investigated their edits, but given GS/AA, discussion of a topic ban at this time seems moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and upgraded to a WP:NOTHERE indefinite site ban following further investigation, considering both the evidence above and additional investigation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  What an appalling display of collaboration we've witnessed! Three partisan pro-Armenian editors relentlessly pursued a new pro-Azerbaijani editor in an attempt to force him out of wiki. At this stage, it's hard to tell whether Rosguill is oblivious to the fact that said pro-Armenian editors are ganging up against a newcomer or if he is consciously supporting their efforts.

  @Rosguill:, I have been closely monitoring your administrative actions within the Ar-Az area for a long time now, and I've noticed you regularly back up pro-Armenian editors and treat pro-Azerbaijani editors unfairly and harshly without distinction to the merit of either side's arguments. In the latest incident, you opted to ban a new user who was clearly being targeted by a group of editors. You banned them immediately for not complying with an extended-confirmed restriction even though they had ceased editing in the area as soon as they had become aware of it, despite that, you arbitrarily decided that a site ban was an appropriate measure.

  How could you immediately site ban a beginner user when it was evident that they was being targeted by a group of editors? Have you forgotten about the principles of WP:NEWBIES and WP:GOODFAITH, or do you choose to ignore them selectively? Did you not consider the fact that the people who reported him were edit warring with him, and none bothered to offer them any assistance or engage him in a dialogue about how Wikipedia works? Strangely, you did not resort to the usual excuses of "content dispute" or "lack of discussion" this time. Did you even bother to read his response, which clearly exposed the bad faith intention of the poorly crafted report, or do you simply not care?

  I implore @Callanecc, Wugapodes, SilkTork, El C, Moneytrees, Nythar, Izno, Beeblebrox, Starship.paint, CaptainEek, Guerillero, and Stifle:, to investigate Rosguill's clearly biased and partisan adminship in the Ar-Az area and to take necessary steps to eliminate any and all disruption caused by his prejudiced and partisan actions, which he seems unable to control/identify. 85.249.29.84 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I stated above and in the block log, this block was the result of additional investigation. I'm happy to share the details of the investigation with any admin. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I have no experience at all in Ar/Az, and also, I’m not an admin. starship.paint (exalt) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure why I have been pinged but this area is not one with which I am acquainted or in which I feel competent to act. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban - @Rosguill: I have to agree with the nominator, I think the report clearly shows N1C4T97’s disruptive behaviour, him editing in partisan manner - this isn't something needed in the already volatile and contentious AA topic area. POV-pushing by adding "war crime" categories and removing them elsewhere based on what/where suits their POV, and then edit warring over it - the pattern is clear. I’m sorry to see them calling the report "baseless" in the face of clear evidence - this shows no insight or willingness to improve. This leaves little hope that editing will be better after the week of block, and therefore I think the tban should be applied as a preventative measure. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Boomerang for Kevo and Rosguill for mendacious lawyering. Fistagon2.0 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    Is this a sock? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    @LegalSmeagolian Yes, it's the same vandal from here [57]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Dilpreet Singh and mess at Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist)

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

This user has repeatedly refused to understand Wikipedia Policy about reliable sources, verifiability and assuming good faith. His activity on Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist) (which is a BLP talk page) is highly disruptive and tendentious.

• User refuses to believe that Hindustan Times and many other WP:RS cited in the article of the mentioned talk page don't count as State-propoganda/Hindutva propoganda just because he disagrees with it. Following are all the instances he repeats that these WP:RS are state-propoganda against the "Radical separatist".
  propoganda started by govt
  state sources are not authenticated
  nonsense propogated by state
  nonsense based on state propoganda
  we know that state is running a propaganda
  nonselse propogated by state to tarnish his image
  you guys have made article pro-state
  All these have been added chiefly in the timespan of 2 days which makes its spam like nature very evident.
  

• Even though User has been warned about assuming good faith User doesnot shy away from making WP:PA by calling mixmon "pro-hindutva"

• User also claims that Page Protections have been added to this page for the sole purpose of "pro-state narrative to flourish"
  like here and here

Users like @CrusaderForTruth2023: and @Mixmon: and I have attempted to explain to him and point him to relevant guidelines and policy, but he shows no capacity what so over to understand what we are attempting to explain. WP:NOTHERE in the form of Treating editing as a battleground — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extorc (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding my summary on a closed DRN as a reference. Mixmon (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I belive if you rather input to construct a dialog at first we wouldn't be in this situation. I have pointed multiple times same concern and your response is in a way, like you don't want to accommodate ground reality. there's is clearly WP:NPOV and article is not balanced. If you guys understood at first point why I have to repeat so many times to make you stop on further edit that too without discussing on the talk page. Dilpreet Singh ping  20:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

But you haven't cited any reliable source WP:RS you are just promoting original research WP:OR Mixmon (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS we will discuss this on relevant page and there's already a thread & will open another one to discuss this further. Dilpreet Singh ping  20:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc @Mixmon User Dilpreet Singh has the right to claim a possible conflict of interest as per WP:COI, seeing as one of the two users have Hindutva userboxes and both the users’ editing history is related to figures related to the Hindutva movement (including creating articles for Hindutva personalities). It is not a personal attack if a user suspects another of having possible conflict of interest in-regards to their editing if it can be reasonably assumed based on their activity and information provided on Wikipedia. Therefore, this is @Dilpreet Singh asserting a conflict of interest with regards to certain editors on an article where it may interfere. Dilpreet should not be punished and the victim of a witchhunt if he voices concerns about conflicts of interest of certain editors. Diffs: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Abhijit%20Iyer-Mitra&oldid=1139528075 – draft for Hindutva internet personality, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, by user Mixmon 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy%20Index&diff=prev&oldid=1140538871 – including viewpoints of Hindutva economist, Sanjeev Sanyal, in article by Mixmon, even after being reverted by another editor who was concerned about including the views of a controversial figure into the article. User Extorc currently has a Hindutva infobox on his user page, whilst this may not indicate an affiliation with Hindutva but rather a genuine interest in Hindutva topics, a cursory look at his editing history can reasonably lead to someone coming to the latter conclusion. His choice of words in past edits are suspect of holding certain viewpoints on issues which are sympathetic of common Hindutva talkpoints and narratives, such as that Muslims are overly-appeased in India: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1144783208 – writing edit that discusses how a court decision relates to the apparent "appeasement" of the Muslim minority in India. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=1140942154 – contributing to an article titled "Criticism of Islam", where he changed wording slightly to claim that Muslims are more aggressive due to their religious environment and "Islamic imperialistic history", which is suspect given the above points. Therefore, is it unreasonable for Dilpreet to claim conflicts of interest based on Hindutva considering all of this? It is not a baseless personal attack as it is being presented here. ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Now what is "Hindutva economist" the user who reverted again cited no source for this labelling (I accepted that edit not because of the reason cited by that editor but because of lack of good quality critical analysis in the source unlike you who are hell-bent on carrying out personal attacks and disregard to policies). You people can fall to such a low level- even if you disagree with the views of the person in draft article how is that an indication of bias? Following that logic editors who created articles on criminals have a criminal mindset? That draft is still there and I will work on that ( by the way again no source to brand him "Hindutva personality"). I am not supposed to clarify on this but it remains a proof of your meanness. Mixmon (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon I am not being mean or personally attacking anyone, I am making the argument that Dilpreet has reasonable grounds for voicing concerns of certain editors on the basis of WP:COI and that his accusations are not empty, hollow, or unsubstantiated (as shown by the diffs I have provided above). Your draft of Abhijit Iyer-Mitra portrayed him positively and does not meet WP:BALANCE, it makes no mention of his past controversies, controversial views, and affiliations with extremist ideologies. The controversy section is shallow and concludes by again showing him in a positive light.

Abhijit Iyer-Mitra literally is an contributor and writer for the Swarajya Magazine, one of the the main internet outlets for Hindutva on the internet: (search the keywords "Abhijit Iyer-Mitra swarajya" on Google to find his page on the Swarajya website, I cannot link it because their website is blacklisted on Wikipedia)

Sanjeev Sanyal is associated with the BJP, working as an economic advisor to it, the main Hindutva political party of India: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/profiles-sanjeev-sanyal-the-man-of-economic-sutras/article65076927.ece ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Look at the arguments you are making full of original research and lies - I can reply to this nonsense if you want but bring it to my talk page. This noticeboard is not for that. Mixmon (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon This is the right place for this discussion as it was claimed @Dilpreet Singh made personal attacks by suggesting others may have a Hindutva bias. Meanwhile, an editor can suggest possible conflict of interests regarding certain editors in specific areas as per WP:COI, and these are not personal attacks if they are reasonable based on the particular editor's activity and information shared on Wikipedia. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

same thing I have noticed about DaxServer, they kept a biased against Sikhs. no doubt our observations was correct. Dilpreet Singh ping  21:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dilpreet Singh This is a gross personal attack. I'll let it go if you strike it off — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What real arguments about policies and guidelines they are making? Their entire agrument is based on allegations on editors and original research about their editing. Mixmon (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dilpreet Singh if you suspect another user of having a conflict of interest, please substantiate your claim by referring to their past editing history, information they provided about themselves on Wikipedia, and the views they have shared on Wikipedia (by sharing links of examples of evidence to support your assertion). Otherwise, it may be seen as a personal attack without basis. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi Sorry, wasnt able to reply to the COI allegations in time. If you really believe that the COI allegations you have made hold water, kindly take them to WP:COI/N >>> Extorc.talk 05:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• I was just thinking of filing a report on Dilpreet Singh. The only thing the user has to offer is that [all] RS are just state-run propaganda. The user is exhibiting a crusader’s WP:RGW behaviour. Sorting thru the discussions is painful and quite a headache as the talk page is being littered with the same argument (see OP links). The user is a net negative and clearly WP:NOTHERE for an encyclopaedia — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, and see the reply to my Contentious topic reminder here where they just repeats the same thing — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC) (amended at 21:44 22 March 2023 (UTC))

  and this comment is an example of his biasedness against sikhs. If you wants a constructive dialogs then you have to give space to others. Dilpreet Singh ping  21:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Let me summarise Dilpreet's major arguments -

1. All the sources cited in the Amritpal article are state propaganda.
2. The editors on that page are government-affiliated "state lobby".
3. The editors are only pushing state-sponsored sources while ignoring sources offered by Dilpreet.
4. Wikipedia is "biased against Sikhs" as they "don't have many accounts that meet the requirement for the semi-protected".
5. Editors are not aware of the ground reality so they are defaming "drug healer" "bhai" Amritpal Singh.
6. Protection on the page is Wikipedia's "conspiracy against Sikhs" to keep them away for the reasons mentioned in point #4. Mixmon (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

   Let me make it easy, there are two concerns which I have :

   1. Balanced conversation.

   2. opportunity to edit/protect the article.

   check your points they are merely an explanation that you don't want a WP:BALANCE conversation. I repeated this many times in many ways and you are going in circle. Dilpreet Singh ping  22:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked Dilpreet_Singh for three days for personal attacks after my warnings earlier today. I don't have much faith that they'll contribute constructively after the block, but it'll stop the immediate disruption while this discussion continues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Well it was @ThethPunjabi who made bigger personal attacks than Dilpreet here. Mixmon (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon @ScottishFinnishRadish I supported Dilpreet's claim of possible conflict of interest in violation of WP:COI using diffs/links of past user history and citations. Therefore, there was no unsubstantiated personal attacks made against any user. I have remained civil in my tone of writing as well, even after Mixmon started writing uncivilly to me above, accusing me of "meanness", "You people can fall to such a low level", and "unlike you who are hell-bent on carrying out personal attacks and disregard to policies". Furthermore, I warned Dilpreet Singh above to not make unsubstantiated claims of COI without evidence (such as diffs) to support his assertions or else they will be viewed as personal attacks. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Bluntly, everyone on that article that isn't some drive-by and is actually going to stay and defend their position should be given a warning for the India-Pakistan contentious topic area, with Singh probably being one of the worse ones due to the aspersions-casting. The topic area is a powderkeg; the last thing we need is nationalist bickering. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 04:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano I took your point and tried to extend an olive branch at the article talk page just now but the other editors there accused me of “propaganda” now. So who is in the wrong when one tries to make amends and the others continue to attack, belittle, and argue with them? ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish and @Jéské Couriano, I'm not standing by what @Dilpreet Singh has said or done but the fragrant and blatant abuse of the page by Hindu nationalist accounts @Extorc @Mixmon @CrusaderForTruth2023 by refusing to listen to accounts who oppose the Indian government's actions in Punjab thereby destroying any neutrality and locking the page.

User @Extorc is refusing 'Requests to Edit' that do not agree with the Indian-state narrative.

For example, I requested an edit to remove an article by Indian-state backed media that was a blatant character assassination on the individual in question. I argued that the heavily pro-India narratives of these media outlets backed by the central government renders them unreliable sources when considering the context that said individual is an anti-Indian entity. Wikipedia policy on reliability of sources when considering context: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

In response @Extorc, rather amusingly, rejected it claiming I needed to provide another source on how the source in question was unreliable!

This is a blatant attempt to mischaracterise the article at a time when many will view it and needs urgent Administrative attention. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Uproot Tyranny: I'm not defending anyone's behaviour on that page - not Singh's, not Mixmon's, not Random Drive-By IP Editor Wot Doesn't Read Anything #134i76238596847561, and not yours. The fact that this is the fourth time in three years that this exact situation has erupted at an article under WP:ARBIPA strongly suggests to me that more restrictions need to come, and it will very likely be XCP as the result of another Arbitration case in the vein of WP:ARBPIA4. I would sooner that not happen, as it'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but if the nationalist griping and edit-warring does not stop, that is where things are going to be headed. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 20:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It is sad, I agree. Yes there should definitely be more introspection on the rules if this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Take care. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you are not taking any one side, believe me. I, myself am neutral on the whole Amritpal Singh issue. The problem arises when the Wikipedia article of a preacher who does not believe in the idea of an Indian state contains unsubtantiated allegations of being 'funded by terror' 'having links with Pakistani Intelligence agencies' or claiming the preacher in question was 'making human bombs'. These claims, which are not true (As any non-Indian news article on the subject will state), have the intended effect of misrepresenting the individual in question during a time when many will seek to find out who this person was.

The problem seems to be that a particular group of Editors, some with special abilities (I am hesitent to call them Administrators as I do not know if they are) are using their powers in what seems to be a concentrated effort to dilute the truth. The fact that I have been targeted for investigation by one of these Editors(?) for raising similar points as others on the page looks like textbook intimidation to me.

I understand that this may seem like an exhausting, tiring and never-ending issue of 'nationalist griping' but the impact of how this article is displayed is enormous. Journalists, along with regular people, will be looking this individual up at this particular time. Thank you for reading. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If you intended your little speech to be some form of mollification, all it does is convince me you're a partisan in the area and shouldn't be in it. No duh "the impact of how this article is displayed is enormous"; that's why the partisans on either side are trying to skew it. This isn't "Indian nationalists vs. everyone else", it's "Indian nationalists vs. Pakistani nationalists vs. everyone else". And "Everyone else" always fucking loses because the other two camps think they're Protestants or Catholics, Israelis or Palestinians, Azerbaijani or Armenians, Democrats or Republicans. The tribalism is the root cause of this, and you're just showing us that you're not as above the fray as you're claiming. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 00:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I came here to articulate the blatant injustice that I was seeing by the addition of false information from Indian media, that was then locked on the page by Hindu nationalist Admins and this is what I get back for trying to seek redress. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In response, I have an investigation thrown at me and have received ZERO support from the Admin team. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, at this point given the reaction, I'll relent with the source being there, though it is blatantly untrue, if the article had both sides shown in the interest of neutrality, but this is not the case. The whole article is very one-sided and Pro-Indian Government and the 3/4 Hindu nationalist Editors/Admins have rejected the addition of the other side.

We can go back and forth about one particular source but the bigger issue is this: At least allow editors to put the both sides in the article before locking it. The bottom line is that it is a very biased article and it needs to be more neutral. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There is an open investigation about Uproot Tyranny being a sock of Dilpreet Singh Who is blocked for 72 hours here >>> Extorc.talk 20:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What open investigation? What a joke.

What a baseless lie! Does that mean @ThethPunjabi @CalicoMo @CanadianSingh1469 @Usingh0663 or the countless others trying to seek neutrality in the article 'socks' of Dilpreet Singh?? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocking me was not a solution, since then many profile pointed out same thing and unfortunately those profile were blocked raising voice. Just for you all, I have no idea about these profiles, you have slaughtered innocent people for voicing. Dilpreet Singh ping 00:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I went down a bit of a rabit hole looking this thing up (its around 5 AM in my country right now and I should probably got to sleep, so pardon any confusing english). The common theme I see on the talk page is 1) Uneccessarily wordy arguments 2) Failure to adequately separate discussions regarding different topics and 3) General disregard for the application of WP policies, instead choosing to adopt whatever felt 'about right'. The TP is a mess and is unlikely to bear fruit unless there is a drastic improvement in the actions of editors involved. Additionally, I think the page would benefit from a longer ECP; being rather controvertial with little likelyhood of improvement in the next few days. Will probably add to this later. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Of course you want a longer ECP, you completely disregarded everything I said as 'unsubstantial' even though I gave you 6 references!

  Extending the ECP only serves to solidify the Indian Government narrative over the article in question.

  Why is it so hard to accept that Indian news media is actively pro-government? You suggested that I should take up the reliability concerns at RSN; which I agreed with, you didn't need to add the petty remarks like "but I doubt you'll find any takers" or taking a jab at me for using the word 'ponder'

  Again, it is an established fact that Indian news media is state-backed. I have given you credible sources as references, extending the ECP without addressing these issue will only embolden the Hindu nationalist editors and adminstrators who had already locked the page with blatant falsehoods from state-backed Indian news media. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, it is not an "established fact." It's a widely-held presumption. I happen to agree with it, largely, but that's a long way from an "established fact." With that, you seem to be under the impression that because many people dislike the spin that much of the Indian news media uses, you and your comrades therefore justified in edit warring. This is absolutely not the case.

  If a particular source is cited in WP:RSPSOURCES as unreliable when it comes to politics, then raise the issue for that particular source. If you think a source should be listed, make your case at the appropriate noticeboard, and accept the consensus that results. Those sum up your options. Complaining because you think an article reads the way that the Modi government might like is not one of those options. Ravenswing 00:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not trying to 'edit-war' I am trying to showcase how Indian Press cannot be used as a reliable source for an Anti-Indian state entity. Fine, it doesn't need to be an established fact (Even though, it pretty much is), even if it is a widely-help presumption, the usage of Indian news media, which will always favour the integrity of India, to make unsubstantiated unreferenced claims that a preacher was making 'human bombs' is always going to be an unreliable source. Maybe not for everything but for this particular context, YES. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Putting aside the issue of the sourcing, which could have a disclaimer of sorts, the bottom line is that the article is very one-sided and attempts of adding anything of non-Government narrative has been consistently denied and rejected. All I am asking for is a neutral article. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, lack of policy based arguments. Would also recommend reading WP:RGW. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'd strongly advise @Uproot Tyranny: not to engage in labelling others as "Hindu nationalist editors/admins". These are personal attacks — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  May be too late; they've been indeffed as disinterested in building an encyclopaedia. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing against consensus at Sheikh Hasina

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

---

AMomen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A.Musketeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sheikh Hasina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently I closed an RFC at Sheikh Hasina dealing with the lead, which followed a go-around at DRN and significant edit warring. After I closed the RFC it was pointed out that the article had not returned to the status quo on my talk page. I did some investigating, and prior to the major outbreak of the dispute and edit warring, there seemed to be a reasonable status quo to return to. At that point, I recommended that the article return to the lead from October 27th at Talk:Sheikh Hasina#Status quo.

Since then a clear consensus of editors, most importantly editors uninvolved in the original dispute such as Seraphimblade, Vinegarymass911 (sorry to pull you two into this crap yet again), and myself have identified the late October lead as the status quo ante from before the dispute. Two editors, A.Musketeer([58][59][60]) and LucrativeOffer([61][62][63][64][65]) have refused to accept that consensus, and are continuing to edit war their prefered lead from the RFC into the article. It takes two sides to edit war, and AMomen88 is also edit warring back to the consensus status quo version, though I am less conerned because there is a clear consensus for the version they're reverting to and they're not reverting to their preferred RFC outcome. It's certainly not ideal, which is why I'm seeking some resolution here.

I think a clear statement from the community that they need to stop edit warring and accept the consensus about the status quo on the talk page should take care of the disruption. If they don't accept the consensus, and the edit warring continues, they should be subject to partial blocks from the page starting at a week and escalating from there. I am specifically not interested in any discussion on the content here, only on the editing against consensus. The content can be hashed out on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. Apologies if I do not understand anything correctly. ScottishFinnishRadish could you please tell us how Vinegarymass911 is an uninvolved editor when it was already pointed out to you that he had previously engaged in edit war in the article to reinstate AMomen88's desired version? Also, could you please tell us who first introduced you to the October version as the status quo and how you came to the conclusion that it is the status quo? LucrativeOffer (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Vinegarymass911 made a single edit to revert to what they saw as the status quo before that particular edit war broke out, asking you to take it to the talk page, and then made no further edits to the article and made a single edit to the RFC, and did not contribute to the DRN. I would say that there is a shade of involvement in the months long back and forth, but it seemed they were trying to head off the edit war. Their making a single edit, versus the absolute shitload (I stopped counting at a dozen, but that was still in December) you made isn't exactly engag[ing] in an edit war in the article to reinstate AMomen88's desired version. Seraphimblade and myself are entirely uninvolved.

As I linked to above this is when it was brought up on my talk page by AMomen88, providing a version from October 28th. Looking at the history, it is clear that this edit on October 28th was the one that began the dispute about the lead, and the lead was more-or-less stable before that. So looking at when the lead was a) changed in a way that led to a dispute and b) reasonably stable, I determined the status quo.

Seraphimblade (who supported the lead you supported in the RFC), Vinegarymass911, AMomen88 (who's edit to the lead is not included in the status quo), and myself agree that this as the status quo. A.Musketeer and yourself do not. At this point there are two uninvolved editors, one editor that is barely involved, and one editor that was involved in the dispute agreeing, and two editors who were involved disagreeing, and edit warring to keep the version they supported during the RFC, which was never a stable version. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. So in summary, you came out from your earlier position that Vinegarymass911 is an "uninvolved editor", to "barely involved". It also appears that AMomen88 is the one who introduced you to the late October versions of the article as status quo and you immediately agreed without consulting the other side of the dispute.

Here is my observation - Sheikh Hasina is a controversial topic and has always been in dispute. It was also pointed out to you by A.Musketeer that the article was a battleground even in October, showing diffs of edit-warring in that month, which makes the late October versions unstable. Yet, you kept arguing it to be the status quo. There was no edit war in the article between 15 January and 10 March, the duration of the RfC, which makes the version at the end of the RfC to be the most stable. The dispute began when AMomen88 started to remove contents that are critical of the subject, hence, I am not surprised he proposed the late October versions as status quo to you since they are devoid of those contents.

In my opinion, ScottishFinnishRadish has been misled about the nature of the dispute which also impairs their judgement about the consensus forming in this case. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: the statement above shows LucrativeOffer understands this is a controversial topic and instead of following guidelines and policy to resolve disputes, they have decided to POV edit war and are doubling down on being "right". We all make mistakes, this look intentional and repeated.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not much has changed in the past two months. The two principal editors came to DRN. After trying to act as a neutral moderator, it was my opinion that at least one of them, and probably both of them, were trying to game the system by appearing to be on the side of the moderator. I failed the moderated discussion, and started the RFC. It appears that User:ScottishFinnishRadish has picked up where I left off, and made progress by identifying the status quo ante version of the article, and found that there was no consensus on the lede, and now the principals are again trying to game the system and appear to be on the side of the moderator (who isn't on a side). The community should thank User:ScottishFinnishRadish for his efforts. I think that the partial blocks proposed by SFR are a minimum remedy at this point. I would support any length of topic-bans at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have a question, although it need not affect the resolution of the dispute. Is Bangladesh within the scope of the India and Pakistan contentious topic? It isn't necessary to answer, because I think that the community will be able to handle this dispute by partial blocks and topic bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it's own nation, and isn't explicitly called out in WP:ARBPIA, so I'm not sure. It feels like it should be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bangladesh was part of Pakistan for about 25 years but has been independent for over 50 years, and they're over 1,000 miles apart, so WP:ARBIPA wouldn't normally apply. In this case, the article's subject wasn't prominent before independence and the disputed lead doesn't mention Pakistan or, her date of birth aside, the pre-independence period. NebY (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Beyond NebY's comments, simple proximity shouldn't matter ... or do we lump in Bhutan, say, as well? The measure should really be rather simple: is there a history of edit warring over Bangladeshi articles, above and beyond the normal run of partisan politics? (No doubt, for instance, we can find a controversial political article or three from damn near every country on Earth.) Ravenswing 19:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I meant more along the lines of Poland being in central Europe, but being part of the EE CTOP, and WP:GSCASTE covering Bangladesh makes it feel like it might be covered. As Robert says above though, we're more than capable of handling this without fancy sanctions, so input on the issue at hand is still very welcome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that User:ScottishFinnishRadish has been misled as to the nature of the dispute, but there may be an unsuccessful effort to mislead SFR as to the nature of the dispute, an attempt to misuse the services of a moderator, but it appears that SFR has seen through that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Reading the deliberations, I have to say it is impressive the extent of the chicanery being resorted too. User:LucrativeOffer is aware there is no consensus for their soapbox lead and as a result they are clutching at straws attempting to use ad hominin to question the integrity of editors. I do not want to relitigate but for the record, the dispute began when LucrativeOffer reverted my edits calling them "promotional" without evidence, this was reverted by User:Vinegarymass911 who urged them to avoid edit warring and discuss, a plea which was roundly ignored. They then proceeded to insert their own lead and ignored calls to refrain from edit warring. I recognise the fact that the lead I produced has no consensus, which is why I have refrained from inserting it, I do not understand why LucrativeOffer and User:A.Musketeer are incapable of doing the same. The lead of 27 October which I support as the status quo contains content which is critical of the subject, I reverted LucrativeOffer's edits not because it contained critical content but because it was poorly written blatant politicking which made unsourced claims, it has no place on Wikipedia, such a lead would be better placed on Medium. I was attempting to revert to the status quo which has been recognised as such by quite literally everyone involved in this discussion including supporters of Lede A, Lede B and uninvolved editors, only two partisan editors who want to insert their preferred lead oppose this. To date all of the bans which have been enacted against me have been as a result of my endeavours to insert this status quo version. LucrativeOffer in particular seems to have an insatiable zeal to edit war whether its on Sheikh Hasina or 2013 Shapla Square protests where they added their opinion without citing a source and continuously reinserted this biased POV content despite multiple reversions from different editors, they were rightly banned for this misconduct. Proportionate measures should be taken to deter such disruptive behaviour, an ascending Tban is perhaps an appropriate option.—AMomen88 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• LucrativeOffer has quite thoroughly summed up the dispute and I have nothing much to add here. I have shown my concerns about the proposed status quo by ScotishFinnishRadish but for some reasons they were ignored by him. I will stick to my assertion that there is no evidence of any consensus regarding which version is the status quo. I do not recall any incident where I have been uncivil in this dispute, neither any occasion where I edited against the policies and guidelines in this dispute. I have faith in the community and will accept any decision taken here. I just have one confusion here. The allegation against me is that I edited against consensus and ScottishFinnishRadish has shared my diffs from 03:01, 11 March 2023. But the discussion on the status quo itself started on 17:47, 11 March 2023. How can you reach a consensus before even starting the discussion?

Robert McClenon which two principal editors are you talking about who gamed the system? If that includes me and since you are a proposing a topic ban, can you show some evidence with diffs where I gamed the system? I was invited to discuss in the DRN and I responded. All my statements were civil as far as I recall.

Before any decision is taken, I would urge the community to also shed light on AMomen88's conduct which has been testing our good faith for several months and have been appalling to say the least. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive conduct by AMomen88

Edit Warring - AMomen88 has violated 3RR straight three times on this article with no consensus for his poorly sourced POV edits in last December to January for which he was blocked thrice within a month. [66], [67], [68]. The article's history clearly shows there has been no change in his behaviour and he continues to edit war without consensus. The DRN also became stalemate when he started edit-warring as the discussion was going against him.

Casting aspersions - Leaves an edit summary: "it is clear the editor has a vested interest", besides, numerous other personal attacks against other editors.

Canvassing - Every time a discussion takes place he would make no delay to leave inappropriate messages to editors with similar POV to support him in the dispute and keeps on forcing them until they respond. For instance, when the RfC started and Solomon The Magnifico expressed his disinterest to participate, AMomen88 reminds him of previous favors in an ANI discussion. AMomen88 keeps on pursuing when Solomon The Magnifico remains uninterested. Finally he expresses his "disappointment" and calls Solomon The Magnifico "disingenuous". All these despite repeated suggestions to not engage in canvassing, [69], [70].

It is quite amusing to see him still allowed to edit with such level of disruptions, misconduct and competence issues. If a topic ban is being proposed against me for editing against an invisible consensus, I guess AMomen88 doesn't deserve anything less than an indefinite ban at least. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban Three Editors

I propose that the situation be resolved by topic-banning User:A.Musketeer, User:LucrativeOffer, and User:AMomen88 from the topic of Sheikh Hasina, broadly defined, for three months, and that they be partially blocked from the article on Sheikh Hasina.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, as the three of them make the article uneditable for other users. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The inability of these editors to resolve their strong but superficial disagreement about the lead section, which is just a summary of the body, only shows how they are not currently making any substantive improvements to the article, while making it more difficult for others to get involved at the same time. —Alalch E. 09:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - The only action I have taken is to restore a status quo version which has been recognised as such. If restoring the status quo is worthy of a Tban I am dumbfounded. I am a regular contributor to Bangladeshi Wikipedia, an area often neglected in what can be a Anglo/European centric community. LucrativeOffer and A.Musketeer are both inactive users, this is not my opinion but a fact based on their meagre contributions. The few contributions they have made have been of a poor quality and heavily skewed, something for which they have both been blocked on multiple occasions. This report was made in response to the disruptive behaviour of two editors, LucrativeOffer and A.Musketeer, who edited against overwhelming consensus, I do not know on what grounds I was added to the report.—AMomen88 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Can we get some more eyes on this section? Edit warring is continuing, and is taking place elsewhere in the article now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Massive time sink. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support an indef topic ban, actually, not just three months. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef ban from the topic of Sheikh Hasina, broadly defined, and a warning that further edit warring elsewhere will quickly result in further bans/blocks. After looking at article and DRN, I don't see any scenario where these editors could work on this article productively, or even a hint of being willing to LISTEN regarding the topic. This has been an enormous time sink. Looking at DRN, I think Robert could have found a consensus, but the participants were not willing to work towards one in good faith. Given the edit historoes at [71], Talk:Sheikh Hasina, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 226#Sheikh Hasina they should be blocked. // Timothy :: talk  19:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment LucrativeOffer is again editing against consensus and attempting to insert their version of the lede despite overwhelming consensus against it. They have inserted poor quality POV content which includes unfinished sentences, you cannot seriously place their actions in the same league as mine.—AMomen88 (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Somehow, AMomen88 gets the idea that adding any content he doesn't like is going against consensus. I have started a discussion three days ago on the article's talk page but AMomen88 has no intention to discuss and kept edit warring. LucrativeOffer (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: If this had been posted to the EW boards, bans would already be in place and this would be over. I have no idea why this has been allowed to continue for so long (months) and continue today. This is clearly an active unrepentant long term POV edit war.  // Timothy :: talk  01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per discussion. Mehedi Abedin 01:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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: [72] I am also appalled by this and this which are blatant personal attacks. --Rschen7754 17:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for participating. Two observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solana blockchain article

• Solana (blockchain platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We're seeing an uptick of brand-new editors on this article (which falls under the cryptocurrency community sanctions) who aren't very happy about how it is following the (mostly negative) independent sources. This is apparently because Solana's head of communications has been complaining about it on twitter. I recommend a preemptive semiprotect of the article under the GS, and if some folks wouldn't mind keeping in eye out on the talk page that would be helpful as well. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Having worked with MrOllie on the article talk page to try and explain our policies to the new editors, I am certain of meatpuppetry. I am especially worried with the linked tweet's explicitness that there is a concerted effort to impose a POV upon the article; I think a short-term protection is necessary. I'll add it to my watchlist to ensure long-term protection. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I've invoked the general sanctions to impose an indefinite ECP. Courcelles (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: At the risk of WP:OUTING, I don't want to share the posts here but I have definitive evidence against multiple editors who have made public posts regarding their SOAPBOXING and POV-pushing on several articles related to this. What is the right course of action? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Offwiki stuff like that? User:Arbitration Committee, email that account and let ArbCom take a look. Courcelles (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll send all of the relevant details there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone on Reddit is claiming the article is "being manipulated", and is canvassing there. The tweet you referenced is linked in that Reddit post. Michael60634 (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael60634: I scanned the thread but couldn't find any evidence of any specific account associated with these would-be POV-pushers. That said, the thread does make for some funny light reading—particularly the insistence Wikipedia is becoming editorialized (they've been saying this since before I could read!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm chiming in as an uninvolved editor (and one who is not a fan of cryptocurrencies): I think what is happening here is a vicious cycle of crypto people getting frustrated at what appear to be at least plausible NPOV/UNDUE issues, and responding in extremely aggressive and very bad ways, including attacks on good-faith efforts by e.g. Mr Ollie, which in turn has set the stage for a sort of interminable gridlock. The aggression/meatpuppetry/canvassing is a frustrating factor that requires additional effort on our part to sift through, but underlying claims of NPOV/UNDUE issues may still be valid. I've made a few changes to that effect and will try to work with others on the talk page to continue to do so in the coming days. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

New evidence of coordinated efforts

After I saw the now-blocked Nona phase gleefully admit to meatpuppetry, I went looking for further evidence. There's a significant number of discussions occurring on both Twitter and Reddit regarding this canvassing—see an example here and here. I'd really appreciate if an uninvolved admin could take a peek. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Serious canvassing, edit-warring, personal attacks

Can the community look into the following pickle please.

First of all, the IP 88.243.159.186 (talk · contribs) and registered name Canuur (talk · contribs) are the same person: following a canvassing discussion they created the account, as admitted by themselves in this comment).

Now, I am concerned abut their disruptive editing, edit-warring, canvassing and personal attacks by this user and edit-warring + canvassing by another user – they're mostly focused on Agop Dilâçar and any articles related to him (Turkish alphabet, Atatürk's reforms, etc.):

• They’d remove any mention of Agop Dilâçar and the fact that he founded the modern Turkish alphabet [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and then they'd edit-war with various users [6], [7], [8], [9].
• After modern reliable independent sources were presented to them on the talk discussion [10] and added to the article and the IP was reverted with relevant notices on their talk page, the IP, switching to the registered account, canvasses asking for "help" (also calling reliable sources “fabricated”), and restores the canvassing comment once I removed it after notifying them of canvassing [11]. Later they canvassed in tr-wiki as well [73].
• The person whom they canvassed with in en-wiki - Aybeg (talk · contribs) removes the well-sourced content with false "unreliable references" edit-summaries [12], [13] then edit-wars with false accusations of "propaganda" [14], [15] and "vandalism" [16], [17]. Aybeg then canvasses by asking "help" from another user [18] . What's also concerning is that Aybeg never participated in any of the talk discussions.
• Later a user named Modern primat (talk · contribs) comments in the talk saying they're coming from "eksisozluk.com" and that "many people will come" [19].
• Lastly Canuur makes multiple personal attacks as false accusations [20], [21], [22], [23], – all after being notified about WP:NPA on their page [24].

This combative behaviour I think violates WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOT principles of our encyclopedia and I would be grateful if the community looks into the options of sanctioning it accordingly. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtogh i can give exact URL where i found this conversation: https://web.archive.org/web/20230325143856/https://eksisozluk.com/entry/150616832 (also i wanna note, i remember in school they taught us that there was a armenian who just only helped the establishment of turkish alphabet. in ekşi sözlük entry, it says the article only says "only armenian guy created alphabet". so, we should keep discussing it)

and "many people will come" was just a prediction of mine. in that entry there isnt sucha thing like this: "heyy people!! go edit that!!! help me!!". so, that eksisozluk.com thing is not guilty in my opinion. but i dont know other things performed by canuur, but again i believe that eksisozluk.com thing is okay for me. think about it, just a guy post in reddit and talking about it, and nothing more. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 15:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of the information about Agop Dilaçar on the pages is based on false and unofficial claims. Official sources on the subject between 1933 and 1945 were shown. In fact, Agop Dilaçar himself referred to the articles he wrote. However, the accounts named @KhndzorUtogh and @Nocturnal781 ignored official sources and then cited books written after 2010 that had nothing to do with linguistics or linguistics, and did not provide resources on the subject. I still do not understand why the official sources about agop Dilaçar between 1933-1945 were deleted and why Agop Dilaçar's own articles were not taken into account, but why the books after 2010, which had nothing to do with linguistics, were taken as the only reference. The official sources given are deleted without giving any reason. Then we get reported for violating the rules. If there is a belligerent behavior here, it is the accounts named KhndzorUtogh and Nocturnal781, which do not accept any official source except for books that have nothing to do with linguistics and delete them.

i wanna collapse these because they are not really relevant with this topic, but i also dont wanna remove them. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 18:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

1- Agop Dilaçar did not create the new Turkish Alphabet. Even Agop Dilaçar does not say "I created the new Turkish alphabet" or "I took part in the new Turkish alphabet commission" in his alphabet article. Türk Dili Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, Dilâçar, A. Alfabemizin 30. Yıldönümü, Ağustos 1958, C: VII, S: 83, s. 534-541 The names of the people in the new Turkish Alphabet commission are already known. Ragıp Hulusi Özden İbrahim Grantay Ahmet Cevat Emre Mehmet Emin Erişirgil İhsan Sungu Avni Başman Falih Rıfkı Atay Ruşen Eşref Ünaydın Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu Ali Haydar Taner 2 - Agop Dilaçar is not the founder of the Turkish Language Association. When the Turkish Language Association was founded by Atatürk in 1932, Agop Dilaçar was living in Bulgaria, not Türkiye. Agop Dilacar is not included in the founding list of the Turkish Language Association. Turkish Language Association bulletin - April 1933- Issue 1 - Page 6 - First committee of Turkish Language Institution How can Agop Martayan, who was living in Sofia, Bulgaria, and was not a Turkish citizen in 1928, be the founder of the Turkish Language Association in Ankara and be included in the delegation list? 3 - The first Secretary General of the Turkish Language Association was Ruşen Eşref Ünaydın, not Agop Martayan. Turkish Language Association bulletin - April 1933- Issue 1 - Page 6 - First committee of Turkish Language Institution "Umumi Katip" (Secretary General) = Ruşen Eşref Bey. In addition, Agop Dilaçar never served as the general secretary of the Turkish Language Association until his death in 1979. Journal of the Turkish Language Institution - July 2019 - "Turkish Language Institution from 1932 to 2012" page 41 Persons who served as general secretariat in the period 1932-1983: Ruşen Eşref (Ünaydın): 1932-1933 Prof. İbrahim Necmi Dilmen: 1933-1945 Hasan Reşit Tankut: 1945-1951 Agâh Sırrı Levend: 1951-1960 Behçet Kemal Çağlar: 1960 Sami Nabi Özerdim: 1960-1963 Ömer Asım Aksoy: 1963-1978 Cahit Külebi: 1978-1982 Kemal Demiray: 1982-1983 Has anyone seen the name Agop Dilaçar on this list? 4 - The first head specialist of the Turkish Language Association is Abdülkadir İnan, not Agop Dilaçar. For this, it is sufficient to look at the official sources of the Turkish Language Institution. Turkish Language Association Bulletin - September 1933 - Issue 4 - Page 1 “Cemiyetin ihtısas kâtibi Abdülkadir Beyler" ("Abdulkadir Bey, the head specialist of the association"). Turkish Language Association Bulletin - April 1936 - Issue 16 - Page 1 - footnote section "Kurum başuzmanı Abdülkadir İnan" (the head specialist of the association Abdülkadir İnan). Now I am showing you the titles of Agop Dilaçar and Abdulkadir İnan on the same page. Third Turkish Language Congress 1936 - Page 449 - Commission Members "Profesör Abdülkadir İnan" (Professor Abdulkadir Inan) = "Türk Dil Kurumu Başuzmanı" (The Head Specialist of the Turkish Language Association) "Bay Agop Dilaçar" (Mr. Agop Dilacar) = "Öğretmen" (Teacher) All the changes I made are based on official sources. However, all these official sources were removed for no reason, and instead all the correct information was removed by showing the books after 2010 that have nothing to do with linguistics or even the Turkish Language Association or Turkish.

Canuur (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a conduct board, not a discussion of sources which I've patiently shown to you (including relevant source guidelines) in the discussion. You've been already shown reliable, academic, independent, modern sources (unlike outdated non-independent source from 1930 you kept citing on talk/article), those sources were added to the article as well. Yet here, you don't address any of the problematic conduct of yours including edit-warring, personal attacks, false accusations, canvassing - both on wiki and (I’m not including the link but can email to the interested admins) off-wiki. This is why I reported you and Aybeg. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

So here's my two cents on this:

• Canuur is essentially correct on the content as I explained at length here; and the WP:CHERRYPICKING of non-subject-specific sources to support a statement post hoc rather than looking at general overviews at reputable sources is poor encyclopedia writing. It may be worth noting that this is particularly problematic in this subject area.
• The behaviour, on the other hand, is clearly problematic. Canuur seems to be a new user who is more used to how things are done at other parts of the Turkish internet - hence the reflex to canvas and share this on Ekşi Sözlük (as noted in previous discussions, this website is a 4chan meets Reddit meets Urban Dictionary sort of place where the user base skews pretty nationalistic these days).
• It's important to keep things in perspective - the canvassing and the Ekşi Sözlük post are obviously very inappropriate, but it doesn't contain an actual "call to arms" and doesn't seem to have resulted in heightened interest in the topic barring a single user. It is more reflective of a lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes than WP:NOTHERE behaviour; indeed, Canuur displays a decent ability to browse Turkish-language sources, which, if channeled appropriately, would be very beneficial for the encyclopaedia. I see an opportunity to turn things around here, which is why I've posted a lengthy comment and tried to expand the article further to resolve the issue. So a good reprimand is in order, followed by keeping an eye on the conduct - but probably not more at this stage.

--GGT (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

i agree!!!!!!! ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 23:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Your first point is merely based off your interpretation and you need to assume good faith before accusing of cherrypicking, as a consensus hasn't yet been reached regarding that issue (and it should be noted that your arguments don't negate the ones that suggest that Agop Dilâçar was heavily involved/created the modern Turkish alphabet script per reliable sources). It's good that you recognise the problematic behavior that has been demonstrated by Canuur, but it isn't just limited to off-wiki – they've been directly canvassing on-wiki as well despite notices in their talk page - good faith was shown to them by patiently explaining the basic rules of Wikipedia instead of imminently reporting. In the same vein, their repeated personal attacks as false accusations in addition to edit warring as demonstrated in the report, all despite warning in their talk, the behavioural issues cannot simply be washed away (along with the user Aybeg). - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the behavioural issues should be washed away, on the contrary, I'm saying that a good reprimand is necessary, but also quite likely sufficient. This inappropriate behaviour also has to be contextualised in that 1) this is a new user who is used to a different form of internet culture and 2) the "patient explanation" involves not even acknowledging a solid academic source that focuses on the article's topic, dismissing it with a few sources that discuss the issue in a single sentence and the not-very-accurate response of "This is an undeniable fact". There wasn't exactly an attempt to de-escalate there. Now that there's an actual conversation, and that the erroneous nature of the conduct has been explicitly pointed out, the disruption seems to have stopped and Canuur now seems to be engaged in constructive editing, so I can't see the benefit of anything more than a "formal" warning. Obviously further disruption should result in sanctions. How would you like to see this resolved otherwise?

The above statement mostly applies to Canuur. I must say that I have less sympathy for Aybeg, a more experienced editor, who really should have been more sparing with accusations of vandalism. GGT (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that a formal (logged) warning is probably sufficient for Canuur at this stage, only because he’s a newbie as you say. It would be worth for them to start learning editing Wikipedia in easier, less controversial topics for some time. We have seen some editors who stood up from the wrong foot quickly improve after they garner some general editing experience. I also agree with you that Aybeg’s behaviour is more concerning, as he should’ve learnt the behavioural rules by now, and I’m open to suggestions from the community as to what sanctions may be suitable. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Possible account sharing by student editor groups

I've recently come across a number of accounts with "group" in the name that are all drafting essay-style articles, not unlike what can be seen from Wiki Education tagged student editors. With these accounts, I'm concerned about violations of WP:SHAREDACCOUNT and, if they are not part of Wiki Education, violations of WP:NOTWEBHOST in that Wikipedia is being used as a platform for the collaborative writing of papers. If these users are part of Wiki Education, then they should be on their own student accounts rather than these group accounts.

These are the accounts I have come across:

• HFCNGroup2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HFCNGroup5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HFN COLLEGE GROUP 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Group6helene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Helenegroup10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Groupseven325 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GROUP808 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are probably more accounts like this that I haven't found yet. I'm guessing all these accounts are from the same course as I believe HFCN stands for Helene Fuld College of Nursing and the two accounts that don't have HFCN or Helene in the name also have medicine-related essays that they're working on. Pinging @Ian (Wiki Ed)/@Guettarda to see if you know anything about courses from this college on Wiki Education. Uhai (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say we can {{Uw-softerblock}} them all and see what happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've done so. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Uhai. This isn't a class we're working with, as far as I know. I will leave the students notes asking their instructor to contact Helaine. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Notating here that Helenegroup10 appears to have been renamed to Sunshinedolls10. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

LKF2006 report

User:LKF2006 has been disruptively editing the List of adult animated feature films article, adding examples which, while containing strong thematic elements, are not explicitly marketed towards adults. Four specific examples they're adding (the South Park: Post Covid and Streaming Wars duologies) aren't even considered movies. They've been warned repeatedly, but they keep attacking those who warn them. I've already notified the user, and invited them to discuss the issue here.TheVHSArtist (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Some edit summaries LKF2006 has recently used: You are not my parent, guardian, or boss! You’re an asshole… I can do whatever I want here.. Their talk page is full of warnings for various sorts of disruptive editing. - MrOllie (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked from article space and told them they need to respond here. I noted no Talk space edits in over a year and no User Talk edits in longer than that.. As always, any admin may modify block or unblock as they see fit. A ping would be nice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Over the past week, they've reverted and been reverted in turn by three other users. Their edit summaries do not ooze with collegiality. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Prior ANI thread was archived without action or any particular notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe there is a WP:CIR issue here. Insertion of Rango (2011 film) and The Secret of NIMH into List of adult animated feature films would be bad enough without the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrongful mass reversal with no apparent explanation

In less than two minutes, user Ertrinken reverted 18 of my edits. He did so without apparent explanation, and did so on undeniably good-faith and perfectly valid edits (such as simply inserting a hyperlink, or fitting a proper noun to the article title).

The rest of the reverted edits, all of which were similar, Ertrinken reverted them either “assuming good faith” or simply ignoring any sort of good faith. The fact is that I only removed the European Portuguese pronunciation from the articles of Brazilian localities whose entire population speaks Brazilian Portuguese, so there is no need to mention an irrelevant pronunciation. You don’t do the same in articles from locations of Portugal, so let it not be done in articles from locations of Brazil.

I ask that this be resolved quickly and fairly. I don’t want to be stressed out by a sleeper account that reappears after five years and reverts countless edits without giving a proper explanation.

Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I would have reverted those two edits as well, but I'd have left an explanation. The first one was adding a link to a subject that's already linked in the article many times (in fact some links need removing.) The second one was adding an accent to the article subject that isn't in the name of the article subject and not used or referenced in the article. For the other edits, they likely reverted you because you deleted information from the article with no explanation in most cases. Canterbury Tail talk 08:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail, I actually removed the accent on the second edit. The user re-added it. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Doh, yeah misread that. I have to ask why you decided though to bring this here instead of attempting to discuss with the editor first. Though I will say, many editors would have made those reversions as well but I'd hope they'd leave explanations. Canterbury Tail talk 08:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RodRabelo7 When you edit several pages and remove valid content with the summary "unnecessary" without explaining why it is unnecessary, you should expect to be reverted. Then, you made this report claiming that I should be blocked for reverting without an apparent explanation. However, did you provide any valid explanation for your edits? Ertrinken (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Block review - AndewNguyen

A few days ago, Moneytrees (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked AndewNguyen (talk · contribs) with a rationale of "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia-- Endless tendentious editing to promote a fringe POV". [74] This morning, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) unblocked, describing the block as "a blatant case of admin overreach against an ideological opponent". [75] This unblock has been criticised by Courcelles (talk · contribs) [76]. 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 [77]. 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 [78] 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 [79] 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 [80]. 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[81]. 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)

IP edits

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

After their last few comments (particularly [82] and [83], I've come to believe that 2600:1700:1250:6d80:947a:51e4:eb45:1fb4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the person who was formerly editing on range 2600:1004:b100::/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and was topic banned from this area. Can something be done about this? - MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I had been considering a separate WP:NOTHERE block for the /64, and was mostly waiting for someone to make a connection to a previous account/IP before acting, so that edit definitely tips me that direction. (NB the topic ban of interest is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Trolling.) I've given them a month off now. Izno (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) (Comment moved here from Izno's talk page per request.) Thanks for giving the disruptive IP a month off. Just FYI, in the closure review currently at AN, this IP range also copped to editing in the ranges 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0/64, 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0/64, and 2600:1012:B014:8929:0:0:0:0/64. The first two are owned as "I attempted - several times..." in the OP comment, and the third one is owned in this comment. Another arguably disruptive comment by this user was posting "Casualties of the Cabal" at the bottom of AndewNguyen's talk page. I'll leave it to you to determine whether a more expansive range block may be required. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Block evasion from this IP user is coming on hot and heavy now in the range 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:0:0:0:0/64. Courtesy ping to Izno who asked to be informed here if the evasion continues. According to this comment on my talk page, they claim not to understand that they've been blocked at all. Note however that per the diffs in my comment above, this is clearly the same user who was blocked by Izno. A more expansive range block appears to be necessary to give them the intended month's vacation. Generalrelative (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) This is exhausting. I am NOT the same IP who is responsible for the vandalism. Generalrelative has repeatedly accused me of being responsible for edits that I had nothing to do with. If I've run afoul of procedure, then by all means, block me! But please don't block me for an imagined transgression. [Generalrelative] is unique in that he steadfastly refuses to discuss anything with me. I've tried going to his TALK page several times and am reverted evey time. Please investigate further to see what I'm talking about. 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Please re-read this section. You are the OP of the RfC closure review on the Eyferth study, 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64. Please click that link to confirm that you are in fact blocked for 30 days. In that discussion you copped to also being the user editing in the ranges 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0/64, 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0/64, and 2600:1012:B014:8929:0:0:0:0/64. Now you are continuing to edit in the range 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:0:0:0:0/64. If you actually did not understand this before, despite being told repeatedly, now you are aware that you are engaging in WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Can an admin please block this block-evader? --JBL (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC) FWIW, they have promised to "refrain from editing henceforth" on my talk page. I hope they keep their word. Generalrelative (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC) WP:ARBECR R&I. Levivich (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I have also seen these IP addresses as well on the same talk page that might also be related Special:Contributions/12.31.71.58 and Special:Contributions/2601:581:C180:1980:206E:CD5B:8C72:BCC0/64 Qwv (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks Qwv, but these IPs do not appear to be related. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to Indef DBachmann

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

• (no !vote)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Of course he should be blocked. The amount of editor time wasted on any subject seems directly proportional to the obviousness of the action needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. De-sysopping would certainly remove most of my concerns. Topic banning may well be an option. I'd rather wait until Dbachmann replies, if he does, and wait for the ARC to run its course. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose a desysop (Arbcom can decide) and a topic ban from R&I (available under CTOP protocols) would be enough to handle this. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

• Oppose Overkill in the wrong place (ability to be an editor) and lack of action / displacing of action in the correct place which is review of admin status. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose an indef, however I do feel that they should lose the admin tools at this point, and a topic ban from R&I would be needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I'm changing this to a Support in light of some of the edits and the apparent off-wiki material. If this was not an admin, it's very likely an indef would happen without hesitation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's been more than 48 hours now and Dbachmann clearly thinks he's more important than enwiki, so we should ensure he can't disrupt the encyclopedia again. Since ANI can't desysop, we just block. This isn't a difficult concept, and we're not really losing anything anyway, since he only has 14 edits this year. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. The comment about entire populations of people "arguably qualifying" as a seperate species is more than enough for me, especially given the recent unblock citing "ideological opponent" grounds. I think that determining a consensus here about whether or not this is something that should be done is better than purely individual adminstrator discretion as alluded to earlier. I don't think this is conduct becoming of an adminstrator or a regular editor. I'm conflicted about how this would impact the ArbCom case request, though. I'm under the impression that they can still contact ArbCom to defend themselves, correct? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC), edited 18:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose The remedy for abuse of admin tools and unresponsiveness per WP:ADMINACCT is surely de-sysop. It could potentially move on to indef if there are problematic issues relating to general editing established - such as discussed below in the context of the TBAN. But that's not the proposal and doesn't seem to be established either per my weak oppose of the TBAN. He should definitely be de-sysoped by Arb Com of course. I don't think there's much doubt that that will be the Arb com outcome so I don't think ANI need do anything further on that particular issue. DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose No, they've done nothing to indicate they should be disallowed from normal editing. Misuse of the admin toolset is a different matter from editing Wikipedia articles. Desysop should be the appropriate response. Blocking is the wrong response entirely here. --Jayron32 16:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Outside problematic use of admin tools, supposed evidence of any problem with Dbachmann's editing is extremely stale and contrived WP:SMEAR. Sennalen (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as a response to "abuse of admin tools and unresponsiveness per WP:ADMINACCT". The correct solution for that is a desysop. Weak Neutral as a response to race topic area ickiness, but the topic ban below is marginally better IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)
• 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)

Nordisk Plus

Nordisk Plus (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly copying content from the Yellow vests protests infobox to 2023 French pension reform strikes ([1][2][3][4]). The first time around included the leaders of the yellow vests in the infobox; I reverted it as background. The second attempt referenced the convoy protests for no apparent reason so I reverted again as inappropriate. By the third instance, I had noticed the copy-pasting and posted a notice at the article talk page and a warning at Nordisk Plus's talk page. I removed the content the next day. What followed was the latest infobox transplant, this time including the French Army as party, which it isn't. Nordisk Plus has never posted to discussions. RAN1 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

On Healf of Nordisk Plus, I decided to remove copying content from the Yellow vests protests infobox to 2023 French pension reform strikes to avoid block from editing. We can't reports of Police Brutallity or looting in France for Now. So Thanks for your help. Nordisk Plus (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment I assume 'on behalf of' is what was meant to be said. Nordisk Plus, is this an account with multiple contributors? Please clear this up immediately, because accounts are not allowed to be shared among a group of people. Nate • (chatter) 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Reiterating the above, @Nordisk Plus:, please declare if this is a shared account or not (the use of 'we' rather than 'I' also concerns me). Ignoring this thread is not going to make any scrutiny disappear, and your response is very lacking in any detail. Nate • (chatter) 22:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I will clear this now, for accounts are unallowed to shared among groups. The French military will not mobilized as of yet during that pension strikes. Nordisk Plus (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Just keeping this updated: Nordisk Plus reverted the self-revert, and then partially self-reverted after this last reply. RAN1 (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Section break

Based on the above response (which feels like it went through a translation mill) and going through their past edits which have needed cleanup from other editors, I feel like N+ has a low level of English proficiency, or has someone assisting them, though poorly, and N+ should disengage from editing until they have a better understanding of how to edit en.wiki. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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 [84] 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 [85] 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.[86]

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'. [87] 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 [88][89] 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 [90] 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 [91]. 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. [92] 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)

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)

"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'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)

Persistent edit warring by Beyond My Ken

Over at Nazi symbolism Beyond My Ken is edit warring to restore poorly sourced material [93] [94] [95] as noted by Bloodofox at RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nazi_symbolism_article,_cardcow.com,_liveauctioneers.com,_symbols.com,_etc., the sources that were removed were clearly unreliable. BMK has made no attempts to actually justify the credibility of the sources, simply saying that they were "sufficient" and there was "no consensus" [96] for the changes, despite the fact that nobody aside from BMK actually objected to the removal. BMK has been blocked 10 times by admins over the years for edit warring [97] and has been subject to previous ANI threads on the issue Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Beyond_My_Ken. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Full protected for 48 hours - multi-party edit war. Get consensus on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• You protected it in the wrong version!! Just FYI, I've backed away from the article entirely, removed it from my watchlist yesterday. Bloodofox's refusal to discuss their edits and get consensus for them, combined with Hemiauchenia's blanket reversion to the non-consensus version along with a PA in their edit summary (that after 18 years and almost 300k edits I have no idea what "consensus" is -- which is certainly possible, but seems somewhat unlikely), were sufficient to drive me away. My congrats to them, well done! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Given your long history editing Nazi topics (and wide experience overall) your participation there would be more helpful than walking away, and I'm sure you'd agree on cool reflection that the existing sourcing was thoroughly inadequate. Mackensen (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Army Goodwill Schools

Multiple WP:SPA accounts--presumably all the same user--adding promotional/copyright violation content. I've asked for page protection and user blocks, and am requesting rev/deletion here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS violations by HungNguyen19181945

HungNguyen19181945 (talk · contribs · block user) has repeatedly added flags to infoboxes, in violation of Template:Infobox weapon, and added easter egg links, in violation of WP:EASTEREGG, as seen here: [98] [99] [100] [101]. They've been warned for this behaviour countless times, but have shown zero interest in communicating, either through talk pages or edit summaries. Loafiewa (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

HungNguyen19181945 has also been repeatedly adding ratings graphs by ignoring the general consensus. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 35#Ratings graph proposal which has a clear general consensus. The general consensus is not to include the ratings graphs if they do not show any significant viewership trends and/or cause accessibility issues. There is also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Ratings graphs again and the general consensus remains the same as in nothing has changed. This editor is still refusing to get the point. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This editor has never used a Talk page or a User talk page despite editing for about 10 months. WP:Communication is required, and it's a definite red flag when editors don't. I would suggest at least a short block to get their attention. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Misbehaving school IP

We've gotten a lot of vandalism from 199.87.1.253 over the years; I just had to go through all the contributions and revert the ones that went unnoticed. (See User talk:199.87.1.253 for the litany.) It's registered to the Pennsylvania College of Technology; is some sort of block usually applied in these types of cases? -- Beland (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy linking 199.87.1.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As stated at the top of this page, AN/I is for urgent incidents. If you want to report routine vandals, I might direct you to WP:AIV, our vandalism intervention board. But before you do, consider the IP hasn't edited since last September, and only made 5 edits in all of 2022. I'm not even sure what action you're calling for with this thread.

As an aside I'd caution you about trying to construct a wall of shame, especially if you have to go back 5 6 years to get enough brick and mortar. Sporadic vandalism from school IPs is nothing new. Students come and students go. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

AN/I is usually a good choice when discussing long-term disruption; the header also mentions "chronic, intractable" problems. This is because of the ability of others to answer and discuss, and due to the ability to create a report that is longer than just one bullet point. AIV for the really urgent cases of obvious vandalism.

As 199.87.1.253 hasn't edited during the last 5 months, there currently seems to be no need for action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Beland, I've been a bit blind it seems, sorry. To answer the actual question, {{anonblock}} and {{school block}} are frequently used with year-long block durations, but only in response to recent new disruption from shared IP addresses with a years-long history of such disruption. So if that happens again, {{school block}} (only anonymous editing, block account creation) is what you're probably looking for. Example: [102]. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool, that's exactly what I needed to know. I'll make a note; thanks! -- Beland (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

User: Bill Williams

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

---

Based on edits shown here https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Bill+Williams&page=Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act&server=enwiki&max= which received complaints here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act#Recent_edits_2 as well as extensive evidence of political WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on the user’s talk page, I would like to request an investigation into this user’s fitness to be on Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Who's going to do the investigation? There's an expectation that you come with diffs pointing to a problem for this sort of thing rather than, effectively, "this person made a bunch of bold edits and somewhere on his talk page there are battleground comments... have at it".

It does look like most of Bill's edits are to remove criticism from various people/topics associated with the American right, but there would need to be evidence of a pattern of bad or POV edits along those lines (or edit warring, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

My edits aren't targeted towards any specific political spectrum, but it doesn't take much inspection to see which articles have the vast majority of UNDUE criticism in the lead. Bill Williams 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is too much of a hand-wave at a problem for ANI to deal with. You're going to need to lay out a case with specific diffs if you want ANI to really look into a problem, given you're the one alleging there is a problem, the burden is on you to demonstrate you're right, not to make us sort through a lot of diffs. Courcelles (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I cannot even remember seeing this person a single time, I have no idea why they just targeted me out of the blue to claim that I have an issue which they never brought up with me. Bill Williams 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Rhondendrites, you basically just admitted the editor in question has a POV problem. Dronebogus (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You've missed the point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

In that discussion, Bill Williams is who you're worried about, rather than PoliticalPoint? See:

• lengthy soapboxing ("hateful and genocidal (at worst)") about living politicians, diff
• extremely long comments with bizarre copy/pasting of arguments across comments (many examples, but see these "synecdoche" comment: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4) or even copy/pasting within a single comment (see diff1, diff2)
• repeated insertion of some of the most egregious WP:SYNTH I've ever seen. See for example diff1 and diff2, whole paragraphs about the bill's supporters' entire history of LGBT-related statements and actions, despite the sources not mentioning this bill at all (many were published before the bill even existed).
• OWN-like behaviour: frequent reverts of others' edits citing BRD and STATUSQUO (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8) yet the contentious materials were inserted by PoliticalPoints themselves just weeks ago (diff), so logically, the status-quo would be before PoliticalPoints' insertions
• Poor understanding of sourcing (for example, we can't say a demographic group opposes the act because an organization claiming to speak for that group has opposed it. We instead need to attribute organizations' views to these organizations, and if we want to bring up support/opposition among demographic groups, we need to cite reputable polls).

I can make a guess about BilledMammal's political views, but you can't tell me with a straight face that the same doesn't apply to PoliticalPoints ten times over. Why single one out, if POV is your complaint?

To be clear, I don't think either merit sanctions, unless there's a deep and sustained pattern; I believe in reform above all else. DFlhb (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please open a new topic for @PoliticalPoint if you are making accusations against them.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

See the last phrase of my comment; and I do apologize to PoliticalPoint for mistakenly pluralizing their name. DFlhb (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that. I see that you were making a comparison between what both of them have done.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Now that I see that I kind of would like to see both sanctioned. They’re both extremely combative and POV-motivated editors, which is NOT a good thing in politics or BLP. Since I took this to ANI partially based on PoliticalPoint’s concerns I feel opening a proxy-WP:BOOMERANG in this thread is acceptable and probably should be done. Dronebogus (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the only person who is combative and POV motivated is the person randomly targeting me when I don't even remember interacting with you a single time in my life. Zero criticisms of any of my edits, instead just vaguely claiming that I have issues without even stating what they are. Bill Williams 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: I think I basically just stepped into the middle of a mundane content dispute, mistaking it for a serious and urgent issue. PoliticalPoint responded hyperbolically to recent edits, I saw that you did most of them with dismissive edit summaries like “this is irrelevant babble” or something like that, then I saw that you’d been in like 50 other heated content disputes about stock right-wing POV gripes. I jumped to conclusions, basically. An admin can probably close this as non-actionable/withdrawn. Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You had zero interaction with me and went straight to "Is an ANI request for a block in order" so I think you should apologize for your behavior. I did absolutely nothing to you, and everything I removed from the article was for a specific reason, not "stock right-wing POV gripes," considering you can't even list a single reason why anything that I deleted belongs in the article. Bill Williams 22:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, this thread was a mistake Dronebogus (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's okay I understand why looking at some of my past edit history you can find some battleground behavior, but I have not been involved in an edit war in a long time and I don't just delete things without reason. If you disagree with my reasoning, I understand that and would be happy to discuss on the talk page, I just didn't appreciate you immediately going to ANI without talking to me. Bill Williams 22:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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

SeanMcCann1

SeanMcCann1 (talk · contribs)

His talk page is a long history of warnings for various incompetencies, and I blocked him in April 2022 for the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs. He continues to add unsourced content to BLPs. I think a longer block is in order. GiantSnowman 21:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit shows that they are capable of adding sources to BLPs. I'm not sure why an experienced user like Sean is still doing unsourced edits. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User:PoliticalPoint

At Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, user PoliticalPoint has soapboxed about living politicians ("hateful and genocidal (at worst)" diff), and repeatedly added terribly-WP:SYNTH-y BLP material (whole paragraphs these politicians' entire history of LGBT-related statements and actions, despite the sources not mentioning the bill at all, see diff1 and diff2). PoliticalPoint has displayed OWN-like behaviour by reverting others' edits citing BRD and STATUSQUO (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8) despite the fact that this "status quo" material was inserted by PoliticalPoint just weeks ago (diff), so logically, the true status-quo would be before PoliticalPoint's insertions. The main point of these reverts seems to have been to reinstate poorly-sourced statements that were being discussed on the talk page (for example, attributing organizations' statements to various demographic groups rather than to the organizations themselves, when it would have been easy to instead find reputable polls if we wish to encyclopedically discuss demographic groups' viewpoints). PoliticalPoint has defended this improper sourcing with very lengthy comments featuring bizarre copy/pasting of arguments, either across comments (see the "synecdoche" argument: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4) or even copy/pasting within a single comment (see diff).

This is a dispute I was only loosely involved in, but two users have suggested that sanctions may be merited, so since I had already compiled the diffs, I'm offering this for community review. DFlhb (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Reasoning of the accused aside, I don't think this specific complaint has merit. This seems to me a mere content dispute that has escalated. The accusation of soapboxing refers to a comment made on the talk page of an article; this comment centers around the dispute in question. Five words in a thread of thousands do not soapboxing make; we editors come here with opinions about content; that is why we make edits--to correct, to add, to adjust--and that is what I see here in the diffs. As for the stable version of the article, when PoliticalPoint first made the edit, it was not challenged in any substantive form in the history for over two weeks; that makes it stable to me. The fact that it took so long for a challenge to arise leads me to sympathize with PoliticalPoint's reasoning on the stable version.

I suggest referring this to WP:DRN. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 02:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User:NCdave

User is currently POV-pushing while affected by a COI [103] at CO2 Coalition [104]. Users at WP:FTN suggested a warning followed by a block. However, a quick look at the user's talk page reveals that they have already received several different final warnings in various editing disputes as well as a number of temporary blocks for edit warring and POV pushing. I suspect the reason heavier sanctions have been avoided so far is that the user has been mostly inactive since 2008. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a bunch of issues here. They've clearly got a COI and their arguments otherwise aren't convincing. The repeated bludgeoning and walls of text. The unwillingness to accept that the consensus of reliable sources is that the CO2 Coalition's position is fringe, and their attempts to use WP:OR to argue otherwise, along with ignoring everyone who has repeatedly told them they need to rely on WP:RS.

Given their refusal/inability to understand the many attempts by various editors to explain to them what they're doing wrong, and their repeated misstatements about policies, I think they're either WP:NOTHERE or it's an unfixable WP:CIR problem. JaggedHamster (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

User PaUZz LYte

I'm not sure how to proceed with a newbie, PaUZz LYte, who has repeatedly removed content at Codrus, claiming that it is sourced to another Wikpedia article rather that the actual source, which is here. Here are the reverts: [105], [106], [107], [108]. I've tried to reason with this editor on their talk page ([109], [110], [111]) and on the article's talk page ([112], [113]). I would appreciate any advice. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello there. Just wanted to add my latest comment on the matter:

Yep I read it again, not seeing anything about Aristotle having an alternative view on what happened specifically however. Only more confirmation of the original story as a matter of fact. I like this bit on the first page: "it is now generally accepted that the current manuscript (MS.) is not the work of Aristotle but very likely one of his students"

PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@PaUZz LYte: Why did you repeatedly claim that the source is another Wikipedia article? If you want to challenge the actual source, you first need to restore the material that is the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, then take your concerns to the article's talk page instead of repeatedly removing the content with the false claim that it is sourced to a Wikipedia article. Sundayclose (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the original poster of the claim did not source it the way you properly did. This all came about when you began putting up, the very clear at the point, false information repeatedly. I assumed it was sourced and cited the same way as the original poster did and for that I apologize

but hey now we can both move on considering how fals, as I clearly proved, the information is. I'm sure we can both agree we want what's best for the page correct?

hatT PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation was clearly to a source external to Wikipedia. All I did was to provide a link. The original editor who made the citation may very well have viewed the source in a library. Citations do not have to be to web pages. Again, why did you repeatedly claim that the source is another Wikipedia article and make multiple reverts with only that excuse? Sundayclose (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Despite this being irrelevant at this point; Because again, the original poster included no links what so ever but regardless someone claiming they read something in a book so therefore this or that should be changed or added etc is not a legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards. PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, citations do not have to be to a webpage. The citation was legitimate. Your repeated removal without discussion was edit warring. Why did you repeatedly claim that the content was sourced to Wikipedia rather than the actual source instead of taking your concerns to the article's talk page? Sundayclose (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation is perfectly valid, and books are definitely a 'legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards.' We do not require all citations to be available on the internet. MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Well now that were asking each other irrelevant questions, why did you repeatedly add and citate information ive proven you havent bother reading yourself? You mean you didn't even read the source you kept trying to claim was true? And you even redid the revision I made where I clearly state "it says nothing of the sort". Wait, so you added information without even checking to see for yourself if it's true or not? That's how misinformation gets spread around young one, through people such as yourself apparently. Have a good one! PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I read the source, which is why I reverted you. The only thing you have disputed is the authorship of the source, not the other content that you repeatedly reverted. And you didn't dispute the authorship until you finally glanced at the first page of the source. You should have taken concerns about authorship to the article's talk page rather than removing everything cited to the source. I'm finished here. I'll leave it up to administrators to decide what to do about the edit warring. My apologies if we have wasted administrators' time here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

someone claiming they read something in a book so therefore this or that should be changed or added etc is not a legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards

This is blatantly incorrect. The entire point of citing a book is that people can find said book (purchased, at their local library, or online) and check the cite themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also see User_talk:MrOllie#So_I_can_just_claim..., where PaUZz LYte is doubling down on the 'books can't be used as citations' argument. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User: 49.190.240.37

49.190.240.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't really get into much disputes but I guess it is going to be expected when you make over 100 articles.

Talk:Battle of Fakashan
Talk:Battle of Laoshan

Basically doesn't like the content on the page so starts just throwing disruptive comment and even managed to throw WP:PA at me predictably. Short edit history shows rather high anti-China bias and rather hostile mentality.

Most likely a case of WP:NOTHERE. Possible WP:SOCK

Edit: Seems to be the case with this

Please advise

Imcdc Contact 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not even a personal attack. Know the definition. Stop trying to deflect and self victimise yourself, and you are now accusing me of being a sock because you want people to be banned whenever someome challenges your opinion and references. Your sources are unreliable and are one sided. Third party sources are widely unavailable to those articles. Your sources are very pro-China bias, as evident from your history. Also, those were done on the talk page which didn't affect the article in anyway, just a discussion as to why the sources are unreliable in nature. And now you are WP:PA on me by accusing me of being a sock because your sources were challenged on the talk page.49.190.240.37 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is WP:NOTHERE. Qiushufang (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Qiushufang, the revert you did is unacceptable. First of all, the source is not rs

because it is an American newspaper agency done

about after the American withdrawal from the Vietnam war and is biased. Second of all, it doesn't say which "analyst" or "analysts" specifically quoted "they beat the hell out of the Vietnamese" or "it was a Chinese victory". Which is already not rs. 49.190.240.37 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

it is an American newspaper agency doneabout after the American withdrawal from the Vietnam war and is biased

This is just absurd, and basically says that any cite that originates in a nation cannot be a RS for reporting on said nation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that. I am talking about the date which said quote was presented. After the American withdrawal from the Vietnam War, they did not admit their defeat, and during the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, the Americans supported China. Sources pertaining to so called American "expert abalysts" (who?/doesn't even quote any specific "expert") is already not rs in nature. The newspaper was also made in 1979, 4 years after the Americans withdrew from Vietnam. It wasn't until 1995, that the Americans started to lift the sanctions and embargo, and another 10 years for relations to finally become stable, and Americans did not have good relations with Vietnam at that time, why would their media and political entities not admit their failure in Vietnam, and would support and favour China especially in the media and political discourse, rather rhan Vietnam during those time periods? I would not take any quotes from some random nobody (if there even was one in the first place)/biased entity saying "they beat the hell out of the Vietnamese" seriously. It just seems like an effort to POV push by some chinese wikipedian nationalists by finding an obscure and unreliable source.49.190.240.37 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Fostera12 - incivility and personal attacks.

Editor was upset over the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhodhayam, left several messages containing personal attacks:

1. On User talk:DaxServer, see User talk:DaxServer#Learn to help fellow editors and User talk:DaxServer#Half job done by you on crucial discussions.
2. on User talk:Mushy Yank, see User talk:Mushy Yank#Unconstructive edits by @User:Star Mississippi
3. on my talk page, see User talk:Onel5969#Subhodayam, as well as User talk:Onel5969#Independent sources - Subhodayam

User began recreating the article and refusing to abide by the consensus of the AfD. The discussion is at DRV, which they have been counseled to take part in, but have refused. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have dropped Fostera12 a note saying I'll block them for disruption if they carry on screaming in bold all caps. That'll suffice for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And then they just dropped this in their edit summary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. Not very civil or collegial. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a troll. Well, at least I'm not an ogre, which is much worse, they'll make a soup from your fresh skin, and squeeze the jelly from your eyes. (Actually it's quite nice on toast....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not interested in this discussion of open abuse of the afd process by @User talk:Onel5969 and ignoring other editors votes or comments in the afd discussion panel, and other editors views on proper independent sources on Subhodayam. It is sheer abuse of the system by @User talk:Onel5969. No personal attacks made on anybody by me. All attacks were made by @User talk:Onel5969 during the afd process and discussion was closed without reaching consensus. Fostera12 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal attacks by Onel5969 in that discussion, and it's not clear how anything here is an abuse of process. Unless you can provide diffs substantiating these allegations, you should retract them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is making personal attacks on anyone, it's you, @Fostera12. On Onel's talk page, you called him a STUPID FELLOW, accused him of wasting everybody's time as well as manipulating processes and policies for personal gain. If anything, Onel's interpretation and implementation of the relevant processes and policies are correct and fair. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and full protected Subhodayam for one week with the reason being edit warring. That will stop the revert war while the DRV takes place. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ahh yes, our colleague who said I disagree with your nonsense, and manipulation, why should i go for deletion review. As always, happy to have a close reviewed, but that was not productive.Thanks @ONUnicorn for the protection. Star Mississippi 00:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

oh and they're also creating it at alternate spellings to evade AfD. Wonderful. Star Mississippi 00:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Having looked into this a bit deeper, I see Fostera12 has been brought to ANI a couple of times before for temperament issues: here and here. They continue to call other editors trolls as they're deleting material on their talk page. I don't think that Wikipedia is for them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Fostera12 for two weeks for incivility and inability to edit collaboratively. After all that has been written here and on their talk page, they have again dismissed the good faith edits of others as trolling.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure they know they've been blocked. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Catfish Jim and the soapdish they know, they just don't consider notifications of value. Apparently. Star Mississippi 16:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I missed that somehow. Thanks Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good block. Fostera's behavior has been genuinely appalling. The examples I had posted were wrong (wrong diffs) but I feel my point still stands. Hopefully they'll conduct themselves better after their block. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Related issue

Would someone more familiar with Indian cinema have a look at Three weeks in the life of Prime Minister Nehru and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Prime Minister where we have major verification issues present? Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC) (added by Lampyscales (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC))

The reference that I could see in both articles (Three Weeks and Our Prime Minister) did not in any way support the statement made, and was cited with an incorrect title. The actual title of the cited work is "India's Growing Might", presented title is "Nehru", article is about the history of animation in India. Neither documentary is mentioned in it. I saw similar issues with the deleted article with altered reference titles. Deceit? WP:CIR? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's what I'm afraid of, and they have a few articles still live which makes me worried about a larger issue. Thanks @Catfish Jim and the soapdish Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've had a look around their article creations and most seem okay-ish. They appear to be writing an article about some old film they've seen then trying to find references to demonstrate notability. Some are evidently more difficult to find references to than others. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) That makes a refreshing change from the huge number of stub articles on Indian films (many of which have been around for a decade or more) apparently written in the hope that someone or other will do the research that proves their notability. Narky Blert (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Both AFD'd Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:29, 30 March 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)

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 [114]. 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 [115].

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 [116] (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 [117] (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) [118] [119]. 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)

• 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)

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[120] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:Chikn Nuggit

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

---

User:Chikn Nuggit: a brand new account evading block; might be blocked recently and they jumped on this account and acting like a reviewer. No way this is legit. Sysops may know better who they are? 2001:8F8:1129:A868:F4D7:CADE:8C6C:1FBE (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I saw this user on The Incredibles with the tag of "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" which is an immediate redflag. Given their recent edit of removing this entire section I suspect they are WP:NOTHERE. As for whether or not they are a sock I can't tell. (Non-administrator comment) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon looking a bit further they seem to be a new anti-vandal. IT's a little suspicious that they already know what they are doing but I think we should assume good faith here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I was reviewing their edits and all seemed to be in order. I will ask however that they please do not delete sections on ANI, especially with no edit summary. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of their taggings in the speedy queue. Some are good and I deleted them, some I have declined. I left them a note suggesting they slow down a bit, and so did Dennis Brown. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have my misgivings about this one as well, see my comment at RfD. Favonian (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User has been blocked by Checkuser Ponyo. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attack from C. A. Russell

Russell has accused me of nominating Selflang for G4 to make a point because I apparently did not recover well from my (self-reverted) G4 of the redirect Primus sucks because it (indeed) does not apply for that redirect (which, by the way, is at RFD now).

Russell's personal attacks, both as cited above and as shown at the RfD, runs directly contrary to AGF and should be met with the strongest reprehension, especially since it is far from their first time making them. NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User:NotReallySoroka's mention of personal attacks at the RFD are not backed up by facts. What can be found are multiple messages that, ironically, assume bad faith on my part. Additionally, the user raising the complaint about this incident did—again ironically—accuse me there of accusing someone else of something ("you accuse the nom of all those stuff"—their words at the RFP); however, no "first-order" accusation exists, User:NotReallySoroka didn't respond there to a request for clarification about what accusation he or she is referring to and has already been asked to "stick to the discussion as it actually exists" besides.

Since the complainant here has done so while simultaneously raising the issue of working in good faith, I'd like a clear statement from User:NotReallySoroka actually is working in good faith—i.e., that the nomination to delete the Selflang redirect referred to here in this noticeboard entry was coincidental, was not motivated by interactions in the RFD that User:NotReallySoroka refers to, and did not begin with an attempt to look at other pages on the basis that I was involved in their creation while hoping to find one that could be put through a speedy deletion process that would (hopefully) be free of defects unlike the prior failed nomination.

I have not sought User:NotReallySoroka out. The opposite doesn't appear to be true; the interactions that are the subject of this noticeboard entry are as easily avoidable as simply not trying find fodder for conflict. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I am ostensibly "assum[ing] bad faith on [your] part" because I see your eight interrogating questions over at the RfD as badgering - and that's a charitable assessment, especially when coupled with your quasi-formal "(Please answer yes or no.)" stuff. I meant my "all those stuff" comment at your eight questions, as well as your constant badgering of the RfD nom as if they have an agenda behind nominating your redirect. Also, if you can ask me to "stick to the discussion as it actually exists", I would like to invite you to do the same by refraining to overread the RfD and stick to what the nom actually wrote.

Also, you are setting a false equivalency between me being in good faith and your what you think it is inside your head (i.e. the whole "that the nomination to delete... prior failed nomination" rambling). I can act in good faith and still G4 Selflang because the criteria - including the fact that previously-speedied pages cannot be G4ed - are met. "Good faith" on my part does not protect you or your redirects from being speedily deleted.

Moreover, "I have not sought [NRS] out" is simply untrue when you go beyond simply rebuking me, and instead falsely allege me of bad-faith editing, like you did above. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin) I don't see that this rises to the point where it needs administrator intervention. How about both of you just agree to stop interacting with each other, stop talking about each other, avoid editing the same pages, and go find something more productive to do? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

An iban is grossly out of proportion compared to whatever fault I had. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a fuckin' awesome recommendation. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I do believe their behaviour at that MfD was inappropriate and confrontational. The good faith nominator has now withdrawn their request because of the "mess this has become". Hey man im josh (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Spooninpot

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

User's behaviour has escalated to edit-warring, disruptive edits that editorialise about government actions, and personal attacks and taunting on Talk pages. A warning about edit warring was posted on his Talk page but ignored. Examples include:

• This revert summary: "It remains a village this is not a page about the local government it is a page about the community."
• This edit that he insisted was "not a blame" when reverting its removal: "On 1 January 2023, provincial officials caused Petitcodiac to annex all or part of four local service districts to form the local government jurisdiction of Three Rivers, an Village under the legislation."
• This edit: "It held its own municipal status prior to 2023, when it became part of the new Fundy Albert municipality, which is incorporated as a Village under the enabling local government legislation. OMG that was long and wordy."
• This text, immediately after a citation: "Or, Aukpa-que, may be. Some words exist in the Passemaquadi-maliseet dictionary, but did anyone look them up?"
• This text: "Saint-Léolin is a village, and don't you let anyone tell you otherwise."
• In general, user has insisted on forcing a personal viewpoint as to what constitutes a village and has thrown a tantrum that's lasted for two days over numerous pages about New Brunswick municipalities.

I'm not a paragon of good behaviour but this has moved beyond normal editorial disagreements into something I want nothing more to do with. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you post some differences? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by differences. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:DIFF, hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It does, actually. Thanks.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147278618

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147269403

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147146012

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147150687

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147130551

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147126617

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147122945

It's a sample; you can consult the user's Contributions list to see how much of it has been disruptive. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And this example, posted while I was getting the above list to work: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147403322 G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

What becomes evident upon investigation is that the user's investments in the local government aspect of entries about communities has lead to exclusion of community in whole, perhaps by focus on governance template and it's universal application in the category, and that complainant has avoided the matter brought to talk pages and elsewhere and in the past. The category and entries now require considerable revisiting due to legislative changes in the jurisdiction of New Brunswick the entries discuss, a response to which might be another disclaimer about yet to be known secondary information. i.e. old data. Or, to detatch the legal/jurisdictional element from the remainder.

The supposition is that communities (villages, towns, cities, regions, etc.) exist only by virtue of being governed and that that the entries of these community pages by their standardization are official or proprietary to local government.

Here (diff), one can see the modification of the template heading "official name" to "name", and yet the edit calls the place type by an official type not the type of community it remains in the non-legalistic sense.

A consequent question, "do communities need one article for governance/divisions, and another for community that doesn't have to get to specific?"

Like how settlement is often organic, I believe this need to "snap to grid" has longer-term and larger consequences to the continued viability of the articles in question.

User @G. Timothy Walton and @Hwy43 need to address the question and are faced with the leadership role it would seem due to apparent investments. Spooninpot (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide

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

---

There is a new account Gueeisgrim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removing Uyghur genocide from Template:Genocide navbox, and now from Template:Genocide sidebar. Latest edit summary "No proof, just media hype. Uyghurs are not persecuted unless they have committed a crime, such as attacking a non-believers". I know that Uyghur genocide falls under WP:CTOP. So over to you lovely admins. DuncanHill (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

First, the Uyghur genocide is untenable. Anyone who has visited Xinjiang knows that this does not exist. The UN mission did not mention genocide, and the Muslim countries that went to Xinjiang to investigate did not say that there was genocide.

Second, the Uyghur genocide is a very serious incident, not only the government, but even the Chinese people have to pay the price for it. So please be careful with Wikipedia. Because of such an entry, the life safety of many Chinese people will be affected in the future.

Third, Wikipedia is a neutral platform, if you must write, please indicate that this is a controversial topic, let everyone distinguish between true and false, and not just believe in Western words. Gueeisgrim (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gueeisgrim: This is not a hill you want to fight on. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 02:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just stating the facts, I'm not ready to fight anyone. Always give the naysayers the right to speak. Gueeisgrim (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Typical chinese propagandist. 2601:18F:1080:48F0:3850:4DD:FC69:51A8 (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see a ban for genocide denialism Very Average Editor (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You should take a look at WP:VNT, WP:True and WP:RS before making these claims. MiasmaEternal☎ 06:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Gueeisgrim is primarily active on zh.wikipedia; this needs to be kicked up to the WMF's Trust & Safety team. Is there a user account we can ping for that purpose? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked Gueeisgrim for WP:NOTHERE. Blatant, open genocide denial does not fly here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Problem editing on pageants

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

---

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

Non communicative anon continues to add unreferenced material. Account operator seems to be primarily (maybe entirely) interested in articles covered under WP:GS/PAGEANT. Talkpage full of unacknowledged warnings. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked temporarily for plain disruption. I was unaware of the GS, BTW, but we don't have to go there to see the disruption. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

A account is created for promotion of a website

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

---

A editor SporteWave adding his website links here [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147326820?diffmode=source], he should be banned from editing. By the username its clear that the ac is created to promote website, his all edits should be mass reverted.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor — for future reference, issues like this are normally dealt with quicker at WP:AIV — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Promotional account

User:Nsb001, frequently adding his blog's links to various articles inspite he once warned for doing so. He should be blocked indefinitely from editing. Evid-[121].Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring, refusing to edit collaboratively/discuss, etc. from User:KyleJoan

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

---

User:KyleJoan is engaging in persistent, uncollaborative, uncivil and disruptive behavior on Taron Egerton, its talk page and another user's talk page.

Please see the following progression and escalation:

1. [122]
2. [123]
3. [124]
4. [125]
5. [126]
6. [127]
7. [128]
8. [129]
9. [130]
10. [131]

First, it must be noted that this user has a significant history of blocks for edit warring, from 2016 to 2019, many for rather long periods. The longest being over a month, at 34 days. Yet here we are again. For the same thing.

Second, but the user's past experience has been useful in avoiding 3RR - which is why this isn't filed there. But the 2RR, wholesale revert of 6 RS edits here and here; coupled with a refusal to discuss or edit collaboratively here and here; ignorance of the common use of the abbreviation "ce" for "copyedit" in edit summaries here, here and here; and the "report me, I can't wait" attitude here, are disruptive enough to merit a report and response. Here.

Third, this user seems to have forgotten the lessons learned from a nice little block. But given this user's warring history and the fact that the user is a veteran who obviously knows better, sadly it appears that it's time for a reminder. X4n6 (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure what you two are really going on about, but KyleJoan's correct that (contrary to what you seem to think) "ce" doesn't include adding a sentence and a source. So his complaint that your edit summary(ies) was(were) misleading has some validity. EEng 11:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• KyleJoan was doing okay in this content dispute. The reporter didn't follow WP:BRD and used an inaccurate edit summary. He was also not respecting that many editors voiced an opinion that the actor should be simply described as Welsh (in an RfC that wasn't closed), and that the article has been describing him as simply Welsh for quite a while. That passage of time doesn't make consensus weaker, it makes it stronger. This should not have gone to ANI. Reporter should have sought a third opinion. He is generally wrong and KyleJoan is generally right, and generally civil too. —Alalch E. 12:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• This report has no merit whatsoever. KyleJoan made a single revert, and was civil throughout the talk page discussion; this is a commonplace content dispute, in which the OP has taken it upon themselves to edit against the obvious talkpage consensus without any attempt to form a new one. Consensus can change does not mean that consensus does change whenever a single editor decides that it should. Trout to the OP, no admin action required. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry - KyleJoan made 2 reverts, which is less than ideal obviously, but X4n6 was the first to ignore BRD and reinstate their preferred version, so yeah - still trout for the OP and no action required. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Safe to close

-EEng

• Safe to close and move on. —Alalch E. 12:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Moxy at Talk:United States

In discussions about mentioning the death penalty in the lead of United States, User:Moxy has been engaging in disruptive WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS style behavior to advocate for its inclusion. This began in July 2022 (diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4), where their comments quickly became WP:FORUMy and moralizing in nature, including one that was just "WHAT'S AT STAKE" in all caps with a link to an article of the same name.

The issue was raised again recently, and Moxy has again engaged in forum behavior, arguing about the death penalty itself and WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion, accusing people who disagree with them of being "turned off" by the topic, trying to "sanitize" it, or attempting to "down grade" the article. (diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Normally, I would say that the next step would be to leave a message on their talk page in the hope that this can be resolved, but their most recent reply of "LOL" has convinced me that they are not interested in such a conversation. Moxy has been here for a while, so I'm hoping that they just need a reminder about WP:Talk page guidelines, but it seems we've gotten to the point that conduct issues are going to continue until a warning takes place here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not going through all the diffs, because the first one already--if this is a forum post, then so is the post they responded to. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand how the part after "because" explains the part before it. Levivich (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Undoubtedly some personal opinion there, but nothing unusual for the AP2 space. That said, at a quick skim Moxy appears to be the only editor who has brought up any sources at the current RfC. We definitely shouldn't sanction a link to a source quoting the name of said source. CMD (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The above diffs do sum up what I said with "some" of the sources I quoted. My position is clear....the long standing content should be retained in some form. The removal that started the RFC. Not sure how discussing my inclusion criteria with sources is a problem... I'm guessing too many rebuttals....my bad. I was hoping to see rebuttal sources too. Discussing country specific human rights concerns is something we do with most country articles. Why American scholars still discuss this is somewhat outlined here. Moxy- 02:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Problematic editing on numerous pages about antipsychotic drugs

User:Materie34 has been busy the last couple of months editing articles about antipsychotic drugs, including haloperidol, ziprasidone, and a bunch of others. These edits are not literate - full of misinformation as well as grammatical, spelling, and word usage errors. There are just too many to undo/revert. For example, an entry by this user on the haloperidol page read:

• Haloperidol possesses through its behaviour as inverse agonist some little differences, for example, triggering a response though it is negative having different negative efficacy, where pure antagonist just bind at a recepter locking it without interacting possessing 0% efficacy at any time.

As a scientist in this field, I can assure a casual reader that the foregoing is gibberish, and I reverted the page on haloperidol to undo the damage. However, there are many others, for example, the current page about ziprasidone reads in part:

• First, it must be setted a disclaimer that this may work just theoretically and caution is advised taking serotonergic substances like mdma together, ziprasidone, with its very strong 5ht2a bindings, its moderate supressing of other serotonergic pathways by acting as a partial agonist and its weak ability to block Sert and Net transporters, somewhat possess a complementary receptorprofile to mdma being a candidate for an antidot. This is because it can block Sert and Net transporters acting in reversal through mdma initializing activity inside a neuron reducing the neuronal release to some extend (this only makes sense with mdma dominating the transporter and with a relatively weak blocker, amisulpride serving in this regard). Also through its inactivation of the 5ht2a receptor and its partial supression of other serotonin receptor subtypes acting as an antagonist/partial agonist it can compete with mdmas agonist activity, as both, antagonists and partial agonists reduce binding.

The foregoing is also gibberish, and there are too many of these for me to correct. Something must be done to stop these entries at the source. Verytas (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not gibberish. The first for example is obviously trying to explain the concept of a reverse agonist. This is likely someone with substantial knowledge of pharmacodynamics, but not English. It will probably be better for them to operate by requesting others to make edits, or at least proofread them. Sennalen (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Materie34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Verytas: We are supposed to discuss issues on article talk pages, and if that fails, on the user's talk. I have to go elsewhere at the moment, but I understand that topics like this might not get much love and I'll have a look and ensure that proper procedures are followed, although I might need a reminder. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)